Why Judith Miller MUST reveal her "source".

[Walt Starr]

Deep Throat did not commit a crime by the act of giving the information.

Whomsoever revealed Valerie Plame's identity to Judith Miller, however, was committing a crime by that very act. Miller was no longer a journalist at that point in time. She became one of two things:

1) A witness to a crime.
2) A co-conspirator in a crime.

Even attorneys do not have such privelege. If an attorney, in conference with a client, is made privy to a crime that is to be committed or becomes a witness to a crime being committed by their client during that conference, there is no attorney-client privelege.

This is how John Gotti's attorney ended up being indicted , prosecuted, and convicted. He attempted to hide behind attorney-client privelege when no such privelege existed for the actions he was made privy to.

The same holds true for spirtual advisors as well.

Priveleged communications is not a bar to a requirement for testimony when one witnesses a crime. That is why Ms. Miller either should go to prison or cut a deal and reveal her source. The source committed a crime by becoming her source, not informing about a crime after the fact. The act of giving the information was the crime and thus, Ms. Miller is at best a witness and at worst a co-conspirator.

[Jon8503]

1. How come Novak is not indicted? --- N/T.

[Walt Starr]

3. My guess? He talked his ass off

He revealed the "source" and is the prosecutor is waiting for confirmation from another source.

The only other possibility is, Novak is actually a memeber of the Central Intelligence Agency and was able to claim some immunity in the case.

[cynatnite]

7. I wondered if the slime cut a deal to save his ass n/t

[Warpy]

5. He talked.

They're looking for corroboration now.

[underpants]

2. She has been used for two purposes

the NYT carried their water (later noted how they had and the RW never mentions it) for the war

AND

she is now part of the talking point against using annonymous sources (whistleblowers/leaks)

[clydefrand]

4. Is Novak also a co-conspirator? Why don't we know what he

has said or do we?

[Walt Starr]

6. See post #3 n/t

[H2O Man]

8. Interesting.

The truth is that Deep Throat likely did commit a crime. As has been discussed with the recent Mark Felt information, the administration considered taking action against him for some of the leaks they were sure he made, but backed down because they realized that he could destroy them.

As has been noted by another DUer, the Supreme Court ruled on this in the 1972 case Branzburg v Hayes. Contrary to the sincere but very mistaken opinion of one of the best DUers, it has had no ill effect on whistle-blowers or a free press. Weasals like Miller and Novak have.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. He most certainly did.

And so did Daniel Ellsberg. I don't get why people here fail to understand that the Republicans are just going to turn this around and use it against US. I even hear people calling for treason charges to be brought against Miller. I'm sure Ann Coulter would be pretty happy about that, and I'd expect treason charges to be filed against every member of this message board, including myself, if this insane course of action were to go forward.

[JimmyJazz]

10. I have to respectfully disagree with you. If you hold her to the

same standard as that of an attorney (as you seem to do), then she has done nothing wrong. I'm sorry, but an attorney only has to reveal information about a crime he/she knows is GOING to happen, not one that has already happened. A client is allowed to go to that attorney and say, "yeah, I did it" and still have the attorney represent him and the attorney is under no obligation to report what his client said. What he may not do is put a client on the stand to testify if he knows the client is going to lie.

So, by that standard, if someone said to Ms. Miller, "yeah, I did it," she doesn't have to tell who told her that.

[H2O Man]

12. Miller is not an attorney.

Nor is she a minister. The case has nothing to do with lawyers and confidentiality. It's only about journalists. She is bound by the law. The US Supreme Court made this clear in 1972 in regard to journalists.

[JimmyJazz]

14. It was the orginal poster who made the comparison to the

attorney-client privilege. I only pointed out that by applying that standard to Ms. Miller, she would not be obligated to reveal her source.

[H2O Man]

18. I see.

It's a controversial issue. People rightly feel strongly about it. I understand that some people -- especially journalists -- may have trouble being objective about it. That has led to some emotional but silly comparisons. And you are right -- it wasn't you who first made the incorrect comparison.

[Walt Starr]

20. I made the comparison because there is a higher standard for

attorney client privelege than in any other situation.

And failure to reveal the name of the source were Miller the attorney and the source the client under identical circumstances would not withstand the test. It could not be considered priveleged because the act of revealing Valerie Plame's identity was the crime, not an admission of criminal acts.

[Walt Starr]

19. Actually, yes she would have to reveal the source

The source did not confess a crime to her. The revelation of the identity of Plame was the crime, thus the source committed a crime in her presence.

Were she an attorney and the source her client, there would be no privelege under these circumstances.

[JimmyJazz]

21. I must be seriously missing something in this story.

Where are you getting that Judith Miller was told by the CIA source about Valerie Plame? I thought it was Novak who was told by the source.

[Walt Starr]

22. Miller, Cooper, and Novak all received the same information

from the same "source". That's been established. Only Novak wrote a story on it. The act of a journalist writing a story which outs Plame is not a crime. Only the "source" committed a crime by outting Plame to the journalists. That is, until Miller and Cooper refused to reveal the so-called "source".

The act of that source revealing the identity of Plame was the crime. It was not an admission of crime. Even under the highest standard of privelege under the law, attorney-client privelege, there is no privelege.

[JimmyJazz]

23. I have now read numerous articles on the subject and I can't

find where the white house source outted Plame to Miller. I'm not trying to defend Miller, but I am going to take the position that unless the source outted Plame to Miller (which I can't seem to find in any articles), your analogy is incorrect. (and please, not to be rude, but it really is spelled "privilege")

[Walt Starr]

13. Wrong, an attorney will also have to reveal the information when they

actually witness the crime being committed.

Judith Miller witnessed the crime being committed in this case.

[JimmyJazz]

15. I'm sorry, but your analogy now has me completely lost.

Under what circumstance would an attorney who witnessed a crime try to claim attorney/client privilege as a means of not telling what they saw. I'm telling you that if a person confesses a crime to an attorney, that attorney cannot reveal that information.

[Walt Starr]

16. John Gotti's attorney did that very thing

and lost. He witnessed crimes while in conference with Gotti, and was no longer covered under privelege though he tried to claim privelege.

Yes, if a client admits a crime to an attorney, the attorney can rightfully claim privelege. If Miller were an attorney and the "source" was a client, the client would have committed a crime in the presence of his/her attorney. Very difference circumstances there.

[The Magistrate]

11. Indeed, Mr. Starr

Mr. Fitzgerald is doubtless trying to prove a perjury case. He must have some evidence, or testimony from someone (Novak springs to mind), that a person in the political apparat called several reporters with the information about Ms. Plame, and a sworn statement from that person denying having done any such thing. The more testimony he can gather from persons who say, yes, I did get such a telephone call, the sounder the case for prosecution, and the greater the chance of getting a roll-over upwards to whoever directed the telephone calls be made. It is this that Ms. Miller is obstructing with her silence. It is not a question of shielding a source who has given information of value to the public interest that otherwise might remain concealed; it is a question of sheltering a criminal act of political manipulation against the public interest, and even against the national security. She has no more of a leg to stand on then does a fence asked, well, who brought you the truck-load of refrigerators...?

[Walt Starr]

17. PRECISELY

Even when trying to raise it to the level of privelege between an attorney and a client or a priest and a parishoner, the privelege cannot stand in light of the actual event.

The crime was committed when the information was given over to Ms Miller. She's a witness or a co-conspirator. It's up to her to determine which path she will take.

[Just Me]

24. Okay. That reasoning is sound.

I wonder if she realizes those distinctions and exceptions to the journalistic principle of keeping sources protected? She's screwed no matter what she does at this point. She is legally obliged to reveal those who attempted to USE her to commit the crime of treason. However, she can still choose to go to jail for staying put on this principle she asserts.

Where were her strong principles when she was spewing government-generated propaganda about the WMDs?

[Walt Starr]

25. It would be sort of foolish now, since there is no longer a place to file

an appeal.

She either reveals or she goes to prison. The SCOTUS has spoken on the matter and that's the end of the line.