Blabbermouth case update: NYT off the hook?

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 14, 2006 10:25 AM

Hmmm, this doesn’t sound good (via NYSun’s Josh Gerstein):

A key legal deadline has passed, raising doubts about whether criminal charges will ever be filed in an investigation of leaks to the New York Times about planned federal raids on Islamic charities in America.

The statute of limitations pertaining to the latest of the leaks, which took place in December 2001, was to expire yesterday, according to court filings last month by the prosecutor overseeing the case, Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago.

A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, said yesterday that he planned no announcements regarding the leak case. He declined to confirm whether the investigation had concluded.

The probe triggered a protracted legal clash that reached all the way to the Supreme Court, after Mr. Fitzgerald attempted to review the telephone records of two Times reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, in an attempt to determine who told them about plans to seize the charities over alleged links to terrorism. The newspaper vigorously resisted, claiming that the effort to track the calls was an intrusion on the First Amendment…

Will there be no consequences once again for the blabbermouth media?

***
Previous:

Blabbermouth NYT: Help! Help! Help!
Supreme Court to NYTimes: Buzz off
Terrorist-tipping NYTimes wants Ruth Ginsburg’s help
Blabbermouth damage, again
When blabbermouths lie: question the timing
The newspaper of wreckage
How about a nice big glass of…
The terrorist-tipping Times
More blabbermouth posters
Messages for the blabbermouths
Backlash against the blabbermouths
NYTimes blabbermouths strike again

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: Blabbermouths

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments


  1. #1
    On December 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am, ricnrolle said:

    As I mentioned in another comment, where is the ire about the leakers. The Times gets their info from someone. Should we not be angrier at them?

You must be logged in to post a comment.


The suicide stunts at Gitmo revisited

April 25, 2011 10:12 AM by Michelle Malkin

117 Comments

CNN reports. You run for cover. Update: WalesOnline withdraws story

December 1, 2008 05:02 AM by Michelle Malkin

77 Comments

Blabbermouths.

The New York Times reveals the name of KSM’s interrogator, over the CIA’s wishes

June 22, 2008 10:22 AM by see-dubya

86 Comments

Here’s how the Times says “thanks for your service…”

Cop tipped terror suspect that the FBI was investigating him, gets probation

April 23, 2008 06:08 PM by see-dubya

62 Comments

Ow, my wrist! That stings!

America, 1. ACLU, 0.

February 19, 2008 10:28 AM by Michelle Malkin

77 Comments

Supreme Court ruling supports domestic terrorism surveillance.

White House threatens media crackdown

June 20, 2007 12:06 PM by Michelle Malkin

4 Comments

Journalists get a warning: Leaking will be swiftly punished. Unfortunately, it’s not what you think…

The NYTimes’ unspeakable violation

February 1, 2007 12:05 PM by Michelle Malkin

0 Comments


Categories: Blabbermouths

Redstate

» Media Matters
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook