DOJ’s News Media Policies Reserved the Authority to Force James Risen to Testify

James Risen’s lawyer, Joel Kurtzberg, argues that the News Media Policies released by DOJ last week mean his client should not have to testify in the Jeffrey Sterling case. (As I understand it, Michael Isikoff made a similar argument while moderating a panel including Eastern District of VA US Attorney Neil MacBride today too, though MacBride reportedly dodged any answer.) In a letter to the Fourth Circuit (which has been sitting on this decision for well over a year), he cites two paragraphs from the Policies — one affirming DOJ’s promise to access “member of the news media” materials only as a last resort, and another one calling for the “appropriate balance” between two competing interests of “protecting the American people” and “free press” — and then claims,

the standard that the DOJ now articulates in the report is the very same standard that the government argues should not be applied to Mr. Risen by the court in this case. The DOJ’s recent change in position is nothing less than an admission that the legal standard it asks this court to apply provides wholly inadequate protection for the interests at stake in this case.

Unfortunately, I think Kurtzberg misreads the way DOJ has specifically left Risen unprotected.

The first paragraph Kurtzberg cites ends,

The Department’s policy is to utilize such tools only as a last resort after all reasonable alternative investigative steps have been taken, and when the information sought is essential to a successful investigation or prosecution.

DOJ’s rules used to be interpreted to say sources would have to testify only if their testimony (or records) was necessary to identify their source or the content of the leak. This is the standard Leonie Brinkema used when she ruled Risen didn’t have to testimony because the government had already identified his source.

But with the language reserving the right to access journalist records or testimony if it is “essential to a successful prosecution,” DOJ has specifically reserved the right to do what they are doing in the Sterling case.

Indeed, their appeal of Brinkema’s decision argues that Risen must testify because it is crucial to the prosecution.

Risen is the only eyewitness to the crime and, as the recipient of the classified information at issue, he is inextricably linked to the criminal conduct. Risen’s testimony is the only direct evidence of Sterling’s guilt; no circumstantial evidence, or combination thereof, is as probative as Risen’s testimony or as certain to foreclose the possibility of reasonable doubt The information Risen can provide is therefore relevant and unavailable from other sources, and the government has demonstrated a compelling need for Risen’s testimony.

That is, even though DOJ has a slew of other evidence they say will prove Jeffrey Sterling was Risen’s source about a botched effort to deal Iran bad nuclear blueprints, they maintain Risen’s testimony is still irreplaceable for the trial.

They argue his testimony is “essential to a successful prosecution,” precisely one of the reservations DOJ included in their policies.

I’m not saying this is what the policy should be or that Risen’s testimony really is essential. I am saying DOJ seems to have included language that, according to them, at least, excludes Risen from protection.

I also am saying that journalists who celebrated these policies for their improvements in some areas have overestimated the degree to which DOJ really wants to change its approach to journalists involved in leak investigations.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

7 Responses to DOJ’s News Media Policies Reserved the Authority to Force James Risen to Testify

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @Pachacutec_ The mosquito effect is still rippling!
5mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Obama could've picked an AG nom to put DOJ back on track to propriety+fairness. Instead it's Lynch who wants to turn grandmas into snitches
6mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @bmaz But, but, she just said waterboarding is torture! ZOMG!!1!
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Loretta Lynch will provide all the worst parts of the Holder DOJ out of control prosecutorial zealotry with none of the progressive touches.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @markknoller: "Waterboarding is torture, Senator, and thus illegal," says Atty Gen nominee Loretta Lynch at confirmation hearing this mo…
10mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @LeslieMolony Maybe. But he certainly attracts them with how sloppy he is when eating. Even right after teeth get floated...
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz 12 Reasons Not to Trust Chuck Schumer http://t.co/UHzylFd7Tj Never forget the wise words of @Pachacutec_
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Pachacutec_ Was just gonna comment on that. You Incans are quite well preserved.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Has Goodell and his stooge Ted Wells gotten around to interviewing the NFL "ball checker official" who set the Patriots up?
16mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Pachacutec_ Heh, nice work then!
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Pachacutec_: @bmaz someone with access once told me he sputtered over a post of mine, who the hell is pacha... What IS that?
18mreplyretweetfavorite
July 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031