Judy Miller Walks, Will Talk

The NY Times confirms early accounts from Knight Ridder:

Jailed Times Reporter Freed After Source Waives Confidentiality

By DAVID JOHNSTON and DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released from a Virginia detention center this afternoon after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter, the paper's publisher and executive editor said.

Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the criminal inquiry. Her decision to testify came after she obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. She said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify. 

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation.

OK, Lewis Libby had been everybody's pick for months, so there is no surprise there.  But who knew the Times could execute so lovely a pirouette?

The Times' publisher, Arthur M. Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller's decision to testify, just as it backed her earlier refusal to cooperate. "Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

Why did it take so long for Ms. Miller to receive this waiver?  The Times explains the process to us:

Her willingness to testify was based in part on personal assurances given by Mr. Libby earlier this month that he had no objection to her discussing their conversations with the grand jury, according to those officials briefed on the case.

...The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intense negotiations between Ms. Miller; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald. The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone earlier this month as their lawyers listened, according to people briefed on the matter. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.

But the discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to Ms. Miller's lawyers more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September, saying that he believed her lawyers understood that his waiver was voluntary.

Others involved in the case have said that Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from him directly.

Let me claim an "I told you so" point here - I had argued (point 3) that blaming Libby for the inability to work out a waiver deal may have been a bit unfair - negotiating these waivers can't be easy, and the specter of a witness conspiracy charge hangs over them.

[And why did Miller's attorney wait until late August to call?  Why not when she was jailed in July, or anytime after she was found in contempt last fall?  Was she running out the clock (see below)?  I Boldly Predict that our friends on the left will note eagerly that John Bolton visited Ms. Miller sometime before mid-August.  Hey, maybe I have been ignoring the wrong theory, recently moved forward by Arianna herself.]

Now, how broad will Ms. Miller's testimony be?

In written statements today, Ms. Miller and executives of The New York Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Mr. Keller said that Mr. Fitzgerald had cleared the way to an agreement by assuring Ms. Miller and her source that he would not regard a conversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstruction of justice.

This may tie in to my guess that perhaps Ms. Miller is attempting to run out the clock on Fitzgerald's grand jury.  It is not news that under DoJ guidelines, Ms. Miller's subpoena was quite narrowly directed towards her conversations with one specified official.  And since Fitzgerald's grand jury has a month to run, running out the clock at this point should be easy - for example, Ms. Miller can (*HYPOTHETICALLY*) testify that she told Libby about Ms. Plame, refuse to discuss the basis of that knowledge, and leave Special Counsel Fitzgerald with the challenge (per DoJ guidelines) of exhausting all reasonable means to ascertain her source before he re-subpoenas her.  Presumably Fitzgerald could battle Plame-fatigue and extend his grand jury, but at a minimum, Ms. Miller has deferred the threat of criminal contempt.

So Judy is out - will Kevin Drum hit his trifecta?  Is Judy in the last month of running out the clock on Fitzgerald's grand jury?  Time will tell!

ERRATA:  The Times should try harder to get the details right:

New details about the case have emerged in recent months. Karl Rove, the president's senior political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, both discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters, according to testimony provided by Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, and by others. But neither of the White House officials is known to have mentioned Ms. Wilson by name or to have mentioned her covert status at the C.I.A.

Based on his own account, it was Cooper that told Libby about Ms. Plame.  Excerpt after the break.

UNCLEAR TO WHOM?  J Pod makes an excellent point in response to the Johnston/Jehl assertion that "Much about Ms. Miller's role in the matter remains unclear" - it's not unclear to the Times editors.  Note to Bill Keller - whenever you are ready to talk, we are ready to listen.  [A Lightbulb!  Someday, when Judy's role reaches the level of "All The News That's Fit To Print", Keller can run her story in Times Select!]

UPDATE:  We are slipping the John Bolton theory into a mini-update within the main post - since he visited Miller before mid-August, and her lawyers initiated the jail break in late August, we can suspect anything.  And since we are speculating about Ms. Miller's motivations, let's add the obvious - Jail's a bitch, even if you are... well, anyway, there is a good reason that the threat (or reality) of jail prompts people to talk - we aren't all Susan MacDougal.  Maybe the role of First Amendment champion, the prospective book deals, and the reputational rehabilitation all paled under the flourescent lights and jail food.

And the WaPo has lots - apparently, Libby told Miller a little on July 8, and more on the 12th or 13th.  Since Matt Cooper of TIME told Libby about Plame on July 12 (Date Check in the continuation), his role remains important.  From the WaPo:

According to a source familiar with Libby's account of his conversations with Miller in July 2003, the subject of Wilson's wife came up on two occasions. In the first, on July 8, Miller met with Libby to interview him about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the source said.

At that time, she asked him why Wilson had been chosen to investigate questions Cheney had posed about whether Iraq tried to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger. Libby, the source familiar with his account said, told her that the White House was working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected.

Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.

Libby had a second conversation with Miller on July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he said he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame's name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

My tip - keep on eye on Murray Waas, who has been on this story like A Rod on a hanging curveball.

My thought - Libby's version seems awfully convenient - by July 8 he had heard that Wilson's wife was involved, but had *not* heard where she worked?  Who separated those factoids, which seemed to travel together in the famous INR memo which described Ms. Wilson's role in her husband's selection?  An obvious guess - Libby was being smart/slick/disingenuous/manipulative when he told Ms. Miller that he did not know the background of Wilson's wife - he knew, all right, but he wanted to get her poking around, and gossiping all over town.  Well, if lying to a reporter is a crime, lock up Washington.

And that said, those factoids were (arguably) separated in Novak's column:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

Maybe Novak was a pawn in a similar manipulation - A senior Administration official told him "Cherchez la femme", and he uncovered her CIA connection on his own.  (The second Admin official, reported to be Rove, allegedly provided confirmation with an a comprehensive, in-depth "I heard that, too".)

OK, one more guess - Libby knew Wilson's wife was with the CIA but concealed that when he spoke with Miller on July 8.  Once he heard the CIA connection flow back to him from Cooper, he delivered it, courtesy of the TIME tip-laundering service, to Miller.  And let's not leave Tim Russert out of this - maybe Libby double-sourced his leak before passing it back to Miller.  (Here is Liptak of the Times on Russert's intriguing deal with the prosecutor).

Slick for Libby, small bit of a bummer for Karl, and frustrating as all get out (we imagine) for Fitzgerald.

UPDATE 2:  Here is a revised version of the Times story, which adds a bit of detail about the Libby-Miller conversations.  However, since they don't provide dates, we can't drag Cooper into it:

Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, they said.

[Long skip, and...]

According to someone who has been briefed on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes that his statements show he did nothing wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during their conversations in July 2003 whether he knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to discuss the conversations.

Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Libby did not know her name or her position at the agency and therefore did not discuss these matters with Ms. Miller, the person who had been briefed on the matter said.

DATE CHECK:  Libby spoke with Rove on Friday, July 11 and met with Libby the next day.

Cooper Told Libby About Plame:

MR. RUSSERT:  You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor.  In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby.  Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney.  I have never discussed that conversation until now.  In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background.  On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger.  On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger.  Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."

Did you interpret that as a confirmation?

MR. COOPER:  I did, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:  Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER:  No, he didn't say that.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you said it to him?

MR. COOPER:  I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:  And that she worked for the CIA?

MR. COOPER:  I believe so.

Comments

[SteveMG]

This must have always been about Fitzgerald - or members of the grand jury - veering off into uncharted waters during Miller's testimony. Asking her about sources on not only la affair Plame but other matters, lots of other matters. And that Miller's real - in all senses of that word - fear was having to reveal dozens and dozens of contacts and officials over the years who gave her classified information.

All this over Libby? Doesn't make sense.

SMG

[Jeff]

Points of interest in the NYT article, best as I can tell: there were multiple conversations between Miller and Libby that week, not just the one breakfast meeting; and despite the repetition (from Jehl's earlier article) about the things Keller refuses to talk about, we know that Miller did reporting on Wilson and did indeed try to write a story about it, don't we?

Two other things. I'm skeptical of the "Libby's not a monster" line of interpretation. He knew for months and months that Miller was facing jail on account of him -- surely he (his lawyer) could have gotten assurances from Fitzgerald long ago that he would not charge them with obstruction or whatever (that happened back in Sept. 2003, perhaps) if Libby told Miller, "No, no, really, I really really want you to testify and not go to jail on account of me. Really." This doesn't, of course, mean that Libby's a criminal. He could just be a horrible human being.

I also can't imagine Miller seriously has any hope of running out the clock. Unless I'm mistaken, Fitzgerald can just convene a new grand jury, or extend this one, right? And by now she must know that he's serious, and the longer she drags it out, the longer she drags it out for herself. But maybe she doesn't realize that, or some assumption I'm making is wrong.

[topsecretk9]

the philly Inquirer characterizes the "waiver" confusion like this...

"...She was released after she had a telephone conversation with the Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, sources said. In that conversation, Libby reaffirmed that he had released Miller from a promise of confidentiality more than a year ago, sources said..."

I am just not buying the "waiver" confusion bit, Cooper did this drama too, I guess it sells papers and magazines though...

Tom Maguire exceprts it

"Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

and John Podhoretz sniffs at it...

A DEMENTED PARAGRAPH IN A NYTIMES STORY [John Podhoretz]
The story now up on its website about the Judy Miller matter reads, in part: "Much about Ms. Miler's role in the matter remains unclear. Mr. Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, has declined to say whether she was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she had tried to write a story about it, or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at the newspaper that she had obtained information about the role played by Ms. Wilson."

Wait, hold it. Her "role in the matter" isn't in the least "unclear" to the editor of the newspaper website in which that sentence appears. Bill Keller could insert a few sentences of what he knows with his red pencil. So the sentence is a lie. The Times could reveal everything it knows about this now, could have a year ago, could tomorrow. It is deliberately withholding information from its readers and bizarrely covering its own tail by writing about its own decision as though it were writing about another newspaper. There's something, I don't know, creepy about it.
Posted at 09:59 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#078055

[owl]

I agree. Not buying "but this waiver is good.....now" that Cooper and Miller both offer. Neon lights might have worked better.

Not only did they both do this, Time and NYT's editors gave a good performance of a complete rat-out, blogged by JJ a couple of weeks ago. Skip the neon and just use front pages.

[Frank IBC]

The timing of this is interesting - why does it just happen to come out the day after the DeLay indictment? Are the Democrats trying to "flood the zone" or are the Republicans hoping that the bigger story of DeLay's indictment will bury the smaller story of Plamegate?

[Dwilkers]

It doesn't make sense.

Why go to jail for so long if she was only going to come out right at the end - when she was within shouting distance of the grand jury expiring - and testify? If all that was necessary was a more specific waiver from Libby, and he was willing to give her that, why didn't they do it months ago?

I don't see it. This doesn't add up.

[Jim E.]

TM wrote: "Based on his own account, it was Cooper that told Libby about Ms. Plame."

I don't think that characterizes it correctly at all. Cooper says that Libby was a confirming source for him -- Libby confirmed that he'd heard about the supposed role Wilson's wife played in Wilson's Niger trip.

Frank IBC wrote: "The timing of this is interesting . . . Are the Democrats trying to "flood the zone"?"

Yeah, the Democrats are behind the timing of all of this. Is that a joke? In terms of timing, Miller may have realized that between the Hurricanes, the Supreme Court stuff, Frist, and now DeLay, that no one this side of Lou Dobbs really gives a crap that she was in jail. If she was hoping for some sort of widespread sympathy on her behalf to shame/pressure Fitzgerald into letting her out, she may have figured out that she wasn't going to get much more coverage. Or maybe Fitzgerald promised to pursue criminal charges against her. Either way, her "principled" (cough, cough) stand apparently did have an expiration date after all. All those previous NY Times editorials on her behalf are now inoperative.

[topsecretk9]

okay. it is official. Blog comments can be frickn' funny!

"Neon lights might have worked better."

and to think these communication failures and confusions were by intelligent enlightened COMMUNICATION experts! Not to mention the speedy attempts to clear it all up. Millers attorney must be Amish...PICK UP THE PHONE? Something like this..."Say Libby's attorney, just heard that Cooper was just as confused by "full waiver" versus "full full waiver" as Judy is and say I was thinking maybe we could get a "full full waiver" too?

No. It is all about Judy protecting "additional" sources and just what Ms. Jusy was gonna write.

[topsecretk9]

Jusy? that is her porn name.

[Jim E.]

"Jusy? that is her porn name."

I just vomited a little.

[StuckinCali]

This is a joke. I still don't understand Miller's motivation, but Sulzberger and Cooper and the editors at Time loved the attention. They are pretending that they are defenders of one of our civil liberties even though the sources signed a universal waiver almost two years ago. It is a text book example of the MSM's separation from reality. The NY Times, the LA Times, Time etc. have had steadily decreasing circulation to go along with their loss of credibility and they want to go through this charade so that they can pretend that they are doing something historic like the Pentagon Papers.

[TM]

Dwilkers - I added a line noting that Fitzgerald has been threatening Miller with criminal contempt. By testifying about Libby, she removes that threat. If her testimony suggests she has some other source, Fitzgerald has to re-initiate the whole subpoena process. For example, Cooper got subpoenaed for Libby, struck a deal, and then got hit with a second subpoena for Rove. Of course, it is highly likely that Rove had testified at that point, so Fitzgerald was in compliance with the DoJ guideline obliging him to exhaust all reasonable alternatives before subpoenaing a reporter. That would (presumably) not be the case here, if Miller had some other source - Bolton, for example, has not testified.

Jeff - whether or not Libby is a monster, it was Miller's lawyer that initiated the negotiations in late August.

Why no phone call in late March? Or even July, after she went to jail?

And that is a great point from J Pod.

[Jeff]

Don't have time right now, but there's major news in the WaPo's account.

[SteveMG]

Put yourself in Judy Miller's spot.

You've been covering WMD issues for more than a decade, not only with this administration but the Clinton W.H.

Over those years, like any good reporter, you've developed dozens of sources, put together alot of dots, talked to hundreds of individuals.

Clearly, over that time you've been privy to a great deal of classified information, information leaked by government officials for a host of reasons, some petty, some large, some accidental.

Would you like to have to testify to a grand jury about whether and how you've received classified information?

Question: Does anyone wish to wager that Miller knew Plame's identity more than a decade ago? That through her contacts with the CIA or NSA, through hard work, she was able to determine Plame's status? No leaks, no inside dope; just plain hard work.

SMG

[Geek, Esq.]

I've been saying all along that this has been a bit of kabuki theater--a display of Potemkin principle.

Judy wanted to go to jail--she had to martyr herself to save her ruined reputation as a journalist. This stint in jail is the best thing that's happened to her since Curveball.

As far as wild speculation as to why she's stopped protecting Bush administration folks, maybe the whole "rats off a sinking ship" metaphor applies.

[topsecretk9]

quick question for those more familiar...

Does Floyd Abrams work with Robert S. Bennett, or is Bennett a new attorney and is he the one representing Clinton against Paula Jones?

[Jim E.]

"is Bennett a new attorney and is he the one represent[ed] Clinton against Paula Jones?"

Yes and yes.

[topsecretk9]

well to my notion the only nugget sorta worth mentioning in WAPO is the Judges words (what do I know though)

"In July, when Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ordered Miller to jail, he told her she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092901974_2.html?sub=AR

[topsecretk9]

thanks Jim E.

[Jim E.]

The speculation about why Judy is willing to speak now is worthwhile (did she want to be a martyr? Is she really trying to cover-up her own crimes? etc.). Miller's motives are complicated, and she's not a journalistic hero at all.

But I think Libby's side in all of this needs to be speculated about, too. In June or July, Miller and Cooper made it abundently clear that neither of them would accept the general waivers. The world also knew that Fitzgerald wanted to know about Miller's conversation with Libby. It was the conversation -- not the source -- that was secret and confidential. Isn't it strange that it took all of one morning (or was it a few days) for Cooper to get his "personal" waiver, yet it took one month for Miller to get hers? Why wouldn't Libby have lifted a finger to make sure Judy wasn't in jail because of him, and what the hell took so long once Libby did lift his finger? Cooper wasn't even in jail, and things happened way more quick for him. Why would a jailed reporter get less deference? Perhaps it's because Libby doesn't want her to speak.

Tomorrow's NY Times reports that Floyd Abrams (Miller's previous lawyer) disputes the account being floated by Libby's lawyer that Libby had always made clear that he was okay with Miller testifying. Abrams claims that (quoting the Times verbatim, not Abrams): While "Mr. Tate had said the waiver was voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver sought as a condition of employment was inherently coercive." Abrams account, if true, would actually bolster Judy's claims of standing on principle. Abrams account makes it look like Libby wanted Judy to stay in jail and keep her mouth shut.

This turn of events also bolsters Arianna Huffington's credibility -- she wrote awhile ago that Judy was trying to negotiate a way out of jail.

[Seven Machos]

This is all really simple. Judy Miller knows that she will spend a long time in jail because Fitzgerald can convene another grand jury and/or bring actual charges against her. She's lost her battle and the war. Hence, she has to talk.

You can almost sense the desperation in the liberals -- like Geek, Esq., above -- hoping, praying that this has anything to do with anyone in the Bush administration.

Sorry, kids. There's no timing here other than the timing of the rest of Judy Miller's life, which she probably wants to spend outside of prison.

[topsecretk9]

yes I agree that it looks like the clock ran out. I mean yes, Abrams could dispute this and that, but Miller replaced him (as Jim E says) so obviously Miller isn't too happy with him.

The general waiver vs. voice on the phone waiver doesn't work after Cooper got his. I mean Coopers' set the timeline on that lame excuse.

As for Arianna, what the heck does rehashing her own rumor info have to do with credibility? I mean she did pass it on, as in "someone close told me", so if her someone was wrong that wouldn't necessarily hurt her credibility either... she prefaced as a rumor. Actually, that is all Arianna has done. I mean other than calling the detention center all she has done is pipeline her insider trading on her site.

[Jeff]

TM - Yeah so? What I'm saying is, if my name is Lewis Libby and I'm neither a criminal nor a horrible human being, when it is clear that Miller is facing going to jail on account of some conversations with me, I go out of my way to talk to Fitzgerald, Miller's lawyers, Miller herself to make sure that doesn't happen. Now maybe, just maybe, Miller wouldn't have gone for it; maybe she saw it playing out very differently, in some way, than it actually did. But I'd try anyway. And it's pretty clear that Libby did not try. Indeed, the WaPo story suggests so much bs-ing, with Libby's lawyer, speaking of the August contact with Miller's lawyer,

"We told her lawyers it was not coerced," Tate said. "We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration."

Surprised? Come on. We knew, they knew, Libby knew. And he did nothing.

The big news in the WaPo story, by the way, is the account of Libby's side of the story, presumably via Tate on background. The biggest item is that it appears to say that Libby's story is that he told Miller about Plame, and not vice versa. During their July 8 meeting

she asked him why Wilson had been chosen to investigate questions Cheney had posed about whether Iraq tried to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger. Libby, the source familiar with his account said, told her that the White House was working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected.

Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.

By the time they talk on the phone four or five days later, Libby's got a firmer claim (again, by Libby's own account):

Libby had a second conversation with Miller on July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he said he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame's name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.

It's impossible to know how much of this is true. But if it's an accurate rendition of Libby's story, it means Libby is not pointing the finger at Miller as a source of information. How this jibes with the reports that Libby has said he learned of Plame from Tim Russert, I don't know. And here's another question: is it normal that Miller and Novak would have virtually the exact same question about why Wilson was selected? Was this just a natural line of questioning for a reporter, or might they have been prompted to ask such questions?

Two other interesting items in the WaPo piece. It says that the agreement reached between Fitzgerald and Miller's lawyers on the scope of the questioning may confine it to conversations with Libby. Not very definitive. Second,

One lawyer said it could become clear as early as next week whether Fitzgerald plans to indict anyone or has negotiated a plea bargain,

which is the first time I've heard anything like that about a plea bargain.

[Jon H]

Seven Tacos writes: "You can almost sense the desperation in the liberals -- like Geek, Esq., above -- hoping, praying that this has anything to do with anyone in the Bush administration."

Desperation?

Desperation?!?!

Frist, DeLay, Abramoff linked to a mob-style hit, the Abramoff-connected Administration hack who was recently arrested, and now Judy is testifying tomorrow, so the Plame case should come to a close shortly.

Desperation? Hell no, our cup runneth over.

[The Heretik]

Judith Miller most likely plays a variety of roles in this sad saga. What happens when "reporters" believe themselves players in the halls of power is that the public ends up getting played. Judith Miller has a rather ignominious history as a conduit of "information" the veracity of which recently has been dubious at best. The joke that this woman stood for any journalistic principals in covering "the news" in the past is only now exceeded by the hilarity of righteously covering her vulnerable butt.

The truth in this matter was going to come out sooner or later. In this case it is later, because delay is always the last tactic of the losing side. Who exactly is revealed on that losing side we will now find out.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Huge new scoop. A new story at the Washington Post finally reveals Libby's version of his conservations with Miller. It appears to vindicate Miller of any wrongdoing. Libby told Miller about Plame, not vice versa. Libby may be in a lot of trouble. Click on my name to see the story (and my take on it). Sorry for the blatant self-promotion, TM.

[Truly Shamless Self-Promotion would include a perma-link like this - I see some good points, and some meriting an attempt at rebuttal. TM.]

[Anonymous Liberal]

Sorry, apparently I missed Jeff's comment. He beat me to the punch. I largely agree with his analysis of the WaPo story, though.

[clarice]

Libby had signed a waiver. The judge told her she had a waiver. And we are to believe she went to jail because her lawyer didn't think to clarify what she claims wasn't clear to her?

If I were Libby I'd be furious at Judy. She let him hang in the wind and incur further legal costs for this game.

And I agree absolutely she doesn't want to have to tesify about what she knew from non-WH sources, didn't care what that meant to Libby and is just running out the clock.

The deal in DC is reporters give some information and get some. The only people she and Cooper and their bosses cared about in all this was themselves.
And though it has been public for some time that the prosecutor knew who she'd talked to (Libby), I still see the press reporting falsely that she was not testifying because she wanted to protect the name of her source..If she's protecting anyone's name , that name isn't Libby. GRRRRRRRRRR

[pollyusa]

And here's another question: is it normal that Miller and Novak would have virtually the exact same question about why Wilson was selected?

Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure?
Newsweek 7/05

[Seven Machos]

But Jonnie, I thought Dan Rather's Kinko's files were going to be the end for the conservative movement.

Then, I thought that the Downing Street Memo was going to be the disaster to end all disasters for Republicans.

Then, I thought it was going to be the fake turkey at Thanksgiving in Iraq. Or maybe that was before the other two, I'm not sure.

Once, I thought it was going to be Bush's DUI. Another time I thought it was the Florida Supreme Court's sophmoric attempt to intervene in federal elections.

I could go on and on. Color me jaded about all these worse-than-Watergate scandals that are going to put Democrats back in charge, Jonnie.

[Seven Machos]

How, indeed, Polly? Is it possible that Fleischer and Bartlett knew the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip? If they did, and they suggested that others look into said bureaucratic origins, WOULD THAT BE A CRIME?

I don't blame Newsweek. It has been publsihing leftist cant for years now and its editor comes from a great Communist family. But, Polly: are you a little late to the party in terms of our understanding of the applicable law, perhaps?

[Jon h]

"I could go on and on. Color me jaded about all these worse-than-Watergate scandals that are going to put Democrats back in charge, Jonnie."

When did I say anything about that? Perhaps that'll happen, perhaps not. In the meantime, we get to watch some corrupt GOP crook bastards put through the wringer. That'll make the next 3 years of Bush almost tolerable.

[Jeff]

pollyusa - Right. So when exactly were Fleischer and Bartlett doing this? On July 7 already? By the 8th Miller is asking Libby, and when did Novak start asking? And who starting the prompting when becomes an important question to answer. The point, of course, is not that that is a crime in and of itself, but it sure helps to fill in the picture. More generally, Seven Machos, I wouldn't condescend to pollyuse so much on this one. I suspect she knows more about the case than you do. I will agree with this: I too am jaded that all these worse-than-Watergate scandals have not put the Democrats back in charge. I blame the Democrats, mostly.

[Jeff]

Two other quick comments. TM - Your erratum is misleading, Cooper didn't tell Libby about Plame, he brought her up, which is different. Yours is no more precise than the Times', which is strictly speaking accurate, though misleading.

The other thing is that there is a fascinating post up by Murray Waas here, indicating that his own earlier reporting played a significant role in getting the negotiations between Miller's and Libby's people going. I think I remember reading that piece and thinking that much of it sounded like a signal from one to the other. Waas says we'll hear the backstory from him.

[jc]

If I were Libby and I had already given a blanket waiver, I would think that she was protecting someone else by going to jail, and not me. But maybe I am missing something here.

[Beldar]

Tom, I don't understand your "running out the clock" theory.

Extending the term of the current grand jury, or reconvening new ones, isn't a big deal. It's a minor inconvenience at worst for Fitzgerald. There is no real clock. There's no deadline. Judith Miller could have rotted in jail for years.

She has no leverage. Zero. She's had none since the Supreme Court denied certiorari, and she had very little even then.

I can't rule out the possibility that she thinks there's a clock or that she thinks she has leverage � or that she thought those things up until this week. But those would be delusions if she has or ever had them.

You're making this too complicated, I think. It was just a capitulation, long overdue.

[ordi]

Maybe I am missing something but exactly how is it Libby and his lawyers responsibility to keep Judy out of jail?

1)The Judge told her she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.

2) Isn't it HER Lawyers job to keep her out of jail? Wasn't HER Lawyer in the court room too when the Judge told her she was mistaken.

Maybe that is why she hired Robert Bennett.

How is it Libby's fault or problem that she has bad counsel?

Beldar your a lawyer aren't you? AM I m issing something here?

[ordi]

Jim E wrote:

Abrams account makes it look like Libby wanted Judy to stay in jail and keep her mouth shut.

That makes no sense. Shut her up only to release her from confidentiality later?

[Seven Machos]

I'm telling you Dems: if you would drop all these scandals, adopt the War on Terror wholehog, and promise fiscal sanity (and a tough immigation policy), you would win in 2006 and beyond in a romp.

Luckily, you have Hillary, who wants to campaign on the policy I just outlined.

Unluckily, you are all apparently nitwits and you want ONLY scandals, ALL the time, you hate the war on terror, you want higher taxes but you want to sweep fiscal sanity (and immigation) under the rug. Hence, your joke candidates get beaten by a very mediocre George W. Bush.

You also have allowed the ENTIRE South to become Republican. Which Red States will Hillary win in 2008?

But, yeah, anyway, "outing" a CIA hack? That's going to register with the Ameriacn people. Let's concentrate all our energy on non-scandals. Because that worked for the Republicans so well from 1994 to 2000.

[Ed Poinsett]

I'm a solid red state Bush supporter, but Seven Machos nails it. DEMS get off the smear and scandal train, it goes nowhere. It makes you look callous and childish. Get serious about the Islamist threat and sound fiscal management and you have a winning message. You only have to listen to adults like Zell Miller and Ed Koch. Enlist Sam Nunn. Your dependence on spoiled brats like Mikey Moore, Howie Dean, Teddy Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer and Babs Streisand to deliver a straight, simple message to the American people is suicidal.

[Jim E.]

TM,
Libby was a confirming source for Cooper. Your ERRATA post is incorrect -- seems "you should try harder to get the details right." As the Times wrote, Libby did discuss Ms. Wilson with reporters. How is that wrong?

Since you bring it up yet again later in your post (albeit on the much narrower point that Cooper mentioned her CIA employment, which still doesn't make the TImes paragraph wrong), how about some evidence?

[ordi]

Arianna ain't buying what Judy is selling.

Arianna Huffington: Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050930/cm_huffpost/008116;_ylt=AiDKQN4s50UOD2JgmFq09ais0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

[ordi]

Lets try again

Arianna's article

[spongeworthy]

I may be way off base here, but it's looking to me like Miller's not really worried about her conversation with Libby regarding Plame. Since we've heard a few times that the investigation has veered some from it's original course, I'm wondering if it's other subjects she doesn't want to discuss.

Doesn't her agreement with Fitzgerald limit her to Plame only and no other sources? Am I reading too much into reports that the investigation strayed outside Plame alone some time back? What else could they be looking into that would fall into the scope of Fitzgerald's mandate? Does he even have one he has to stick to?

[Appalled Moderate]

So, what are the odds, gang. Once Judy Miller tells her story, are we really going to know the truth?

And does anyone understand why Libby still has a job, when it has been apparent for the longest time he was knee deep in this?

[Jim E.]

"What else could they be looking into that would fall into the scope of Fitzgerald's mandate?"

Good point. Fitzgerald also started looking into a story whereby he seemed to accuse Judith Miller of tipping off an Islamic-charity/terrorist-group that they were going to be raided by the FBI or something. (Judy, what an American!) She won that court case, which was a tangent of the Plame investigation. Maybe she needed to make sure that he couldn't ask her any questions about that case.

[spongeworthy]

Or, as Arianna suggests, maybe about prior contacts between Miller and the VP's office. Of course, that's pretty far outside the scope as I understand it.

I read Arianna's piece after my earlier post and, since I'm thinking along the same lines, I would like to disavow this entire line of inquiry. I Just Say No to moonbattery.

[Pollyusa]

Seven Machos

I mentioned nothing about A CRIME or the applicable law here. I answered a question posed upthread. Actually I made no comment at all, just showed the question and the sourced quote.

Jeff

The LATimes story now in archives relates the custody of the INR memo. Powell probably the source here. This was on July 7, 2003

Powell told prosecutors that he circulated the memo among those traveling with him in the front section of Air Force One. It is believed that all officials in that part of the aircraft had high-level security clearance

Bartlett and Fleischer were on AF1 and had the clearance.

[cathyf]

Jeff:

The biggest item is that it appears to say that Libby's story is that he told Miller about Plame, and not vice versa.

Go back and read much more carefully. The report said that Libby's information was that: Wilson's wife got him sent to Niger. And the report specifically claims that Libby had no idea of her name or her job. So if the conversation went something like:

Libby: "Wilson's wife seems to have been the one responsible for the CIA choosing him."
Miller: "Yeah, makes sense, she's a CIA WMD analyst."

Would you characterize that conversation as "Libby told Miller about Plame" or would you characterize it as "Miller told Libby about Plame" ?

cathy :-)

[Dwilkers]

AM-

"So, what are the odds, gang. Once Judy Miller tells her story, are we really going to know the truth?"

Probably not, but this sure puts the pressure back on Fitz to wrap this thing up IMO. Its already been going on about 1 year longer than it should have it seems to me.