Decision ‘08

Judith Miller of the Times Freed From Jail

Jailed for almost three months for contempt of court when she refused to testify before a grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame affair, Judith Miller is now a free woman again:

Judith Miller will appear before the grand jury Friday after spending 12 weeks behind bars protecting the confidential source.

Miller said her attorneys reached an agreement with prosecutors on the scope of her testimony that “satisfied my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources.”

“It’s good to be free,” Miller said in a statement. “I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations.”

She did not identify the source.

New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said the newspaper supported Miller’s decision to testify.

“We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify,” he said in a statement.

Miller’s source was Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, but if you’ve been following PlameGate, and particularly the excellent coverage of Tom Maguire, you’ve known that for months; speaking of the MinuteMan, why should I pretend to be able to tell this story as well as he can? Head over to his place for much, much more on this story…

4 Responses to “Judith Miller of the Times Freed From Jail”

1 mark, the lesser Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Actually, Miller was Libby’s source.

The reason Judy is out now is because she obtained reassurances from Fitzgerald that he would not ask her to identify her source.

The big question that no one seems to ask is “How many people did Joe Wilson tell about his wife’s occupation, in order to establish crediblity?”

Pretty much the entire NYT editiorial staff knew. We know that Andrea Mitchell knew. And probably Russert.

Save our Spooks, Nick Kristoff, May 30, 2003
“A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public.”

The article that is being referenced above is the May 6, 2003 article by Kristoff-”Missing in Action : Truth.”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm

The article establishes the natur of Wilson and his trip to Africa. IT includes info that Joe Wilson did not have access to.

“I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office …”

The person was Joe Wilson.

Shortly after failing to gain sufficent momentum, Wilson makes his own move by doing his editorial in July 2003.

The logical question from the editors, to Wilson, would be…
“What is the source of info” or at that time Wilson had already told the staff of his wife’s special position. (Can anybody in their right mind believe that Wilson did not brag about his special knowledge?)

Wilson clearly was receiving information from his wife about WMD’s, which is a crime.

Any serious investigation would have to determine who knew of Plame’s identity, especially in the press. Thus Judy needed to speak… but, now, no longer has to discuss her co-workers.

He also made reference to Classified Documents that were not available to the US…

“Joe Wilson didn’t tell the truth about how he supposedly came to realize that it was “highly doubtful” there was anything to the story he’d been sent to Niger to investigate. He told everyone that he’d recognized as obvious forgeries the documents purporting to show an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. But the forged documents to which he referred didn’t reach U.S. intelligence until eight months after his trip. Mr. Wilson has said that he “misspoke”–multiple times, apparently–on this issue.”

Mr. wilson did not have access to those papers, but, surprisingly, his wife did.

The sucker punch of the investigation? Wilson and Plame will be the last witnesses called.
(Remember also that Fitzgerald is the guy who brought the indictment in 98(?) against Bin-Laden, but reportedly was upset that he was instructed to leave out the role that Al-queda may have played in Mogadishu. (When you bring an indictment-see Ronnie Earle- you put all you got that might stick. Fitzgerald was told to back off the Somalia connection, becuase it might embarrass the Clinton Admin. He was not happy.)

If Fitzgerald asks both of the Wilson’s who they told about her identity and did she share classified info with her husband…the house of cards falls down. Indictments may be an option.

If I’m Wilson’s lawyer, I whisper in his ear one word:

Hubris.
2 mark, the lesser Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 9:51 am
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005375

The long quote in the previous entry needs a source, sorry.

(Worth reading.)
3 Mark Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 11:15 am
mark, I’m still a little confused on that point, so I admit to going back and forth; you can make a good case for both Libby told Miller, and Miller told Libby, and even Miller told Libby one thing and Libby told her another…which kind of points to the ridiculousness of the whole situation…
4 mark, the lesser Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 11:45 am
To keep it simple, if Wilson lied during the investigation to investigators, about who he discussed his wife’s job…he is in the same boat as Martha Stewart-and he will get to do the frog walk.

Dems seem to be banking on the honesty of Joe.