The New York Times October 16, 2004 (available on lexis.com)

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, testified on Friday to a federal grand jury investigating whether it was anyone at the White House who had illegally disclosed the name of a C.I.A. undercover officer to a newspaper columnist, a lawyer for Mr. Rove said. ''He answered fully and truthfully every one of their questions,'' the lawyer, Robert Luskin, said.

Mr. Luskin added that Mr. Rove, who testified for more than two hours, did not seek to avoid answering any question on legal grounds.

NewsAmerica Now reports that MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell says Rove was the Plame leaker. Daily Kos has the transcript [hat tip America Blog]:

Bump and Update: Time Magazine will turn over the notes of reporter Matthew Cooper sought by the Government in the Valerie Plame grand jury investigation. Cooper will avoid going to jail. No word yet on Judith Miller, who has said she'd go to jail rather than comply.

More details at Bloomberg News. The Wall Street Journal (free link) provides analysis.

Update: Atrios:

When it comes to defending the supposed principles they were fighting for, this seems like a rather bad outcome. The whole point was that to protect the freedom of the press you had to protect the identity of confidential sources. From this perspective Time taints their entire publication -- you can't rely on anyone working for that magazine to protect their sources because the publishers/editors will sell out all of their journalist's sources.

A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow for reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper to determine when and if they have to report to jail.

[U.S. District Court Judge Thomas] Hogan is expected to reaffirm his original order, which would mean the reporters could be in jail as early as this week. Miller declined to comment on the case itself, other than to say she was disappointed at the high court's decision.

Judith Miller has launched a website to publicize her case.

Time said today that Cooper is deciding whether to turn over the requested docments and avoid jail:

While New York Times officials have maintained that Miller will not reveal the source who leaked to her the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, a source close to Time Inc. told E&P that the company is considering handing over documents that would reveal the source. Cooper declined to comment.

My prediction from before the decision was handed down stands: Miller will do the time standing on her head (parlance for without a problem) while Cooper will fold to avoid jail.

I'm going to weigh in here with Roxanne and Begging to Differ over the strange Washington Monthly post supporting Time Reporter Matthew Cooper and not mentioning Judith Miller.

The Washington Monthly could have, but didn't, distinguish between Cooper and Miller's cases. There is a factual difference between the two: This was Cooper's second subpoena and he complied with the first one. Also, Miller never actually wrote an article about Valerie Plame. She may have just been researching the story. Or, maybe, as I posited here, she wasn't really researching or working on a story, and just got the info gratis as gossip.

Even though it was a losing argument legally, it could be a reason to suggest that only Cooper doesn't deserve to go to jail. But the Washington Monthly doesn't say anything to distinguish the cases to justify its support for only one reporter.

Via Scotus Blog:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside pleas by two reporters and a magazine urging the Justices to create, for the first time, a right not to be forced to reveal to the government their confidential news sources. The action means that, at least for the time being, the Constitution and federal common law do not recognize a “reporter’s privilege” of confidentiality. (The Court denied review in Miller v. U.S., 04-1507, Cooper and Time Magazine v. U.S., 04-1508.)

News coverage here.

Raw Story reports the wiggle room gets smaller as a Judge finds Tom DeLay's aide committed campaign finance violations.

Time Reporter Matthew Cooper, appealing the civil contempt of court ruling against him in the Valerie Plame investigation for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena asking for information about his sources, has hired a new lawyer - ultra-conservative, former Solicitor General Ted Olson. New York Times reporter Judith Miller is staying with First Amendment guru Floyd Abrams.

Why the switch? The reporters' case is about to be filed in the Supreme Court. Time and Cooper may think the Court is more likely to agree to hear the case if Olson is on board. The reporters lost in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, so the Supreme Court is the only thing standing between them and a jail cell - unless they decide to cough up the information sought by the Government.

On Thursday, House Democrats serving on an Intelligence committee wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales inquiring about the status of the Valerie Plame investigation and seeking an explanation for the lack of Indictments.[Via Buzzflash.]

The Democrats' letter noted that Fitzgerald wrote in March court filings that the factual investigation "was for all practical purposes" completed in October, yet no charges were filed.

"Nearly two years have elapsed, and nobody has been held accountable for this serious violation of law," the Democrats said in a letter to the attorney general, adding that they were "writing to express our grave concern."

In addition, the letter asked that Gonzales appear before the committee to provide a briefing. Gonalez answered on Friday with this non-response:

Murray Waas at American Prospect reports that the investigation into who leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame may be over. Eric Alterman says at Altercation:

It’s hard not to conclude Novak has turned state’s evidence—or possibly taken the Fifth- and won’t admit it. Otherwise, this Mr. Fitzgerald is simply crazy.

As I see it, Eric's got his finger on the unanswered questions.

• Did Novak get a subpoena? Did he take the 5th? Was he immunized and did he sing? Or, has special prosecutor Fitzgerald been dragging his feet in seeking an immunity order for Novak while he exhausts all other avenues? Who does Fitzgerald have in his cross-hairs besides Libby, who has waived all confidentiality privileges?

by TChris

The law is all about competing policies, and the competition is fierce when the need for a free and unfettered press clashes with the desire to solve (or defend against) a crime. Journalists frequently have information that would benefit either the government or the defense in a criminal case. When they assert a privilege to avoid becoming a witness, they may circumvent a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to compel testimony, just as they may defeat the government's ability to haul witnesses before grand juries. Striking a balance between a journalist's need to protect sources (to assure that other sources will divulge hidden truths without fear of reprisal) and the legal system's need for witnesses is a difficult task.

Yesterday, TalkLeft pondered the unanswered questions in the ruling that denied New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time Reporter Matthew Cooper the privilege to conceal the identities of the persons who talked to them about Valerie Plame's employment as a CIA operative. Today, some who think the court got it wrong are calling upon Congress to legislate a shield against the compelled testimony of reporters. Many states have laws that recognize at least some protection for a journalist's privilege not to burn a source.

Bump and Update: Here are some issues that appear to remain despite the Court's ruling. Does anyone have answers or know if these are even valid questions?

• Why did Judith Miller tonight make a big deal out her lawyer's lack of ability to get grand jury reports that could establish whether Valerie Plame fit the definition of a CIA undercover officer? That's what she appeared to say on Greta's On the Record, although she didn't mention Plame's name. Is it because (1) If Plame didn't fit the legal definition, then no crime was committed by the white house official when he disclosed her identity, and (2) since the grand jury investigates crime, if no crime was committed by the leak of her identity, then there is no justification for the grand jury to seek the information from Miller?

• Did Novak get a subpoena? Did he take the 5th? Was he immunized and did he sing? Or, has special prosecutor Fitzgerald been dragging his feet in seeking an immunity order for Novak while he exhausts all other avenues? Who does Fitzgerald have in his cross-hairs besides Libby, who has waived all confidentiality privileges?

The New York Times profiles columnist Robert Novak and recaps the investigation into who leaked the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.