ABC correspondent and former CNNer Pierre Thomas has filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Thomas and several print reporters were subpoenaed in a Privacy Act lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by Wen Ho Lee. In a memo to CNN staffers on Thursday, Jim Walton explained that CNN is paying Ted Olsen to file a separate petition for Thomas.
(Lee “sued the government for leaking private information about him to the press, and issued a subpoena to Pierre demanding that Pierre disclose the sources of the reporting he did while at CNN, in which Pierre reported that law enforcement was looking into whether Lee illegally downloaded classified information onto a non-secure computer.”)
Thomas is now at ABC, but CNN has been handling his defense for over two years because he was at the cable net at the time. “After many setbacks in the lower courts, we collectively decided to separate Pierre from the other subpoenaed reporters to ask for review of his case by the Supreme Court, because we felt that it was important that his case be considered solely on the basis of the facts that applied to him. It appeared that he suffered by being lumped in with the other reporters as the facts of his case weren’t being given the appropriate consideration,” Walton wrote.
He said the filing is a “substantial additional cost to CNN.” But he believes it will be worth it: “In contrast to the Valerie Plame case, Pierre’s case is not infected with partisan politics and it presents possibly the most favorable fact scenario for the Supreme Court to rule on whether there is a privilege that will protect not just CNN, but all journalists. That is why we felt is was both strategically necessary and financially worth it to go it alone with a separate filing on behalf of Pierre. If we succeed, the payoff will be immeasurable for everyone in the journalism community.”
The full memo is after the jump…
March 30, 2006
To: Staff
>From : Jim Walton
I wanted to share with you some background information about the petition for certiorari our former colleague Pierre Thomas filed with the Supreme Court in the Wen Ho Lee case. For those of you who are not familiar with this case, Pierre, along with reporters from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the AP, was subpoenaed in a Privacy Act lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by Wen Ho Lee. Lee was accused of stealing nuclear secrets at the Los Alamos nuclear research facility. Ultimately, a deal was reached where all charges but one were dropped. Lee pled guilty to illegally downloading classified information onto a non-secure computer. Lee then sued the government for leaking private information about him to the press, and issued a subpoena to Pierre demanding that Pierre disclose the sources of the reporting he did while at CNN, in which Pierre reported that law enforcement was looking into whether Lee illegally downloaded classified information onto a non-secure computer.
Even though Pierre is now at ABC, CNN has handled Pierre’s defense in this case. On his behalf, we hired a well-respected media lawyer in Washington. They have been fighting the subpoena, and the orders requiring Pierre to testify, for almost 2 years.
After many setbacks in the lower courts, we collectively decided to separate Pierre from the other subpoenaed reporters to ask for review of his case by the Supreme Court, because we felt that it was important that his case be considered solely on the basis of the facts that applied to him. It appeared that he suffered by being lumped in with the other reporters as the facts of his case weren’t being given the appropriate consideration. To do this, we hired Ted Olsen, one of the county’s most respected Supreme Court experts, to file a separate petition solely on behalf of Pierre.
The decision to file with the Supreme Court came at a substantial additional cost to CNN, above the already-significant time and resources we have invested in this case. Although the effort has been and will continue to be expensive, we believe it is worth it. In contrast to the Valerie Plame case, Pierre’s case is not infected with partisan politics and it presents possibly the most favorable fact scenario for the Supreme Court to rule on whether there is a privilege that will protect not just CNN, but all journalists. That is why we felt is was both strategically necessary and financially worth it to go it alone with a separate filing on behalf of Pierre. If we succeed, the payoff will be immeasurable for everyone in the journalism community. It is encouraging that reporters are beginning to take note that there is something different about Pierre’s case and that it may be all journalists’ best shot at success for the foreseeable future. That is why I am proud that CNN is quietly taking the lead in seeing that we put forth our best effort at success.
Thank you for your support and interest on this very important issue.”