Powered by TypePad

« A Uniter, Not A Divider | Main | Weak Standards At The Weekly Standard »

October 04, 2005



This feels like the buildup over the President's SCOTUS Nomination, and look how THAT left us feeling.

I think both sides (DDems and Reps) will be disappointed by the outcome of, well, let us now call it MillerGate.

I am not going to lose any sleep over Harriet Miers or Fitz's Investigation. Both seem to be a wash to me.

And PLEASE, call TYPEPAD and get them to fix their two week login! It lasts about 2 Hours. If enough bigtime Bloggers like you, Cap'n Ed and others complain, maybe us little guys won't be "required" to log in Daily, sometimes more then twice a day.


You've got me now - what is the two week log-in?

If it is for comments, I am doubly puzzled, because it is my impression that (for this site) the log-in is optional.


There's howling about Joe's blackened heart and fishy stories.


Tate, Libby's attorney, pushes back in the AP:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller has only herself and her lawyer to blame for her seven weeks in jail, a lawyer for her source claims.

Joseph Tate, who represents Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, accused Floyd Abrams, the well-known First Amendment lawyer, of engaging in "spin control," The Washington Post reported. Tate says Libby released Miller from her promise of confidentiality long before she was imprisoned for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

"The significant fact that you continue to omit, and that seems to be lost here, is that you never told me that your client did not accept my representation of voluntariness or that she wanted to speak personally with my client," Tate said in a letter to Abrams. "Even you can't spin those facts away. That is the answer to this unfortunate circumstance of your client's incarceration, not any failure on our part."

Abrams and Miller have said that she did not believe that Libby's waiver was voluntary.


I'm more confused by the discrepency between Fritz-to-Tate letter and Tate's reply, than I am by the discrepency between the Tate-to-Fritz and Abrahms-to-Tate letters. And the only thing I can think is that Fitz is honing in on Libby.

First, it is way too long and way too "legal brief"-like for it's purpose. Heck, there was no need for a staff attorney to spend 5 hours ghost writing this opus, and then Fritz another 2 or 3 hours editing. A simple phone call could have solved this problem.

Which leads to the second point: Is Tate telling the truth when he says, paraphrasing (liberally), "Fritz, why the hell didn't you just call me, or have one of your staff call me, a year ago, like you did with the other reporters? This never had to happen." If Tate is telling the truth, why didn't Fritz do that, and why does Fritz's lengthy letter act like this never happened with the other reporters?

I thought the Fritz letter was very accusatory, and I don't think I would have felt too good, as Tate, when I got it.


TM, why are you not discussing Floyd Abrams on Reliable Sources

KURTZ: I talked to people at the "New York Times" who are angry and confused about this. They say, understanding -- look, many journalists have used confidential sources. Most of us have not gone to jail. They say you could have had something approaching the same deal before she went to jail. You and Judy Miller took an absolutist position -- we cannot possibly betray the source -- by going to jail and what happens at the end? She takes the waiver and testifies before the grand jury.

ABRAMS: We couldn't have had the same deal. Indeed, in one respect I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby. She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them.

Powerline posted last night

Not challenging, just interested to know why this does not seem to interest (m)any...am I missing something


I think people are too focused on this step and ignoring the next steps after Miller testifies.

Ok, suppose the leaks are more-or-less accurate, and Libby has testified that Miller told him what "Mrs Wilson's" job was. Two possibilities:

Miller testifies that Libby told the truth. This just puts Fitzgerald one step further along. He still needs to know who told Miller what in order to decide whether somebody has violated the IIPA.

Miller testifies that Libby lied. Fitzgerald charges him with perjury. Libby defends himself vigorously with the claim that Miller is lying. He needs to know all of Miller's sources who could have possibly known about Plame so that he can depose them. Even if we think that this is like OJ finding the real killer, our system of laws gives people pretty wide latitude to defend themselves, no judge will hesitate to give Libby's attorneys the (completely reasonable) subpeonas that they want, and so all of Miller's sources are toast.

So it looks to me like one way or another, whether Libby lied or not, whether Miller lies or not, Miller can't protect her sources. If this really was about protecting sources, then maybe Miller really has just been stalling for as long as she can, hoping that something, anything comes along and saves her from this catastrophe. Hey, it worked for Bill Clinton.

cathy :-)


Fitz can't believe you bought the line he'd only ask questions she was willing to answer.

The comments to this entry are closed.