Last week I posted that the New York Times ran crying to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for help in order to keep Patrick Fitzgerald from reviewing phone records that could implicate two of their reporters for tipping off Islamic charities under investigation for funding terror of FBI raids.
Today we learn that the Supreme Court said not a chance:
The United States Supreme Court refused today to stop a federal prosecutor from reviewing the telephone records of two reporters for The New York Times. The records, the paper said, include information about many of the reporters' confidential sources.
In a one-sentence order offering no reasoning and noting no dissenting votes, the Supreme Court rejected a request from The Times to stay a lower court's decision while the paper tried to persuade the high court to review the case.Today's order effectively allows the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, to begin reviewing the records, which he has already obtained from phone companies, as early as this week.
The Justice Department told the Supreme Court on Friday that Mr. Fitzgerald is under enormous time pressure. "The statute of limitations," the government said, "will imminently expire on December 3 and 13, 2006, on certain substantive offenses that the grand jury is investigating."
The New York Times' attempt to run out the clock didn't work. Michelle Malkin put it best this way:
Message to blabbermouths: You are not above the law, no matter how ostentatiously you wrap yourselves in the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court, without noted dissent, refused on Monday to block the forced disclosure to federal investigators of telephone records of two New York Times reporters. Those records are being sought by a federal grand jury in an investigation of a suspected leak about freezing of the assets of two Islamic charities soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
One can only hope that this ruling will make the NY Times and other MSM sources think twice before revealing classified information and tipping off terror-funding front groups.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Law, Media, Supreme Court
Comments (20)
One can only hope ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Old Coot | November 27, 2006 9:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
They may think twice or even three times, but then they will do what they are programmed to do: give aid and comfort to America's enemies. Damn them all.
1. Posted by Old Coot | November 27, 2006 9:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 21:52
2. Posted by Brian | November 27, 2006 10:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course, you will conveniently forget this unanimous ruling next time you find it expedient to label liberal judges as "activist".
2. Posted by Brian | November 27, 2006 10:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 22:05
3. Posted by Justrand | November 27, 2006 10:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
brian: "Of course, you will conveniently forget this unanimous ruling next time you find it expedient to label liberal judges as "activist"."
Yup. Even a blind dog finds a bone once in a while.
Plus, Justice Roberts DOES have some sway...eh?
3. Posted by Justrand | November 27, 2006 10:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 22:18
4. Posted by cubanbob | November 27, 2006 10:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Kim don't hold your breath, it's their nature they can't help themselves. As for the supreme court, don't count your chickens till they hatch. It's obvious they did not want to appear as they were interfering with the special prosecutor. Lets see what happens after the 13th before we make snap judgments. I have a feeling this matter will be coming back to the court.
4. Posted by cubanbob | November 27, 2006 10:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 22:29
5. Posted by John | November 27, 2006 10:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
My god, Kim you are such a liar....
I clicked your links to read your background, and the story is NOT at all what you state. Before you know it, you'll have poor Scapiron worked up.
You state;
"Last week I posted that the New York Times ran crying to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for help in order to keep Patrick Fitzgerald from reviewing phone records that could implicate two of their reporters for tipping off Islamic charities under investigation for funding terror of FBI raids."
The New York Times article you link to says nothing of the sort. It states;
"The case arose from a Chicago grand jury's investigation into who told the two reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions the government was planning to take in 2001 against two Islamic charities."
The Times reporters did NOT tip off Islamic charities. The Times reporters received information from confidential sources.
Aren't their enough serious issues to report on, without making up bogus reports based on lies? Have you no shame?
Would you care to explain this?
5. Posted by John | November 27, 2006 10:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 22:32
6. Posted by jhow66 | November 27, 2006 10:47 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How do explain anything to an idiot such as thee johnie (crapper)?
6. Posted by jhow66 | November 27, 2006 10:47 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 22:47
7. Posted by jpm100 | November 27, 2006 11:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Piece of advice for john. Try the NYT link from the earlier Wizbang Article Kim linked to.
7. Posted by jpm100 | November 27, 2006 11:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 23:09
8. Posted by GeminiChuck | November 27, 2006 11:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
John - Wouldnt it be prudent to at least wait for the grand jury to decide if there is evidence of wrongdoing before claiming its "all lies"? Or perhaps you lefties dont trust grand juries ever since one wouldnt indict Karl Rove . . .
GC
8. Posted by GeminiChuck | November 27, 2006 11:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 23:33
9. Posted by Wanderlust | November 27, 2006 11:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So does this situation qualify as "Merry Fitzmas"?
9. Posted by Wanderlust | November 27, 2006 11:34 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 23:34
10. Posted by Kimberly | November 27, 2006 11:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Moonbat Judy Miller may get her 2nd trip to prison. This time her boyfriend Scooter won't be able to help her.
10. Posted by Kimberly | November 27, 2006 11:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 23:51
11. Posted by John | November 27, 2006 11:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Piece of advice Jpm100? Check the link yourself. That's where I got the second quote.
Damn, you guys are lazy.
11. Posted by John | November 27, 2006 11:59 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 27, 2006 23:59
12. Posted by jbunn | November 28, 2006 12:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
GeminiChuck,
I'm not suggesting that the Times lost it's supreme court challenge.
Please reread my post. I'm saying that Kim Priestap's article that anchors this thread is based on a lie - That the Times reporters tiped off Islamic charities.
12. Posted by jbunn | November 28, 2006 12:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 00:45
13. Posted by Baggi | November 28, 2006 2:02 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
John, perhaps you are the lazy one?
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.
13. Posted by Baggi | November 28, 2006 2:02 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 02:02
14. Posted by jpm100 | November 28, 2006 5:45 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Our best hope is that in the future John adopts a more unique moniker to make it easier to completely ignore his BS posts in the future.
14. Posted by jpm100 | November 28, 2006 5:45 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 05:45
15. Posted by _Mike_ | November 28, 2006 8:11 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I see someone's making a run for the most moronic poster (John).
15. Posted by _Mike_ | November 28, 2006 8:11 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 08:11
16. Posted by marc | November 28, 2006 9:44 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
John, EBay has a posting for Blog Monikers. Highest bid at the moment is 5 cents. (per gross)
If you hurry you can pick up a new name while this thread is still relevant and post as a "new fool" vice the old one.
16. Posted by marc | November 28, 2006 9:44 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 09:44
17. Posted by spurwing plover | November 28, 2006 10:40 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Looks like the New York Sewer is paying the price for its being americas version of PRAVDA and i hope they lose more readers over this
17. Posted by spurwing plover | November 28, 2006 10:40 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 10:40
18. Posted by nikkolai | November 28, 2006 10:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Let's all hope that Pinchy runs that ol' rag into the ground so fast (and he's trying really hard) that they will not be able to conduct seditious behavior much longer. The "old grey lady" is now officially a disgrace. Oh, wait a minute...thy've been a disgrace since Walter Durranty.
18. Posted by nikkolai | November 28, 2006 10:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 10:49
19. Posted by ke_future | November 28, 2006 2:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
brian, i'm not sure why you think that this is an activist ruling. could you explain exactly how you come to that conclusion.
or is it only activist when the ruling is not what you want? as far as i can tell, that is your only criteria
19. Posted by ke_future | November 28, 2006 2:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 14:32
20. Posted by Brian | November 28, 2006 6:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ke, you misread my post. No, I don't think this is an "activist" ruling. I don't even buy into that whole "activist judge" BS.
or is it only activist when the ruling is not what you want? as far as i can tell, that is your only criteria
That was my point, directed at Kim. This thread celebrates a unanimous SCOTUS ruling. But the next time there's a ruling the right simply disagrees with, it will be cries of "activist judges!!!" all over again.
20. Posted by Brian | November 28, 2006 6:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 28, 2006 18:27