VPW - Something I Bet You Did Not Know

From a seemingly unrelated story, here is an intriguing tidbit about Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel grappling with Plame leak investigation:

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a Chicago special prosecutor appointed to investigate government leaks, asked the Times in August 2002 and again in July to produce Shenon and Miller for interviews and to produce records of their calls, the lawsuit said.

August 2002 precedes the Valerie Plame leak investigation.

So, did we know this about Fitzgerald when he was appointed to handle the Plame case? These two early stories say nothing about his other leak investigations. And do we care?

My quick reaction is that we do care, because other reporters are getting subpoenas out of his office on seemingly unrelated matters, and it would be helpful to know that they are unrelated to the Plame investigation. But don't ask me to articulate this - I am just tossing it out there for now.

Developing...

UPDATE: I bet you DID know this, if you read the Wapo from Sept 10.

Comments

[jeanneB]

This article sheds a little more light on the subject:
TIMESMAN TIPPED OFF TERROR CHARITY: FEDS
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/29392.htm

[TM]

Thanks very much (and it looks like I lose my bet). I had noticed the charity investigation, because Judith Miller is involved in that and the Plame thing. But I had not grasped the timing in the article I read.

[The Kid]

Safire is on Fitzgerald’s case this morning. Safire’s anecdote-laden, unlawyered take is that that the press, by caving in to Fitzgerald’s demands, is abetting his end run around the First and Fifth Amendments.

After questioning possible government sources right up to the president, the frustrated Fitzgerald went after the press with a vengeance and a blunderbuss. He demanded testimony in breach of confidentiality from Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler, NBC's Tim Russert, and presumably Novak, who has been ethically tight-lipped.

Most of the reporters and their corporate counsel, unfortunately, have fallen for the prosecutor's trick. (I'd hate to be counseled by a weak-kneed Time Inc. lawyer.) Fitzgerald has coerced potential government sources into signing waivers of confidentiality, backed up by dutiful "nothing to hide" statements. He tells the journalists: See? You have been released from your pledge - now you have no reason not to tell us who talked to you on deep background.
[SNIP]
Feeling his oats, confident of his power to threaten reporters with jail for contempt, Fitzgerald is harassing The Times's intrepid Judith Miller with a subpoena, reportedly in an unrelated case about her investigation of an Islamic charity aiding terrorists. Unlike most of the other reporters, this principled journalist is risking her freedom and defending us all by fighting the subversive subpoena. The Times has retained Floyd Abrams, no pushover, to argue for her right to protect her sources.

Is Safire arguing for a free and irresponsible press? In his view is it fine and dandy for reporters to pump official sources for information, then use that information to warn targets of criminal investigations?

[Greg F]

Safire is an idiot. His whole argument is based on a arrogant belief that "testimony in breach of confidentiality" is some sort of journalistic right.

[Cecil Turner]

Yep. Time for a Wilford Brimley quote: "That’s bulls***, Counselor. The First Amendment don’t say that, the privilege don't exist!"