Powered by TypePad

« "Robbing Peter" - Maloney And Malkin Get Results! | Main | Able Danger - The 9/11 Statement »

August 13, 2005

Comments

kim

My guess is that she is in the middle of a tangled web, and doesn't know what to say. It's an ironic position for a journalist.
==============================================

cathyf

Don't forget that there is one way in which the "refusing to reveal her source(s)" story is perfectly true -- that the source(s) she is(are) protecting is(are)n't Libby, is(are)n't known to Fitzgerald, and is(are) s****ing bricks worried that Miller may be forced to reveal his/her/their identity to Fitzgerald.

If that's true then maybe her editor knows it, and is simply telling the truth -- not the whole truth, but not a lie either.

cathy :-)

kim

Yes, yet another ironic spot for a journalist, and a journal.

I've said for awhile that the Sulzbutler did it.
=============================================

kim

He bosses the service of the MSM for the masters, the liberal elite. Unfortunately, the masters are now suspecting they've been deceived, by, among other things, the recommendation of Joe Wilson by the butler.
==============================================

The Kid

kim -

Do you mean that the old man, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, known as “Punch,” or the kid, junior, known as “Pinch” are pulling Judy’s strings?

I thought they were hand puppets.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Judith Miller has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to tell prosecutors to whom she talked about Plame.'

As cathyf says, this could be true.

kim

I think it is a Pinch and Judy Show. The kid's a fool.
=================================================

callmemickey

Yeah, somebody at the NYT probobly knows who the source is. But damnit we don't know for sure who knows. I certaintly wouldn't mind if the whole management and group of editors got tossed in to the big house for a few months. Maybe then we might be able to read news in the Times.

Crew v1.0

I insist that Able Danger is an enormous distraction, and therefore inherently suspicious. Someone is trying to upset the delicate societal balance achieved through the hard work of Gorelick and Company. Mo Atta never met an Iraqii in his entire adult life, with the exception of that one time he brushed up against one in the Cairo bazaar. (See pp. 10,323 of the 9/11 Commission Report, fn.4.) This piece of Accepted and Received Wisdom cannot be the subject now of collateral attack. Yet here we are, talking about the 9/11 Commission in tones that are anything but reverential and respectful.

Yes, Able Danger is muito perigoso because it is sucking precious heat, light and media bandwidth away from Karl Rove's betrayal of Valerie Maiden Name, and is tragically causing us to lose sight of the 21st century Guernica taking place even now down in Crawford, where Rumsfeld's carpet bombing of grieving mothers and widows via F-16's is proceeding for the tenth straight day, all to stifle dissent and intimidate our vivid 60's flashback. Frankly, I question the timing, and must conclude that this whole thing was whipped up by Karl Rove in the last two weeks, to push Mother Sheehan and Karl himself off the front pages of the Frog-March News. Please, people. Let's focus on what matters.

kim

Be kind to our web-footed friends.
That high step is the goose shit avoider.
Stalking Rove phantasma ever dead ends.
Check about a bit and better reconnoitre.
==============================================

TM

Don't forget that there is one way in which the "refusing to reveal her source(s)" story is perfectly true -- that the source(s) she is(are) protecting is(are)n't Libby, is(are)n't known to Fitzgerald, and is(are) s****ing bricks worried that Miller may be forced to reveal his/her/their identity to Fitzgerald.

Every now and then I note that in my Judy Miller tirades. Iin fact, in this specific post, I link to my earlier tirade where I say this:

In a very broad sense, this may be true - folks are scratching their heads wondering just what is driving Ms. Miller, and there may well be some source somewhere she is ultimately hoping to protect.

And that paragraph, in turn links to my thoughts on the legal terrain. My gist - legally, she is only obliged to respond to questions about Libby - if the conversation heads in a new direction, she can clam up (Matt Cooper did this when he was having his negotiated chat about Libby - the conversation turned to Rove, he shut it down, and earned himself another subpoena).

So, if she *really* is protecting another source, she can go in, talk about Libby, Just Say No if Fitzgerald asks about anyone else, and demand another subpoena.

Now, maybe Fitzgerald can get one, but he needs to comply with DoJ guidelines, and time is running out.

Seven Machos

I can't figure out if Crew is being sarcastic and witty, or if he really thinks that the Plame non-scandal and the weird, grieving mother are more important than September 11.

Joe Mealyus

AP: "...Miller has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to tell prosecutors to whom she talked about Plame."

Newsday: "...Miller ... jailed for refusing to reveal her confidential sources...."

JOM: "Wrong, and wrong again! [...] Judy's subpoena names a government official, and the official has signed a waiver of confidentiality. Judy, the judge, and Fitzgerald all know her source...."

I would like to hesitantly suggest that JOM might be missing something here. First of all I think we all understand the NYT's position on those "waivers of confidentiality" - they're a tool for the government to prevent leaks, and the NYT has no intention of playing along.

Second, why does the fact that the Fitzgerald and the judge "know" her source render as "wrong" the statement that Miller is in jail for "to reveal her confidential sources" or "to whom she talked about Plame?" I simply do not follow the logic here. It seems to me that Miller is or at least could be in jail for precisely the reasons given by AP and Newsday.

The assumption seems to be that because Fitzgerald "knows" who Miller's source is, that information in and of itself must be of no interest to Fitzgerald. This strikes me as highly conjectural, and I can see why Miller might think that her transmission of this information to Fitzgerald could represent a violation of her pledge of confidentiality to her source.

TM

Joe, I'm stumped - if the source (Let's say, Libby) has testified to a conversation with MIller, and Miller has been subpoenaed to present her version of the Libby-Miller interaction, in what sense is she protecting the "identity* of her source?

She may well be protecting the confidentiality of her *conversations* with the source, but that is not what is being reported here.

And I do think the Times likes to glam this up, playing on the public's perception of the anonymous Deep Throat.

I should add that my earlier *comment* had a bad tag and was garbled, but maybe it answers this more clearly now.

kim

Rather than identity it might be the liberty of the source.

However, I think Fitz is now after perjury, and it might be that what Judy would have to say, if asked, is the proof. Whether it is her perjury, or others', I can't guess.
================================================

cathyf
So, if she *really* is protecting another source, she can go in, talk about Libby, Just Say No if Fitzgerald asks about anyone else, and demand another subpoena.

Yeah, but that requires nerves of steel. Remember that witnesses go into that grand jury room without lawyers, and are terribly alone in there. Yes, it is possible to walk the tightrope between criminal obstruction of justice on one side and perjury on the other without letting the hypothetical source's identity out, but in practice, well ask Martha Stewart about how walking tightropes works in practice.

Hey, I know that I can be a loose cannon and loose my cool, and if I were protecting some unknown source I might just choose jail rather than the grand jury. So I can't rule out the possibility that's what Miller is doing.

cathy :-)

Joe Mealyus

"...if the source (Let's say, Libby) has testified to a conversation with MIller, and Miller has been subpoenaed to present her version of the Libby-Miller interaction, in what sense is she protecting the "identity* of her source?"

I can agree that if it's all as simple as Fitzgerald saying to Miller, "Libby told us he said X to you" and asking her to confirm that, that she is not really protecting a source.

But what if Libby actually said X, Y and Z to her? Or what if he didn't say X to her? Or what if someone else said X to her? What if answering one question from Fitzgerald about source A might give Fitzgerald some information about source B? What if Libby said "Miller told me (source B) told her...?"

I guess I'm not exactly sure I'm certain that Miller is in jail for refusing to answer questions that will simply confirm the testimony of others or whether she's in jail because she doesn't want to answer questions that will in some sense give Fitzgerald information about her sources that he does not yet possess.

I see your point that AP and Newsday are perhaps over-focused on the "to whom" issue at the expense of the "about what" issue. But I'm not convinced that Miller just isn't taking her pledge seriously. Yes, the press is self-aggrandizing, but also your word is still your word.

It seems to me that a lot of the criticism of Miller comes about just because people don't like her - the left-blogosphere dislikes her for herself and the right-blogosphere dislikes the NYT. Just as a lot of the interest in this case (and suspension of the normal rules of evidence and credulity) comes about because people don't like Rove. But I think there are some journalists who would take a very strong position on giving up their sources - no matter what their sources may or may not have said - and I haven't seen any evidence that Miller can't be one of them. (Equally so I haven't any evidence that she *is* one of them either, of course).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame