Politico's Josh Gerstein reports that Risen got the subpoena quashed in November, before Sterling was indicted. http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0111/NYTer_Risen_I_didnt_burn_source.html Gerstein says Risen didn't cut a deal with prosecutors to give up his source. This is good news for reporters. I firmly believe Risen would have gone to jail rather than give up a source.
But there's something troubling in the comment from Risen's lawyer.
"Jim has not provided any testimony or cooperation of any kind to the government in connection with their investigation about the confidential source or sources of Chapter 9."
I don't suggest that Risen provided testimony or cooperation for an investigation about some other chapter. But I do worry that there might in fact be an investigation into another chapter. Otherwise, why single this case out as being only about Chapter 9?
The original post appears here:
The Justice Department has indicted a former CIA officer for leaking to a reporter, and all signs point to the New York Times’ James Risen as the beneficiary of said leak. This is a major development in one of the more-important reporters’ privilege cases in recent memory. As we revealed last year, the government had twice subpoenaed Risen to testify before a grand jury about his source, even through the government already had identified the leaker and didn’t actually need Risen to testify in order to bring its case. This was an extraordinary stretch of the government’s powers to force journalists to give up their sources, and it had profound implications for reporters that, sadly, went unnoticed in the hubbub over the Wikileaks disclosures.
The ex-CIA official named in the indictment is Jeffrey Sterling, who reportedly worked on Iran issues for the agency. The leak for which Risen was being subpoenaed involved a covert CIA operation against Iran. If Sterling is the man whom investigators have been seeking, then presumably they will now drop their subpoena against Risen, if they haven’t already. That is, unless they intend to call him in open court, which would be a very dark day for journalists everywhere.
Indictment in Leaks Case May End Pursuit of New York Times Reporter
Charges against a former CIA officer in a information-leaks case could bring relief—or new threats—to reporters
UPDATE!
Politico's Josh Gerstein reports that Risen got the subpoena quashed in November, before Sterling was indicted. http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0111/NYTer_Risen_I_didnt_burn_source.html Gerstein says Risen didn't cut a deal with prosecutors to give up his source. This is good news for reporters. I firmly believe Risen would have gone to jail rather than give up a source.
But there's something troubling in the comment from Risen's lawyer.
"Jim has not provided any testimony or cooperation of any kind to the government in connection with their investigation about the confidential source or sources of Chapter 9."
I don't suggest that Risen provided testimony or cooperation for an investigation about some other chapter. But I do worry that there might in fact be an investigation into another chapter. Otherwise, why single this case out as being only about Chapter 9?
The original post appears here:
The Justice Department has indicted a former CIA officer for leaking to a reporter, and all signs point to the New York Times’ James Risen as the beneficiary of said leak. This is a major development in one of the more-important reporters’ privilege cases in recent memory. As we revealed last year, the government had twice subpoenaed Risen to testify before a grand jury about his source, even through the government already had identified the leaker and didn’t actually need Risen to testify in order to bring its case. This was an extraordinary stretch of the government’s powers to force journalists to give up their sources, and it had profound implications for reporters that, sadly, went unnoticed in the hubbub over the Wikileaks disclosures.
The ex-CIA official named in the indictment is Jeffrey Sterling, who reportedly worked on Iran issues for the agency. The leak for which Risen was being subpoenaed involved a covert CIA operation against Iran. If Sterling is the man whom investigators have been seeking, then presumably they will now drop their subpoena against Risen, if they haven’t already. That is, unless they intend to call him in open court, which would be a very dark day for journalists everywhere.
Subscribe to Washingtonian
Follow Washingtonian on Twitter
More>> Capital Comment Blog | News & Politics | Party Photos
Most Popular in News & Politics
What It Felt Like for a Virginia Marching Band to Win Metallica’s Contest
What’s IN and OUT in DC Restaurant Trends for 2024
Introducing 8 of DC’s Most Stylish
Best of Washington 2023: Things to Eat, Drink, Do, and Know Right Now
Washingtonian Magazine
May 2024: Great Getaways
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
13 Major Concerts and Music Festivals in the DC Area This Spring
Mary Timony on Her Emotional New Album, “Untame the Tiger”
The Beatles in DC: A New Exhibit in Maryland Looks Back on Early Beatlemania
Northern Virginia High School Wins Metallica’s Marching Band Competition
More from News & Politics
These Volunteers Wake Up at Dawn to Collect DC’s Dead—and Injured—Birds
Guest List: 5 People We’d Love to Hang Out With This May
Democrats and Republicans Pass Balls, Not Bills, at Congressional Soccer Game
3 New Memoirs by Prominent Women
Everything You Wanted to Know About Urban Bear Sightings but Were Afraid to Ask, Because Who Wants to Get That Close to a Bear?
Rockville Police Are Searching for Culprits of a $4,500 Pickleball Paddle Heist
Dozens of Vintage Planes Will Fly Over the National Mall This Saturday
PHOTOS: “Rupaul’s Drag Race” Queens Work It at the National Mall