NYT's Risen pushes back in hearing on leaks

The Obama administration’s plan to defuse a First Amendment showdown with a New York Times reporter over his confidential sources was nearly derailed at a court hearing Monday when the journalist rebuffed a series of questions concerning his reporting.

But he eventually agreed to answer some of the queries, allowing the at-times tense session to get back on track and avoiding for now a major confrontation over press freedom.


Times national security writer James Risen testified for about 45 minutes in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, where ex-CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling is set to go on trial next week on charges of leaking top-secret information that Risen published in his 2006 book “State of War.”

U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema called the pretrial hearing to determine, outside the presence of the jury, what Risen would and would not be willing to testify about in connection with Sterling’s trial.

Prosecutors, acting on orders from Attorney General Eric Holder, had already agreed not to ask Risen to identify his sources for his reporting in the book on “Operation Merlin,” a Central Intelligence Agency program aimed at undermining Iran’s nuclear program.

However, the prosecution did want Risen to testify about some basic facts relating to his reporting for the book and newspaper articles. Risen at first resisted confirming statements he’d made in previous court filings about confidentiality agreements he had with his sources and even whether he’d talked to Sterling for a 2002 article that quoted him by name.

But after Brinkema called a quick break and reminded Risen that he’d already discussed those points in submissions provided “under the penalty of perjury,” he returned to court somewhat more cooperative with prosecutors.

Risen eventually confirmed the accuracy of his prior statements.

At times, the distinctions between what the journalist would say and what he would not seemed Talmudic. However, he appeared unwilling to discuss the specifics of any agreements he had with any sources.

“As I said in my 2011 affidavit, I have used unnamed and identified sources,” Risen said under questioning by prosecutor James Trump. “When my reporting in articles or a book describes reporting gathered from unnamed sources, I had unnamed sources.”

When Trump asked Risen directly if he had confidentiality agreements with sources for the key chapter in “State of War,” the journalist simply repeated that some information came from “unidentified” sources and some from “identified” sources.

“Do you understand the question I’m asking you, sir?” Trump said brusquely, his hands shaking the legal papers he was holding at the lectern.

“I do,” Risen replied, only to repeat the same formulation for a fourth time.

At one point, Brinkema interrupted the back-and-forth between Risen and Trump in which the reporter repeatedly gave vague answers. She declared with some frustration: “It’s a simple question. … Either you had confidentiality agreements [with your sources] or you don’t.”

Risen said he didn’t interpret the question that way, and repeated much of his previous answers that some of his sources were “unidentified” and some were “identified.”

When Trump pressed Risen about whether a 2002 article contained information provided by Sterling on a nonconfidential basis, the journalist demurred.

“I decline to answer that question,” Risen said. “I don’t want to provide information that the government wants to use for a building block for a larger mosaic in this case.”

Sterling, who is free on bail pending trial, sat stoically alongside his attorneys Monday as Risen testified.

Risen did eventually confirm that the information in his book was an accurate description of what named or unnamed sources had told him. And the journalist also confirmed he’d talked to Sterling for the 2002 story, which was about a racial discrimination lawsuit the African-American CIA officer filed against the agency.

“I accurately quoted the identified sources in the story,” Risen said.

“And one of those sources is Mr. Sterling?” Trump asked.

“Yes,” Risen replied, confirming he’d had some dealings with the defendant facing 10 felony counts.

Sterling’s lawyer Edward MacMahon said Monday that he planned to ask that the case against his client be dismissed. Without more testimony from Risen, such as the location and times when he got certain classified information, the government could not meet its burden to prove the ex-CIA officer guilty, the defense lawyer argued.

It’s unclear how Brinkema will rule, but her earlier rulings have suggested she believes the government has a reasonable chance of proving its case without Risen identifying his sources or providing the missing details noted by the defense lawyer.

The judge said it would now be up to either side to decide whether it wishes to call Risen at Sterling’s trial, for which jury selection is slated to begin next Monday.