Comments on: Judith Miller Released from Jail

Judith Miller Released from Jail

kirkaracha — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:59:07 -0800

Judith Miller Released from Jail and will testify before the grand jury tomorrow after getting a waiver from her source, Scooter Libby. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has assured Ms. Miller's attorney that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers." (More from Editor & Publisher and New York Times; statements by Miller and the Times publisher and executive editor.)

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:59:22 -0800

Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone this month as their lawyers listened, according to people who have been briefed on the case. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver. The discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate's asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to another lawyer for Ms. Miller, Floyd Abrams, more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:17:08 -0800

Floyd Abrams is a freedom of speech lawyer, a very distinguished one. It seems that because Ms. Miller has done some loathesome shillish things through the years colors some people's view on freedom of speech and the rights of reporters.

By: StrasbourgSecaucus

StrasbourgSecaucus — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:32:32 -0800

Let her stew in prison ALAP. crap, wrong fpp

By: nervousfritz

nervousfritz — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:34:40 -0800

Basic rights shouldn't be subject to political fashion. Who's Judith Miller again. Come on, neurons, you can do it wikipedia , and hence the Rove tag.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:41:57 -0800

I knew it was Libby... Then again, I also thought Miller herself might have been the source.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:47:15 -0800

Look, we've hashed this out before -- the "right" of reporters to defend their sources is a custom, not a law. And the fact is that the crime itself is in fact that the information about Plame was reported means that the reporter is hardly an impartial third party. The fact that Miller bears as much responsibility for the war in Iraq as any individual not actually in the Bush government can is just icing on the cake. As long as the United States is holding unidentified prisoners who have been charged with no crime in concentration camps like Abu Ghraib, you won't find me shedding a tear for poor Judith Miller. It's all some stupid chess game, anyway. We'll eventually find out the details and I'm sure we'll all be disgusted.

By: nervousfritz

nervousfritz — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:53:18 -0800

word, sorry. I think I was having the wrong argument.

By: wfrgms

wfrgms — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:05:34 -0800

So what? It's going to require a sniper to take down Rove now or what?

By: undule

undule — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:23:23 -0800

If this all ends in murder, well, that'd be worth the months of spectating.

By: gsteff

gsteff — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:02:41 -0800

The timing of this is very, very odd. The grand jury would have run out next month, and she'd have been released anyway. And if she really did only just receive a release from Libby, why did Libby wait until now to provide it? As idiotic as it seems, the most likely explanation to me seems to be that she just cracked under the pressure of jail. Its rather embarassing for the Times.

By: salmacis

salmacis — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:16:07 -0800

Hmm...I just got a registration page from the first link...

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:19:34 -0800

sal: bugmenot worked for me.

By: jpburns

jpburns — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:37:42 -0800

Yes, but don't make us go that route... links should be free...

By: rzklkng

rzklkng — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:14:42 -0800

gstef said "The timing of this is very, very odd." Is it? John Roberts, friend of non-Constitutional rights like Executive Privilege gets confirmed. By the way, his duties include chairing the commission that decides what cases get heard, as well as choosing who gets to write the opinion of the court. Oh yeah, he would also preside over any impeachment proceedings...

By: caddis

caddis — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:35:50 -0800

We should be hearing soon about whether indictments or plea agreements are forthcoming. When it rains, it pours.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:36:23 -0800

So basically it was Libby, just as Joseph Wilson said it probably was from the very beginning. Welcome to 2004!

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:02:24 -0800

Hey Judy, we were fucking right.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:03:42 -0800

I'm no fan of Judy Miller as I believe she personally bears a great deal of responsibility for all those dead kids in Iraq because of her bullshit Chalabi-fed WMD stories on A1. Then again, I do think the ability of reporters to protect their sources is crucial to democracy, and yes, even when the source has committed a crime. (Ignoring the whole issue of protecting a source who lied to you, in which case all bets should be off.) But she's going to testify NOW? After all the high-minded martyr-ish gobbledegook about only she can protect the sanctity of journalism? Please.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:16:27 -0800

Arianna nails it: "How deep is the Times' contempt for its readers that they really think they'll buy the "Oh, Judy finally has the right waiver" line? The truth of the matter is there is no way that the New York Times editorial claiming "it should be clear...that Ms. Miller is not going to change her mind" can be squared with Ms. Miller changing her mind. And there is no way to accept at face value Miller's grandstanding about "fighting for the cause of the free flow of information."

By: Mid

Mid — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:19:09 -0800

I do think the ability of reporters to protect their sources is crucial to democracy, and yes, even when the source has committed a crime. Even when the source is a government official running an official character assassination effort? Where's the democracy value in that? Why did Rove/Libby even need anonymity here? Merely to try to hide the government's own fingerprints on a smear job. This ain't the Pentagon Papers. More like the opposite.

By: Mid

Mid — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:21:21 -0800

Also: the big question here isn't who she talked to -- everyone has known the culprits were some Rove/Libby combo for months. The big question is what they said to her, and then what they said to the prosecutors about these conversations. If anyone goes down here, it's going to be on perjury/obstruction.

By: Ricky_gr10

Ricky_gr10 — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:34:33 -0800

Where's the democracy value in that? Why did Rove/Libby even need anonymity here? Merely to try to hide the government's own fingerprints on a smear job. Amen.

By: vannsant

vannsant — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:41:19 -0800

I also agree that Libby most likely didn't wait this long to give release her of her supposed confidentiality agreement. It makes no sense that the Bush Administration would want to re-open the Plamegate wounds at this very low point in their administration and the current state of Republican scandalism. So, I think she gave up.

By: srt19170

srt19170 — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:46:18 -0800

Fitzgerald has talked about seeking criminal contempt charges against Miller; with the grand jury about to run out I suspect he informed her that he was about to seek criminal charges against her and she saw the writing on the wall. Kudos to Fitzgerald for not folding to the Miller's ridiculous freedom of speech defense.

By: petrilli

petrilli — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:49:40 -0800

The problem is that there are two situations that reports get put in that bring this issue to bear. The first is when they are just parroting Administration talking points (a Judith Miller specialty), and it comes to light that it was all in the case to do harm to the public. The other situation is where a reporter is trying to get something out that undermines those in power. The press does not need protection so that it can continue to be a propaganda arm of the Administration -- this or any. What Judith Miller did was knowingly endanger and help fuel the flames of war. What she deserves isn't contempt, it's an M-16 and a one-way ticket to Iraq to fight for all that "she believes in."

By: Hobbacocka

Hobbacocka — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:56:09 -0800

The timing of this is very, very odd. Keep in mind that Fitzgerald could have found a way to prolong the grand jury, or else scuttle this one and start a new one. There's no guarantee Miller would have been released in October.

By: Mid

Mid — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:16:57 -0800

Good Judy stuff here.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:00:14 -0800

To bad it's the scoot and not Turd Blossom. And as far as freedom of speech goes, fuck that. Freedom of speech is being able to say what you want, not protecting criminals.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:02:54 -0800

E&P's Greg Mitchell has a few questions too.

By: Ber

Ber — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:36:26 -0800

Too bad it's the scoot and not Turd Blossom. I was under the impression that Fitzgerald has other evidence against Rove. This couldn't be a move by the Administration. They're bumbling and incompetent, but no way would they let this pile on to everything else that's been blowing up in their faces in the last month.

By: bardic

bardic — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:27:50 -0800

It's been a great week for the reality based community.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:12:26 -0800

Sam Smith: In other words, Miller agreed to admit what was already known but not what isn't. For example, what if her real source was her buddy Chalabi, Karl Rove, or even GW Bush? Meanwhile both the NY Times and the Washington Post low balled the story that Larry Franklin had agreed to plead guilty in what appears to be a case involving Israeli spying on the U.S. - including the Pentagon. Back when the media was still in the news business, this would have been considered a big story, but no more. The Washington Post even buried it in its Metro section, as though it was just local news.

By: goethean

goethean — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:35:17 -0800

That's ok. Al-Jazeera's got the story.

By: gesamtkunstwerk

gesamtkunstwerk — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:57:38 -0800

It's a little hard to believe that Scooter Libby was sitting in Washington for 10 weeks thinking that he had given her a waiver. Did he not notice she was still in prison? Moreover, if Miller wasn't afraid of something pretty damaging, you'd think she would have had her lawyers contact Scooter to ask if it was absolutely necessary that she remain in prison. Are we supposed to believe this? I don't put a lot of faith in her testimony. She's a crappy writer, a shill, and shrew, and there is nothing to indicate that her testimony will be worth a damn. BTW-- does anyone know the time frame of this grand jury?

By: Mid

Mid — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:08:32 -0800

Grand jury expires at the end of October. But prosecutors can just get another grand jury or ask the Court to extend it, so it's unclear if the expiration date matters. There are lots of talkingpoints-types saying that the rumors are that there will be announcements of indictments or non-indictments in October. But I haven't even seen a blind quote to support these rumors.

By: pruner

pruner — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:04:49 -0800

it would seem that a possible explanation for her change of heart is that Fitzgerald agreed to limit the questions to Plamegate, when he presumably could've gone after her for the WMD BS as well.

By: caddis

caddis — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 07:41:46 -0800

The Times has now published the Libby letter.

By: caddis

caddis — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:57:40 -0800

Stephanopoulos claims to have heard from an inside source that not only Cheney, but GW as well was in on some of the Plame conversations.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:34:59 -0800

Breaking! Plame Indictments Imminent

"The D.C. Rumor mill is thrumming with whispers that 22 indictments are about to be handed down on the outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame case. The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right. Can it be a coincidence that the White House appears to be distancing President Bush from embattled aide Karl Rove? 'He's been missing in action at more than one major presidential event,' a member of the White House press corps tells us. If the word on the street is right a second time, we have a bit of advice for Rove: Go with vertical stripes, they're way more slimming." [Radar Magazine | October 5, 2005]

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:10:08 -0800

US officials brace for decisions in CIA leak case

"Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by [prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald. In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a target."

Has Rove been notified that he is indeed a target of the investigation, or may be about to receive an indictment?

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:46:59 -0800

Report: Rove to Give 11th. Hour Testimony in Plamegate Case:

"Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th-hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer's leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won't be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation....The U.S. attorney's manual requires prosecutors not to bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless they are notified in advance that their grand jury testimony can be used against them in a later indictment. Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual. The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances." [Associated Press | October 6, 2005]

Is Rove spilling the beans to cop a plea?

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:21:08 -0800

Prosecutor 'Not Finished' With Judith Miller Yet.