BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Showdown for Reporters in Wen Ho Lee Case
Email
Print
ShareMay 29, 2006 1:14 PM
Unless there is a last minute settlement, the Supreme Court is expected to decide today whether contempt orders against four prominent reporters, including Pierre Thomas of ABC News, should stay in place if they continue to refuse to name their confidential sources in a civil lawsuit brought against the government by nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee.
Legal experts say if the Supreme Court rules against the reporters, they may be forced to consider a cash payout to Lee as the only way to protect their confidential sources and avoid penalties which could include jail.
Efforts by the government and the media companies to settle the case out of court were reported to be continuing over the Memorial Day weekend.
The Supreme Court delayed a decision last week when Lee’s lawyers, in a letter to the court, said a settlement “may be imminent.”
Lawyers said the settlement talks are bogged down and complicated by the reluctance of some parties to settle.
If the court rules against the reporters by refusing to hear the appeal of a lower court decision, Lee’s lawyers may demand a larger settlement from the media companies.
The reporters includes James Risen of the New York Times, H. Josef Hebert of the Associated Press, Bob Drogin of the Los Angles Times and ABC News’ Thomas, who worked for CNN at the time he filed his Lee stories.
Lee alleges the government violated his privacy rights by giving reporters information about an espionage investigation of him.
Lee was never charged with espionage and later pleaded guilty to one count of improperly downloading classified information.
May 29, 2006 in Wen Ho Lee | Permalink | User Comments (3)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Let's see:
Reporters and their employers are under legal threat. An innocent citizen, whose reputation and employability have deliberately been damaged, was under threat. They all will be paying lawyers for the rest of their lives.
However, the bad guys, in this story, the government, come off Scott free and make the tax payers, who include the above reporters, employers and innocent citizen pay for their deliberately unethical, and unprofessional acts.
This is the same scenario used in the CIA/Chaney/Libby leak case now underway.
It would be encouraging if the Courts would take a some steps toward discouraging a government that repeatedly abuses it own citizenry.
Posted by: Mararet Barton | May 30, 2006 7:58:28 AM
There are times when 'confidential sources' need to be coughed up, but I'd say most of the time don't even use them. In this age the public deserves to know exactly where news is coming from so we can do our own homework to check it's validity. It's a shame it has come to that.
Posted by: Jon | May 30, 2006 1:43:59 PM
What is this man smiling about?
Generally, it could be he had a great time at lunch.
Posted by: alfred lengly | Jun 2, 2006 1:02:06 AM
Post a comment
