DVD Talk
Miller agrees to testify -- Libby was the source [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Miller agrees to testify -- Libby was the source


nemein
09-29-05, 08:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AuJugu4ruPZ7AK51OL4WNB.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

WASHINGTON - After nearly three months behind bars, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released Thursday after agreeing to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert
CIA officer.
ADVERTISEMENT
[0]

Miller left the federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., after reaching an agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. She will appear before a grand jury investigating the case Friday morning.

"My source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations," Miller said in a statement.

The Times, which supported her contention that her source should be protected, reported late Thursday that her source was Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"As we have throughout this ordeal, we continue to support Judy Miller in the decision she has made," said Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

Miller has been in custody since July 6. A federal judge ordered her jailed when she refused to testify before the grand jury investigating the alleged leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's name by White House officials.

The disclosure of Plame's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July 2003 triggered an inquiry that has caused political damage to the Bush White House and could still result in criminal charges against government officials.

The federal grand jury delving into the matter expires Oct. 28. Miller would have been freed at that time, but prosecutors could have pursued a criminal contempt of court charge against the reporter if she continued to defy Fitzgerald.

Of the reporters swept up in Fitzgerald's investigation, Miller is the only one to go to jail. She was found in civil contempt of court.

Time reporter Matthew Cooper testified to the grand jury after his magazine surrendered his notes and e-mail detailing a conversation with presidential aide Karl Rove.

Last year, Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert answered some of the prosecutor's questions about conversations they had with Libby.

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus also answered the prosecutor's questions about a conversation with an unidentified administration official. Under the arrangements for his testimony, Pincus did not identify the official to the investigators, who already knew the official's identity. Prosecutors also say they know the identity of Miller's source.

Ranger
09-29-05, 08:22 PM
Dick Cheney's chief of staff? There's another chief of staff? I thought there was only one CoS for the chain of command.

Randy Miller III
09-29-05, 08:28 PM
Mom? :(

nemein
09-29-05, 08:28 PM
Both the Pres and VP have separate staffs so it would only make sense each would have a headperson/coordinator.

X
09-29-05, 08:47 PM
Not Rove???

That complicates the calls for his firing. Eh, just fire him anyway because we thought it was him.

nemein
09-29-05, 08:51 PM
Libby is probably just covering for Rove... shoot them both ;)

Ranger
09-29-05, 08:52 PM
Well, to be fair, isn't the chief of staff usually the president's or vice president's fall guy? You know, the guy to take the hit for the team? :)

Th0r S1mpson
09-29-05, 10:11 PM
Rove had better resign over this. :mad:

Or... maybe someone owes Rove an apology. Anyone? Bueller?

kvrdave
09-29-05, 11:18 PM
How do you fall for someone if a reporter says you gave them the information? Do you have Rove give the information, then tell Libby to tell the reporter that she gave it to her?

Well, that must be what happened.

FIRE ROVE!!!!

General Zod
09-30-05, 12:15 AM
I'm going to have my chief of staff look into this.

This must really depress the media... they wanted Rove to take the fall for this sooooo bad. Now they'll probably call for Cheney to resign.

Th0r S1mpson
09-30-05, 12:25 AM
You know... if "Karl Rove" can engineer a victory for W in '04, you have to realize he's capable of far more than what he's ever been accused of. My guess? He planted Judith Miller to begin with, and she agreed to do the time for the more important goal: Their agreed upon candidate (and winner) of the 2008 election. Nobody will doubt someone who so nobly went to prison to defend what was ultimately revealed. This I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will lay down in the next phase. There are no leftist wackos involved in this… everyone playing both sides of the issue comes from the right. Yeah, the Times really stood their ground on this one… sure, right up until the information was ultimately revealed. You… me… we are all just "Rove's" play things, trying to keep up. He'll always be a step ahead. Some people still think Rove is his real name. Who better to set up the '08 candidate than Bush with his obviously staged blunders and suposedly accidental incompetence. He's already been re-elected, so naturally Rove has him continue to make an utter fool of himself in order to make the next candidate appear more stoic. The man behind the mask will finally be seen behind the scenes of the more important ’08 run, and none of you will realize it’s the same old “Rove.”

<hr> Last edited by Karl Rove : 09-29-05 at 10:38 PM.<br><br>
<font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:1px;">

General Zod
09-30-05, 02:43 AM
Thor is Karl Rove! :eek:

nemein
09-30-05, 05:50 AM
Their agreed upon candidate (and winner) of the 2008 election.

Having a little trouble reading between the lines on this one... who do you think the 08 candidate (and winner ;)) will be?

DVD Polizei
09-30-05, 06:00 AM
Rove, rove, rove your boat, gently down the stream...

CRM114
09-30-05, 07:37 AM
:hscratch: Everybody surmised Miller's source was another person. Rove is still mixed up in this.

mosquitobite
09-30-05, 07:56 AM
Thor
rotfl

classicman2
09-30-05, 08:14 AM
:hscratch: Everybody surmised Miller's source was another person. Rove is still mixed up in this.


The forum would like to hear your apology for your past remarks concerning this.

lordwow
09-30-05, 08:25 AM
What? No No... Libby is just Karl Rove with a mask on. Like in Mission: Impossible. Gosh, don't you guys watch movies?

They should fire Karl Rove. After all, Libby isn't real.

DVD Polizei
09-30-05, 08:30 AM
A little OT, but does Bob Novak have any of his orginal teeth?

classicman2
09-30-05, 08:33 AM
When (if) you get to the age that Novak is, you probably won't have any teeth either. :)

CRM114
09-30-05, 08:52 AM
The forum would like to hear your apology for your past remarks concerning this.

What are you talking about now? You said last week that I supported Colin Powell and once again you are attributing comments to me.

What am I apologizing for again? :lol:

CRM114
09-30-05, 08:54 AM
Rove was still the Newsweek guy's source. When did Rove get off the hook?

All this Libby nonsense shows is that both Chiefs of Staff are no-good.

My Sweet NeoCon
09-30-05, 09:21 AM
Rove was still the Newsweek guy's source. When did Rove get off the hook?

All this Libby nonsense shows is that both Chiefs of Staff are no-good.

Thank you

I was counting up the posts and waiting for a sensible reply. It took 21 posts to get there.

VinVega
09-30-05, 09:26 AM
Thank you

I was counting up the posts and waiting for a sensible reply. It took 21 posts to get there.
Great name. :lol::up:

classicman2
09-30-05, 09:34 AM
Thank you

I was counting up the posts and waiting for a sensible reply. It took 21 posts to get there.

:lol:

Th0r S1mpson
09-30-05, 09:57 AM
The CNN story says Libby signed it a year ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/cia.leak/index.html

bhk
09-30-05, 11:00 AM
Something still doesn't add up. There is no way a reporter who had written permission to reveal Libby's name a year ago goes to jail. Then is set free after a phone call release. There is still another source. Liberal reporters like her don't go to jail to protect republicans.

kvrdave
09-30-05, 11:13 AM
Thank you

I was counting up the posts and waiting for a sensible reply. It took 21 posts to get there.


Okay, cool new member....and already acts like a former member. There only seem to be two dots to connect.


-wink-

classicman2
09-30-05, 11:36 AM
Who would that former member be? ;)

mosquitobite
09-30-05, 11:42 AM
Something still doesn't add up. There is no way a reporter who had written permission to reveal Libby's name a year ago goes to jail. Then is set free after a phone call release. There is still another source. Liberal reporters like her don't go to jail to protect republicans.

That's the way I feel about it as well.

mosquitobite
09-30-05, 12:04 PM
So it's just a coincidence that Frist is under investigation, Delay is indicted, and now Miller speaks out - all in the same week. And Pelosi already has her talking points ready :rolleyes:

This is nothing more than a showdown for the SC already...

They needed to take down the leaders of Congress and try to go after the administration at the same time. They couldn't get Rove, so they're settling for Libby/Cheney.

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble! :lol:

bhk
09-30-05, 12:12 PM
When you're bereft of ideas and corrupt, accuse the other side of corruption. That is the MO the Clintons taught the dems.

mosquitobite
09-30-05, 12:25 PM
I'm so confident this is all a buncha BS, I say Bush should wait til after Fitzgerald hands down his indictment this October BEFORE naming his selection for SC. :lol:

wmansir
09-30-05, 01:09 PM
I agree it doesn't make sense.

Libby as long been known to have bee one of Miller's sources, and Miller has consistently said she does not find general waivers valid. The WashPost did a story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071502080.html) in July on Libby's involvement, although the story says Libby's account of their conversation did not involve Plame I've read elsewhere that he did say they talked about Plame, though it could be in a different conversation. Also, some House Dems called on Libby to provide a personalized waiver back in August.

If we are to believe the CNN article, then we have to ask, why didn't Miller's lawyer inform Libby's lawyer that, even with his reassurance, Miller did not accept the general waiver?

And if Libby knew all along that a specific waiver was required, why do it now?

X
09-30-05, 01:41 PM
And if Libby knew all along that a specific waiver was required, why do it now?I heard Miller negotiated what she could be asked by the grand jury. She didn't have those constraints in place earlier.

CRM114
09-30-05, 02:52 PM
Something still doesn't add up. There is no way a reporter who had written permission to reveal Libby's name a year ago goes to jail. Then is set free after a phone call release. There is still another source. Liberal reporters like her don't go to jail to protect republicans.

I'd like to believe she went to jail to protect the freedoms of the press.

CRM114
09-30-05, 02:53 PM
So it's just a coincidence that Frist is under investigation, Delay is indicted, and now Miller speaks out - all in the same week. And Pelosi already has her talking points ready :rolleyes:

This is nothing more than a showdown for the SC already...

They needed to take down the leaders of Congress and try to go after the administration at the same time. They couldn't get Rove, so they're settling for Libby/Cheney.

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble! :lol:

Wow. You Republicans are very creative in your conspiracy theories! :lol: Its the same chuckle I get listening to Rush Limbaugh blow a gasket every day over stuff no one but him cares about.

bareva
09-30-05, 02:58 PM
Rove, rove, rove your boat, gently down the stream...

:):)

bhk
09-30-05, 03:36 PM
I'd like to believe she went to jail to protect the freedoms of the press.

And I'd like to believe in the tooth fairy.

But, she already had a written waiver from Libby a year ago.

CRM114
09-30-05, 04:03 PM
And I'd like to believe in the tooth fairy.

But, she already had a written waiver from Libby a year ago.

Which is why I think as I do. Perhaps her desire to protect the press (unlike the dude from Newsweek) was greater than her loyalty to the "vast left-wing conspiracy."

Revealing sources goes to the very heart of the freedom of the press. I'd like to think that some people believe in protecting those freedoms. But what the hell do I know?

bhk
09-30-05, 06:18 PM
Revealing sources goes to the very heart of the freedom of the press. I'd like to think that some people believe in protecting those freedoms. But what the hell do I know?

But it still doesn't make any logical sense. Why does she go to jail when the person who she is allegedly protecting signed a waiver over a year ago releasing her from hiding him(Libby) as a source?

X
09-30-05, 06:31 PM
But it still doesn't make any logical sense. Why does she go to jail when the person who she is allegedly protecting signed a waiver over a year ago releasing her from hiding him(Libby) as a source?I heard it was relayed to her by Libby's attorney that Libby was coerced into signing the waiver and needed to do it to keep his job. Only recently did he say he was voluntarily releasing her from her pledge of confidentiality.

bhk
09-30-05, 06:36 PM
I heard it was relayed to her by Libby's attorney that Libby was coerced into signing the waiver and needed to do it to keep his job. Only recently did he say he was voluntarily releasing her from her pledge of confidentiality.
But she still had the signed document. If she would have gone forward, the only person who would have been screwed would have been Libby.

X
09-30-05, 06:39 PM
But she still had the signed document. If she would have gone forward, the only person who would have been screwed would have been Libby.There might be a bit of journalist ethics involved. Plus the chance of getting anyone to trust you again since they know you know how the waivers really work.

Bandoman
09-30-05, 07:04 PM
When you're bereft of ideas and corrupt, accuse the other side of corruption. That is the MO the Clintons taught the dems.

And when you're corrupt, accuse your accusers of attacking you for political purposes. That's the MO of just about everyone who wants to deflect attention from their own guilt.

mikehunt
09-30-05, 07:52 PM
Libby?
Hoeler?

Ranger
09-30-05, 09:30 PM
Am I understanding this right?

Some people are gloating that the source wasn't Rove - IT WAS LIBBY! And they're assuming that Rove wasn't involved in any of this?

Don't get me wrong, I was against Miller being put in jail - I don't give a damn if a court ordered her to reveal the source. It was still wrong and a waste of money and resources. And that the "outting" of a covert cia agent iwan't a big deal to me, but I'm not going to assume that there wasn't any maliciousness behind it or that the Bush administration has a squeaky clean staff.

X
10-01-05, 01:44 PM
Questions and Answers on CIA Leak Case
By Pete Yost Associated Press Writer

Published: Oct 1, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reporters hauled before grand juries. A White House under fire. With the CIA leak investigation perhaps ending soon, some questions and answers about what it has meant:

Q: Who in the government disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame?

A: There is not a simple answer. In conversations inside the Bush administration, Plame was referred to as the CIA employee who was the wife of a former U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wilson.

In this regard, at least Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, qualify as leakers. Rove learned of Plame's name in a conversation with columnist Robert Novak. Where Novak heard about Plame's name is not known publicly. Libby says he did not learn Plame's name until he saw it in Novak's column. The reason any of this matters is that leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime.

Plame had a hand in sending Wilson on a trip to the African nation of Niger for the CIA. Wilson returned with the information he later used to accuse the White House of hyping prewar intelligence about Iraq, including the threat of nuclear weapons.

Q: When will we learn what the investigation by the special prosecutor, Peter Fitzgerald, has turned up?

A: Possibly as early as this month. The federal grand jury that New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to on Friday expires Oct. 28. If Fitzgerald has plans to seek indictments, he probably would do so with the grand jury that has been dealing with all the evidence for the past two years.

If Fitzgerald does not seek criminal charges, it will not end the matter. By law, he will write a comprehensive report of his findings and submit it to the Justice Department, which probably would make it public.

Q: What convinced Miller, after spending 85 days in jail, that she should testify before the grand jury?

A: Perhaps Fitzgerald's promise to limit the scope of his questioning. Miller, a national security reporter with many sources in the Bush administration, undoubtedly feared open-ended questioning. The prosecutor would not have had to range too far to get into troubling territory for Miller. Starting in 2002, her stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq strengthened the administration's case in preparing for war. The failure to find the weapons was developing into a major issue at the time of the Plame leak and resulted in heavy criticism of Miller and her newspaper as well as of the administration.

Q: Miller said she wanted her source to release her from a promise of confidentiality. If a personal conversation between the reporter and her source was all she was waiting for, what took so long?

A: The saga of the phone call goes back more than a year, when Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, says he and his client released Miller to testify. Tate says he was surprised when Miller's lawyers again asked for a release in the past few weeks. Miller's lawyers called and said there was "a misunderstanding and Judy wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth" that Libby was releasing her to talk to the grand jury about their conversation, Tate said.

One of Miller's lawyers involved in the earlier discussions, Floyd Abrams, said there was "a great deal of ambiguity" about the long-ago release given by Tate. Libby, like other administration officials, had granted a blanket waiver authorizing reporters to speak to the grand jury about any conversations they may have had. Abrams said Miller was concerned that such a release "was, by its very nature, coercive."

Q: Other than testifying about her source, what could have kept Miller from going to jail?

A: Probably nothing. Fitzgerald was adamant that he needed Miller's testimony about the contents of her conversations with Libby. The prosecutor indicated in court in July that he was prepared to pursue a criminal contempt of court charge against her if she continued to defy him.

Q: What are the chances anybody is going to jail as a result of this investigation?

A: For disclosing Plame's identity, probably a slim chance at best. For lying to Fitzgerald's investigators, the possibility may be greater. The prosecutor seems to have pursued a number of questions that could signify nothing more than imperfect memory by witnesses or could point to evidence of a cover-up.

As late as July, Fitzgerald was asking Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper "several different ways" whether Rove had indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. Rove never said, according to Cooper. Regarding the leak of Plame's identity, under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, there has to be an intentional disclosure of the identity. The person making the disclosure has to know that the information identifies somebody whose status is covert and that the U.S. government has taken measures to conceal the identity. Some legal experts say that high legal threshold appears to be impossible to meet in the Plame case.

Mordred
10-01-05, 01:54 PM
Damn you X. Your article makes it seem like this had nothing to do with the vast left wing conspiracy and I just can't buy that.

I'm waiting for the real truth. What are the Clintons up to in all of this???

bhk
10-01-05, 03:59 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2127240/?nav=tap3

The Biggest Loser
It's not Judith Miller. It's the Times editorial board.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Friday, Sept. 30, 2005, at 4:07 PM PT


The biggest loser in Judith Miller's capitulation yesterday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald isn't freedom of the press. And it isn't Miller, the New York Times reporter whose reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had previously sullied her reputation.

It's the Times editorial page.

Ever since Miller refused to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case and a federal judge issued her a contempt citation and the jail sentence that goes with it, the Times editorial page has aligned itself with her absolutist stance that she should never, ever be forced to talk. On Oct. 16, 2004, the editorial page stated:
The specter of reporters' being imprisoned merely for doing their jobs is something that should worry everyone who cherishes the First Amendment and the essential role of a free press in a democracy.

The page reiterated support of Miller with multiple editorials (Oct. 16, 2004; Dec. 5, 2004; Dec. 20, 2004; Feb. 17, 2005; June 28, 2005) and one on July 7, 2005, as she entered the Alexandria Detention Center. Nor did the page abandon Miller once she was behind bars, stridently calling for her release on July 19, 2005; Aug. 15, 2005; Aug. 29, 2005; and Sept. 19, 2005, drawing unintentional laughs by heralding the European petition for Miller's behalf signed by "writers, journalists and thinkers including" Günter Grass, Bernard-Henri Lévy, and Pedro Almodovar. You can almost hear Fitzgerald say, "If Gunter, Bernard-Henri, and Pedro want me to spring Judy, well, okay!"

The page's Aug. 29, 2005, editorial universalized her plight: "If Judith Miller loses this fight, we all lose."

We lose? I'm sorry, but the only losers I count today are Miller and the Times editorial page, which she left holding the soiled bag of her absolutism. As today's news accounts (Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times) report, Miller has accepted a waiver to testify from confidential source I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, and the get-out-of-jail card that comes with it.

Don't get me wrong about Miller and Fitzgerald's investigation. I opposed the investigation even before there was an investigation, writing that it's highly unlikely that anybody broke the law (the Intelligence Identities Protection Act) that has been invoked. I've written reams denouncing Fitzgerald's misguided investigation, standing up for reporters' privilege. I've given unsolicited legal advice to Miller and Matthew Cooper, the Time reporter who eventually answered subpoenas in the case, telling them to dump lawyer Floyd Abrams and hire my former paladin, Bruce Sanford. I even threw a kiss to that impossible minx, Miller, when she promised not to talk.

But there is no way for Miller—and by extension the Times editorial page, which staked so much on her stance—to deny that they have lost hugely. From the get-go, Miller refused to accept waivers from sources releasing them to talk. In particular, she and the Times editorial page disdained the "general waivers" that prosecutor Fitzgerald had obtained from White House officials and presented to journalists under subpoena. On July 19, 2005, the editorial page stated, "In fact, these documents were extracted by coercion, so they are meaningless. Employees who are told they are required to sign waivers to keep their jobs are not sincerely freeing reporters from promises to keep their identities secret."

The Times was not alone on this score. As the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reported on July 13, 2005, "Post reporters who answered prosecutors' questions also declined to rely on the paper waivers."

Miller held similar disdain for "specific waivers," personal waivers sources sign freeing specific reporters to talk to the grand jury. Times Executive Editor Bill Keller outlined Miller's waivers views in the same Post story:

The simple fact is that Judy made a promise to a source that she would protect his anonymity. That source has not granted her any kind of a waiver from that promise, at least one that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given, and she feels bound by that pledge. And more than that, she feels that, if she breaks that pledge, she will compromise her ability to do her job in the future.

The spin that the Miller camp appears to be putting on her belated acceptance of a Libby waiver is that something changed between the time she was jailed and yesterday. Times publisher and Miller friend Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told his own news pages today that she "has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify." [Emphasis added.]

Said Keller in a statement reported in the Post, "Judy refused to testify in this case because she gave her professional word that she would keep her interview with her source confidential. In recent days, several important things have changed that convinced Judy that she was released from her obligation." [Emphasis added.]

What changed? On one level, nothing: Libby attorney Joseph Tate told the Post that he had informed Miller attorney Floyd Abrams a year ago, explaining that Libby's waiver was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify. On another level, everything: At some point this year, Miller replaced Abrams with Bob Bennett. Tate was astonished to learn several weeks ago when Bennett contacted him that Miller did not regard his earlier communication as license to talk.

"We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration," Tate told the Post.

How could Miller have misunderstood? It's well known that her fellow First Amendment martyr, Cooper, who narrowly avoided becoming Miller's cellmate when Karl Rove gave him a waiver, previously got one from Libby and gave limited testimony in August 2004. Cooper wrote up the account in Time magazine (July 25, 2005, issue) and recounted it on the July 17, 2005, edition of Meet the Press. Can we really believe 1) that Miller misunderstood the original deal Tate conveyed to Abrams; or 2) that she and her lawyer missed the Time and Meet the Press revelations that Libby was willing to talk?

What's more likely is that Miller was tiring of jail after her 12-week stay—and who wouldn't be?— and that she conveniently "rediscovered" Libby's offer once Fitzgerald threatened her anew with criminal contempt charges, obstruction of justice, and extension of the grand jury, which could have given her 18 months more to stew in her cell. One clue that I might be right: Miller's former attorney Abrams, a charming man who returns phone calls, did not return the Post's. He also declined to discuss the question of the year-old waiver with reporters covering the story for the New York Times, his sometime employer.

If Abrams isn't talking, there's much, much more to say, and I think we can say it for him. Judith Miller surrendered her ballyhooed principles yesterday and called it victory. The real winner for anybody with eyes to read a newspaper is Patrick Fitzgerald.

One last point: The Times editorial page deserves a big loss in its column if for no other reason than they called this mess down on Miller, Cooper, Novak, Pincus, Russert, Kessler, the Times, et al. with a self-contradictory Oct. 2, 2003, editorial. The editorial both fretted that Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department and the White House weren't investigating the case aggressively and fretted that a thorough investigation would ensnare the press, too.

"The Justice Department should focus its attention on the White House, not on journalists," stated the editorial.

But you can't investigate a crime that consists of leaking to the press without getting the press to talk. Maybe the paper's publisher and editorial board have figured that out now. They should have grasped it then, before requesting the epic collision of first principles from which Judith Miller has just slunk away.

X
10-01-05, 04:10 PM
One clue that I might be right: Miller's former attorney Abrams, a charming man who returns phone calls, did not return the Post's. He also declined to discuss the question of the year-old waiver with reporters covering the story for the New York Times, his sometime employer.

If Abrams isn't talking, there's much, much more to say, and I think we can say it for him. Judith Miller surrendered her ballyhooed principles yesterday and called it victory.He was talking yesterday, on his son's MSNBC show.

He said Libby's attorney conveyed the idea that the waiver was signed under coercion and not of Libby's free will. The transcript of his statements will be available on Monday.

NCMojo
10-01-05, 08:06 PM
Something still doesn't add up. There is no way a reporter who had written permission to reveal Libby's name a year ago goes to jail. Then is set free after a phone call release. There is still another source. Liberal reporters like her don't go to jail to protect republicans.
Liberal reporter? Judith Miller??? rotfl

You're aware the Miller has esssentially been a mouthpiece for administration propaganda since the beginning? Why do you think that her admitted source is the Chief of Staff to the Vice President? You mean to tell me that the Administration cherry-picked a "liberal" reporter to leak this information?

Oh, what the heck, I'll ask -- what credible source can you link to suggesting that Judith Miller is a "liberal" reporter?

NCMojo
10-01-05, 08:18 PM
So it's just a coincidence that Frist is under investigation, Delay is indicted, and now Miller speaks out - all in the same week. And Pelosi already has her talking points ready :rolleyes:

This is nothing more than a showdown for the SC already...

They needed to take down the leaders of Congress and try to go after the administration at the same time. They couldn't get Rove, so they're settling for Libby/Cheney.

Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble! :lol:
Problem with your theory is that the evidence would seem to solidly suggest that all of the people you mentioned are, in fact, guilty as charged. The claim of a "vast left-wing conspiracy" would carry a lot more weight if their hands were clean.

Here's an alternate, and much more plausible, explanation -- the current torch bearers of the Republican Party are fundamentally corrupt. The GOP has been sucking at the corporate tit for so many years now, this is hardly a surprise, but what is amazing now is just how cocky they have become. Delay got in trouble when his corporate buddies bragged openly about how they paid for the election. They pass corporate sweatheart legislation like the bankruptcy bill and the energy bill and nobody bats an eye.

And then people like you have the audacity to step up and blindly defend them. You want to criticize partisan attacks? Look at your own party first.

(Oh, and by the way -- Rove has not been "cleared" by a damn thing that Miller said. What this has done is broaden the scope... Rove himself has already been identified as one of the sources of the leak. And let us not forget that all of this really all about how the Administration lied us into a war... a fact that seems completely obvious in hindsight, and yet is completely illegal and immoral even on its face.)

wmansir
10-01-05, 09:20 PM
Powerline blog (http://www.powerlineblog.com/) has copies of several key letters. One from Libby to Miller, Tate to Fitzgerald and, most interesting, Abrams to Tate in response to the previous 2 letters.

Abrams says that Tate informed him that Libby did not oppose Miller testifying, but he did not encourage her either, which Tate claimed in his letter. He also said that Tate made it clear that the blanket waiver was coerced by it's very nature, and denied Tate's claim that he asked and was reassured that there was "nothing Libby could do" to make Miller talk.

Abrams claims that the inconsistency of Tate's words regarding the coercion of the waiver and Libby's opposition to her testimony, combined with the fact that Libby did not contact her directly, left Miller feeling uneasy regarding Tate's assurances. Abrams also takes issue with Tate and Libby's claim that they were unaware that his specific waiver was what Miller needed to testify, mentioning both Miller's public statements of requiring a personal waiver and public calls for Libby to grant one.

However, it is interesting to note that Abrams makes no mention of any attempt by himself or Miller to privately clarify Libby's position.


My own opinion here, I think the evidence points to Libby not wanting Miller to testify. Miller seemed to accept that, but 3 months of prison food started to get to her and she looked for an out. Libby couldn't directly deny a specific waiver or he would be toast (as it would no doubt make it to the NYT pages), which Miller knew, otherwise she would have confronted him months ago.

It's not entirely implausible that Libby believed he gave her permission to testify, and cut direct contact because of fear of obstruction of justice charges. This would mean either a) the Miller-Libby communication channels were very messed up, or b) something else is up with Miller's testimony, particularly her deal with Fitzgerald on the scope of his questioning. One piece of evidence that suggest the latter is that Miller stayed in jail for 10 days after receiving Libby's personal assurance.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0