Posted on 09/30/2005 11:52:47 AM PDT by jimbo123
WASHINGTON - New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified before a grand jury Friday, ending her silence in the investigation into whether White House officials leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.
Miller, free after 85 days in jail, spent more than three hours inside the federal courthouse in downtown Washington, most of it behind closed doors with a grand jury.
Miller arrived at about 8:30 a.m. at the courthouse as part of an agreement reached Thursday with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to disclose her conversations in July 2003 with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Miller said in a statement that her source _ identified by the Times as Libby _ had released her from her promise of confidentiality.
But Libby's lawyer said Friday he and his client had released Miller long ago to testify, and were surprised when Miller's lawyers again asked for a release in the last few weeks.
"We had signed a waiver more than a year ago," Attorney Joseph Tate said. "We didn't think this had anything to do with Scooter. I was under the impression from talking to (Miller attorney Floyd) Abrams that she was protecting a number of other sources."
Tate said Miller's lawyers called recently 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 his client did not know or hear about Plame's identity until it appeared in a newspaper column by Robert Novak. "Scooter did not know the name until he saw it in the Novak article," he said.
Miller went to the grand jury area Thursday morning accompanied by her attorneys Robert Bennett and Abrams and colleagues from the Times.
Until a few months ago, the White House maintained for nearly two years that Libby and presidential aide Karl Rove were not involved in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, whose husband had publicly suggested that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the runup to the war in Iraq.
The timing of the criticism by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was devastating for the White House, which was already on the defensive because no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. The president's claims of such weapons were the main justification for going to war.
Libby met with Miller just two days after Wilson blasted the Bush administration in a Times op-ed piece.
Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper has testified recently that Rove and Libby had spoken to him about Wilson's wife that same week in July 2003 when Miller spoke to Libby.
In October 2003, with the criminal investigation gaining speed, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Rove and Libby: "Those individuals assured me they were not involved in this" leaking of Plame's identity.
Miller has been in custody in Alexandria, Va., since July 6. A federal judge ordered her jailed for civil contempt of court when she refused to testify.
The disclosure of Plame's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003, triggered a criminal investigation that could still result in criminal charges against government officials.
"My source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter," Miller said in a statement Thursday. Her newspaper identified Libby as the source, saying that Miller and Libby spoke in person on July 8, 2003, then talked by phone later that week.
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said that "as we have throughout this ordeal, we continue to support Judy Miller in the decision she has made. 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."
White House aides signed waivers earlier in the probe, but Miller wanted and received personal assurances that her source's waiver was voluntary.
Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn declined to comment.
President Bush has given varying accounts of the circumstances under which he would fire leakers in the Plame probe.
In September 2003, Bush said "we'll take the appropriate action" and his spokesman said "they would no longer be in this administration." In June 2004, Bush reiterated the pledge, answering "yes" when asked if he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked Plame's name. In July, amid revelations that Rove and Libby had been involved in the leaks, Bush said that "if someone committed a crime" he would be fired.
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.
Novak apparently has cooperated with prosecutors, though neither he nor his lawyer has said so.
Novak's column in July 2003 said two senior administration officials told him Plame had suggested sending her husband to the African nation of Niger on behalf of the CIA to look into possible Iraqi purchases of uranium yellowcake.
Wilson's article in the Times, titled "What I Didn't Find In Africa," had stated it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Grand juries work in mysterious ways.
I used to love "The Judy Miller show" on TV in the 1970s.... Oh wait that was a Saturday Night Live character by Gilda Radner.
What do you make of this? (Much more of interest follows this statement.)
Yes, it would seem that Judith Miller was protecting a number of sources.
If Libby first learned of the name of Wilson's wife in the Novak article, that means Libby only knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but was unable to pass on her name.
It would seem logical that a reporter learning that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA -- and it appears Libby's claim was that it was the CIA acting on Wilson's wife's recommendation rather than Vice President Cheney as Wilson claimed who sent Wilson to Niger -- that the reporter would want to determine if that were true. The simplest path to determining the truth or falsehood of that whether Wilson's wife worked for the CIA would be for the reporter to contact Wilson and ask, "Joe, does your wife work for the CIA?"
My money is still on Joe Wilson having been the source of the information that his wife worked for the CIA -- and he is clearly the source of the furor about his wife being a "covert operative" which she hasn't been for about a decade or more.
Will it? Or will it remain secret, except for the illusion that Libby is somehow "dirty" in this? Whether planned or not, it's certainly a good way to smear someone.
what I make of that is two fold:
- Tate is a jerk for not understanding that this second "personal" waiver was merely part of the spin and smear operation from the MSM. why he took the call and provided it, I have no friggin idea.
- he should be out there giving a press conference with statements like the one quoted here, statements about how the waiver had already been in place, to defend the name of his client - because his client is getting smeared right now.
Oh, she definitely thinks of herself as a "martyr" for the cause of her "principles"--did you see her press conference? What a crock that was.
indeed. the likely outcome of all this is that the grand jury will close, neither Rove nor Libby will be indicted, but that story will be on page 23 - while the MSM is "indiciting" first Rove, and now Libby, for the sheeple's consumption.
I read that in another article although it was worded somewhat differently. That is why she is now willing to testify and it has nothing to do with a waiver from Libby.
But what does this tell you about the grand jury investigation? Does it mean they have determined no law was broken with regards to leaking a CIA agent and Fitzgerald is now looking into perjury or obstruction?
Something here is totally wacked, either they will determine no laws were broken or its turned into a witch hunt. That's the only way this makes any sense to me.........
Maybe, but hardly anyone knows who Libby is anyway. And the Libs can't smear Rove much more than they already have (but they will try).
Why would anyone want to smear a guy named "Scooter"?
The MSM plus Fox--lately they've been perfectly awful about this story. It's not so much that they want to smear Libby or probably even Rove for that matter--it's just that anyone they can smear at all, up to and including the family dog, will hurt the President. He is their true target. The latest mantra I'm hearing (and it's almost funny, considering who it's coming from) is that the Bush admin is surrounded by a "culture of corruption." After all the Clinton years, to hear this from the 'Rats, it's just mind-boggling.
Because his own name is "Pinch"?
-PJ
It would seem logical that a reporter learning that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA -- and it appears Libby's claim was that it was the CIA acting on Wilson's wife's recommendation rather than Vice President Cheney as Wilson claimed who sent Wilson to Niger -- that the reporter would want to determine if that were true. The simplest path to determining the truth or falsehood of that whether Wilson's wife worked for the CIA would be for the reporter to contact Wilson and ask, "Joe, does your wife work for the CIA?"
My money is still on Joe Wilson having been the source of the information that his wife worked for the CIA -- and he is clearly the source of the furor about his wife being a "covert operative" which she hasn't been for about a decade or more.
Cheney's office knew nothing about Wilson's trip. It has been established that the non-proliferation department sent Wilson on their own volition. Of course Libby would have no idea why Joe was sent until Wilson wrote his outrageous op-ed and started asking.
As to Wilson, it seems more than likely he told some reporters before his op-ed was even published about his wife. After all, Wilson was giving them his story anonymously first before he went public.
As to that decision, Cliff May articulates several points well today:
We now know that beginning in 1999, “Who’s Who in America” was carrying a bio of Joseph Wilson -- naming “Valerie Plame” as his wife.
That means that when Wilson sat down to write his now famous op-ed for The New York Times, both he and Mrs. Wilson had to recognize the consequences: From the moment it was published, anyone she dealt with in her undercover capacity would be able to easily discover that she was the wife of someone who undertakes assignments for the CIA.
Surely, that would severely limit her ability to work undercover. What is the chance that a foreign agent would agree to buy prohibited weaponry or computers from the wife of a CIA contractor? How open would a foreign spy be in speaking to the wife of a CIA informant?
In other words, as soon as the Times published Wilson’s piece – and before Bob Novak printed her name in his column and David Corn provided details about her CIA work and cover story in the Nation’s online edition -- Plame’s career as a covert agent had, effectively, been terminated.
One has to expect that the prosecutor will take that into consideration in determining whether a crime has been committed by anyone.
snip
Relax. Nobody...absolutely no one...is buying Miller's "Oh, I just got a personal waiver" story.
Tate did fine. It would be worse to have "no comment" when his client has nothing to hide and his actions support have supported that.
Yup. We're supposed to believe she spent months in jail because of some misunderstanding about an old waiver, even though she has two of the smartest and best connected lawyers on the planet??? What ticks me off is the MSM really thinks we're stupid enough to believe this.
Exactly! THis is the same crap the other one pulled. They had given a SIGNED waiver. I believe that she went to jail and will "cover" for her other sources and throw Libby to the wolves. And the other sources will be protected!
It's reporters that are Stuck on Stupid!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.