We are most intrigued by this passage, in the letter from Libby to Miller, in which he proclaims that her testimony will aid his case:
As noted above, my lawyer confirmed my waiver to other reporters in just the way he did with your lawyer. Why? Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.
Since he is referring to their public statements, this is not really news - for example, Cooper told Libby about Plame on July 12 after he talked to Rove; with Kessler of the WaPo, Libby did not mention Ms. Plame (but did Kessler?); Tim Russert's evasion has been noted; and we are letting Walter Pincus slide for the moment.
Well - since Libby-philic leaks have told us that Libby passed some info about Ms. Plame to Miller, is this letter hinting that Ms. Miller passed some info back? The recent leaks describe Libby's side of the conversation, but not Ms. Miller's, so we wonder.
At Powerline, the new post re-opens the speculation that Ms. Miller was intent on securing a deal with Fitzgerald that limited her testimony. I will note their point that it is hard to understand why she stayed in jail after getting the new reassurance from Libby, but - I still don't understand why Fitzgerald's questioning is not clearly limited by the terms of the subpoena with which a court had ordered Ms. Miller to comply.
I continue to be deeply skeptical that Ms. Miller's highlighting of her deal with Fitzgerald limiting her testimony is anything other than a PR ploy intended to blame Libby and Fitzgerald for Ms. Miller's extended, baffling stay in jail.
UPDATE: I get a No Sale from the left, specifically, attorney Jeralynn Merritt of TalkLeft.
OK, she should know, but... I still don't understand (a) why DoJ guidleines don't limit Fitzgerald's questioning; (b) why Fitzgerald managed to negotiate very limited testimony from four other reporters (Kessler, Pincus, Russert, and Cooper on Libby) rather quickly; and (c) why, if the subpoena/court order specifically cites one official and one week's worth of notes and conversations, the actual order is much broader.
I will also toss in an additional factoid - after Cooper testified about Libby, he was slapped with another subpoena to talk about Rove. Why, one might wonder, did Fitzgerald not question him about both under the first subpoena? Or, since Fitzgerald had agreed to a deal on the first subpoena, why did that deal not encompass both Libby and Rove? My theory is that Fitzgerald's subpoenas are limited. Other views...?
My *guess* as to what Jeralynn is saying about point (c) is that any normal subpoena is naturally broad, and the addition of a particular detail about a particular conversation does not implicitly limit it. Fine, but - this is a heavily contested and controversial subpoena to a reporter, subject to DoJ guidelines.
At a minimum, I think a deal was always on the table and that Ms. Miller could have negotiated a limit to her testimony a year ago, as four other reporters did. Which means that her citation of Fitzgerald's agreement to limit her testimony as the breakthrough that led to her release is as phony as her citation of the new waiver as a breakthrough.
At a maximum, I think she could have refused to answer questions about anything other than Libby as beyond the bounds of the court order with which she was complying. However, that belief seems to be in defiance of my counsel's advice. Troubling.
That all said, I am with the crowd that thinks Ms. Miller is very interested in avoiding testimony about her many other sources; I just think that we are seeing hype and spin from her side when they suggest that Fitzgerald offered a deal now that was not available a year ago. Fitzgerald could have done with Miller what he did with Cooper - strike a deal on her Libby testimony, then re-subpoena her for more.
UPDATE 2: Texas attorney Beldar takes up my case and my cause, and man, do I welcome the support.