Libby Trial - Previewing Judy Miller

Judy Miller is on deck in the Libby trial, so what are we looking for?

Her account of her grand jury testimony is here (and Judge Walton assured the defense it jibed with her actual testimony); the key prosecution points appear in the indictment:

14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

...17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a "former Hill staffer" rather than to a "senior administration official," as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson's trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson's trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

...24. On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA.

Clearly the first two leaks by Libby to Miller are problematic for the defense, since it is Libby's contention that the Plame news only registered with him when he heard it "as if for the first time" from Tim Russert on July 10 or 11.

Some backstory - Special Counsel Fitzgerald kept Judy Miller in jail for 85 days to secure her testimony; he is was also aggressively pursuing her testimony on an unrelated case, the Islamic Charities.  My guess is that there is no love lost between them, and I look for Ms. Miller to put the "hostile" in hostile witness.  Specifically, I think she will be vague where Fitzgerald would like her to be emphatic, and emphatic where he would like her to be vague.  Just a guess based on channeling my own inner vengeful witch, but she may be a much better person than I.

The defense will make much of the fact that she appears to have discussed Ms. Plame with other sources as well as with Libby.  Fitzgerald did not question her about this, as part of the deal that got her out of jail.  She said this in her account:

Equally central to my decision [to testify] was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning.

The defense has agreed to nothing and may attempt some expansive questioning of Ms. Miller, although the judge may wonder as they wander.

Comments

[Pofarmer]

Wouldn't it be interesting to know who else Miller was talking to? Wouldn't it just suck to be her, if, after spending time in jail, the information she was trying to protect still comes out? Is this going to get back to the "everybody knew" meme?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Another subtle distortion by Fitz:

'LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.'

Not exactly, according to her own report of what she testified to. I expect the defense to jump all over this.

[Martin]

Juuuuddddyyyyyyyy!!!

You got some 'splaining to dooo...

[Cecil Turner]

Specifically, I think she will be vague where Fitzgerald would like her to be emphatic, and emphatic where he would like her to be vague.

I doubt her ability to be emphatic on any contention other than being confused. And if her testimony is anything like her reporting, even with her notes, she can't figure out what was said or when or by whom. I'm not sure she's really what the Prosecution is looking for in a case about memory issues.

[Sue]

I tell ya' what. Someone needs to yank EW's press credential. Abu Gonzales. Making fun of how a black man pronounces birthday.

[Dan S]

Sue, she's annoying, but on the whole she's head and shoulders above the others as far as pseudo-transcribing goes. Just can't take it as gospel with those sorts of indicators of willing bias slipping in. On the other hand, it DOES serve to remind us of her bias...

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

I like EW's comments. Confirmation of the utter vapidity of lefties thought? processes should always be welcomed. She actually seems a little smarter than most - she's almost sophmoric in her approach.

[Jane]

It seems to me that you have to read two sources of transcription in this case to get the true story. EW emphaisizes what she thinks bolsters the case against Libby and we get bolstering of the stuff that helps Libby from the others. And even then I'm not sure we are getting more emphaisis on some things than they deserve. It's really a fasinating way to "watch" a trial. And in the end the process may give us more insight into the transcribers than anything else.

[Pete]

I think Judy will try to stick to her script, and avoid hurting Libby wherever possible without perjuring herself. I agree largely with Tom Maguire's assessment.

I thought (wrongly?) that since she stuck her neck in the slammer to protect Libby, and given that she was planting all the Bush administration WMD leaks in the NYT she would be somewhat of a heroine here.

[Pete]

There are two sides of the story, but there is only one jury. Lets see what they say.

[Martin]

Oh come on Pete-look how they savage people still working at the White House. They don't even believe Addington! Why would they stay loyal to Judy?

Take Ballard-the prototypical rightwing moron-he doesn't even understand what he's saying anymore-if he ever did. It's just Fitz = bad at this point.

[Dan S]

I doubt Miller went to jail to protect Libby. I think it was purely to protect herself (and her livelihood). That other little case is probably of no small concern to her, and she's worried a camel nose under her tent might sniff out more than Libby-related secrets.

[topsecretk9]

--During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters.--

Doesn't it appear that all the selective leaking leads back to Valerie - aluminum tubes, Niger etc, etc.

I wonder "all the reporters know" heard as if for the very first time means bells went off in Libby's head to the significance of Plame and these leaks - as in he realized for the very first time the wife was a significant part where as before he thought just a minor part to answer who sent him (not OVP).

[Pofarmer]

I wonder "all the reporters know" heard as if for the very first time means bells went off in Libby's head to the significance of Plame and these leaks - as in he realized for the very first time the wife was a significant part where as before he thought just a minor part to answer who sent him (not OVP).

Well that's interesting. Because, at this time, they still hadn't pinned down exactly who sent Wilson, correct? And, if Val got him sent, why wouldn't she become a major part of the story. She, Joe, and who knows who else, must have figured that her "position" at the CIA would insulate her.

[Pofarmer]

Also, what's the timeframe Joe was working for the Kerry campaign?

[danking70]

TM, shouldn't that be "inner warlock".

I'd hate to check out your MySpace profile.

[topsecretk9]

--Also, what's the timeframe Joe was working for the Kerry campaign?--

May 2003

[topsecretk9]

--And, if Val got him sent, why wouldn't she become a major part of the story. She, Joe, and who knows who else, must have figured that her "position" at the CIA would insulate her.--

I think the selective leaking and suddenly realizing the Wilson's were cavorting with reporters to the point of "they all knew", Libby suddenly realized "the wife" was probably more a factor than the even the husband leaking classified crap.

[Tom Maguire]

TM, shouldn't that be "inner warlock".

Geez, now I am doing cross-gender magic. And folks think of this as only a Plame-related blog...

[cboldt]

-- he is also aggressively pursuing her testimony on an unrelated case, the Islamic Charities --

The case of obtaining the telephone records in question is fully concluded (Fitzgerald is no longer aggressively pursuing Miller's testimony), and the statute of limitations for charging the leakers has expired.

[cboldt]

-- And in the end the process may give us more insight into the transcribers than anything else. --

This case is a fascinating window in many ways.

Even given literally perfect transcriptions, you'd see the opposing camps develop conflicting theories. It's largely about having a fight, just to have one.

[cathyf]

I thought (wrongly?) that since she stuck her neck in the slammer to protect Libby, and given that she was planting all the Bush administration WMD leaks in the NYT she would be somewhat of a heroine here.

*snort* Judy found out about Plame from one of the leetle peeple. One or more of the many "low-level operatives" at CIA, DIA, DoS who were Judy's sources for her WMD reporting repeated the water-cooler gossip of the CIA analyst who got the taxpayers to pay her hubby's airfare & hotel for his business trip and now the wacko lying hubby is taking the vice president on a wild ride.

1) Judy had such sources.

2) Such source would be worth going to jail for

3) Judy told us quite explicitly that she testified only on the condition of protecting her non-Libby sources.

And, yeah, I'm enough of a libertarian that Judy would be my hero for going to jail to protect her "leetle peeple" source(s).

[Tom Maguire]

It's largely about having a fight, just to have one.

I'm mot sure it's a fight per se - at fdl, for example, dissenting viewpoints are not even allowed.

However, it is widely viewed that people look to the news for affirmation, not information. So this trial offers lots for both the "BushCo=Evil" and "MSM=Evil" crowds.

[Jane]

Even given literally perfect transcriptions, you'd see the opposing camps develop conflicting theories. It's largely about having a fight, just to have one.

That's for sure. I just read FDL and they are celebrating the coup for Fitz that Well's cross exam rendered. I read their transcript of that cross exam and that certainly wasn't my take at all.

Frankly, except for Fleisher - who appeared to be wrong, there hasn't been much there, there, at least from where I sit. The jury must be shaking their heads wondering "what the hell am I doing here?"

I know I am.

[Pofarmer]

realizing the Wilson's were cavorting with reporters

That would also explain why the reporters tried/are trying, to be so mush mouthed. Nobody wants their sources indicated.

This whole govt/msm/leak thing, is really disastrous, on a whole lot of levels. Maybe the result of having a govt too large? Too entrenched?

[danking70]

At what point in the trial would the defense want to refute Ari's Dickerson testimony?

Would it happen on cross or would it come when the defense presents its case? Wouldn't it be better for the defense to immediately have Dickerson say "No, Ari didn't tell me that?"

I mean how many seconds did it take for Dickerson to refute Ari's testimony after Ari said he told Gregory and Dickerson about Pla-may?

[Carol Herman]

"Slant" is one thing. I learned from reading the Lincon/Douglass Debates, that Lincoln put them together from news reports. He took ALL the stories, from papers that had definite bias. And, he cobbled together, as best he could, WHAT WAS SAID at each venue. THEN, he went to Douglass. And, showed this ALL to him. And, it was AFTER Douglass read it through, that the FINAL DEBATES were published.

So, you don't see "slant" as a new thing in media! HOWVER, when have you seen such SILENCE?

Look at all the reporters who really KNEW! And, who also knew how this story "got cooked up in the first place." IN ORDER TO HURT BUSH'S 2004 re-election bid.

Heck, Burkett, feeding Mary Mapes, who let Dan Rather run with the "Lucy Ramirez" passing him the "documents" at the rodeo, story ... Had also sought to have a job in Kerry's campaign! And, yes. Those documents ONLY CAME FORWARD once Burkett got "the phone call from the Kerry campaign!"

Okay. Dan Rather blew his chances at changing the outcome of the 2004 election. As a matter of fact? He probably added 4-million votes to Bush's column. Just by angering the SILENT MAJORITY.

While press people going silent? This isn't something you've never seen before? I just love it, that DRUDGE built his reputation on the Internet, with the SPIKED Monica story. Have you ever looked back?

WHose richer now? Drudge? Or Spikey Isakoff?

Woodward's also an interesting devil, here. Because? I think he absolutely FEARS exposure on HOW the WaPo took out Nixon! Nixon ENGAGED with the media! And, they hung him.

Bush? He doesn't engage at all.

This case? Let's say Reggie Walton sees to it that Libby is lynched? Can you explain how he sits on the bench, WITHOUT affirmative action? And, then you look at the Supreme's. You know Ruth Bader Ginsberg now SLEEPS through Orals. And, she's more than just a woman, she's a COMMIE. You see thse types galivanting to the top?

As to Judith Miller; her biggest "fwend" was Chalabi. And, no matter what else you see out of Iraq, all of Judith Miller's "powers" didn't get Chalabi up there, in Iraq, with enough votes, to run that country.

When you see a separate from what a few jerks WANTED, to what they GOT. You get to understand that this Libby trial is at best, PLAN B. (Plan A was to get Kerry elected president.) Who knows what Judith Miller will say? She got railroaded to prison, though! And, it shows ya, judges like Tatel, are nothing more than political shills.

It's gonna take awhile before this country can fix what got broken, built on those ideals that pushed forth the worst trash into high government positions.

On the other hand? The longer the Civil War went on, the greater the cost to ONE SIDE. The southerners? Lost everything they wanted. And, Lincoln? Didn't start out with any thoughts on emancipating slaves.

I learned from history that the longer it takes, and the more horrible the fight, the more likely the crap gets extracted. Hitler dies. And, despots get buried in parking lots. TRUE SINCE THE ANCIENT GREEKS DEALT WITH THEIR 30-YEARS OF TYRANNY.

The media? Call me when they can "up" their subscription lists. Or sell newspapers. And, ad space on TV, like the going price, now for an ad ($2.5 million EACH), because there are so many advertisers looking for audience. SO THEY'LL PAY IT TO THE SUPERBOWL.

Ahead? Clarice Feldman's book, when she writes one, will clearly top the best seller list! And, the reporters that lie? Let's see if Woodward can reclaim his former status as a truth teller. Well, he got Nixon! But what else did he get?

[cboldt]

-- I'm mot sure it's a fight per se - at fdl, for example, dissenting viewpoints are not even allowed. --

An interesting aspect to my point that opposing camps tend to craft conflicting theories from a perfect transcription of history.

"Not sure it's a fight per se" depends on what form the disagreement must take in order to qualify for being labeled a "fight per se."

I see FDL as a participant in various fights, even though they try to maintain lock-step order on their own turf.

Most (probably all) venues of public exchange are intolerant of points of view that deviate from the local norm. At FDL, the intolerance is manifested in shutting down local debate, at other places the same effect is accomplished with shouting down and ridicule. The net result is apparent on observation -- there are righty sites, and there are lefty sites. The prevailing point of view of a given site on any given issue is damn predictable, once one knows the site's political inclination.

The Libby case has been turned into an exceptionally polarizing event.

[Syl]

The Libby case has been turned into an exceptionally polarizing event.

Because it ties into the Iraq war which itself has been polarized. Which causes the entire issue of terrorist threat to be polarized as well.

In November I think 'the people' voted to end the polarization--let's work together as one for the sake of the country.

I'm afraid the Democrats took the election as a mandate to be even more polarizing.

And to think it all started with Wilson.

[cathyf]

Nah, it all started with Freeborn John. Although you gotta agree that our modern versions of Star Chamber torturers are wusses compared to the 17th century ones.

[boris]

"Not sure it's a fight per se" depends on what form the disagreement must take in order to qualify

Some fight to win, others to lose. Fighting to lose seems somehow wrong.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Okay, Miller is testifying and is reported as

Miller then described her June 23, 2003, interview with Libby where he mentioned former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife working at what he called "the bureau." At first she took it to mean the FBI but then concluded he meant the non-proliferation bureau at the CIA. Libby was upset that the vice president was getting accused of being behind Wilson's trip to Africa when it was CIA.

as reported by E&P &AP

but this is well after Grossman had his report back on Libby's original inquiry of May 29th and he reported to Libby on or about June 10-11. Miller's assumption is wrong, in my opinion. The "bureau" reference is from Grossman's report:

Grossman ultimately got a report on Wilson’s trip on June 10 or 11 from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). That report mentioned that “Valerie Wilson was employed at CIA.” The context for this was that “Mrs. Wilson” chaired WMD panel and organized her husband’s trip. “I though this was pretty interesting. Kind of odd and remarkable that A) she worked at the Agency and B) she was involved in the organization of the trip.” He thought it was “inappropriate” that one spouse would arrange another’s trip.

[owl]

During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters.--

Doesn't it appear that all the selective leaking leads back to Valerie - aluminum tubes, Niger etc, etc.

I wonder "all the reporters know" heard as if for the very first time means bells went off in Libby's head to the significance of Plame and these leaks - as in he realized for the very first time the wife was a significant part where as before he thought just a minor part to answer who sent him (not OVP)

.

ts...that would be enough to confuse poor Libby as 'if for the first time'.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I should have added that the "bureau" was neither FBI or CIA:

The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (or INR) is a small bureau in the U.S. State Department tasked with analyzing information for the State Department.

[Pete]

Because it ties into the Iraq war which itself has been polarized. Which causes the entire issue of terrorist threat to be polarized as well.

Afghanistan is not polarizing. Iraq is polarizing, but as time goes on less so as Republicans break away from Bush on the topic.

A majority of the people (especially non-partisans) see as separate the Iraq war and the war on terrorism.

In November I think 'the people' voted to end the polarization--let's work together as one for the sake of the country.

This is Lieberman's line, and I think that anyone could us this line to support their point of view.

I'm afraid the Democrats took the election as a mandate to be even more polarizing.

See what I wrote above :)

A majority of the country opposes Bush on Iraq, so the blame goes to the Democrats?????

And to think it all started with Wilson.

It started much before Wilson. Wilson is the symptom, not the cause.