| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Fitzgerald going after NYT anonymous sources again |
| 2006-02-16 |
| Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was back in court seeking information about the New York Times' anonymous sources on Monday, this time appealing his setback in a lower court. Fitzgerald is best known for being the special prosecutor whose investigation led to the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Former Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail in that case last year for resisting Fitzgerald's request to reveal her sources, and the two have been pitted against each other once again in a free-speech battle over journalists' rights to keep their sources secret from prosecutors' probes. The case argued in a New York courtroom on Monday started when Fitzgerald was in the U.S. Attorney's Chicago office, before he was appointed special counsel over the leak of a CIA operative's name. The two cases are not directly related, though both involve reporting by Miller, and others, when she was still at the Times. Fitzgerald is seeking phone records relating to newspaper articles on government probes into Islamic charities during the fall of 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks. The government wants to uncover the identities of government sources who might have given information to the reporters. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet ruled in February 2005 the phone records were protected from disclosure by a reporter's privilege under the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Back then, Times' lawyer Floyd Abrams called Sweet's decision "a major vindication for First Amendment interests," and now Fitzgerald is seeking to overturn that ruling. Abrams on Monday reiterated his argument that reporters' phone records were protected free speech under the U.S. Constitution and should be kept secret from the government. With Fitzgerald sitting quietly on the sidelines, Special Assistant U.S Attorney Jim Fleissner argued there should be limitations on a reporter's privilege in refusing to release telephone records. Grand jury investigations were sufficient to protect reporters and their sources because they take place behind closed doors, and were the only way to resolve inquiries into government leaks, Fleissner said. But Abrams said if the telephone records were released, "dozens of individuals" would be identified. "Telephone records are the embodiment of the speech of these journalists and require the same level of protection," Abrams told the court. There was no indication when the appeals court judges would rule on whether to overturn the lower court decision. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #8 Sounds to me that Fitz is on a fishing expedition Wouldn't it be a hoot if all along his real fish were the leakers of classified info and the whole Plame affair was just a nice Karl Rovesque cover to get the demoncrats and reporters to demand everyone cooperate? *snicker* .... *sigh* I suppose that's just too devious to be true. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-16 15:36 |
| #7 Let's stop the legaleze bullshit. Someone in either the CIA or NSA has been leaking classified info to the NYT to make the Bush administration appear to be operating outside the law. Whether Fitz realizes it or not, this is dangerous during these times of WOT. The leakers need to be skinned and de-boned, and the NYT needs to be dropped in the Fishkill. This is not the time for this foolishness, and most of these lefties will live to regret their part in it. It is also not the time for shallow charges like those against Scooter Libby. When will the left grow up ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-02-16 14:32 |
| #6 Fitzgerald has sent 44 Daley Democrats to jail for corruption in Chicago so far. Average sentance 5 years. And none of them fought as hard as the NYT is doing, and the courts upheld Fitz's requests for phone and email records. Makes you wonder what the NYT is hiding? Or how long their potential jail sentances would be. |
| Posted by: Midway 2006-02-16 13:19 |
| #5 This is a different case and has nothing to do with Libby. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-02-16 12:20 |
| #4 Sounds to me that Fitz is on a fishing expedition Must have attended the Ronnie Earl School of Law |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-02-16 12:11 |
| #3 I am a little confused with Fitz. He went out there and claimed to have a case against Scooter with respect to lying or misleading the grand jury. To date he hasnÂ’t presented this evidence and (if I understand the story) hasnÂ’t presented LibbyÂ’s lawyer with a copy of said evidence. All I have heard is how he (Fitz) wants to subpoena this or that from other members of the Administration that at best have dubious links to the original charges. I am not a lawyer, so correct me if I am wrong, but doesnÂ’t the prosecution have to show the accused what evidence he has against him? Also if Fitz doesnÂ’t have any evidence, doesnÂ’t he have to move for dismissal of the charges? Sounds to me that Fitz is on a fishing expedition after having the original case collapse with the Woodward disclosure. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-02-16 11:21 |
| #2 Even with the pedophilia, I think the priests have a higher moral code than the journalists. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-16 08:57 |
| #1 Good. Journalists ought have no right to conceal lawbreakers from law enforcement, only from the general public. What they do isn't the same as what Catholic priests do in the confessional. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-16 08:50 |