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
See a Spotted Lanternfly? Here’s What to Do.
Meet DC’s 2025 Tech Titans
What Happens After We Die? These UVA Researchers Are Investigating It.
GOP Candidate Quits Virginia Race After Losing Federal Contracting Job, Trump Plans Crackdown on Left Following Kirk’s Death, and Theatre Week Starts Thursday
USDA Spent $16,400 on Banners to Honor Trump and Lincoln
Washingtonian Magazine
September Issue: Style Setters
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
Why Can You Swim in the Seine but Not the Potomac River?
This DC Woman Might Owe You Money
Why a Lost DC Novel Is Getting New Attention
These Confusing Bands Aren’t Actually From DC
More from News & Politics
How to Pick a Good Title-and-Settlement Company in the DC Area
Weird Press Conference Ends Trump’s Vacation From Offering Medical Advice, Kimmel Goes Back to Work Tonight, and DC Man Arrested for Shining Laser Pointer at Marine One
Why Can You Swim in the Seine but Not the Potomac River?
Nominations Are Now Open for 500 Most Influential People List
Trump and Musk Reunite, Administration Will Claim Link Between Tylenol and Autism, and Foo Fighters Play Surprise Show in DC
This DC Woman Might Owe You Money
A New Exhibition Near the White House Takes a High-Tech Approach to a Fundamental Question: What Is the American Dream?
Want to See What Could Be Ovechkin’s Last Game in DC? It’s Going to Cost You.