St. Judith The Martyr

Corbis Images  The Martyrdom of St.Ursula and the eleven thousand maidens, by Rubens

In the The New York Times today under the heading 'My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room', Judith Miller tells a rather comprehensive story about her testimony in front of the Patric Fitzgerald Grand Jury, in essence exonerating 'Scooter' Libby, V.P. Dick Cheyne's Chief of Staff:

"My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.

My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative," as the conservative columnist Robert D. Novak first described her in a syndicated column published on July 14, 2003. (Mr. Novak used her maiden name, Valerie Plame.)"

Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the Grand Jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame. She was released from jail after she agreed to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation:

"Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning.

Without both agreements, I would not have testified and would still be in jail."

Central to the whole story is the question of the personal waiver originally provided by Libby. Miller said she considered the general waiver to be coerced and would testify only if Libby provided her with a specific, personalized waiver. Libby and Tate took the position that the general waiver precluded the need for a personal waiver.

It was only after Fitzgerald personally intervened with Tate and Libby that Libby granted a personal waiver to Miller, according to correspondence between Fitzgerald and Tate. Libby subsequently telephoned Miller, encouraging her to testify.

It is clear from the copies of the correspondence between the respective lawyers, as provided by the New York Times and discovered by John Hinderaker @ Powerline some time ago, that the waiver was indeed not sufficient, and that underlying pressure had been put on Miller in relation to Libby's position. An excerpt from one of the letters written by Abrams, Miller's lawyer, to Tate, the lawyer representing Libby:

"....you did not say that Mr. Libby's written waiver was uncoerced. In fact, you said quite the opposite. You told me that the signed waiver was by its nature coerced and had been required as a condition for Mr. Libby's continued employment at the White House. You compared the coercion to that inherent in the effective bar imposed upon White House employees asserting the Fifth Amendment. A failure by your client to sign the written waiver, you explained, like any assertion by your client of the Fifth Amendment, would result in his dismissal. You persuasively mocked the notion that any waiver signed under such circumstances could be deemed voluntary."

Make sure you read the entire Miller article before you read the MSM spins....

Obviously any affirmative statement or action that would discourage Miller from testifying might be construed to be an obstruction of justice, and therefore it may become relevant in Fitzgerald's decision making process. As it was said by one official not linked to the investigation: "Any thorough prosecutor will look long and hard at that."

Well my guess is that  Fitzgerald will not prosecute, and as usual much hype is given to create atmosphere in the MSM as a further attempt to discredit the Administration. There will be no Rove indictment. Plame is not covered under the IIPA...and as such, she did not at the time meet the statutory requirements of "covert operations officer" as defined in the IIPA. And so the proverbial bubble has been burst for most of the MSM jumping on the bandwagon.

It seems that the Judith Miller Smoking Gun is quite empty....for now.
As my friend Jeff Goldstein over @ Protein Wisdom might say: "Enough already"....

For some of you who desire more, read the two experts who have followed the story relentlessly for many months now: Tom Maguire @ Just One Minute and John Hinderaker @ Powerline. And then there is the Washington Post spin, which boldly states the opposite of what Miller has just testified to and claims that Miller has said that Libby had told her the name of the CIA operative. The very title of the article confirms it. Right.

Miller had in fact testified: "I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative."

I therefore believe that it is entirely irrelevant whether she wrote down, Plame or Fame or any other such name, she clearly did not think Libby was revealing a secretive CIA operative of any kind, nor do I believe that he himself at the time knew the exact nature of Plame's job. But that's just me.

And then there is the New York Times, turning on their own, where three of her own coleagues let rip. I am still trying to figure out what that is all about, distancing for sure, but it seems more than that. A couple of the quotes:

"Asked what she regretted about The Times's handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: "The entire thing."

"Douglas Frantz, who succeeded Mr. Engelberg as the investigative editor, said that Ms. Miller once called herself "Miss Run Amok."
"I said, 'What does that mean?' " said Mr. Frantz, who was recently appointed managing editor at The Los Angeles Times. "And she said, 'I can do whatever I want.' "

Having stood by Miller throughout, NYT is now rattling on about the annoyance of her colleagues, that she refused to submit to the controlling influence of editors, and on and on. For goodness sake the woman had been there for nearly thirty years, if that does not give you a certain amount of freedom, what does?

The article further gets down and dirty....written by her own...why? There are many 'why' questions in this entire story....least of all who is Miller really protecting?

My guess is she is protecting her other sources who have given her classified information on WMD and other things. Unfortunately, NYT is more than willing to sacrifice journalistic integrity (what tiny shreds are left of it anyway) to further it's political agenda to "get Bush." In the rush for Rove or Libby's scalp the NYT and other media established that:

1. It is wrong for Admin or other Agencies to talk to the Press about any non-public matter and will result in criminal probes whenever politically convenient.

2. Any leak to the Press requires massive investigations to find the leakers and the Press must co-operate.

3. The Press must unite behind the agenda to "get" Republican Presidents over it's larger journalistic agenda to find out news and accurately report it; ideology not news matters.

The net of all of this is that likely no Administration official or future Republican officials are going to say anything to the Press. The Press complains that all they get is "no comment" but when the Press itself doesn't report fairly and sacrifices it's larger agenda for partisan politics it's not surprising people react in accordance. Once the Press merely becomes an adjunct for one Party the other will simply stop talking to them.

So it's down to us bloggers again, huh? Fine with me.

Update. Tom Maguire's back with more must reads, he really has followed this story from the beginning, and has incredible insight today: here, and here where he pulverizes NYT reporting.

Check out this theory of a possible third leak... originally reported in the Time article 'Contingency Plan'. I noticed it was written by Viveca Novak, any relation?

And another: "There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden in Judith Miller's Oct. 16th first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003".

Update: Michael J.W.Stickings is the author of his own blog, The Reaction, and one of the writers for The Moderate Voice, has very kindly dedicated an article to me called: 'Liberal Conservatism in the Blogosphere'. He mentions this article as a must read.
I am grateful for two reasons, firstly I have finally learned how to spell 'Blogosphere' and secondly I am grateful for the label  'liberal conservative', it will serve well to annoy some and confuse all thoroughly...and I like it that way.

Update Tuesday: The Washington Post has put in another spin called 'Cheyne's Office is A Focus in Leak Case', suggesting that indictments are imminent. Dream on I say...but it's something more for the MSM to hyperventilate about. And from the AP: 'Inaccurate Info May Help CIA Leak Probe'.Also check out the NYT 'Timeline of a Leak', very useful, if you can find your way around the spinning links and decipher as to what is a spin and what is not. Good luck...

And finally a laugh: According to a fellow blogger Scott Ott:

"Editorial oversight, experts say, is the key distinction between journalists and bloggers.

Mr. Fitzgerald will now reportedly seek a warrant to search Ms. Miller's home and office in an attempt to confirm her blogger status before pursuing the source of the leak.

One unnamed Justice Department official said, "If they find a computer and a pair of pajamas in this same room, Fitzgerald will have all he needs to establish intent to blog." "

Now that is funny Scott...

Speaking of which: Sunday Blogosphere Pajama party @ California Conservative, The Political Teen Mudville Gazette

Comments

[North by Northwest]

How can Howard Kurtz of the WaPo formulate a heading "Reporter Says Libby Told Her About CIA Operative", when on the same day, the same 'reporter', i.e. Judith Miller, says the exact opposite?

It's an entirely different thing if you conclude from Miller's testemony that she may not be telling the truth - then, Kurtz, you must say so. But you can not blast out such falsehood, especially if of a subtle but most significant nature, in both the heading and in the opening paragraph. This is just plain bad journalism blatantly designed to 'misinform' as supposed to inform, which, last time I looked, to inform, was still someting journalists aspired to.

Let me be clear: I too think that Libby told Miller about Wilson's wife; I too think that Miller is now far too conveniently claiming memory loss; I too think that she full well remembers what Libby told her in relation to Wilson's wife, that all of these revelations took place well before Valerie Plame was publicly indentified. But the heading and opening paragraph must say so. It should have read: "Reporter stretches credulity" with the opening paragraph clearly stating that her testemony as to what Libby allegedly told her about the CIA Operative (or more importantly, allegedly didn't tell her...) was really for the Gullible etc etc.