Posted on 09/30/2005 9:01:09 AM PDT by blogblogginaway
Who blinked first? Why did the Times get scooped last night? How come no one seems to know that Miller also turned over notes? Why didn't she accept Scooter's waiver months ago? And more.
So who blinked first in the Pat and Judy Show: the federal prosecutor or the jailed journalist? This is among a host of questions raised by Judith Miller's sudden prison breakout after cutting a deal with prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Did Miller cave, close to the end of the Plame grand jury's current term, because she feared that Fitzgerald would extend the term for many months? Or did the prosecutor cave (agreeing to limit Miller's testimony) because he was already being criticized for taking so long to produce indictments and needed to at least nail one bad guy?
Other bits of intrigue:
--First, the Washington Post got scooped on naming Deep Throat. Now The New York Times is just about last to report on its own star reporter (who it has championed in numerous editorials) getting sprung from jail. Even E&P, following the Philadelphia Inquirer's lead, beat the Times on it last night. What's up with that?
--Buried in all the accounts of Miller's agreeing to testify is the little matter of also deciding to turn over her written "edited" notes (apparently jotted down after the fact) on her chats with Scooter Liddy. What does "edited" mean? While not quite parallel to Time Inc. yielding Matt Cooper's electronic notes, which were in his magazine's system, why is so little being made of this? The Times has long said it had no notes, but that may be because they never got beyond Miller's note pad.
-- Why wasn't Liddy's personal waiver allowing her to testify (granted a year ago, he says) not good enough for Miller when it was good enough for numerous other embattled journos in this case? Why the sudden change in heart on her part?
--What exactly is going on with the Miller legal team? Is Floyd Abrams really the fall guy for letting this drag on so long? Or has Miller changed her own tune under the influence of Bob Bennett, one of her other lawyers?
--What does it mean that Libby claims to be shocked that Miller was protecting him and that he presumed she was shielding others?
-- Will we ever know who, in the words of the Times' Executive Editor Bill Keller last night, Miller feared she might "implicate" if questioned freely by Fitzgerald?
--More to come, surely.
When you've been scooped by both E&P and the Philly Phishwrap, you're hurtin'.
Waivers allowing to testify are somewhat pro forma. Journalists want sources to feel secure that their signing the waiver (without which the source can look suspiciously secretive) won't be too easily used as an excuse for the reporter to tell all. The threshold of invoking the waiver will vary from reporter to reporter and case to case.
None of these questions matter; nor does the truth. The bottom line is that the Bush Administration will continue to be blamed for "outing" a "covert" CIA agent.
Journalists are under a moral obligation not to reveal a spy's identity in a way to cause the loss of her life. And under a strict set of qualifications, a reporter can be prosecuted for that. But an official has a direct legal obligation regarding classified information obtained by his authority. The real Deep Throat, for example, took a tremendous risk on that account.
It doesn't make any sense to me. Why would a waiver be presumed to be coerced in the first place, with the reporter demanding it be proved not to be coerced. The presumption in all documents is that they are valid until proven otherwise.
Methinks Miller was facing a criminal contempt indictment, had enough of Club Fed and knew she was toast. So many questions in this one in light of the facts that Miller didn't even write a Plame story, Fitz has a bunch of presstitutes under oath (did they keep their stories straight? Hehehehe) and many knew Plame was CIA and the liar Wilson's wife. Methinks they laundered the info to make it appear that the WH was the source of the "leak" and ran with it. Hopefully, Fitz has the goods on them.
I thought the dog was sniffing his own behind. I need to read before drawing conclusions.
That one's not too hard to figure out. Libby gave all the reporters a release for their conversations with him a year ago. Miller apparently never got in touch with him to indicate that she somehow didn't consider herself released, despite the fact that Libby had quickly confirmed the volunariness of his release when the Newsweek reporter (threatened with jail at the same time as Miller) aaked him for confirmation. In the absence of communication from Miller, it would have been completely reasonable for him to assume she must be protecting some other source.
no possible way did she spend 3 months in jail because she and her lawyers "didn't realize" that Libby had given a release already. no way. this "2nd release" is all grandstanding.
I still don't understand how Novack gets whitewashed on this.
bttt
"Even E&P, following the Philadelphia Inquirer's lead, beat the Times on it last night. What's up with that?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493909/posts?page=79#79
Also, see post #76 in that thread.
That's loaded.
And indicates that Fitzgerald is more intersted in wrapping up this investigation instead of getting to the bottom of any conspiracy that Miller was involved in.
Your thought process is very genteel! I imagined the media consuming its own excrement...
Thought the same thing. And decided that's part of the artist's commentary on the media...
Absolutely. Miller is protecting somebody else, and all this Libby stuff is strictly a diversion. Libby and his lawyer have already confirmed that there was never any confusion about the validity of the waiver. They're scratching their heads along with everybody else about why Miller would spend three months in jail and THEN decide to seek confirmation from Libby about his waiver. It makes no sense on the face of it.
But that's "on the face of it" - - the real story is that Miller is covering for somebody else and she and her lawyers are rolling their eyes and half-heartedly attempting to make it look like it was Libby all along, despite the fact that NOBODY believes it. (Of course, it's great fodder for the scumbag liberal press to run with.) Very, very weird.... NOW we'll see how good Fitzpatrick is at setting up a perjury trap.
Well, we don't fully know what Novak's testimony is; and we don't know if any "arrangements" were made between Novak and Fitzgerald for his testimony. Novak strikes me as a tough and tenacious guy, but he's not going to take the rap for a source who may have left him twisting in the wind.
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.