Times Reporter Free From Jail; She Will Testify – New York Times
Judith Miller, the reporter for The New York Times who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released Thursday from a Virginia detention center after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor in which she would testify before a grand jury investigating the case, the publisher and the executive editor of the paper said.
Interesting, and potentially a big story, depending on what she says.
Although staying in jail all that time and then testifying is amazing. It is like staying up watching a baseball game going into extra inning after extra inning to the point at which you have stayed up until 2am, yet your team loses. At that point you have to ask was all that time worth it?
She goes to the Grand Jury today:
Ms. Miller said in a statement that she expected to appear before the grand jury on Friday. Ms. Miller was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony.
No doubt many on the Democratic side of the Sphere are salivating at the possibilities of what she may say–given the Frist and DeLay situations. And if she is going to finger someone in the WH, especially if it is Rove or Libby, the President’s current rough ride is about to get far rougher.
Of course, just as it is possible that this could all end in a bang, it cold also end in a whimper. Until there is more information, I can’t really say how it will all go.
The NYT piece focuses on Scooter Libby and the whole waiver issue and Miller’s view that it might not have been freely given. This story could end up being about miscommunication and/or misguided journalistic ethics. On the other hand, someone could be in very big trouble. I would state that it is impossible to say at this point–unless I am missing something. I have only had time to read this story on the subject at this point..
September 30th, 2024 at 7:56 am
I am not sure how you could get misguided journalistic ethics. Miller promised her source, even though she did not write a story, that she would not reveal confidential information. She at least has proven she has ethics. As far a miscommunication, I suppose that is a euphemistic wording for leaking vengeful information.
September 30th, 2024 at 8:18 am
By that I mean: that she misguidedly decided to stay in jail for a principle, but that perhaps she never had to do so, given the waiver, or something along those lines.
I recognize that you greatly dislike this administration, and there may yet be something from this story that further confirms and deepens that dislike. However, you are making a substantial logical leap by going from “Miller to testify” to “Rove and Libby are guilty.”
We know no more at this moment than we did yesterday or months before that.
As such, there are no conclusions to reach at this time.
All I have listed are possibilities. I really don’t know why Miller stayed in jail all this time and I don’t know what she knows or what the prosecutor thinks she knows, etc.
September 30th, 2024 at 9:53 am
What are the chances that she might have the beef on a Demo and that Miller was staying in jail to protect this source. Most journalists would be happy to nail a Republican and just can’t see why she held out so long. Maybe she did not like being someones lady friend in jail.
September 30th, 2024 at 10:56 am
I do dislike this administration, but how could Rove and Libby not be guilty (at least ethically, if not strictly legally guilty) if the reporters who promised to keep a secret admitted the top admin guys in the administration provided the information (Miller, herself has not said that yet publicly, but people who know have said it was Libby. The only reason for leaking such information was to try and discredit someone who pointed out that Iraq did not buy nuclear materials from Africa. Miller, could have released the name earlier, but felt that her source might have been pressured to let her off the hook, which is very admirable.
September 30th, 2024 at 11:40 am
“The only reason for leaking such information was to try and discredit someone who pointed out that Iraq did not buy nuclear materials from Africa.”
First, Joe Wilson couldn’t possibly point out that Iraq did not buy nuclear materials from Africa. All be could say was that, when he went to Niger to sit around drinking sweet tea and asking the leaders of Niger if they’d done something that would make the US angry, their response was that Saddam Hussein had approached them, and they thought that he wanted to buy uranium from them, but that they had turned him down. Wilson’s report if anything tended to confirm the other reports that Hussein was trying to get such materials from Africa, although no one could possibly claim that such idle chats were conclusive.
Second, you say that the only reason to mention Joe’s wife’s job was to discredit him (why does it discredit someone to say that his wife works for the CIA?). But a perfectly good reason for passing on the information was simply to explain why such an obviously partisan hack had been sent on that mission. Why did the Bush administration supposedly send someone who was obviously out to hurt the administration? Because his wife in the CIA got him the job.
“Miller, could have released the name earlier, but felt that her source might have been pressured to let her off the hook, which is very admirable.”
But couldn’t she at least give him a phone call to ask, privately, how he felt? Look at it from the other side – if you sign a waiver, you’d naturally consider the case closed, since you’ve already given permission. Her claim is that, if someone puts something in writing, it’s only natural to assume, without question, that they actually meant the exact opposite of what they signed their name to. If she had doubts, she could have tried to clear them up. But to say that journalists are morally obligated to assume without question the opposite of whatever anyone says or does is odd, at best (although that approach explains a lot of NYT stories that have come out).
September 30th, 2024 at 1:15 pm
Ann, what you bring up makes some sense, but why if Joe didn’t mean a thing would Karl and Libby try to discredit him? I would assume that he was awfully close to being very right otherwise he would have been ignored, and as we know today, he was right. It would have been best to ignore him. By outing Plame, they made sure she couldn’t do anymore such missions, thus revenge that this gang has perfected. Maybe Miller wanted to be a martyr; some of her colleagues at the paper certainly were not behind her. As I understand it, Miller waited until Libby testified before she committed to reveal her source. Trying to defend this ethically challenged gang simply makes one look like an apologist for their deprived tactics. This is certainly a long way from what Bush promised about bringing ethics back to the white house. What we got instead is cronyism akin to Boss Tweed and Mayor Daley.
September 30th, 2024 at 1:16 pm
Ann, what you bring up makes some sense, but why if Joe didn’t mean a thing would Karl and Libby try to discredit him? I would assume that he was awfully close to being very right otherwise he would have been ignored, and as we know today, he was right. It would have been best to ignore him. By outing Plame, they made sure she couldn’t do anymore such missions, thus revenge that this gang has perfected. Maybe Miller wanted to be a martyr; some of her colleagues at the paper certainly were not behind her. As I understand it, Miller waited until Libby testified before she committed to reveal her source. Trying to defend this ethically challenged gang simply makes one look like an apologist for their deprived tactics. This is certainly a long way from what Bush promised about bringing honor back to the white house. What we got instead is cronyism akin to Boss Tweed and Mayor Daley.
September 30th, 2024 at 2:08 pm
I was wrong. Libby did not testify. It was the threat of impaneling another grand jury, thus making Miller stay in jail for another 18 months. So, her lawyers went back to Libby’s lawyers and asked do you really mean what the waiver says you mean.
September 30th, 2024 at 2:29 pm
“Ann, what you bring up makes some sense, but why if Joe didn’t mean a thing would Karl and Libby try to discredit him?”
Your still stuck on the release of her name as “trying to discredit him.” Ann’s question was: How does the fact that his wife recommended him for the job discredit him? It simply doesn’t. What it does do, however, is explin how such a partisan Democrat got tasked to go to Niger.
“I would assume that he was awfully close to being very right otherwise he would have been ignored, and as we know today, he was right.”
You know what they say about that word “assume!” And, as far as him being right: Do you mean when he came back from Niger and told the CIA that Iraq had been sniffing around or when he wrote his famous op-ed which pretty much declared the opposite? The distinction is NOT meaningless.
“It would have been best to ignore him. By outing Plame, they made sure she couldn’t do anymore such missions, thus revenge that this gang has perfected.”
Do what “missions?” Plame didn’t do anything other than promote Wilson for the job, which ain’t exactly double-naught spy work. And Plames covert missions ended when she very publicly married a freaking US Ambassador and had his baby. I mean, come on, do you seriously think that there is a single country in the world so dysfunctional that they do not just assume that EVERYONE associated with the US diplomatic service, from the Ambassadors down to the janitors (and all of their immediate family!), is not in the hip pocket of US intelligence?
“Maybe Miller wanted to be a martyr;…”
This I agree with. Perhaps there may have been some miscommunication at first, but she hung on even after Libby’s testimony before the grand jury. Ultimately, though, this was her chance to be a hero, to live up to the archetype.
September 30th, 2024 at 2:39 pm
Oooops, it appears you are right concerning Libby’s testimony. He was asked and then released from the obligation. If I was Tom Maguire I’d have known that (and probably also what color tie Libby was wearing when he learned he didn’t need to testify and what he had for breakfast that morning too!).
I wonder why they didn’t feel the need to get him on the record? Even if they were certain Miller could finger him, wouldn’t their case be a whole lot more compelling if they had him on record as denying it?
Never mind, that’s just empty speculation that assumes waaaaaaay to much knowledge of what actuall went on. Guess we’ll find out soon enough.
September 30th, 2024 at 9:44 pm
The bottom line is that this administration said that no one from their ranks were involved, but alas they once again misled the people as two of the higher ranking people Rove and Libby were indeed involved. Also, Bush said he would punish whoever leaked the info and then he once again backtracked. This gang’s lies are so ubiquitous that they are not even cognizant of the myriad lies they utter.
October 1st, 2024 at 9:48 am
You making the assumption that adminstration figures were the leakers and that their argument that they got the information from media sources is false.
October 1st, 2024 at 4:20 pm
ATM, you know this how? I agree with Stephen’s post “Back to the Waiver,” except his aside (which is the standard Democratic interpretation).