- McDonald nomination unanimously referred to full Senate
- Chuck Norris honorary chairman of NRA voter registration campaign
- GOP outraged Obamacare investigators able to get coverage with fake IDs
- Family removed from Southwest flight over tweet about rude agent, dad says
- Michael Bloomberg thumbs FAA ban, plots course to Israel
- California bans full-contact football practices in off-season
- Thune: Downed fighter jets show more evidence of separatist capabilities
- Obama tells DNC fundraising crowd: ‘I’m not overly partisan’
- Chambliss: Downed jet ultimately goes back to Putin
- Perdue strategy: Run against Reid, Obama, Pelosi
Times reporter to testify in federal court
Question of the Day
Bill Gertz, national security reporter for The Washington Times, will appear in federal court Thursday in California to answer questions about the need to protect confidential sources in news stories.
In May, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney initially ordered Mr. Gertz to appear in his Santa Ana, Calif., courtroom to reveal the identity of unnamed sources he included in a story about a Chinese spy ring in California.
The story, “New charges expected in defense data theft ring,” appeared in The Times on May 16, 2006.
Mr. Gertz quoted unnamed government officials as saying that senior Justice Department officials approved an indictment against Chi Mak, an engineer who worked for Power Paragon, an American defense contractor, charging him with conspiracy and “unlawful export of defense articles.” Four of his relatives would also be charged, the story said.
Defense lawyers in the case objected to Mr. Gertz’s account, asserting in their motion that the government violated the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which bars federal officials from giving information about grand jury proceedings to outsiders.
Judge Carney ordered a wide-ranging criminal investigation to determine who leaked information to the journalist.
Mr. Gertz’s attorneys, Washington-based lawyers Allen Farber and Charles Leeper, filed a motion June 5 to quash the subpoena.
“Disclosure of a mere expectation that prosecutors will add charges does not necessarily implicate the grand jury process. The discussion of information about a government investigation, even if that investigation leads to grand jury proceedings, does not violate Rule 6(e),” the motion stated.
Judge Carney said in a response Monday, “The court gathers from Mr. Gertz’s brief in support of his motion to quash that he may be unwilling to disclose the identity of the source(s).”
“Regardless of whether Mr. Gertz discloses his sources, the court expects Mr. Gertz to be prepared to testify regarding the newsworthiness of this case and, more particularly, the reasons why maintaining the confidentiality of his sources is critical to his ability to engage in investigative reporting.”
Mak was convicted last May of being an unregistered foreign agent who conspired to export sensitive details about American military technology to the People’s Republic of China. Four relatives, including his wife, Rebecca Chiu, have pleaded guilty to similar charges.
Judge Carney on March 24 sentenced Mak to 24 years in prison.
The espionage case and Mr. Gertz’s reporting have been followed by the New York Sun, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers, along with the Reporter’s Committee for the Freedom of the Press, a Virginia advocacy group.
“We remain hopeful the court will closely examine the merits of Bill’s motion to quash. That motion clearly demonstrates that forcing Bill to testify would be an enormous infringement of his First Amendment rights and would have a chilling effect on future government officials’ willingness to come forward and divulge the sort of national security concerns that Bill has made a career of exposing - always to the benefit of the American people,” said John Solomon, executive editor of The Washington Times.
“Secondly, the motion raises compelling questions about whether the information Bill published amounts to a prohibited grand jury leak. The motion recounts how various courts of appeal have concluded that news reports predicting future action by a grand jury do not constitute 6(e) violations.
About the Author
- It's grim: 911 Commission warns terrorism has entered 'a new and dangerous phase'
- Rick Perry: County jails in Texas have taken in 203,000 'criminal aliens'
- Inside the Beltway: The evolving White House deflection strategy
- Inside the Beltway: White House fundraising — never a dull moment
- Poll: 81 percent of U.S. voters believe Russia 'involved' in downed Malaysian airliner
Latest Blog Entries
- A startling 20 percent of Democratic lawmakers already endorse Hillary Clinton for president
- Hey food police: calling obesity a 'disease' is actually a health risk
- Cheese and an 'enhanced experience': White House goes showbiz on the State of the Union address
- Cruz calls it a 'circus': the State of the Union spectacle begins
- Half of American fans say God and 'supernatural' forces are in play during sports events
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- Two Ukrainian fighter jets shot down
- HURT: The cost of 'free' water in Detroit
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq