Dave Howe <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class
an "ordinary" person could not defy? Why not? while Miller could well be prosecuted for revealing the identity, had she done so - she didn't. Why should *anyone* be jailed for failing to reveal who they had talked to in confidence? I am all in favour of people being
Gil Hamilton wrote: that tried for their actions, but not for thoughtcrimes.
Miller wasn't prosecuted. She was not charged with a crime. She was not in danger of being charged if she had "revealed the identity". She was jailed for contempt of court for obstructing a grand jury investigation by refusing to testify. Perhaps no one should be required to testify but current law here is that when subpoenaed by a grand jury investigating a possible crime, one is obliged to answer their questions except in a small number of exceptional circumstances (self-incrimination would be one example). Miller is seeking to be placed above the law that applies to the rest of us.
And yet Novak is the one who purportedly committed a crime - revealing the identity of an agent and thus endangering them. So the actual crime (of revealing) isn't important, but talking to a reporter is?
You're confused. AFAIK, no one has suggested that Novak commited a crime in this case. The "actual crime (of revealing)" is what the grand jury was attempting to investigate; Miller was jailed for obstructing that investigation. GH _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/