DU Attorneys: How Do We Locate Fitzgerald's Filing in Plame Case?

[Stephanie]

I want to see the document referenced below. Do you think it would it be available online? How do I locate it?



==========================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32380-2005Apr6.html

Papers Say Leak Probe Is Over

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A12

The special prosecutor investigating whether Bush administration officials illegally revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative says he finished his investigation months ago, except for questioning two reporters who have refused to testify.

The information in a March 22 court filing by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald suggests that syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published the name of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, has already spoken to investigators about his sources for that report, according to legal experts. Novak, whose July 2003 column sparked the investigation, and his attorney have refused to comment on whether he was questioned.

==========================


Based on this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/06/national/w160151D82.DTL



I think it should be here somewhere:

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf

[DebbieCDC]

1. You might need a PACER account to acces it

I don't know if it's available for public viewing w/o logging into the database

[Stephanie]

2. Okay thanks

Now I really need a lawyer! :)

[merh]

3. Please see the response I posted in your thread yesterday.

You probably cannot get the document. Grand Jury proceedings are secretive and the filings that relate to them are filed under seal until ordered release or made public.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1373911&mesg_id=1374650

[Stephanie]

4. Thank you! I had missed that.

You wrote:

I don't think you can get what he filed. Grand jury proceedings
are secret and usually pleadings regarding them are filed under seal.

He may have made this "filing" with the court to justify another extension of the grand jury beyond its term. They have a time limit that exist and every extension beyond that limit must be authorized by the court for good cause. It's hell to have to empanel a whole new grand jury and then get them to hear all the evidence all over again.

But it appears as if the reporter from the Post has seen the document, don't you think?

[merh]

5. No, if the reporter "saw the document" there would be another

crime - these type of filings are not released or made public. It appears to me someone is leaking the information and trying to make it appear that the investigation is falling apart.

[Stephanie]

6. I see - that makes sense

Looking at the sourcing of the article it appears the defense attorneys may be leaking:

Legal experts and sources close to the case also speculated yesterday that Fitzgerald is not likely to seek an indictment for the crime he originally set out to investigate: whether a government official knowingly exposed a covert officer. The sources, who asked not to be named because the matter is the subject of a grand jury investigation, said Fitzgerald may instead seek to charge a government official with committing perjury by giving conflicting information to prosecutors.

[merh]

7. Remember, the media wants this to go away and have lawyers

representing their interests. They could well have spoken to their own attorneys to be able to make this statement: " Legal experts and sources close to the case also speculated".

This is just another case of poor journalism - same type of reporting that began the Plame investigation "somebody said she was a covert CIA agent" "sources say she was a covert CIA agent".

I am not concerned about the investigation.

[Stephanie]

8. I want my Frog March, damnit!

[merh]

9. Frog March?

Will a dancing lizard do for now?

[Stephanie]

10. Thanks - still want my frog march

From the thread that got us started on this >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=211244

[merh]

11. Oh, I want that too -- very badly.

That is why I refuse to let the press spin bother me. Fitz needs our postive energies flowing his way so that he can be strong and deal with all of the opposition (and there is much) to his investigation.

We don't need to believe the liars lies - we need to keep the faith!

What a sight to behold!
"Trust me when I say, nothing would please me more than seeing Karl Rove frog marched out of the White House in handcuffs -and when I use that name, I've measured my words""

[Stephanie]

12. Yup - we've been there from Day One

Somewhere in my files I have a transcript that I made of his full remarks that day.

[H2O Man]

13. It's strange that

some DUers (not Stephanie & Merh) are already saying things about "the day the Plame case officially closed." This is nonsense. The investigation was near completion last spring. In the early summer, something occured which created the need for the extension that happened in mid-July. But fall, there was no question the investigation was completed with but a couple exceptions: two reporters who don't want to testify.

Their testimony is significant, in that each time a White House official told a reporter about Plame, it could be a "count" in an indictment. If Judith Miller had the moral capavity to tell the truth ( and that is a HUGE "if") her testimony could also contradict some of the WH officials'.

One of the things that even the most dim-witted can recognize is that juries -- even grand juries -- do not hand down decisions before all evidence is in. There is no decision yet. There is a paper filed that clarifies where the investigation is ..... completed except two witnesses. But there is absolutely no decision yet. Even if Sean Hannity says there is, there is not.

[Stephanie]

14. I think merh is correct that this story is spin by defendants' counsel

anonymous spin at that - it's reading like a disinfo piece to me now

[H2O Man]

15. Correct.

I think it goes beyond the defendant's counsel, and is disinformation from a much higher level.

[merh]

16. As always H2O

I find myself agreeing with you.

How have you been? Looks like things are getting interesting.
:hug:

[H2O Man]

17. "The louder my opponents squeal,

the better the job I know I'm doing!" -- Malcolm X

I think that from "day one" on, the MSM has failed to address the serious issues involved in the Plame case. And so when I read their reports that the case is closed, it means little to me. When the reports intensify, then I know that someone is trying to create that image. I expect that they are doing this for a reason.... and that reason isn't because they want the public to know the truth. Maybe the investigation is causing them to squeal.

[KoKo]

18. H2O, Stephanie, merh and others check out Murray Waas for more on Plame

The "American Prospect" linked his article on the latest on Plame and it was a better, more thorough read than WaPo or others. Waas said he was going to blog all week about Plame.

He worked with Joe Conason way back on exposing the Mellon-Scaife ties to Starr Investigation and the "Hunting of Clinton." They both wrote together on Salon back in those days. Also with Gene Lyons. I felt more hopeful about Plame resolution after I read him, although it still sounds iffy to me if Fitzgerald will come through with anything but another Bush white wash. :-(

Check it out:


http://www.whateveralready.blogspot.com/

[H2O Man]

19. Thanks, KoKo01

I think it is worth remembering that a couple articles in late 2004 quoted Wilson as saying he was confident that indictments were coming when the investigation was completed. I am not sure what this public record actually is; it sounds like the papers Fitzpatrick filed in regard to the appeals by inmate Miller .... er, reporter Miller. But the fact that the investigation was wrapped up except the two reporters' testimony is nothing new.

[Stephanie]

21. Thanks KoKo - I was at TT during impeachment

Impeachment is what brought me to this online world. Maybe we met there?

From your link - this makes me think the doc is public?

"The disclosure, by the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, that he completed virtually aspects of his federal grand jury as long as six months ago was made in papers the prosecutor filed in court on March 22. Despite the fact that the filing has been on the public record since then, it has previously been unreported."

Public record? So, I still want to see it.

[KoKo]

25. Maybe you could e-mail Waas and ask how to get it. I wish

I could help you with this. I wasn't on TT at Salon but I was there every day reading back then and it saved my sanity! :D

They had some fantastic writers in those days, didn't they? It's never been the same since they ran out of money that first time and couldn't pay them. And, no place has ever been quite like them in the variety of writers, since. Sad.

[merh]

31. When Miller and the news organizations tried to fight the grand

jury subpoena, pleadings were filed and decisions made on the pleadings. The statements by Fitzpatrick about the investigation is over, but for the testimony of the 2 reporters, is consistent with the prosecution arguing the need for their testimony and why they should honor the subpoenas. Those documents may well be public. I will see if I can find them for you.

[tsuki]

20. I listened to NPR's interview of the two. Judith Miller said that she

has never written about Plame, and has never admitted to any knowledge of Plame.

Question. How can the government go to the Grand Jury and have her indicted for not revealing her source when she has never admitted to every having heard anything about Plame before The Traitor wrote his article?

It seems odd to me. Either the source told the government that Judith Miller was told, or Novak did a McCarthy on her and accused her of knowing.

The entire interview was weird.

[Stephanie]

22. First, Judith Miller is a fabulous liar

Second, her language is evasive. She never wrote about Plame, and never admitted to knowledge about Plame.

We are under the impression that Fitzgerald is looking for evidence that Plame's identity was revealed to other reporters, whether they used the info or not. The multiple leaks would lead to multiple counts against the leaker. So Miller's denial does not address the question.

[tsuki]

23. I tried to goggle an instance where Judith Miller admitted she was

told (knew) after I heard the interview. I could not find one.

I am not defending Judith Miller, but I find it odd that the government knew for certain sure...she was told and knew.

[Stephanie]

24. It was common knowledge in DC

the WH was calling around to various reporters with the info - Chris Mathews was told that Wilson's wife was "fair game"

Of course her admission is not available online - she has not admitted it - that's why she's being charged -

[tsuki]

26. There is my problem (I lived through McCarthy.) It was common

knowledge. It was rumor. It was speculation. And that was enough to indict her? If she ever admitted that she knew, then they could force her to name names. But she never has admitted. So, who denounced her

This is McCarthyism. I lived through the blacklists. An accusation was enough. Being denounced was enough. A rumor was enough. A speculation was enough.

No, it is not enough. The Grand Jury system is extremely corrupt. I know from Freeportgate, a local scandal.

[merh]

27. This is not McCarthyism --

The covert identity of a CIA operative who is tracking and investigating the sale of WMD's is a matter of national security.

Plame's identity was not "well known", was not "rumor" or "common knowledge" until it was leaked by a member of the admin that had access to highly secure information. That the leaking consisted of statements like "the rumors have been that Plame is covert CIA" or that "she is fair game, everyone knows she is CIA", does not make the leak proper or legal.

If a reporter is the conduit to publicizing the leak, then that reporter is like the get away driver to a bank robbery. Imagine if an elusive and higly successful bank robber contacts a reporter and tells the reporter "I will give you an exclusive". "I will let you cover my next robbery, you can see my techniques and how I elude capture." They agree to meet and the reporter sits outside the bank, watching as the crime unfolds, then the bank robber jumps in the reporter's car and away they go. Now, that reporter is an accomplice to the crime. He helped the criminal. He writes his exclusive and the cops come to him and ask, who is the robber, what do you know, you must tell us. The reporter tries to hide behind the 1st amendment, he will not give up the identity of his source. He cannot. The courts (and common sense) tell us that this is not protected under the 1st amendment. The reporter must tell the police the identity of the robber.

This is the same thing with Miller or Novak or whoever else reported the leaked information regarding a covert CIA operative.

THIS IS NOT MCCARTHYISM. This is investigating a crime, a major crime.

The Grand Jury system is not corrupt. Some of the people that control it and abuse it are corrupt. The corruption is our administration and who they have chosen to target with their mock prosecutions and who they have chosed to "out" because of politics or revenge.

Don't confuse the issues by misinterpreting the protections of the 1st amendment. The protection is afforded the press to protect their sources so that we can maintain a "free press". When the press is used to commit a crime or is used to further the crime, it is no longer "free".

[H2O Man]

29. Miller has not been indicted.

This is a good example about the confusion regarding this case. Miller has not been indicted. An indictment comes from a grand jury. Judith has not been indicted. Hence, the post asking how there was enough to indict her is missing the point completely.

Miller has said that she talked to White House officials about the Plame story, but did not write any articles about it. Further, a White House official who testified in front of the grand jury has said he talked to Miller about Plame on the weekend in question. The claim that she did not admit to this knowledge is nonsense.

Each time the White House officials spoke to a reporter about Valerie Plame is a potential legal offense. It makes absolutely no difference if the reporter published an article or not. None. None. Repeat: it does not make any difference if the reporter wrote an article about it. The officials telling reporters about Plame is the crime; writing the article is not.

Miller's testimony is required for several reasons, none of which have anything to do with McCarthyism, witchcraft, global warming, or hidden messages on a 1967 Beatles album. They only have to do with the legal investigation of the leaking of Plame's identity.

Calling a reporter to testify to a grand jury is legal. There is no constitutional "safeguard" that allows reporters to not give testimony to federal grand juries. There have been numerous cases in the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, and the rulings are clear.

Miller still refuses to testify. Thus, she was ordered by a federal judge. She refused. That is violating a court order. It is distinct from being indicted by the grand jury. If you violate the order from a judge in any case, criminal or civil, you pay a price. If you are going to violate the order, you should not wimper and whine .... or, as in Miller's case, lie about it.

[merh]

30. Absolutely correct.

Too many here complain about the media spin and their lies, but chose to believe the lies and the spin if the reports are "negative" to the search for justice or the efforts of a few to regain our nation.

[ngGale]

28. Novak is the one who needs to unload because...

he's the one who threw Plame's name out for all the world to see.
When it first happened, it was stated that it wasn't a leak but a garden hose. Intentional treason, in my book.

[Me.]

32. I Admit To Believing The Blather For About Five Minutes

until I read this thread (thank you Merh) because the BS sometimes still can catch someone by surprise. I'm waiting too, to see what Wass (?) comes up with. Judy must be desperate if she's putting up this much of a struggle. Can it have something to do with other matters she is being investigated for? If she's "innocent" here, she's innocent there. The problem is that for those of us who have following this case closely, sometimes time wears us out. I'm kicking this because the case has not been settled and still deserves a hearing.

[coeur_de_lion]

33. My question is

if Miller has been ordered by the court to testify, and has refused, why isn't she in jail? And who is the second reporter? Cooper? I can't remember. H2O, can you answer?

It does seem as if the MSM is throwing out disinformation that the case is closed when we know that it isn't. This should not surprise anybody, they've done this sort of thing from day one. I guess my third question is why is it taking so long to get two reporters to testify? Why is Fitzgerald dragging his feet? Is there some legal reason that things are taking this long? Do the two reporters have appeals pending?

Question four -- do we still trust Fitzgerald? Is he still gonna see this through to the end? And what does Wilson have to say about this? Anything recent?

Okay so that was way more than one question, but I would love to hear your opinions, H.

[H2O Man]

35. You only get one answer.

Here it is: Miller is still appealing the most recent federal court decision.

For your second question, Matt Cooper of Time.

For both the 3rd and 4th, yes.

To the 5th is the same as the first.

To the 6th, no.

To the 7th, yes.

What you call #4 is actually #8. And it's a secret. You'll have to contact a short plump visionary from the state of Florida for further answers. Or look for hidden messages in the comic section of the Sunday newspaper. It may be the most accurate part of the MSM.

[coeur_de_lion]

34. some recent articles on the subject . . .

World Online/ Controversy over reports that led to Iraq War/ Yoichi Nishimura: Journalists take stand over sources -- 04/05/2005

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200504050125.html
<<snip>>
Over breakfast recently, Pincus said, ``Joseph Wilson finally came forward the first week in July (2003) and wrote his own story. I was doing a follow-up to that story on July 12, and in gathering information for the story, I spoke to (several members of) the Bush administration, and I got a call that day. The caller suddenly went off on a tangent and said, `By the way, why do you keep writing about Joe Wilson's trip? Don't you know it was arranged by his wife?'''

Pincus said he immediately knew what the official was getting at: Since Wilson's trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the WMD allegations was arranged through his wife, don't take it seriously.

Pincus went ahead and wrote about the leak and its background, but he didn't reveal his government source. His story caught the attention of prosecutors.

Pincus refused to testify. However, his source, who was also questioned by the prosecution, called him and said, ``As long as you withhold my identity, I do not mind your testifying.''
<<snip>>

Did Pincus testify? What's up with that?

CIA leak probe complete except for reporters' testimony
By The Associated Press -- 04.07.05
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15088
<<snip>>
Cooper is a White House correspondent for Time who has reported on the Plame controversy. He agreed in August to provide limited testimony about a conversation he had with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, after Libby released Cooper from his promise of confidentiality. Fitzgerald then issued a second, broader subpoena seeking the names of other sources. Miller gathered material for an article about Plame but never wrote a story.

Prosecutors have interviewed President George W. Bush, Cheney, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and other current or former administration officials in the investigation. Journalists from NBC and The Washington Post also have been subpoenaed.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, was quoted by the Post as calling Fitzgerald's case "disturbing." "Boy, I tell you if those two reporters go to jail and there was nothing to this entire investigation, that will be an outrage," Dalglish told the newspaper.

As for whether Fitzgerald interviewed Novak, Dalglish told the Post: "This would lead me to probably conclude that Mr. Novak testified and did not provide nearly the treasure trove that Fitzgerald expected."
<<snip>>

[H2O Man]

36. Lucy wishes she had

something important to say on this topic. She does not. That fact has not kept her from running her mouth.