While waiting for Fitzgerald, here's a sampling of other stories to follow. There's the Miers mess, e.g. The WaPo had a couple of stories from Friday that make you wonder if there'll be any possiblility of success. First this story:
At one key juncture after another, Miers has faltered where Roberts glided. Her courtesy calls on the Judiciary Committee's top two senators prompted conflicting tales of curious comments that she may or may not have made. Her answers to the committee's questionnaire included a misinterpretation of constitutional law and were deemed so inadequate that the panel asked her to redo it. She revealed one day that her D.C. law license had been temporarily suspended -- and said the next day that the same thing had happened in Texas -- because of unpaid dues.
And from the Post's SCOTUS blog:
It is apparent now that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are trying to tell the White House that Miers, as one member put it, is going to have a "tough" time in the hearings.
While such language is not explicitly a recommendation for withdrawal of a nominee, it comes close, considering the fact that committee members are traditionally circumspect in their pre-hearing comments, generally adopting some variation of "wait and see."
Any mistakes in her hearings will be an enormous embarrassment for any and all involved. Who's gonna tell George if she screws up?
The revered-in-tons-of-corners former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft definitively breaks ranks with the Bush administration in an article by nearly the same name, "Breaking Ranks," appearing in the upcoming Monday issue of The New Yorker.
The article will outline what decisions and events have built up to turn Brent Scowcroft against this Bush administration. Yes, that's right. . ."turned Brent Scowcroft against this Bush administration."
Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the piece, has pulled off a stunning coup by not only getting Brent Scowcroft to talk -- but also getting some incredibly juicy commentary from President George H.W. Bush on the performance of his son's national security team.
Did Judith Miller, as a reporter for the Times in 2003, have any special security clearances that would have allowed her to handle types of classified information off limits to other reporters and editors of the Times? Her first-person account seems to say that Judy Miller herself doesn’t know if she had such clearances. It also says they were asked about in her grand jury testimony. Can the Times clear this up?
1.) Did Judith Miller, as a reporter for the Times in 2003, have any special security clearances that would have allowed her to handle types of classified information off limits to other reporters and editors of the Times?
2.) If so, what did the publisher and executive editor know about such clearances and where they came from?
An exhaustive "what we know" follows, so if you're having emptywheel withdrawal, follow the link and enjoy.
[UPDATE] From Kurtz:
Further, Keller said, "if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense and perhaps more willing than I had been to support efforts aimed at exploring compromises."
Yeah, they're the competition. Still, I hope every journalist still defending Judy reads Keller's words.