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
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
Editors' Picks
Check Out the Inspiring Personal Style (And Killer Outfits) of Nine of the Most Fashionable People in DC Right Now
Would Amazon’s HQ2 Really Be Good for Washington?
8 Day Trips to Do Every Weekend This Fall
The Man Who Sued His Trolls
Most Popular
Kavanaugh’s Character Witness Once Wrote About His Family for Washingtonian. Check Out What His Brother Wrote in to Rebut Him.
I Am Horrified That Brett Kavanaugh Used Girls From My School as a Prop
Dating in DC Is Hard Enough. Here’s What Happens When You Add a Dog.
Himitsu Chef Kevin Tien Will Open a Capitol Hill Restaurant With a Mobile Oyster Bar
The 100 Very Best Restaurants in Washington
September 2018: Style Setters
Related
There Are Still Six Confederate Memorials Around DC. How’s That Possible?
“Investment Layoff” Is a Masterpiece of Corporate Euphemism
Secret Service: Man Claimed to Be Jesus and Plotted to Kidnap One of the Obamas’ Dogs
The New York Times Thinks Its Readers Should Visit CityCenterDC. We Agree!
More from News
Washingtonian Today: Once Again, Stormy
Johnny Mathis Is Performing in Georgetown to Support Children Who Are “Lost in the System”
Your Guide to Georgetown Right Now
How Sweetgreen Got its Start in Georgetown