« Newt Warns: The Neocons May Be Down, But They're Not Out | Main | Bird Flu Stories »

October 14, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d8345c265469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Defense of Judy. Kind of.:

» Reporter testifies again in leak probe from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
WASHINGTON Amid swirling rumors and speculation, New York Times reporter Judith Miller testi [Read More]

Comments

EW,

Why is not the CW that Judy is in further legal trouble?

Hasn't she long been part off an ongoing SYSTEM of recieving classified info and passing it on to other officials inside the administration like some founding-father-sanctified-classified-information-laundering machine?

1. Conspiracy at a minimum.
2. Perjury - uh huh.
3. Obstruction? Almost certainly somewhere in her byzantine rationales and manuevers.

I'll wager on the trifecta.

And if Judy realized someone at the Times was responsible for "finding" her notebook in DC, might she be less than thrilled to disclose to the Times the entie affair?

EW:

Important breaking Judith Miller news in the WP

But it remains a mystery who -- if anyone -- will be charged in the case. The grand jury expires Oct. 28.

One person who will not be charged is Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify in the case before making two recent appearances before the grand jury. Miller was recently told by Fitzgerald that she is only a witness in the case, according to a source close to Miller.

"Judy has always been a witness in this case and nothing more," said Robert S. Bennett, Miller's attorney. "She is neither a subject nor a target of the investigation."

If the speculations here and at Jane's place are accurate, Fitzgerald had Miller dead to rights on perjury. So, if she's not a target, he flipped her. Presumably. Against Libby, also presumably.

From pontificator's link:

"Rove's defense team asserts that President Bush's deputy chief of staff has not committed a crime but nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks, the source said.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, has not returned reporters' phone calls for several days. Neither has Ari Fleischer, the former White House spokesman who testified early in the case and was present on a July 2003 Air Force One flight on which a memo that included information about Plame was circulated"

Also - Judy's lawyer wasn't saying she's "only a witness" before was he? Did Judy flip? I think she made a deal with Fitz on Monday and gave him what he wanted on Tuesday.

Thanks Glic -- the WP article is definitely one that should be read "in toto." LOT'S of good nuggets in there.

I think some public humiliation might make journalists like Cohen rethink their defense of journalistic impunity

(I know I'm late to this discussion, but) Thanks for clarifying this issue, EW. I don't think much of Richard Cohen (I barely know who he is) but I have liked Oliphant, and I try to see it from his perspective. He's spent a lot of time and, in his case, skill, building up his relationships over the years. I can see why he's upset (especially at Judy, maybe).

But I agree with you. The key word is (utter) 'impunity'. I'm not a attorney, but I assume that being a prosecuter is kind of an art (?!), because you have a fair amount of leeway, and often you need political support to do a prosecution. I'm certainly not upset that Judy was squeezed. I'd normally be a first amendment absolutist, but when the press itself is so obviously corrupt....eh. When I can read brilliant 'regular' people put the story together with (fairly dear) public material, it's obvious that there's a gap there. The 'bench' really IS political, just like the fundies say it is. My my. They're scared - sensibly - of the real conservatives: the valient Good Republican (Fitz) preempting McCain and saving the Party.

And besides, Ashcroft and the WH started it. It's 'reap what you sow' time. It makes some people break into ambic pentameter.

iambic.

I think the star witness may be one that nobody seems to have considered: Valerie Plame.

She after all is the victim in this case so I'd be surprised if Fitzgerald hasn't talked with her.

She more than anyone else would know about Iraq and (lack of) WMD. I'm sure she has lots of sympathy from others in the CIA whose analysis was rejected and suppressed by the WHIG disinformation campaign during the build up to the war.

For this reason I believe that Fitzgerald can, if he chooses, really blow the lid off the biggest crime... the one committed by the President when he lied to Congress in order to make the case for war.

Valerie could connect all the dots for him, all the way up to the oval office.

Maybe Judy's keeping her west coast engagement this weekend because, not despite, the increasing scrutiny. Arianna is saying the Judy story is being compiled by some of NYT's best and will appear in Sunday's Times. She is confident Keller will let the full story print. If true, I've got to believe he already has Miller's 'resignation' on his desk.

Judy is headed to California so the story on every Monday morning front page won't be accompanied by a photo of her toting a box of personal effects from the office formerly known as hers.

I guess I'm more skeptical than Arianna. If they had wanted a tough story, they would have let Jehl and Johnston write the story, rather than be interviewed for it.

My guess is the frame of the story will be very very narrow to avoid embarrassing the NYT.

Reading the WP article cited above, I wonder whether Fitzgerald has possibly flipped Rove. I realize Luskin could be spinning here -- "The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges" -- but suppose he isn't: his statement would be consistent with Rove becoming a witness for the prosecution. Rove is a big fish: if he's flipped, it may be because Fitz has much biggger fish to fry: Libby and/or Cheney and/or the whole WHIG group. I won't let myself dream that Fitz could serve up the whole Bush crime family: RICO, anyone?

somewhere in the welter of commentws about the plame affair i ran across a truly unique perspective -- a commenter who said the he/she thought part of the plame affair might be explained by a internecine war between CIA and DIA (defense intelligence agency). i recall he/she saying additionally that he "assumed" judy miller was DIA.

now there's a tasty morsel of gossip. the new york times has had a DIA operative on its staff as a reporter.

spy vs spy in the reign of George W. Neuman.


The WaPo article does say that Judy is talking with Times reporters now that the contempt of court citation has been lifted. Neither Judy nor Fitzgerald are in any rush to satisfy the public's curiosity, in her case she'd probably like to keep the story for her book (Woodward's deep throat book did terribly for this reason).

The WaPo article does say that Judy is talking with Times reporters now that the contempt of court citation has been lifted. Neither Judy nor Fitzgerald are in any rush to satisfy the public's curiosity, in her case she'd probably like to keep the story for her book (Woodward's deep throat book did terribly for this reason).

The most important witness in the whole Plame affair is the "senior administation official" who was the source of the Washington Post's article on September 28, 2003. The Post reported that:

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

If the Special prosecutor has connected with and obtained this "senior administration officials" testimony --- then the White House and Administration are in unbelieveably BIG TROUBLE. The question is whether this senior official whose conscience led him/her to leak to the W/P also was patriotic enough to come forward and tell what he/she knows of this sordid affair.

BigMac: Great point -- and quite a mystery.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,"

Powell? But he stayed on for 15 more months. Surely the rest of the WH gang read that article and must have been frothing at the mouth with rage.

Maybe this is the uninformed musings of just some guy, but the pattern appears to be forming. Libby is gone-- at least perjury and obstruction are now pretty much proven. Rove is leaking like a cheap diaper to try to keep the focus on Libby and away from his own secondary leaks. Fitzpatrick really badly wants to prove that Libby is covering up for Cheney, who (we all know in our hearts) is the REAL criminal at the center of everything. Cheney, not Rove, though Rove surely broke some laws too. Libby will fall on his sword before giving up Cheney, and Judy Miller is complicit in that coverup. The questions that remain to be answered: 1) Is Fitzpatrick trying, as I suspect, to squeeze Rove to get to Cheney? 2) Can he succeed? 3) If not, how big will the charges against Rove be? Major or trivial? 4) Is Libby in his desperation leaking against Rove to try to save himself (if so, the effort is futile) 5) Alternatively, is Libby now fully aware that he's going down, and is leaking against Rove just to save Cheney? Inquiring minds want to know.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad