WSJ: How Media Split Under Pressure in Leak Probe

[RamboLiberal]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112259089033899249-6eJAQFJYZQQKUnUcZ75nGzdfauA_20060729,00.html?mod=blogs

In May, 500 members of the media elite rose to their feet to applaud a First Amendment award the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press gave to lawyer Floyd Abrams.

Jointly presenting the award at a gala dinner in Manhattan were Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times. For a year, Mr. Abrams had worked to fend off a special prosecutor seeking testimony about the two reporters' confidential sources, as a federal grand jury probed who had leaked a Central Intelligence Agency operative's name.

But the appearance of unity among a lawyer and his media clients was illusory. More than a month before the dinner, Time Inc. had dismissed Mr. Abrams as its lead counsel in the leak probe, believing it needed a new strategy to face the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Cooper had long before selected his own criminal attorney, concerned that Mr. Abrams couldn't adequately represent both Ms. Miller and him. In Mr. Cooper's view, there were too many differences in their circumstances. Ms. Miller had publicly criticized seeking waivers from government officials that would allow reporters to testify about confidential conversations. Mr. Cooper had obtained just such a waiver.

Mr. Cooper also worried about Ms. Miller being at odds with the same prosecutor in an entirely different investigation -- one he feared could taint him by association.

[wli]

1. page not available

[RamboLiberal]

4. Link fixed - thanks

eom

[loudsue]

2. Just as it was getting interesting, WSJ took down the page!

Makes ya go "hmmmm"? What is the "entirely different investigation" about?


:kick:

[shraby]

3. Could be the Franklin spy investigation, or

the forged documents investigation.

[RamboLiberal]

5. I fixed the link - I just got the page

eom

[Kagemusha]

7. That would be the muslim charity raid thing.

It's been reported around, no secret whatsoever. Miller went to charities about to be raided for comment on the fact they were about to be raided and they shredded like mad.

[grasswire]

6. I didn't know that Cooper is Grunwald's hubby

Odd that this tidbit isn't widely reported.

[Zen Democrat]

9. Yes, that's been reported. And Mandy's in those pics of Cooper

going to court.

[newswolf56]

8. I've said all along that the Muslim "charity" issue is the real reason...

Miller won't talk. (Most people don't realize that a grand jury proceeding is very different from a trial; once a witness is seated before a grand jury, there is essentially no limit on what that witness can be questioned about: think of various grand juries investigating the Mafia or Mafia corruption of government.) This WSJ article doesn't prove Miller was jailed over the Muslim "charity" thing, but at least (unlike far too many recent news reports) it notes that the issue is an extremely important one in the Fitzgerald/Miller conflict -- just as I remembered and stated in a DU post a couple of weeks ago.

As it was originally reported -- sorry I don't remember by whom (but a good candidate would be The Washington Post, because I get its online service by daily e-mail -- Miller was NOT the tipster: someone else at The Times, apparently a pro-Muslim reporter, is alleged to have actually tipped off the "charity" by phone. (I put "charity" in quotes because according to the feds, it was a money-conduit for Jihadists and possibly also a front for Jihadist intelligence activities in the U.S.) In any case, Miller apparently knows the name of that reporter -- and I believe that is the person she is shielding by going to jail. If the reporter is identified, he is probably facing at least 20 years in prison on federal obstruction charges. Note in this context that for a male, any stay in ANY U.S. prison, state or federal, automatically means anal rape and a very high probability of death by AIDS -- unless of course one is gang-connected and thus protected. Also, if Miller passed the information to the reporter, even if she did so inadvertently, I believe she is potentially an accessory after the fact. Miller's refusal to testify -- if this is indeed the reason -- is thus very understandable.

(Aside to any criminal lawyers who happen to be aboard: please feel free to critique my analysis of the probable reason for Miller's refusal to appear. It has been more than two decades since I covered crime and courtroom proceedings, which means this area of my brain may be even more cobwebby than I suspect.)

[Lochloosa]

10. Everyone forgets one important fact in the Miller case

Her source BROKE THE LAW when they revealed Plame name. That is the critical difference in a source giving you the name of someone that is breaking the law.

[Zen Democrat]

11. Here's the gist of this article ---

In his capacity as U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Mr. Fitzgerald had subpoenaed Ms. Miller in July of 2004, seeking several weeks of her phone records from the full of 2001. He was trying to determine the identity of confidential sources she had used for an article about two Islamic charities under investigation for possible financing of terrorism.

Mr. Fitzgerald said in court papers that reporting by Ms. Miller and another Times staffer inadvertently tipped off the charities about planned federal raids, giving the targets a chance to destroy documents and records. The federal government has frozen the assets of both charities.

---------------

IMO, Judy Miller is protecting herself in this matter, and she hiding behind "protecting sources". The fact that she didn't write a story on Plame brings up the question of why Fitzgerald knows she's involved at all. Obviously someone has testified regarding Miller.