Interestingly, some right-wing sites have put together a better explanation of why Judy Miller went to jail than anything I've read here at dKos or at any other progressive blog.
The well known headline here is that she spent time in jail until she had a guarantee that questions from Fitzgerald would be limited to questions about her conversations with Libby or about the Plame matter.
We have assumed that the other sources she was concerned not to talk about were sources connected in some way to the Plame affair. But, in fact, what makes the most sense is that they weren't.
Here's a quote from a
a site on the right that lays it out.
...most people are unaware that Miller is involved in a controversy over a leak... Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Miller learned from a leaker in the federal government that the FBI intended to raid the offices of an Islamic "charity" that was suspected of being a terrorist front. According to a court decision in February 2005, Miller responded by telephoning the charity and asking for comment.
On December 3, 2001, consistent with The Times' policy of seeking comment from the subjects of its articles, Miller telephoned HLF and spoke with HLF representatives about the information that had been disclosed to her by one or more confidential sources. According to Miller, she sought comment from HLF at this time only "about the government's intent to block HLF's assets," and she did not intend to tip-off HLF about the impending FBI search of HLF's offices. (Id. 10-11.) Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois ("Fitzgerald"), representing the government, has stated that on the night of December 3, 2001, Miller disclosed to HLF personnel that "government action was imminent" (Affirmation of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, dated Nov. 19, 2004 ("Fitzgerald Aff."), at 3), and that the HLF personnel were surprised by the information conveyed by Miller. . . .
On December 4, 2001, FBI agents searched HLF's offices. According to Fitzgerald, the disclosure by Miller to HLF on December 3 had the effect of creating increased safety risks to the FBI agents conducting the search and of increasing the likelihood of destruction or concealment of evidence or assets.
If the facts are as alleged by the prosecutor, Miller may have committed a crime by communicating information to the Islamic group that could have tipped them off to an impending raid. Note, too, that the prosecutor who has been pursuing this matter is none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame matter.
This background helps to explain the following puzzle: Miller had the second waiver from Libby for more than a week before she agreed to testify and was released. Libby's waiver wasn't foremost on her mind. Instead, what she needed was something she could only get from Fitzgerald: She needed a release from him that he wouldn't ask her any questions about this OTHER case.
It seems that the judge in that case had denied Fitzgerald's request for phone records from Miller and another NYT reporter Philip Shenon.
You've got to give these folks on the right credit for figuring out why the NYT has stood by Judy Miller when they conclude that
...it is entirely plausible that Miller was willing to go to considerable lengths to protect not only her source, but also herself, in a situation where she not only received information about an imminent FBI raid, but allegedly passed the information on to the organization that was under investigation.
Fitzgerald had been denied the subpoena for the phone records in this other case and the NYT and Judy Miller were concerned that information about that other case could be got at in Plame investigation Grand Jury testimony.
So, even if Libby had provided a second waiver, Miller and the NYT were not "out of jail free" unless and until Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning to the Plame case.
If you were Judy Miller, or her employer the NYT, and had tipped off potential terrorists about an FBI raid wouldn't you have wanted Fitz's agreement on that too?
Update [2005-10-4 10:6:10 by aspTrader]:
Reddhead's post below got me to thinking that it WAS a little strange that the Charity case had been closed and yet in 2005 the Judge was still ruling on a Fitzpatrick subpoena of phone records.
What hasn't been much discussed, to my knowledge, in the press is the RELATIONSHIP between what Fitzpatrick was doing on the Charity case and what he was doing on the Plame case vis-a-vis Miller and the NYT.
So, I went back and compared two timelines for these cases.
* For the Plame case, I looked at the timeline here.
* For the Charity case, I looked at the timeline in the Judge's Feb 2005 decision on Fitz's subpoena for Miller phone records and especially page 16.
Here's an interesting and relevant passage from the judge's Feb 2005 decision from that page 16.
By letter dated August 13, 2002, George Freeman
("Freeman"), Assistant General Counsel of The Times, responded to
Fitzgerald's August 7 letter. Freeman stated that The Times had
considered Fitzgerald's request but could not comply because
Shenon's newsgathering activities, and, in particular, his
conversations with confidential sources, were protected by the First
Amendment, federal common law, applicable state law, and the
Guidelines.
The parties had no further communication until the
summer of 2004.
By letter dated July 12, 2004, Fitzgerald informed The
Times that his investigation had been expanded to include the
alleged leak to Miller concerning the government's plans to freeze
HLF's assets. Fitzgerald reiterated his previous request for a
voluntary interview with Shenon and for voluntary production of the
previously requested telephone records. Furthermore, he requested
17
a voluntary interview with Miller and voluntary production of her
telephone records for the following three time periods in 2001:
September 24 to October 2, November 30 to December 4, and December
7 to December 15. Finally, pursuant to the Guidelines, Fitzgerald
disclosed that he had been "duly authorized to obtain and review
information from other sources, particularly those entities
providing telephone service to The New York Times, Ms. Miller and
Mr. Shenon." (Affidavit of Floyd Abrams, sworn to Nov. 12, 2004
("Abrams Aff."), Ex. 3, at 2.) Fitzgerald warned that he intended
to exercise this authority to obtain the telephone records "in very
short order" if The Times refused to cooperate with the
investigation. (Id.)
I'm no attorney, so what do I know? Admittedly, nothing.
But I sure find it interesting that Fitz didn't follow up on the Charity case phone records issue for almost 2 years and ONLY follows up when he might have come to believe that he would need to get info from Judy in another case.
Given the timelines I've provided links to, is there anyone willing to make the argument that these two cases weren't in some way linked in Fitz's mind and strategy?