<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Boy Meets Grill 

Smells like a perjury charge to us. Even though Time has released Matt Cooper's notes to the grand jury in the Plame investigation, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald still wants two live witnesses on the stand:
A special prosecutor investigating who revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative said today the testimony of a Time magazine correspondent was still essential to the investigation, and that reporter Matthew Cooper should be jailed if he continues to refuse to reveal his sources.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said the decision last week by Cooper's employer, Time Inc., to separately turn over information about his sources did not relieve Cooper from having to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the case of operative Valerie Plame . . . .

But Fitzgerald said, in court papers for a hearing set for Wednesday, "after reviewing the documents provided by Time Inc., Cooper's testimony remains necessary for the special counsel's investigation." He did not elaborate.

Fitzgerald also said that Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller should be jailed — rather than confined at home, as each has requested — in the event that contempt citations against them are upheld.

"Forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion," Fitzgerald said . . . .

In the court papers today, Fitzgerald also raised the possibility that the journalists might be held in criminal contempt if they continue to defy the court orders.
UPDATE (via Zemblan patriot K.Z.): More on Judith Miller, from the Booman Tribune:
Miller apparently had some contact with someone at the White House on or about July 6, 2003, the day Joe Wilson's op-ed piece appeared in the New York Times revealing that he had investigated the yellow-cake rumors for the CIA and found them to be untrue. We also know from recent news stories that the Times is not in a position to do what Time, Inc. did relative to Cooper, namely turn over its reporter's (Miller's) notes. That is because the Times says they do not have Miller's notes. To me that suggests that Miller never filed a story after all. Surely if she did she would have had to supply background and documentation to her editors if the story were to be considered for publication. So if Miller never filed a story, just what role did she play in this affair? Why was she in contact with an unnamed "government official" regarding this story on or about July 6th?
UPDATE II (also via Zemblan patriot K.Z.): Lawrence O'Donnell has three simple questions for Karl Rove's mouthpiece.

UPDATE III (via our revered colleague Avedon Carol): An amusingly-titled column in which Ted Rall takes pains to point out that, since the inception of the GWOT, neither he, nor Michael Moore, nor Ward Churchill, nor any other routinely-vilified mouthy liberal has been accused of "hand[ing] over classified information or work[ing] to undermine the CIA":
In war collaborators are more dangerous than enemy forces, for they betray with intimate knowledge in painful detail and demoralize by their cynical example. This explains why, at the end of occupations, the newly liberated exact vengeance upon their treasonous countrymen even they allow foreign troops to conduct an orderly withdrawal.

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us