Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Able Danger - Something There, But What? | Main | Able Was I Ere I Saw "Able Danger" »

August 10, 2005

Comments

BumperStickerist

Judy Miller, First Amendment Champion!

Now, that's a Wheaties box worth buying.

kim

The prize inside is a little Libby.
===================================

Syl

LOL!

MeTooThen

TM,

This is getting tiring.

And weird.

Judith Miller has been imprisoned for her refusal to comply with a court order.

She is in contempt of court.

Plain and simple.

There is no legal or constitutional precedent to protect her from having to obey this court order.

None.

Furthermore, Ms. Miller, or her advocates, are claiming that Ms. Miller's reason for refusing to comply with the court order is because, "...the waiver is not voluntary under these circumstances and that she is upholding the journalistic principle of never breaking a promise of confidentiality to a source."

Please.

Ms. Miller is witness, prosecutor, judge, and jury, when it comes to adjudicating "the promise of confidentiality" of this alleged source.

She cannot take yes for an answer.

sim

What did the Times know, and when did it know it?
===================================

kim

Of course, the Sulzbutler did it.

For Judy, martyr to press freedom works out better than stooge for the master of the bazaar.
====================================================

Syl

"There is no legal or constitutional precedent to protect her from having to obey this court order."

Well, doh. That's why she's in jail.

It's called civil disobedience...breaking the law to make a point, a statement.

Congress is working on a federal shield law. If it passes, that means someone heard her.

It's not that hard to understand.

kim

What makes a lot of sense is that she is protecting Val and Libby and is calculating that Fitz won't pursue her past October. I still hope he nails Wilson for perjury, but maybe he thinks that's too easy for him.
===========================================

SteveMG

It seems conceivable to me (er, otherwise I wouldn't post it I guess) that Miller is protecting much more than just her conversations with Libby.

Miller has clearly culled a series of sources and received from them a whole host of classified information over the years; not just (reportedly) from Libby but from other sources in government. Both in this Administration and the previous one.

And that if she is forced to talk about contacts or discussions with Libby, that that could potentially open up an entire range of questions about how much classified information she's received over the years from government officials and employees.

Apres Libby, les deluge.

SMG

kim

Too many people have too much to lose from too many competing camps for her to get harassed for sealed lips much longer. Ooh Fitzie, whatta we gonna tell yo mama, when they say ooh-la-la?
===================================

Neil

Miller is determined to keep her silence and the NYT has her back but the NYT's position could change as facts are revealed.

Absent her testimony, Miller she serves out her civil contempt coercive incarceration. She forces the prosecutor's hand: He charges her with criminal contempt and obstruction of justice. She is found guilty

Anonymous Liberal

Along the lines of what SteveMG was saying, it's possible that Miller cannot testify about her conversation with Libby without giving up another source. For instance, if she told Libby something like "Mr. X told me that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative." If that were the case, she really can't testify about her conversations with Libby without giving up the source she's protecting. If that's the case, though, then 1) Miller wasn't doing a very good job of protecting that source in the first place and 2) Libby has likely already told Fitzgerald who Mr. X is. But it may be that Fitzgerald cannot prosecute Mr. X without Miller's testimony. And there's always the possibility that Miller really is protecting Libby. She may know that she has the goods on Libby and doesn't want to be the one who brings him down. Or she could be lying through her teeth. So many possibilities.

MeTooThen

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, criminal contempt.

And yes, obstruction of justice.

For the editors at the NY Times who pressed for this very investigation, their comeuppance will be the criminal prosecution of Ms. Judith Miller.

Sorry, Judy.

And for what it's worth, I am sympathetic to the notion that Ms. Miller may be in an uncomfortable position, and that freedom of the press is vital for our nation's well being.

But L'affaire Plame was launched and fueled by a hostile press as a proxy for those who sought to discredit and injure a sitting wartime president, for the benefit of the party in opposition.

If RovEvil acted outside the law, he should be punished. So be it.

But he didn't.

And he won't.

...

As noted above, Ms. Miller knows too much.

She's just not saying.

Just sayin'.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame