Milgram stands alone on journalist shield law
By Juan MelliWhat do 42 state attorneys general, U.S. Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and New Jersey's entire congressional delegation have in common?
Apparently, they all disagree with state Attorney General Anne Milgram on the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 2035, which would bring federal journalist "shield" law protections up to date with that of 49 other states plus the District of Columbia.
The legislation -- which already passed by 398 to 21 in the House -- would provide a check on government's power over the media by providing certain protections to journalists and their anonymous sources. The U.S.
Senate may consider the legislation when they return from summer recess.
The Justice Department is opposed to any kind of shield law, even though most of the current bill is modeled on its own guidelines. And Chicken Little Bush has vowed to veto the bill, claiming it "would produce immediate harm to national security and law enforcement." Is that really what he thinks 176 Republicans in the House voted for?
Beyond the niche hysteria from the president and his cronies, there is overwhelming support for the bill. A letter from the National Association of Attorneys General to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) encourages them to pass the measure, noting their experience with existing protections at the state level.
"As the states' chief legal officers, Attorneys General have had significant experience with the operation of these state-law privileges," the letter states. "That experience demonstrates that recognition of such a privilege does not unduly impair the task of law enforcement or unnecessarily interfere with the truth-seeking function of the courts."
The New Jersey Press Association has repeatedly asked Milgram to support the bill, but she has neither signed the letter nor otherwise expressed her support for the legislation.
The proposed law is not perfect, but it does seek to strike a balance by offering some protections to journalists, their anonymous sources and whistleblowers from overzealous judges and prosecutors, while providing exceptions for situations such as an "imminent threat to the national security."
Beyond the Bush administration and the Justice Department in particular, there is little real-world opposition to -- and in fact strong, bipartisan support for -- the legislation. Are there substantive reasons for why Milgram turned down an offer to support the bill or is this a purely political move, perhaps to not disrupt her close working relationship with U.S. Attorney Chris Christie?
Juan Melli is Politicker.com's associate editor.
Contributors
Wally Edge
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group that promotes ethics and accountability, has filed a complaint with the ... >
Bob Torricelli
There's nothing more difficult to see than the history before your eyes. It sometimes takes generations to understand the significance of ... >
Michael Patrick Carroll
OK, he didn't say precisely that, but when the Chairman of the Budget Committee informs us that governmental spending is the key to prosperity, ... >
Debbie Holtz
Score one for the Governor’s public relations team. For the last few weeks, they have been working overtime to fuel speculation Corzine was being ... >
Dr. Joseph Marbach
I am pleased to report the results from the first national poll conducted by Environmental Studies Program in the College of Arts and Sciences at ... >
Rob Tornoe
To view a larger version of this cartoon, click here. >
Michael P. Riccards
The media, which loves headlines and knows little history, is trying to sell President Elect Obama as another Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But that ... >
Joey Novick
When I was eleven, way back in 1965, my family was invited for Thanksgiving to my cousins’ cousins, a Jewish-Italian family who lived in the ... >
Juan Melli
After the entire Star-Ledger editorial board opted to accept the paper's buyout offer, John Farmer, a 26-year veteran of the paper, was tasked ... >
Carla Katz
A couple of weeks ago, my mother, Angelina Katz, did her second debate on behalf of Barack Obama. A debate? My mother? If you knew her, you’d be ... >
Patricia Quattrocchi
A rained out MusicFest this past September has provided Union County with $275,000 in insurance monies. The Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders ... >
Murray Sabrin
Today the Asinine Watch begins. With so many illiterate statements made about the economy by elected officials in recent days and weeks, it was ... >
Poll
PolitickerNJ Partners
Hot Topics
| Politicker INTERACTIVE | |
 |
Lawmaker Profile Follow the funding of your representatives |
 |
270 to Win See how Obama got to the magic number |
Most Active Stories
- Lonegan enters race for Republican gubernatorial nomination
- Christie says give him four to six weeks
- David Crabiel, longtime Middlesex Freeholder, dead at 78
- Team Lonegan
- Lonegan to kick off his second gubernatorial campaign today
- Amid economic downturn, mayoral backlash, Lesniak anticipates COAH finetuning
- Ariyan mum on BCDO chairmanship prospects
- Some county chairs keep their gubernatorial options open -- for now
- Marra will be Acting U.S. Attorney
- Breaking a glass ceiling: will New Jersey get a Latino Secretary of Agriculture?
- Correction: Weiner departure was not his own idea
- Torricelli on COAH
- Two N.J. super delegates go to Obama; Norcross backs Obama; key Clinton supporters endorse Obama
- At energy policy meeting, Rose fights with cabinet and walks away
- Sixteen Democrats are on Norcross' short list for Andrews House seat
- Jackson will be Corzine's new Chief of Staff
- Roughneen in court today on signature challenge
- Obama bundler says he lost $25 billion of N.J. pension funds
- New Jersey's Most Powerful Law Firms
- Jersey City councilman makes it rain in Washington
Quote of the Day
"Because he had to dress for his speech immediately, he had to purchase an entirely new set of clothes. The campaign credit card used to pay for the clothing was reimbursed in total by the airline, which wrote a check for $952.04 to the congressman on July 20, 2007. The congressman then endorsed the check over to the campaign account on July 20, 2007. Thus, the campaign incurred no expense for the clothing." -- Francis Tagmire, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, on why Andrews used campaign funds to pay for clothing. A Washington, D.C. watchdog group has filed a complaint against him.
Recent Press Releases
- Dec 3 2008
In the News
Read the expanded Wake Up Call, our summary of today’s news media coverage.
Today’s Must Reads:
James R. Lambert: Convicted Felon, Head of Authority― ONLY IN NEW JERSEY...AND PENNSYLVANIA
Why can't we find a role for Christie in Washington? ― MIKE KELLY
Christie Gives Notice, and G.O.P. Gains Hope ― DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Christie's legcy― THE BERGEN RECORD
Corzine for Treasury? Don't Bet on It.― WASHINGTON POST
Immigrants still in New Jersey― THE BERGEN RECORD
Syndicate
Where did that last line come from?
Nevermind, I don't think I want to know where on your person that was pulled out from.
So much for inside info!
Close working relationship with Chris Christie? Give me a break and get your fact right.
What Whining
If I am reading this highly slanted piece accurately, Milgram hasn't actually objected to the legislation, just declined to sign your pre-penned letter in support of it, opting instead to stay neutral on a matter of pending federal legislation. She is professionally and personally entitled to do so. It's journalists like you who structure information in a misleading manner to suit their own sense of righteousness that give the profession a bad name. Please, do the world a favor and become a trash collector.
A house divided.
It certainly appears that the New Jersey State Democratic Party is assembling in a circular firing squad now doesn’t it?
These are the kind of things that happen when certain people demonstrate their insatiable appetite for power, among other things.
Obviously, Attorney General Anne Milgram now finds herself in the crosshairs, in that in just one week’s time she has gone from being rousted by the police in Middlesex County, to being publicly accused of being a covert agent of George Bush, Chris Christie and the Republican Party.
These are the kind of things that happen to people who just get in the way.
Jon Corzine better watch out! With his poll numbers where they are, it is quite possible that next week Cryan and Lesniak will be accusing him of having kiddie porn on his computer!
What I can’t wait to see, is if those who love to dish it out, are able to take it as well as they give it.
Eric Gallagher
www.redyankeepress.com
They Seem To Be Having A Nice Relationship Here...
......they have been reported as working together investigating Union County Government.
http://www.blognetnews.com/New_Jersey/feed.php?channel=95
Juan is 100% absolutely right, they obviously do have a working relationship. That's a fact.
From Frederick Douglass
That she based a policy decision...
That she based a policy decision on her relationship with Chris Christie is 100% speculation. Wow, a US Attorney and the Attorney General of the State that US Attorney works in having a meeting. Maybe even talking about law enforcement issues that intersect both their jurisdictions? Color me surprised.
MCS The Point Is That They DO Have A Working...
.....relationship. Juan was 100% right on that.
Here's what Juan said,
>>>>Are there substantive reasons for why Milgram turned down an offer to support the bill or is this a purely political move, perhaps to not disrupt her close working relationship with U.S. Attorney Chris Christie?<<<<
Rhino says
>>>>>Close working relationship with Chris Christie? Give me a break and get your fact right.<<<<<
Rhino is the one who was in error, eh? If he had taken the two minutes I took to search on the web he would have discovered that his assumption was 100% wrong.
As for why Milgram seems to be passive on a point where nmost of her colleagues are active; I'd say Juan's question is a valid one.
Juan never said that "she she based a policy decision on her relationship with Chris Christie" that's YOUR mis-characterization.
Asking reasonable questions based on the facts is good journalism. Surely you don't have a problem with that?
In any event, Melli's role here is chiefly editorial, so it's also his job to ask some opinionated questions that may shed some light into the dark corners of NJ politics.
From Frederick Douglass
Damn, you both could write for the New York Times
"...perhaps to not disrupt her close working relationship with U.S. Attorney Chris Christie."
So he just floated it out there and didn't really mean that she based her decision on their relationship, just that she might have. Maybe she based it on her tarot reading or a conversation with a neighbor? You can't just write blatant speculation with so little to back it up.
It's like writing about speculation that someone had an affair, with nothing but the speculation of OTHER people who never had any evidence or proof to the contrary, basically speculating on speculation by others. And then putting that story on the front page of a major national newspaper and saying, "what, we never said the guy had an affair, just that others speculated." There is no way anyone can take you seriously.
And to make matters worse, later another guy is caught having an affair when a reporter for another orginization catches him in the same hotel, coming from the same floor as the woman is question is staying on. At 2am in the morning. And then you ignore that. We'll just ignore the differences in the men's politics, that couldn't have anything to do with it.
If you want to speculate, why not have something better than a picture of one meeting between two people that, based on their current roles, likely would have had a meeting once in awhile.
And not only that, but the sentence speculates on what Christie thinks of the legislation. Again, since he is an US Attorney, he is not likely to comment on it. There are three months left before he is out and crooked politicians all across the state uncork the champaign. What gives you any indication he cares what she does in regards to this matter?
Wrong Again....
First it is claimed that there is no working relationship between Christie and Milgram. And I quote,
"Close working relationship with Chris Christie? Give me a break and get your fact right."
That implicit assertion was put to rest by a picture of them being extremely relaxed and convivial and reports of them actually WORKING TOGETHER.
Now we hear the even more specious claim that Christie's position on the shield legislation is unfathomable.
Chris Christie is a loyal member of the Bush administration. They are doing all the can to keep this bill from getting past a cloture vote in the Senate.
Here's a report from a source that, no doubt, you'll respect.....
>>>>Administration Launches Web Site Opposing Journalist Media Shield
Thursday, April 03, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is pushing for the Senate to drop a media shield law that officials say could jeopardize national security, launching a Department of Justice Web site on Thursday aimed at drawing support for administration proposals instead.<<<<
As for Juan's question regarding the possibility that Milgram is holding off on actively supporting this measure out of some deference to Christie; it's a reasonable question which deserves an answer from her. At the very least she should say why she's remained silent in the face of so much bipartisan support for this measure. If her silence on this is not out of deference to Christie; then the question of why arguably becomes even more critical. And, as member of the editorial staff here and a columnist; Mr Melli is well within his rights to ask Ms Milgram questions relating to public policy. Eh?
From Frederick Douglass