Posted on 10/01/2005 11:30:25 AM PDT by hipaatwo
We have obtained copies of Scooter Libby's letter to Judith Miller dated September 15, 2005, in which he again urged her to testify before the grand jury, and repeated the waiver that he gave her more than a year ago; a letter dated September 16, 2005, from Libby's lawyer Joe Tate to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, expressing astonishment at the claim that Libby's purported failure to give a "voluntary" waiver was the reason why Miller remained in jail; and a letter dated September 29, 2005--the day before yesterday--from Miller's former lawyer, Floyd Abrams, to Joe Tate, in which Abrams disputes Tate's account of their conversation of one year ago and claims that Libby really is the "source" on whose behalf Miller languished in prison. Here they are:
It strikes me that a game of very high-stakes poker is being played here. I still think it almost inconceivable that Judith Miller, or anyone else, would sit in prison for three months, if all she needed to get out was a letter from Libby saying, in effect, "I meant what I said a year ago," without ever asking Libby for such a letter or communicating to him that it was on his behalf that she was in prison. That scenario, as outlined by Abrams, seems senseless to me. It also doesn't explain, as Paul noted last night, why Miller stayed in jaiil for another ten days after getting Libby's letter.
Which leaves open the question we asked last night: What is really going on here?
PAUL adds: Abrams argues that Miller didn't regard Libby's waiver as voluntary because Tate allegedly told Abrams that Libby made the waiver as a condition of continuing to work in the administration. However, as Beldar notes, even if this is what Tate told Abrams, the notion that a waiver executed under that circumstance is coerced or non-voluntary runs counter to the law. Otherwise, says Beldar
there could never be a valid guilty plea, for instance. [And] you could freely breach every contract by claiming, "Oh, well, I was coerced into breaking my promise because I suddenly realized it would be disadvantageous to me to keep it."
Presumably Judith Miller hired her high-priced lawyers (Abrams and then Bennett) to explain these sorts of things to her (Abrams' claim that Tate "persuasively mocked" the notion that the waiver was voluntary is laughable -- since when does a lawyer base his legal conclusions on the mocking of another lawyer). The other reporters involved in this case were satisfied with Libby's waiver as Tate explained it to their lawyers. Abrams response to this is to huff that "Ms. Miller was not." But why not? Is it because she received inferior legal advice? Because she wanted to serve some time to enhance her reputation? Or because she had another source to protect?
Abrams apparently would have us believe that it's none of the above, but rather because she's more principled than the other journalists. But that still wouldn't answer the question of why she waited so long to get the answer that she, Judith Miller, needed to satisfy her lofty principles. Abrams admits that Miller regarded Tate's message (as now depicted by Abrams) as "mixed." The rational response to a mixed message under these circumstances would be to seek clarification before serving several months in jail.
In short, Abrams' account doesn't add up. The attempt to make Libby the fall-guy for Miller's jail time is unconscionable.
FYI
But the White House is going to let it be spun that way.
I also find it hard to believe she would set in prison for 3 months for not revealing a source that gave her permission to reveal him a year ago, just doesn't make sense, even from the left.
To me, this smacks of "just name someone from the White House and we'll let you out."
There has to be another high level source she is still protecting and we may never know just who it is, possibly Plame's own hubbie or a high up Democrat?
"Abrams response to this is to huff that "Ms. Miller was not." But why not? Is it because she received inferior legal advice? Because she wanted to serve some time to enhance her reputation? Or because she had another source to protect?"
Or maybe just too stupid to be a reporter... oops, she works for the New York Times doesn't she? Never underestimate that crew...
I have said since this started they are covering for Colin Powell. I've gotten flack for it but I'm still sticking to it.
The White House can not control the lying in the liberal media.
We can control the spin by not watching the dying lib media.
Power is in numbers.
Lib networks are on 'Parental Block'.
VOTE WITH YOUR REMOTE!!!!!!
Miller was playing the martyr to further her career. That's what was going on here. Nothing more.
Charles Krauthammer said he thinks Miller is trying to make a name for herself as 'the reporter who defended the first amendment' instead of 'the reporter who "lied about WMD"'.
Someone here on an earlier thread speculated she spent the time in the pokey to develop "street cred" so she can hit the high dollar lecture circuit as a poster girl for "journalistic integrity".
No, but he has the bully pulpit. It's sheer stupidity not to use it.
Let every Freeper know that wherever Judy Miller goes to talk, she should be challenged on the facts of why was she so stupid as to go to jail when her source released her from confidentiality?
IMO .. it has to do with who in the Government gave her the heads up about that Islamic Charity that was raided by the FBI ...
Miller warned this Charity prior to the FBI showing up
I am!!
I have had it with the bold face lies and liberal slants
Read the WPost article; believe it or not, it is somewhat objective. The article states that Miller agreed to testify AFTER getting the new waiver by Libby (as you said, this is bogus) AND assurances that she would not have to discuss OTHER sources.
She's protecting someone else NOT in the administration (the only reason why Fitzgerald would agree to this, IMO, since if the source were NOT in the adminstration, he has no legal perogative to indict them.)
I am curious as to why Abrams is no longer Miller's lawyer.
Abram's CYA memo, back to Libby's lawyer, is laughable.
Even if Libby's lawyer said Libby's employment was contingent on signing the waiver and Libby said he did want Miller to testify, why was this confusing? Both statements can be true.
I know I will never hire Abrams to represent me if Joe Wilson ever calls me to talk about his CIA wife and then I push the story to the WH Admin.
Here's a beautiful Saturday afternoon laugh for you. LOL LOL
Dailykos: Libby Writes IN CODE to Miller?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4945143
I agree that Powell is the most likely suspect. If you wanted to find out about someone from the State department who made a trip and who was making charges about the administration, who would you go to?
But the libs love Powell and don't want to cause him any flack.
Aspen Institute & chalabi ???
Ummmm isn't the Aspen Institute a left leaning group were the Clinton's have spoken at?
I think the clear implication of this is that Libby considers Miller to be in the same category, that is, that either (1) they didn't discuss it or (2) Miller knew about Plame before the call. We know (1) is not the case if we believe the leaks about the grand jury testimony of both Miller and Libby as reported by, for example, WaPo.
That leaves (2), that Libby believes that Miller knew about Plame before the call.
We don't knew exactly how the conversation went from the leaks, but the leaking suggests that Miller just played dumb, i.e., Libby says in their first conversation, "we don't know why Wilson was sent, we're checking with the CIA" and in the second one "seems to have something to do with Wilson's wife" and Miller doesn't say anything.
And if Miller knew about Plame before talking to Libby, then it's still possible she was the source of the original information; perhaps by talking to other reporters who in turn talked to Rove or Libby. It's possible that we may never know if this is true or not.
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.