See: Eric Holder Faces Another Bid for a Journalist to Testify
It was the closest I could get to the scrubbed piece in my Saturday print.
"Reporter’s testimony sought in leak trial, but not name of source" by Matthew Barakat, Associated Press December 17, 2014
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A New York Times reporter will be subpoenaed to answer questions ahead of an upcoming trial of a former CIA officer accused of leaking classified information, though a Tuesday hearing indicated there is much confusion about what the journalist may be asked to reveal.
Prosecutors say they will not ask James Risen whether former CIA man Jeffrey Sterling was his anonymous source for part of the 2006 book ‘‘State Of War’’ that detailed a botched CIA effort to cripple Iran’s nuclear program. However, they do want to know if the two had a prior, on-the-record source relationship.
NSA would know, wouldn't they?
Risen’s lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, said at Tuesday’s hearing that he is not sure whether his client is willing to answer the questions that prosecutors want to pose.
Furthermore, defense lawyers indicated they may also have their own questions, which puts Risen at risk of being found in contempt of court if he refuses to answer.
I don't normally back up the ma$$ media, but not even Nixon dreamed of this.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered that a moot hearing of sorts will be held next month, ahead of Sterling’s trial, to test what questions will be asked, what Risen will answer, and what questions the judge will deem relevant.
Brinkema said Risen will be subpoenaed and required to attend the January hearing.
Risen has been unwilling to testify in the case about anything but most basic facts — like confirming that he is the author of the book and that he stands by its reporting — saying he made a commitment to his sources to protect their anonymity.
Then I will give them an interview.
A federal appeals court in Richmond ordered that Risen can be compelled to testify just like any other citizen, and that his role as a journalist does not shield him from a subpoena.
The appellate court overruled Brinkema, who had been willing to quash most of what prosecutors sought from Risen.
Last week, it appeared that Risen had won a major victory when numerous press outlets reported that the Justice Department had agreed it would not compel Risen to testify about his anonymous source.
On Tuesday, though, as prosecutors detailed what they would seek from Risen, it was unclear whether Risen would agree to the limitations.
And it became equally clear that Risen may have as much to fear, if not more, from defense lawyers, who would be free to cross-examine Risen and could even seek to subpoena him themselves.
--more--"
Related: The journalist and the source
Yeah, consider the source....