Supreme Court Rules Against NYT & Miller

[Me.]

Fitzgerald finally emerges as the victor in this matter. Once again Judy M. has held justice up, this time for years. Maybe now we’ll get to the bottom of the Islamic charity business. Looking to see Miss Amok’s pet Chalabi’s name to come up. And maybe, just maybe the day is coming when Miss Miller in the Aspens finally gets her comeuppance.


High Court Rules Against New York Times
Supreme Court Turns Down Paper In Leak Investigation, Refuses To Block Government's Review Of Records

“(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe.

The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to track down the reporters' confidential sources for the stories. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's order.

The case marks the second refusal by the court in as many years to sort out a clash between the federal government and the Times over press freedom.” Cont…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/26/supremecourt/main2209121.shtml

[Missy Vixen]

1. I can't figure out what's worse for poor Miss Run Amok

A fun-filled grilling by America's Hottest Prosecutor, or the fact that now all of America knows she had some slightly unorthodox methods of obtaining information from her sources?

Poooooooor Judy. It's hard to work up much sympathy for her, and Patrick Fitzgerald's been waiting an awful long time for this ;-).
Julie

[Me.]

2. Slightly Unorthodox

Is being kind. Am hoping the fireworks begin :popcorn:

[Missy Vixen]

3. I'll bring the Orville Redenbacher's

It never hurts to stock up.

:popcorn:

Judy's luck just done run out, didn't it?

Julie
still president for life of the PFEB

[symbolman]

4. She's got to be shitting her pants now, literally

and that's a good thing, after all the pants soiled because of her Negligent and Malicious actions, and all the deaths.. there is no telling how many CIA operatives or those working for them in foreign countries got killed or TORTURED because of her actions.. hundreds maybe.

Sheesh, this woman was in Iraq ORDERING TROOPS around, and if the commander balked, she'd tell them that she KNEW RUMMY and that Rummy would eat them ALIVE if they refused her..

TELL ME she's not up to her eyeballs in this Plame deal :)

I spent a year researching this and made a two dvd film record of all this, and so I know how SCREWED this woman is, and I'm glad as hell for it, and if it was up to me I'd give this damn Traitor LIFE in prison..

She's already had a Taste, now she's going for the full course, ala Fitzgerald.

I have a feeling he doesn't like her very much, and that he HATES Liars, so she's going DOWN. The Karma Bank Account is Null and Void..

About the only whiff of 'justice' I've seen in at least six years..

Viva La Fitzgerald!

[Missy Vixen]

5. This one's for the Judestress

>Viva La Fitzgerald<

He's your worst nightmare, sweetie! I don't think you'll be able to uhh, -- maneuver your way out of this one!



"Judy, this hurts me so much more than it will hurt you."

Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[symbolman]

6. LOL

Hey, I'm also an "Illinois Boy" and I know that they DO NOT GIVE UP

She's got a pitbull on her rear and it's starting to show :)

Gotta Love 'im!

[rateyes]

19. She's not the only one with

stinky britches, either. Her sources are probably packing up and moving to a country without extradition treaties!

[texpatriot2004]

41. Well said Symbolman. I agree. nm

[H2O Man]

7. Nominated.

This is a very significant case. It is related to the Plame and the neocon/AIPAC scandals.

[madokie]

8. And those two scandals just very well might be what brings them down

They're going down no bout adoubt it

[rodeodance]

9. gawds I do hope so.

[malaise]

10. Kick for Fitzmas n/t

[formercia]

11. But will it work

when a prosecutor goes after Rove's telephone records?

[H2O Man]

12. Mr. Fitzgerald already

had Rove's phone records for the days in question in the Plame case. That was actually a lot easier to access. This case is distinct from the Plame scandal, in which Mr. Fitzgerald had already won when Ms. Miller appealed to the Supreme Court. This case, which has many of the same players, was a bit more complicated. A lower court had actually ruled for Miller, and then it was overturned; thus her appeal to the Supreme Court. In the Plame case, not a single judge believed that Miller had a leg to stand on.

[CornField]

13. This is actually quite scary

While I'll be the first to admit we have major issues in this country with our free press... it is still a free press. It is imperative to our nation that it remains so and relatively free of government oversight and nose-picking.

Let's say a confidential source -- a person within the forestry department -- contacts the Washington Post about an executive signing order which is allowing the government to systematically destroy our national forests. The story breaks and the administration, furious with the 'leaker,' embarks on some sort of witch hunt which includes court proceedings, investigations, etc.

What's going on right now are distinct forces which are making it less and less probable for people working within the government to do the right thing: 1) This administration has successfully painted those who would stand up to wrong-doing as "leakers" or bad guys or care little about their nation; and, 2) the rulings being driven by the Plame investigation are taking chunks out of the protections to the press and confidential sources.

I fear that, in the future, good men and women will no longer make that call from the phone booth to the reporter... I fear that we as a nation are going to suffer for the path we are taking.

[Me.]

14. They've Been Wrecking Everything For Everybody

Dirtying the waters, black is white. There have been concerns about freedom of the press that have arisen with this case and Plame. The problem is that these miscreants have been trying to use protections that were put in place for entirely different reasons. It was never meant to protect criminal acts and what Miz Miller has been involved in certainly reaches to that level and more. What the heck was she doing calling a so called Islamic charity and telling them to cheesit guys the FBI is on the way? She has been named in the Plame case, the AIPAC case and this one. She has betrayed this country six ways to Sunday and thought she could skip by yelling freedom of the press. This is what these people do, they pollute our air and tell us that we now have a new clean air act.

The damage done from all these people is unbelievable.

[yodermon]

15. I don't think so.

I believe the courts will (& have) differentiate between protecting bona fide whistle-blowers who are exposing criminal activity, and protecting traitors who committed espionage against their country.

Just IMHO.

[Me.]

16. That Is My Hope Too

That clearer and smarter minds will put this right, just like Leahy is on a quest to restore Habeas Corpus. They have been intent on destroying the fabric of our laws and society since day one. They are "the little foxes who spoil the vines".

[H2O Man]

17. I respectfully disagree.

First, there is not a single case of a whistle-blower being damaged by the court rulings that uphold the previously established right of a grand jury to compell a journalist to testify.

Second, the Plame case has not been used in any manner that takes chunks out of the protection that the press and confidential sources enjoy. The issues involved in the Plame case were long standing rules of law, and those rules continue to offer the exact same protections as were enjoyed before the case. More, the Plame case has not been used as a foundation for any other case. It is worth looking at the history of this case involving Miller, and comparing it to the Plame case. The facts will eliminate any serious concerns about the free press and confidential sources.

[Me.]

20. Excellent Points

Not surprised you would put it in proper perspective.

[rateyes]

18. What a pic accompanying that story...

Ripe for captioning!

[DemonFighterLives]

21. Judy, what are you going to do now

I'm going to Paraguay!

[Me.]

22. Aaaah, But Now

that she has served her purpose will any of the other Aspens besides I Liar Libby want her in the compound? Especially considering that he will be in a different type of compound altogether?

[cool user name]

33. Squish, squish ...

(this, the sound with each step)

[Blackhatjack]

23. Sorry, but I have serious qualms about this decision which will need a remedy...

When courts try to tailor a decision to a particularly egregious fact scenario, they often create bad law. It is a drawback to writing laws that generality must prevail in their scope and application, and particulars often must be decided as exceptions to the general rule as they work their way through the system on a case by case basis.

A brief survey of past corruption stories will disclose that 'sources' who contacted reporters breaking big stories are often 'dirty.' Meaning that sometimes it takes an 'insider' who has engaged in some wrongdoing to get close enough to the evidence that eventually sinks the whole bunch.

If the 'source' is granted no confidentiality by the reporting source, and that reporting source can be hauled before a government investigatory committee and forced under oath to identify that source --then the next 'source' likely won't make the call, and the real corruption will likely never come to light.

I am not defending Judy Miller. However, I do believe a Congressional remedy will have to be created for this situation --a specific law enacted to codify the 'privilege' for the free press. Otherwise, the free press will be unable to perform its valuable and needed function.

This decision may not directly address the power of the Government to seek out and 'punish' whistleblowers who 'leak' confidential information. However, you can be sure that if it stands without modification, that is exactly what will happen --and the Executive Branch will have even more power to hide what they doing from the public.

[Missy Vixen]

25. Judy Miller's actions were as follows

Ms. Miller is not a whistleblower. She is not a crusading member of the press bent on exposing wrongdoing. She tipped off two (supposedly) charity organizations that were strongly suspected in illegal activity. She endangered who knows how many law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation and subsequent raid. She is (and has been) using the shielding laws to protect herself from prosecution for criminal acts.

>Meaning that sometimes it takes an 'insider' who has engaged in some wrongdoing to get close enough to the evidence that eventually sinks the whole bunch.<

Ms. Miller has also shown herself to be a mouthpiece for the Bushies. She's not "sinking" anyone.

>Otherwise, the free press will be unable to perform its valuable and needed function.<

As H20Man mentioned above, this has no connection with the legitimate use of shielding laws. This is all about Ms. Miller attempting to save her own ass. This is exactly how she and others have spun the story as well.

Julie

[Me.]

26. Stating The Obvious,

the only fix, because the laws are sufficient unto themselves. Has it come to the point where it has to be said loud and clear that lawbreakers and criminals are not protected by any laws, much less the shield one? Aside from them and their apologists, who does not know this?

[Blackhatjack]

27. Well the truth is 'lawbreakers and criminals are protected by laws' ....

... The entire criminal justice system and law enforcement investigation success depends on their ability to provide 'lawbreakers and criminals' with protection under the law. It is called negotiating a plea bargain upon a promise of future cooperation.

Without plea arrangements, the criminal justice system grinds to a halt. Once a plea arrangement is struck, the terms are enforceable on both parties as long as they adhere to the terms thereof, and the outcome invariably alters the 'law's prescribed consequence for engaging in the conduct that gives rise to the charging offense.'

Law enforcement investigations into corruption and criminal conspiracy almost always depend upon 'turning' one of the wrongdoers to cooperate and testify against the others. Without the power to alter the law's application to these 'lawbreakers and criminals' the investigations that root out criminal corruption and conspiracies will be remarkably unsuccessful to the public's detriment.

Sometimes what first appears to be the obvious black and white application of the laws, instead has many shades of gray.

[Me.]

29. They Are Protected Only So Far As Their Right To A Fair Hearing Or Trial Goes

I don't think I could agree that criminal acts are 'protected". Even attorney/client privilege is limited when it comes to criminal activity. And should a deal be struck, in most cases their is a measure of punishment still meted out. And the turning of a witness does not necessarily negate consequences, though those may be less than might have been.

[Blackhatjack]

31. I have been there and done that ... 'protection' is a mere adjective

There is a big difference between going home on unsupervised probation and going off to prison for 25 years. If you negotiate the former, and avoid the latter, even though the sentencing guidelines call for the latter to be imposed unless there are sufficient mitigating factors, then I would say they got a measure of 'protection.'

The duty of a criminal defense attorney is to take action to prevent the commission of a crime, but the attorney-client privilege applies to everything a criminal defendant tells you as their counsel. Only under extreme circumstances can a criminal defense attorney reveal what a client has told them in confidence.

Where some people get tripped up on the duties of a criminal defense lawyer is that you cannot aid or abet the giving of perjured testimony. So you cannot call the defendant to the witness stand and ask questions which he has already told you in advance he will lie in response to.

The stickier situation is where the defendant decides to testify, then out of the blue begins to testify falsely. You have to stop then and there, ask to approach the bench with opposing counsel, and ask the Judge to allow you to withdraw from further representation of the defendant WITHOUT REVEALING the specific reason. However, it could not be a bigger red flag and the Judge will almost always allow the motion --and the Judge may not inquire further than to ask if there is a good faith basis for the motion.

[Blackhatjack]

28. I am not sure what 'we know' about Miller's sources, however....

... if there are 'sources' she is required to identify under oath --the consequences of this decision could be negative for a free press.

If your recitation of the facts is born out, and she in fact had no legitimate 'sources' then it is clear she has no confidentiality basis to rely upon in refusing to disclose her own actions --except her 5th Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination(which you have to admit will subject you to criminal prosecution if you answer).

I have no affection for Judy Miller, and hope she gets everything she deserves.

It is wise to remember that prosecutors can always 'discover' evidence and information from other sources which can be used against her in bringing charges and prosecuting her. So even if the SCOTUS had backed Judy Miller's position on this issue, it would not have provided her with immunity from prosecution for her wrongdoing.

[H2O Man]

30. Ms. Miller

was the source.

[Blackhatjack]

32. Did Miller allege she was the source? And no other source involved?

That would seem to be a self-defeating declaration if she was going to raise a free press confidentiality privilege in defense of revealing information properly demanded by the government.

If you are correct, this did not require an opinion from the SCOTUS be longer than one sentence.

[H2O Man]

35. I am not sure

what you mean by "Did Miller allege she was the source?" Mr. Fitzgerald did. That's what the case is about.

[Blackhatjack]

37. Was trying to follow up on your post....

you posted:

H2O Man (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-28-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Ms. Miller
was the source.
***************************************************

I was trying to understand what privilege you might be alluding to that Miller was raising.
Obviously by your question, you were giving your opinion --not her argument in favor of a privilege.

I think after doing a little research The NYTImes was most concerned about the precedent set by letting the Govt go through their telephone records and determine on their own what was relevant to the Miller investigation. Other reporters and their confidential sources would certainly be affected by such a broad review of information that may have been communicated in confidence.

TPM has a comment on this very point. I tend to agree with them.

[H2O Man]

40. Of course she is

attempting to use her role as a journalist for privilege. I assume that everyone knows that is the foundation for her appeal.

She used the same position in the Plame case. She lost. The law affords protection for those who are involved with sources that deserve whistle-blower status. She and her sources do not meet that definition.

Mr. Fitzgerald's web site contains several court opinions that detail the difference between those journalists and whistle blowers who deserve protection, and those engaged in criminal activities who try to hide behind the journalists' rights. I absolutely agree with them.

[Blackhatjack]

49. Assuming this is all about Miller, How Are Other Reporters & Their Sources Protected...

I don't think there are any apologists here defending Judy Miller or her actions.

However there are concerns over allowing the Government to 'paw through' the telephone records and other records of a major news organization which employs many other reporters than Judy Miller, and those records contain confidential information that the Government has not shown that it has a legitimate need to review.

You have obviously followed this matter closely. Is there any such protection for other Times reporters and their sources, contained in the order which was upheld by the SCOTUS?

[Blackhatjack]

36. TPM says this involved the Govt going thru the NYTimes Tel Records...

... looking for calls with sources. So obviously, this appeal is broader than the protection Miller is trying to acquire to herself.

The Times objected because allowing the Govt to leaf through telephone records would possibly expose sources on any number of investigations reporters other than Miller was working on.

If this is the case, this is another denigration of the free press and the role it plays in an open democracy, Miller's personal circumstances aside.

[H2O Man]

39. I would suggest

that Ms. Miller is the threat to the free press. But people can, and do, have other opinions.

[texpatriot2004]

42. I think she was the source too. I think she works for another

Country...a spook perhaps.

How on Earth would the "whistleblower" situation apply to a person who leaked classified information? It's obvious, it doesn't.

[H2O Man]

43. A couple things come to mind:

First, in the court filings on Mr. Fitzgerald's web site, we find that while some people had sincere concerns about journalists' Constitutional rights, a significant number of respected people said that not only was Miller not a good "test case," but that her situation was quite the opposite. There were really only a very few Chicken Littles clucking that the sky would fall if poor Judith had to testify. The sky remains unharmed by her experience. Significant parts of a crime committed against a real whistle blower -- Joseph Wilson -- were exposed. This included the role of the VP and his top poodle. More, the public gained important information.

We should also keep in mind that the NY Times had to back Miller. It's their job to. But after it was over, the paper was good about admitting it had erred in allowing Miller to create such a situation. Her co-workers at the paper did not support her. They knew that a "journalist" who answers to the OVP and Defense Department, but not to an editor, is not a journalist.

Finally, the recent book by Corn & Isikoff exposes interesting information about who Judith Miller was fronting for. It wasn't for us, or for the NY Times, or journalism. I find those who still want to champion her cause to be curiously uninformed, at best.

[texpatriot2004]

44. That's a very good point that you make about the real

whistleblower - Wilson.

I also agree that even her colleagues knew she was no "journalist" and that they did not support her. I thought the NYT was wrong to support her the way that they did. Also, as I recall, Miller had friends in high places there who seemed to share her outside interests. I also thought that the apology from the NYT that came later was grossly insufficient - that's my opinion.

You are so right that those who still want to "champion her cause" haven't read enough of what her true cause was...the WHIG and the OVP, and I think, Israel.

[mom cat]

24. Love it when those aspens quake!

[nolabels]

34. Me very skeptical if this is anything other than window dressing

With six of the nine being partisan / selected by republicans they are just helping the establishment tread water till another big distraction comes down the pike. Well as least as far I can see watching through the years:shrug:

Court proceeding hell is next and there will probably be only pardons unless * is removed from office.

Btw talk is talk, until a Congress dominated by a Democratic majority actually does something they are just talk too.

[dorkulon]

38. Time to drop her new book:

http://buffalobeast.com/86/miller.htm

:rofl:

[BillORightsMan]

45. Well if we're piling on Judy...

Someone mentioned "traitor" upthread.

Here's some grist for the mill...



The Burial of the 9/11 Story that Got Away
By Rory O'Connor,
AlterNet
May 25, 2006.

In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into the paper.
May 18, 2006

Last week, William Scott Malone and I broke the story of how a still anonymous, senior White House official leaked top-secret NSA intelligence in 2001 to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The intelligence indicated that Al Qaeda was planning a major attack on the United States. But the "The 9/11 Story That Got Away" never made it into the paper.

It never made it to the attention of top Times executive Bill Keller either. Keller, now executive editor of the paper, was managing editor in July 2001. But he was kept in the dark when Miller's "impeccable" source first revealed details of highly classified signals intelligence (SIGINT) concerning an impending Al Qaeda attack, perhaps to be visited on the continental United States. The NSA had been listening in on a conversation between two members of Osama bin Laden's terror network. One was overheard saying to the other, "Don't worry, we're planning something so big now that the U.S. will have to respond."

~snip~
Whatever Keller may have meant to suggest in all his vagueness, by her own admission Miller didn't do much to build on the tip she received about the impending Al Qaeda attack. "I realized that this information was enormously sensitive, and that it was going to be difficult to get more," she told us. "But that my source undoubtedly knew more. So I promised to Steve that I would go back and try to get more. And I did...try."

But whoever knew about the 'who' and the 'where' was not willing to tell Miller more at that time -- although she says she later "was told that, 'The bad guys were in Yemen on this conversation.'"

That bit of information never made it to Times higher-ups such as Keller either, and Miller soon moved on. "Washington being Washington, and the CT world being the CT world, I was soon off pursuing other things."

much more at link...

:patriot:

[Me.]

46. What A Damned Immoral Disgrace

All of it, all of them. The reporters, mayors and ag's who wouldn't get on planes, planes that didn't scramble,traders who made money on the day, a man and his cabinet who wouldn't listen much less pay attention and who sat, terrified reading about a pet goat.

As to her being a traitor, I've always believed it, for her role in Plame, the AIPAC spying scandal, the Islamic charity matter. Her fingers have been in many pies and just for her role in selling this war with her aluminum tube stories, her digits are bloodstained.

Thanks for the post.

[Me.]

47. Actually

Your post deserves a thread of it's own

[Me.]

48. Morning

:kick: