Skip to main content

Update [2005-10-15 18:24:24 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. Title Changed. Much to discuss and digest. Of particular interest is the disagreement between Miller and her editors. In addition, I think a closer look at Miller's recounting of her testimony before the grand jury is very much in order.

Oh Boy. The NYT's Plame Magnum Opus just hit the web, and although I have not read the entire thing yet, it looks like Ms. Miller bent over backwards to save Libby's butt [Note: but see updates below]:

In a notebook belonging to Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, amid notations about Iraq and nuclear weapons, appear two small words: "Valerie Flame."

Ms. Miller should have written Valerie Plame. That name is at the core of a federal grand jury investigation that has reached deep into the White House. At issue is whether Bush administration officials leaked the identity of Ms. Plame, an undercover C.I.A. operative, to reporters as part of an effort to blunt criticism of the president's justification for the war in Iraq.

Ms. Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify and reveal her confidential source, then relented. On Sept. 30, she told the grand jury that her source was I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. But she said he did not reveal Ms. Plame's name.

And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today.

It's a very long piece and I haven't read the whole thing yet, but from just reading the first few paragraphs, it looks like perhaps Ms. Miller's roots do connect with Mr. Libby's after all.

Of course, everyone should read the whole thing (as will I).  Consider this an "open thread."

Update [2005-10-15 16:37:54 by pontificator]: Raw Story reports Judy is on an indefinite leave, and likely will resign (hat tip to thirdparty).

Update [2005-10-15 16:45:55 by pontificator]: Reading further into the article, it's not so clear whether Miller saved Libby's bacon, or instead will send him to the slammer. It's quite a complex article, and not so simple as my initial conclusion after reading the first few paragraphs. There will be time to talk about the article's full import, and I encourage people to do so in comments.

Update [2005-10-15 17:7:46 by pontificator]: Miller has her own account up on the NYT's website here.

Update [2005-10-15 17:35:48 by pontificator]: Most telling paragraph from Miller's piece:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."

My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

That, in a nutshell, is how the Bush White House abuses the MSM (which willingly goes along with the abuse), in order to lie to the public. Libby's anonymous sourcing demand is PATENTLY MISLEADING, and Miller fucking AGREES to it!!! BLEEAAAHHHH!!!!!!

Update [2005-10-15 18:9:56 by pontificator]: Methinks the following from Miller's article is a bad sign for Libby:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs [of Libby's letter to Miller] aloud to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me," Mr. Libby wrote.

The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words. I replied that this portion of the letter had surprised me because it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job.

Sounds like to me as if Fitz is making the case DIRECTLY to the grand jury that Libby needs to be thrown in a deep dark hole for a long long time.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:21 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Down Goes Judy! (4.00)
    according to rawstory:

    RAW STORY has confirmed that New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail protecting her source in the recent CIA leak investigation, will take an indefinite leave of absence effective immediately.

    "Judy is going to take some time off until we decide what she is doing next," said Catherine Matthis, the Times' spokesperson.

    Two reporters inside the newsroom say they have heard Miller will resign from the paper.

    •  "Valerie Flame"... (4.00)
      Sounds like a strategy to me.

      Buh-bye.

      •  "We were heroes in error..." (4.00)
        Dig this passage!  It conveys she's a true believer.

        "Once Ms. Miller was jailed, her lawyers were in open conflict about whether she should stay there. She had refused to reopen communications with Mr. Libby for a year, saying she did not want to pressure a source into waiving his confidentiality. But in the end, saying "I owed it to myself" after two months of jail, she had her lawyer reach out to Mr. Libby. This time, hearing directly from her source, she accepted his permission and was set free.

        "We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for," Ms. Miller said in the interview Friday.

        The placement of that quote strongly infers pride in her association with Libby and his effort, and that she owed the Times and her profession nothing.

        Holy shit.

        •  Punch and Judy (3.86)
          "The editorial page, which is run by Mr. Sulzberger and Gail Collins, the editorial page editor, championed Ms. Miller's cause. The Times published more than 15 editorials and called for Congress to pass a shield law that would make it harder for federal prosecutors to compel reporters to testify.

          Mr. Sulzberger said he did not personally write the editorials, but regularly urged Ms. Collins to devote space to them. After Ms. Miller was jailed, an editorial acknowledged that "this is far from an ideal case," before saying, "If Ms. Miller testifies, it may be immeasurably harder in the future to persuade a frightened government employee to talk about malfeasance in high places."

          Asked in the interview whether he had any regrets about the editorials, given the outcome of the case, Mr. Sulzberger said no.

          "I felt strongly that, one, Judy deserved the support of the paper in this cause - and the editorial page is the right place for such support, not the news pages," Mr. Sulzberger said. "And secondly, that this issue of a federal shield law is really important to the nation."

          Ms. Miller said the publisher's support was invaluable. "He galvanized the editors, the senior editorial staff," she said. "He metaphorically and literally put his arm around me."

          Translation: he sat on news about pre-emptive war that his paper was uniquely placed to cover.

          What are you running, Sulzberger, a newspaper or an escort service?

          •  What about... (4.00)
            the sudden discovery of the notebook detailing the June 23rd meeting?  Did she discuss that meeting in the first round with the prosecutor?  Who found the notebook?  What was the subject of the interview with Fitzgerald after her first session of testitimony?  This is completely rewriting history, isn't it?
            •  Fitz might have known about the meeting (4.00)
              I still believe that Fitzgerald was the one who brought that conversation out into the open

              it looks preety damning to Libby, and it also makes judy look like a liar, so it doesn't help either one of the principles to mention it

          •  sulzberger is lying (3.70)
            he wrote half that shit

            Fitz, don't fail me now...

            by seesdifferent on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:23:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sulzberger has been whoring out... (4.00)
            ...the Grey Lady in the service of his own, pinched spirit of snobbery and prejudice ever since siccing Howell Raines on the upstart Clintons. He is a simpering, affected, snotnosed ignoramous in expensive suits with delusions of grandeur. Never was anyone's nickname more deserved. No breadth, no depth, only an arrogant sense of entitlement.

            All of this, Whitewater, We Ho Lee, campaign 2000, Jayson Blair, helping lie the country into war -- all of it is the legacy of a man who, like George W Bush, will never be able to fill his father's shoes. Like George Bush, Pinch Sulzberger decided that his father's respect for institutions and conventions was quaint.

            They were meant for each other. Now, let them both be ridden out of town on a rail.

            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

            by expatjourno on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:06:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  An escort service, of course. (none)
            The grey lady is a madam.

            We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better.

            by david78209 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:20:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Gannon Not the Only Whore (none)
            in the WH Press Room.

            "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories." -- Amilcar Cabral (-10.00, -9.28)

            by Christopher Day on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:23:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  remember (4.00)
          they just need evidence to find "probable cause" to move forward; they do not need to prove their case here.

          "I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong - seldom turns out the way it does in a song."

          by Glic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:03:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "I owed it to myself..." (4.00)
          "...and of course, to the publishers of my new book.  Now excuse me whilst I dive into an Uncle McScrooge style vault of money."
      •  Judy, Judy, Judy... (4.00)
        "Valerie Flame"?

        "Ms.Run Amok"??

        What, are you in the second grade?

        Amazing how much grumbling about her is captured in the article despite being from the Times and about the Times.

        "Too many democrats voted for this war." - Sen. Feingold

        by Republic Not Empire on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:50:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This looks bad (4.00)

          Miller isn't doing the New York Times any favors. I don't see where, after hiding her activities from her editor, she gets off complaining that the newspaper failed to make its employees understand her position.

          But the sentence in the Times article which leapt out at me was this one:

          In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes.

          We're all in this together.

          by JTML on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:29:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree - that's no accident its a plan of action (4.00)
        Flame Plame - exactly what they tried to do with mailce and aforethought.
        •  Well, she did not give THEM the name (3.87)
          Since she wrote the name down that she heard and not the other way around. If she had given them the name, she would have known how to spell it. If she had heard it from someone else and wrote it down and conveyed it to Libby, then it would not be in her Libby conversation notes. Thus, Libby told her.
          Right?

          My fingers are crossed that someone or two or three are going down. Please do not just issue a report.

          I think of Fitzgerald as Elliot Ness. I do hope he will not disappoint me.

          Barn Babe Parking Only... All others will be towed....

          by BarnBabe on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:02:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I too hope (none)

            Fitz is Elliot Ness and not Kevin Costner playing Elliot Ness.

            Having just read both the Times article about the trials of Judy and Judy's own account of her trials, my head is spinning.

            Trying to put aside the meaning of Aspens and their connected roots, I am clinging to Judy's account of Fitz's questions which lead me to conclude he has a big picture senario going.  The question is:  Can he put it all together and pull it off?

            "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

            by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:24:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Aspen, Aspin, A-spin (none)
              Didn't Judy used to "date" for Les Aspin?
              hmmmmmmmm Actually I believe she did but simply mention it as comic relief. There's enough here to make our heads spin already.
              •  Indeed, (4.00)

                comic relief is welcome.  Upon reflection I'm thinking the whole damn thing comes down to:  Hi, I'm Judy and it's all about me!  I mean, you know, I went to jail for for a principle (or was that a  "principal") and a book deal.  

                "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

                by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:04:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  IT'S THE COWBOY FROM "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" (4.00)

                In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

                "Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

                •  Aspen BS (none)
                  This is such a BS response by Judy. So she admits that Libby was speaking in code, because he was referring to the city of Aspen and not the interconnected aspen trees.

                  Why would anyone write in code to convey something so trivial? Are we supposed to believe this?

                  •  Unless (none)
                    he really did track her down in Wyoming to remind her about the confidentiality of their previous conversations, and then referenced that through the "aspens" code in the letter.  In effect saying: remember what I said at the rodeo, ignore this crap about actually wanting you to testify.
                    •  maybe (none)
                      that could be the case...but Judy is implying that all he is saying to her is something to the effect of "I saw you in Aspen...so I'm going to use the word aspen in a sentence." - Noone can believe that - this is nonsensical.
                •  Scooter (none)
                  Why would he have to say his last name -- how many grown men do you know named Scooter?

                  "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll (CA-15)

                  by kathyp on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:49:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Judy speaking in code? (none)
                  Maybe this is Judy's retort to Libby in code - her reply to his aspen letter.  She knows he'll read this article.

                  "a man in a cowboy hat came up to me"

                  "I had no idea who he was"

                  Sounds pretty ominous to me.

            •  Fitz has already pulled it together (4.00)
              Judy's appellete ruling made reference to "The Plot Against Wilson"

              now consider the evidence:

              Scooter and Judy were discussing Wilson and Plame in June (before Wilson's article)

              Cheney ordered a "workup" on Wilson during a March 2003 meeting of the WhiteHouse Iraq Group (WHIG)

              and in July 2003, after Wilson's article was published, Rove and libby called Cooper, Novakula, Tweety, Pototohead and Andrea Mitchel

              any one of those incidents alone might be a mistake, but all of them together constitute evidence of a criminal conspiricy to disclose classified materials

              sounds kind of suspicious that Judy and Libby discussed Wilson in June, and Valerie Flame is written on those notes, but judy says that she got the name from somewhere else. If there are notes from any other sources in the particular section of the notebook where the Plame info occurs, then judy has a chance. If there are no notes from other sources in that section of the notebook, that dog won't hunt

              somebody better tell judy that Juries are not that stupid

              •  say goodbye, Scooter (4.00)
                During the breakfast, Mr. Libby provided a detail about Ms. Wilson, saying that she worked in a C.I.A. unit known as Winpac; the name stands for weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control

                this is from the NY Times article

                say goodnight scooter, you just violated the laws of the United States, and the terms of SF-312. You will be prosecuted in accordance with the terms of the SF-312 that you signed, and Title 18 of the United States Criminal code

                •  Judy said Scooter thought it was ok (4.00)
                  "I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq. At the same time, I told the grand jury I thought that at our July 8 meeting I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq. "

                  She's giving him a defense in case of a trial, but he'll get a pardon.

                  •  No "reporter" should have clearance (4.00)
                    I don't care what anyone says, no reporter should have security clearance where a top white house official can discuss CIA agents with said reporter. That is a bogus defense, no doubt fueled by the ego of Ms. Miller.

                    The Bush administration is a Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham!

                    by Bailey Savings and Loan on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:28:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  also gives Judy away as an asset, not a reporter (4.00)

                      Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

                      by idredit on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  not only that.. (4.00)
                      the SF-312 removes that defense entirely as well. you can't say 'well i didn't know they didn't have clearance' as the SF-312 agreement dictates that you in no way divulge secret info without being absolutely sure that the person you're informing has clearance. if in doubt, shut the hell up, and if you don't, you're going to jail.

                      alcohol and night swimming. it's a winning combination!-l.leonard

                      by chopper on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:47:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Special security clearance (none)
                      Wouldn't it be pretty easy to find the answer to the clearance question by determining whether every reporter embedded with units during the initial invasion was given a certain level of security clearance?  
                    •  If she had clearance, then (none)
                      she must have signed an SF-312 also, no?

                      If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

                      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:37:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  What level of clearance would Judy have had? (4.00)
                    Doesn't Scooter have a duty to find out?

                    In addition, how many people believe that Libby knew Plame's current duties, but didn't know her status as NOC? If he got her name from the CIA in the course of discussing her WMD analysis, don't you think the CIA would of said her name and the fact she works for the CIA are secret, not to be revealed? After all, the INR makes it clear the agency went to trouble to label her status as S and NF. Hard to believe there wouldn't have been either verbal or written warnings on any other material Libby may have seen or discussed involving Plame.

                    Back to my original question, What level of clearance would Judy have and would that level be sufficient for her to know something that was labeled S and and NF?

                    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

                    by molly bloom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:44:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  That's very clever (4.00)
                    if true.  Perhaps Libby is trying to push Miller as the source of the leak?

                    Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out.

                    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:54:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Security clearance isn't enough (4.00)
                    You must also have a "need to know" the information concerned.  Miller did not, so Scooter is still liable.
                  •  Judy's clearance (if any) wasn't for publication (4.00)
                    Even if she had, or he thought she had, full clearance, he was talking with her for publication--or he wouldn't have stressed that his comments were to be attributed to "a former Hill staffer".  Nor did she mention that he told her that the Plame info was off the record. So no, that defense shouldn't hold for Libby.  He also knew where she worked, specifically, within CIA--it's hardly to be credited that he was unaware of her covert status when he had that much detail. So that defense shouldn't fly either.
                  •  let's check judy's waiver (4.00)
                    I bet she isn't cleared to recieve this type of material

                    I bet Libby isn't normally supposed to have this sort of materials either. But I bet Libby's security clearance gives him potential access

                    and that's all it takes

                  •  you don't give that kind of info to a reporter (none)
                    planning on writing a story about wilson. i don't care if she was "cleared to talk to god." she/he broke the damn law.
              •  Fingers crossed, (none)
                holding breath!

                "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

                by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:24:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm with you (none)
                  I'm not sure how this will shake out. What surprises me is that Miller still protected her source.   I'm puzzled that Fitz is letting her off the hook, unless he is truly hunting big game and Judy is a little fish. Libby is truly toast: Espionage Act, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy. Rove maybe shakier but his frequent questioning may indicate that Fitz is letting him twist in the wind. I'm positive that Ari,Novak, and Powell have been cooperating all along. My bet: Cheney is the big fish. I don't think Fitz will go after Bush.

                  Everything Judy Miller says is a lie, including and and the

              •  Perjruy, I hope (none)
                I hope that Miller is not insulated against a perjury indictment.

                We're all in this together.

                by JTML on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:32:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not Fitzgerald's focus (4.00)
                  Me thinks Miller is in the clear. Fitgerald's focus is on official misconduct...She's just a whore tramp reporter...Don't expect her to be indicted....Fox News is probably keeping a seat warm for her....

                  I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

                  by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:41:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  judy made a deal (4.00)
                  that single line proves that judy is gonna testify against scooter

                  in June of 2003, scooter libby discussed classified materials with a person not authorized to receive classified materials

                  Mr. Libby provided a detail about Ms. Wilson, saying that she worked in a C.I.A. unit known as Winpac

                  that is known as unlawful disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA Agent

                  that is punishable under about 5 sections of Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, The Cover Agents Status, and the 1917 espionoge act

                  Libby signed a SF-312, so he can't plead stupidity

                  and the fact that Libby told Judy in June is evidence that Libby telling Cooper in July was not an accident

                  The Plot Against Wilson takes center stage

                  •  good point but (4.00)
                    This gets into whether or not Libby knew she was covert. Libby will argue he didn't know.

                    I don't see how he knew anything about her without knowing her status was S and NF. I just don't see the CIA discussing her duties with the CIA unit known as Winpac without making it clear to Libby her status was protected.  After all the INR memo shows the CIA was making it clear her name and status was a secret. Unless you think the CIA is sloppy and haphazard about these things (and I don't), I'd say the circumstanial evidence is Libby knew her status. In any event, I'd say Miller's account indicates Libby is facing obstruction charges and possibly perjury charges. Lying to the grand jury about whether or not he revealed Plame's name is evidence of obstruction,whether or not revealing her name is material.

                    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

                    by molly bloom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:54:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Read the statute (none)
                      Is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act really impossible to prove?
                      By Elizabeth de la Vega

                      This then is what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 says:

                          "Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent`s intelligence relationship to the U.S. [shall be guilty of a crime]."

                      To figure out the elements that must be proved, you simply break this run-on sentence into subparts in the following manner:

                      A defendant must:

                      (1) have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;

                      (2) "intentionally disclose" the information;

                      (3) disclose it to one not authorized to receive classified information;

                      (4) know the information he is disclosing identifies the covert agent; and

                      (5) know that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.

                      If he saw the CIA memo he is toast..

                      This is beginning to look more and more like and open and shut case...Fitzgerald has dutifully gone through each element, with Cooper being Rove's last straw and Miller being Libby's.

                      Let the frog marching begin....

                      Unless of course Bush withdraws the Miers nomination and offers it to Fitzgerald tomorrow...

                      just joking...but in all seriousness...

                      Here's to hoping that common sense prevails for once...the last 5 years have been too much...I still have this bad feeling in my gut...but it is going away slowly but surely...

                      •  The operative word is IF (none)
                        If he saw it... actually, if it can be proven that he saw it.

                        And I have read the statute and De la Vega's article. Not so open and shut and unless Powell or Ari the liar Fliescher testifes that Libby saw it, unless, like a bad TV show, Libby's fingerprints are on the memo.

                        "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

                        by molly bloom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:58:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Bullshit, if he Signed SF-312, He's toast (none)
                        If he saw the CIA memo he is toast..

                        I keep telling people, IT DOESN"T MATTER WHERE LIBBY LEARNED THIS

                        under the terms of SF-312, Libby has a legal obligation to AVOID talking about ANY classified materials, and to take positive actions to prevent the spread of ANY Classified Materials

                        the "who" "what" "where" or "when" Libby learned this is immaterial. All that is important is that Libby passed this material to a person who was not authorized to have it

                        all the matters is that Libby signed SF-312, and Libby talked about materials that were classified

                        Libby KNOWS that under the terms of SF-312 discussing a CIA Agent was ILLEGAL, and yet he chose to engage in a conversation about a potentially classified subject, without any checks or reports

                        that is the legal and punishable definition of "Unlawful Disclosure Of Classified Material"

                        all that is left to be decided is if Libby did this intentionally of purposefully (and I think we all know the answer)

                        •  Sorry, your wrong (none)
                          There are 5 and only 5 elements to the IIPA. The prosecutor must prove  those 5 elements to estblish a crime. No more, no less. Those 5 elements do not include the SF 312. The SF-312 is a private contract between an employer and employee.

                          The prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that Rove or Libby knew Plame's status. The SF-312 does not relieve him of that burden. Nowhere in the SF 312 does it identify Plame's status. You can argue he had a duty to find out, but that doesn't satisfy the IIPA statute.

                          "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

                          by molly bloom on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 08:53:56 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  is it possible that the not is BS? (none)
                    that by "knowing" plame was CIA before Libby could have seen in on airforce one, he wasn't under disclosure as he wasn't aware yet that she was CIA... after he read the doc on AF1, that would and could no longer hold true, especially if he wasn't sure who testified that he read it.

                    So by the simple act of writing down a name she made it appear that Libby was in possesion of this knowledge and leaked it before he supposedly knew it was secret.

                    Going forward: Valerie Flame... yeah right. you hear a name like that, you ask for a clarification, Flame is not a common last name. Sounds to me like some genius wanted to obfuscate things, hence the mis-spelling.

                    •  go read SF-312 again (none)
                      doesn't really matter when Libby recieved this information as a part of his official duties or heard it as a rumor at a party

                      Scooter Libby has an ACTIVE RESPONSIBILITY to make sure he is NOT DISCLOSING classified information

                      where Libby has a reason to suspect that the information might be classified, he has a DUTY under the terms of SF-312, to check on the clasified status of the information

                      whether Libby actually knew this was classified materials, and whether Libby recieved this material thru official channels IS A PHONY ISSUE

                      all that matters is the SF-312 that Libby signed, and the fact that the material he was discussing actually was classified

                      from here, we only have to determine whether the criminbal offense committed by Scooter Libby was intentional or not

                      If the illegal disclosure was unintentional (not very likely), Scooter is guilty of negligent disclosure of classified materials, a Felony under the terms of SF=312

                      if the disclosure was intentional (like say, part of a criminal conspiricy), then Libby is guilty of most of the Title 18 felonies listed in SF-312, and guilty of the IIPA and the 1917 espionoge act as well

                      and don't forget RICO

                      •  public opinion... (none)
                        all they have to do is win in the court of public opinion (how could dear old scooter know she was CIA?" and by sending him to jail you make him a martyr to the party loyalist, and quite likely more than that. I can already see the Free Republic trumpeting the notion that he was arrested on a techincality and that he never really did anything wrong. the apologist mentality is strong for the "faithful" of the neo-cons. we can still lose this battle even if Rove and Libby both go to jail.
                        •  public support ??? For treason ??? (4.00)
                          that's gonna be a tough sell

                          especially when that star on the wall at Langley Virgina becomes a topic of discussion

                          BTW, the Star most likely has the death penalty for Rove and Libby hidden in its secrets

                          after the clinton Impeachment, I don't think the country is ready to believe that obstruction of justice, perjury, and treason within the Oval Office are reasons to support bush

                          repuglicans can try to rally around the traitors, but they really should check out what happened in France in 1944 and 1945 before they throw their lot in with traitors

                          This is about america, not george bush

                          •  sadly, I disagree. (none)
                            If this country were currently running on integrity and truth, We wouldn't be in the situation we're in. bottom line: it's who is capable of seelling their version of events that wins, and the current liberal/democrat track record is pretty weak.
          •  GJ are not fools. Who, When, Where, What (4.00)
            they can add 1+1=2. Who was the person doing the talking When Judy took those specific notes, Where and on What date? That's her source.

            Recall she did not write a story citing Plame but likely passed it on. Damn well knew she's not entitled.

            And I wanna bet Fitz KNOWS every person she met with on that date.  I'm hanging my bet that he has little CIA helpers.

            Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

            by idredit on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:45:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am starting to get nervous over this (4.00)
              Not since the elections have I been sitting on the edge of my seat. I thought we had it. I could not understand how people could not see how slimy this administration is. But noooooooo, they were so worried about gays. So that is what worries me. That there is a grand jury that will not see the slime or being charmed out of taking these guys down. They are slime balls of the worse kinds. They hide behind smiles and suits and holier than thou attitudes. But, we know they are slime. So I hope with you that their are some CIA people who are willing to step forward and try and regain some of their respect. They had to take the blame for the wording in the speech. They had to lose a valuable operative and operation. They lost the most. They should get the  last gotcha.

              Barn Babe Parking Only... All others will be towed....

              by BarnBabe on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:17:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, un-nerved but the make-up of this GJ in DC (4.00)
                will indict this bunch. Lotta street smarts.
                Rove, Libby, Judy have been caught lying. Why do you think they've been returned to testify more than once?

                From what I've read this afternoon, Judy lied on her 2nd round, Libby's woes increased, perhaps witness tampering added. And the fact that Fitz has probed the WHIG (White House Iraq Group) gives me hope that at the very least, 3-6 indictments in the pipeline with, if not,  unindicted co-conspirators for Bush and Cheney, a damming report on the latter two.

                And look for the wingers to say a majority of the GJ were blacks, (11 vs 4 whites), only 2% inpopulation like Bush, and it's Katrinagate revenge.

                Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

                by idredit on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:24:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Precisely (4.00)
                  A lot of the grand jurors probably are current and former government employees who know that their government bosses would have no compunction in lying to them to cover their butts.
                •  DC jurors... (4.00)
                  From a guy who used to work at the courthouse where Fitz's grand jury is sitting (me):

                  Yes, they're very street-smart.  Yes, there are a lot of government employees and ex-government employees.

                  The DC jury pool is a cross-section of the District.  On a typical 14-person petit jury (12 jurors plus two alternates), the racial breakdown is about what the breakdown of this grand jury is.  You'll typically have five to seven (about half) middle-aged and above black females, usually retired low-level government employees, service employees, professional homemakers, and the like.  There will be two or three African-American men, usually old enough to be retired.  The four or five whites will be equally split between males and females.

                  At least a third of the jury will be current or retired government employees.  There will almost invariably be a lawyer on the jury.  Yes, I know this violates everything anyone's ever heard about lawyers on juries (i.e., they get peremptorily challenged and never sit), but there are so many lawyers in Washington that you can't get rid of all of them.  The lawyer (no surprise) often ends up as foreman.  Another third of the jury will usually be comprised of private-sector employees, often of government contractors.  Lots of retired folks.

                  Political composition:  I keep reminding everyone that the District of Columbia went 89 percent for John Kerry last year.  This is not at all irrelevant.  D.C. has a (largely unheralded) domestic partners law that goes back many, many years, and the D.C. Council would vote in gay marriage in a heartbeat if all of its legislation wasn't subject to a Congressional veto.  D.C. voters turned down a referendum on the death penalty a few years back.  Is the city liberal?  Is the Pope Catholic?

                  So how do D.C. juries behave?  They are exceptionally careful and cautious and take their job very, very seriously.  In ordinary criminal cases, they are much more likely than their counterparts elsewhere to find reasonable doubt and acquit.  I've seen jury nullification practiced in this judicial district.  But when it comes to the rich and powerful, this city, which has over 20 percent of its population living below the poverty level in one of the most prosperous metropolitan areas in the country...nearby Fairfax, Montgomery, Anne Arundel, and Prince William Counties are way at the other end of the poverty rankings...will nail the wealthy, powerful, and corrupt like crazy.

                  Patrick Fitzgerald could not face a more favorable grand jury pool if trying to indict members of a Republican administration than the one he has at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse for the District of Columbia.  If he has anything approaching probable cause, they will true bill every single damn last one of them.  If he has a solid case but doesn't want to indict the powerful, a D.C. grand jury is more than willing to turn into a runaway grand jury and indict them anyway.  If no indictments come down, it means there just simply isn't enough evidence.  That doesn't mean they didn't do it -- it just means Fitz couldn't get enough evidence in front of the panel.

                  I've got a feeling somebody big is going down, though.  Federal prosecutors don't go to the lengths Fitz has gone to with this investigation just to wrap it up and say "sorry, no indictments."

                  The Chimperor Has No Clothes

                  by DC Pol Sci on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:55:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ace in the hole???? (none)
                    If he has a solid case but doesn't want to indict the powerful, a D.C. grand jury is more than willing to turn into a runaway grand jury and indict them anyway.

                    Could this really happen?  You think the Florida recount was chaos....oh booooy....

                  •  I wonder (none)
                    if anyone on the Grand Jury has a son/daughter/wife/husband in Iraq?  By my calculations, the odds are about 0.3%

                    If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

                    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:02:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  thanks, for expanding on my point (none)
                    Counting on this grand jury. They won't disappoint.
                    If the published evidence/testimony  now under deliberation is pointing to indictments, lawyers close to the case are sweating and staying close to the potty.

                    I am taking bets, and  chilling the wine glasses

                    Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

                    by idredit on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:31:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  nice effort, but ... (none)
                    this sin't a DC Jury. It's a DC Grand Jury. Big difference

                    a family member was once considered for service on a Grand Jury, and I can assure you that the vetting process is more intense for Grand Juries

                    the family member went to three Jury Pools during the winnowing process

                    I've never seen more than 1 winnowing process in criminal jury selection

                    and YES. I have observed the process from several different views

                  •  that is a good analysis. i couldn't help (none)
                    but think after seeing the slop on tv today that the media will be the last to jump ship.
          •  yes exactly (4.00)
            and in her other notes she misspelled her name as victoria wilson

            clearly she was told these names

            and, just as clearly, she is a moronic putz who could not correctly take down the names she was supposed to disseminate

            some investigative reporter

            I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

            by The Exalted on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:52:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That was... (none)
            my greatest fear.  That Miller would pull out a notebook that said it was SHE that named Plame to Libby.

                Miller put the best possible spin, and has been able to compartmentalize any other potential damage, but her words are damning.  Libby committed a crime.

            The most important thing about life is to stay amused by it.

            by Paulie200 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:59:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course Libby told her n/t (none)

            We're all in this together.

            by JTML on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:08:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  handprints (none)
              and let's not think for one minute that Cheney himself isn't involved in this DIRECTLY.  From the very beginning it seemed obvious to me that Cheney's handprints were all over this.  He, afterall,is the main architect of Bush's Iraq debacle and so had the biggest dog in the hunt.  More than anything he would be stung by Wilson's revelation.  Cheney's supreme arrogance would not allow himself be "bested" by an outside former State Dept. guy. It's an understatement to be disappointed if Fitzy doesn't name him as an unindicted co-conspirator.
          •  Does anyone think the Flame thing a mistake? (4.00)
            I don't. As a reporter, the last place I want to misspell a name is in the notebook I'm going to refer to when I write a story. I never, ever, ever write a name down in it without confirming and reconfirming the spelling with my source. Why this spelling, though, I don't know. Unless it's as someone said earlier: "Flame Plame." Very juvenile. I'm outraged that she's been able to get by with being a Bush shill. Where is the accountability? The justice?
            •  You have to keep in mind... (none)
              We are not talking about a good reporter here.

              (But I agree this was probably not a mistake)

            •  I thought the same exact thing, Soph (none)
              The first thing I do when I start an interview is ask the person how to spell their name. I then spell it back to them very slowly. I don't care if his name is "David Brown," you'd be amazed at how many weird spelling exceptions there are out there and there's not a lot more embarrassing than mispelling a source's name.

              So yeah, in a nutshell, I think both the "Flame" and the "Victoria Wilson" are extremely telling.

            •  why it's misspelled (none)
              i believe this shows us that miller knew very well that connecting "valerie plame" and CIA WINPAC was a very serious national security secret.

              let's say someone handed you some very secret stuff.  you know it could be big trouble if people find out you have it. and perhaps you're a little concerned it might fall into the wrong hands somehow - after all a reporter's notebook is not exactly secure. do you write it down as is, or do you use some kind of code or shorthand to disguise it a little bit?  that's what i think was going on with the valerie flame and victoria wilson stuff.  it's also why she wrote it in a separate part of the notebook, so it wouldn't be obvious it was connected to the conversation with libby.

              we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
              — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

              by zeke L on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:06:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Not so sure (none)
            It may look like she didn't give him the name and that may have been the intention. If she did know the name and gave it to him, she wouldn't have even had to write it down. And she couldn't remember how it got there. She could have added it later, even deliberately (or accidentally- ?Freudian slip, ?hearing it from someone else) misspelling it so she could acknowledge after she was caught that they had talked about it. I admit that sounds tin hat but this is an extraordinarily devious woman.

            The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

            by Psyche on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:15:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What's really damning to Libby is . . . (none)
            the fact that the name she wrote down was "Plame" even if she misheard it as "Flame." The reason is this: Valerie's name at this time, was not "Valerie Plame" it was "Valerie Wilson." "Wilson" is the name that she used on the job. "Wilson" is the name her friends and family called her by. So who was calling her "Valerie Plame"? Not her colleagues, not her friends, not her family. The people who were referring to her as "Plame" were the people in the White House Intelligence Group. If Miller had the name "Plame" written in her notebook, regardless of whether it was in proximity to other notes she took from the Libby interview, it pretty clearly started out from that group. And her lawyer said that Libby is was pretty much the only person  that she had meaningful interviews on this subject with. So what other conclusion can you draw?

            "If you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time." - Harry Truman

            by Rydra Wrong on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:17:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Judy may have thought, a majority of the GJ sat (4.00)
        in the sun too long, so their brains are fried.

        Won't work Judy. writing "Flame" and not Plame was a code to yourself. And does not cover plausible denial. Shows you were covering your tracks then and now. You're deep in this doo. IMHO, If this was a jury trial for murder (treason = murder) then you'd be found guilty.
         You're taking notes, wrote the name Valerie Flame but you can't recall the person who told you.
        Pray Fitz isn't just letting you think you have a free pass.

        Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

        by idredit on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:34:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  nah (none)
          if she was thinking those notes would someday come to light, she would never have written valerie's name in the first place

          I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

          by The Exalted on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:54:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  She wrote it elsewhere in the notebook, (4.00)
            where it could be removed without raising questions.  That shows she knew it was illegal from the get go.
            •  Exactly. (4.00)
              She put it on a different page and misspelled it or wrote the incorrect name down twice.  Yeah, right.

              Comforter.  Um, I mean duvet.  

              Sorry, cover-up.

              Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Samuel Clemens

              by wvillmike on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:19:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Someone else found her notebook? (none)
              Has this been factually determined yet?  I thought I read somewhere (probably here) that it was Judy who found it.

              The reason I'm asking is that if Judy found it and turned it over to Fitz, then why didn't she remove and destroy the page (assuming it was on a separate one) before handing it over?

              •  Her lawyer had it all along (none)
                In the Times article, it states that Bennett, Miller's lawyer, assured Fitzgerald that Libby was her only source.  That means he had the notebook all along, he didn't "find it."

                Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out.

                by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:58:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK then (none)
                  If Bennett had it, Judy had to give it to him, but why? And if she did, why didn't she redact (by tossing out) the page with the Flame reference?

                  This doesn't make sense to me, but much doesn't, so I'm not gonna sweat it.

                  All I would like, besides numerous indictments, is a full report.  It would go a long way in helping to clear up details.

                  •  It's a conspiracy! (none)
                    Oh wait. It is a conspiracy.

                    Um...a conspiracy wrapped within a conspiracy wrapped within...um...a plot to overthrow the world!

                    Yeah...that's the ticket!

                  •  Reasons why (none)
                    First, I'm not entirely convinced her lawyers had it all along, because the articles don't specifically state that. It's possible a trusted editor or bureau chief could have been hanging onto them and either tried to help Judy out, screwed her over or was told by Judy to give them to her lawyers after she got out of the clink.

                    However, assuming that Judy did in fact give them to her lawyers, then that's because that's what one should do in this kind of situation.

                    Who do you discuss your legal issues with? Your lawyer.

                    Who do you give sensitive things to for safe keeping? Your lawyer.

                    So, it's not entirely unreasonable to assume that's what Judy did here, although I'm not entirely convinced that's what happened here.

                    In some ways, these NYT articles raise as many questions as they give answers.

                    •  Oh, and why not destroy the notes? (none)
                      Oh, and as for the question about why she would not or did not destroy the notes about "Valerie Flame," she wouldn't do that for two reasons.

                      One, it would probably be very illegal to do such a thing when it's possibly evidence in an ongoing investigation.

                      Two, it was Judy's get-out-of-jail-free card, and she knew it.

              •  Judy says: (none)
                "I was not permitted to take notes of what I told the grand jury, and my interview notes on Mr. Libby are sketchy in places. It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses. On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.

                I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him."

                Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Samuel Clemens

                by wvillmike on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 11:29:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Burned (4.00)
        Considering that outing an agent is known as 'burning' them, you get the idea that some wag in the whig thought that Valerie 'Flame' was a pretty funny pun back on that AF1 flight. Very funny, motherfuckers.

        As we always say in the writing trade...

        Use a pun, go to jail.

      •  "Flame" (none)
        Sounds like a not so cutesy nickname, you know, like "Guru" or "Hogan", or "Fristy" or "Turd Blossom" or "Pooty-Poot." Now who could have come up with a silly nickname like that?
      •  So, How many times..?? (4.00)
         ..did Judy write "But I can't recall..", OR "If it happened, I can't remember.., OR " I don't know how that appeared there.."  ???!!

        Those difficulties in recollections must have appeared at least 20-30 times in her piece.
          Someone needs to total those up.

        Unbelievable..literally and figuratively.  

        So, she can't recall who it was that she spoke to for jotting down 'Valerie Flame'?? lol.  Yeah, I'll buy that one.        

      •  Waitaminit (4.00)
        I can understand maybe getting the name wrong in the heat of passion... er, I mean, while taking some rushed notes, but she doesn't remember who first gave her the name "Valerie Plame"?

        C'mon. First of all, it's an unusual name, even if you thought it was "Flame." But this had to have been a very juicy tidbit for a Washington insider. Joe Wilson's WIFE is an operative for the CIA? She (supposedly) SENT HIM to Niger?

        I think I would remember who told me that.

      •  WTF (4.00)
        She goes to jail for two months to protect a source whose name she can't recall?
    •  She's probably (none)
      headed out to her vacation home where the aspins are turning because they're connected at the roots.


      Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?...Carley Sheehan

      by nupstateny on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:43:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If she comes back on staff at NYT (4.00)
      I will never ever read that paper again.  They already have lost nearly all credibility as far as I am concerned.  Her failed memory aboutt he real source of the CIA operative status of Plame is totally pre-flippin-posterous.  

      Judy you're a perfect martyr.  But for the wrong cause.

      •  Agreed... (4.00)
        I'm not sure they understand just how much credibility they've lost.  Wasn't it about six months ago that the Times came out with a huge article about how the administration misled the Senate and the public at large about the degree to which there was actually great debate within the intelligence community regarding Iraq's propensity for developing nuclear weapons?  

        What's interesting about Judy's piece is that she recounts her  conversations with Libby restating the case that the CIA was at the time engaging is selective leaks, yet she made no attempt to follow up on Libby's remarks in a number of directions that she could have gone in.  If this piece says nothing else, it's proof that she is and has always been a shill for the Bush administration.  

    •  $$$$$$ in her purse (none)
      How much was she paid?
    •  Terminate (none)
      She should be fired.  Pronto.  No if's and's or but's.  She lied to editors, she took the Times for a ride on a misguided principle.  she wasn't protecting a do-gooder whistleblower, she was protecting a treasonous, intentional plant of smear information--and refusing to contradict Libby's perjury! Times editors dropped the ball on this one by not asking her the hard questions and leaving her to rot in jail.

      You have to wonder if Miller was so dumb as to think she was doing the right thing on a noble principle, or whether she is sympathetic to the WHIG cause and part of the conspiracy.  By claiming not to recall the source of the "valerie flame" note she is a shabby reporter at best, a treasonous perjurer at worst.  Either way, she's got to go.

    •  My initial reaction (3.78)
      is this story fails to capture the context of the situation at hand.  The reason the paper's reputation is on the line is because this story is about 1) a pre-emptive war 2) waged under fabricated pretenses (whether or not it was) that 3) its own erroneous reporting validated.

      That the Times news department would constrain itself for over two years from covering such a grave and monumental story cuts right to the question of the paper's identity as a journalistic enterprise or government mouthpiece.

      Sulzberger's protestations about protecting newsgathering by rallying full-bore behind Miller fail in one critical aspect.  He does not and cannot defend the paper's woefully inadequate coverage of BushCo's casus belli.  Were he committed to the best journalism possible, he would have put singular pressure on his news division to nail down the Bush administration's unproven case for war WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY defending his reporter's and the paper's rights.  He has not done this, and did not do so in today's article after thinking it through for three years.

      I think it may be time for the publisher to step down.

      •  Agree... (3.66)
        Though I haven't gone through the entire piece yet, the bits I have read make it even harder for the TIMES to claim any future credibility.  I'd say they have just sunk their own ship.    
      •  Tentatively agree. (none)
        I've slogged through it all, and I think the most important thing left unsaid is the result of a forensic examination of Miller's miraculously discovered notebooks.

        There's something about how the timeline develops, due to her Libby notes and her 'unknown party' notes being in the same notebook.  Something about how conveniently corroborative it is to have Valerie Plame's name in error in both areas = 'Flame,' in Libby's notes, and 'Victoria Wilson' in the other.

        I don't know.  I don't think I'm entirely buying all of it, but I'll mull it over for awhile.

        JF

        Invest in your future - VOTE DIEBOLD!

        by Jaime Frontero on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:25:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No good, JTML? (none)
        Chime in.  Please.
      •  Shame (4.00)
        This drivel is the tell-all story Sulzberger promised us? It reeks of a co-conspirator covering her crime instead of a piece expected from a Pulitzer winning investigative reporter. Firing Miller at this time is a matter of "too little, too late." The NYT will forever be tarnished for harboring the weasel.

        "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all" The Other JFK

        by novelle on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:16:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shame Shame Shame! (none)
          The story is a total whitewash on the highest levels of national security.

          CYA mode all the way baby!

          I will never read the NYT again.If I wanted to hear crap like that I could turn my Faux news channel on.

          Disgraceful!  

      •  Timing (none)
        All the Times refusal to write about the story and their defense of Miller and lack of scrutiny of what she was doing came in 2003 and 2004 - in the run-up to a presidential election in which the president who took us into war was running for re-election.

        It's shocking that instead of reporting vigorously on what they must have clearly known would evolve into a huge story, they were instead protecting Miller and themselves from their "entanglement."

  •  If it isn't Libby... (4.00)
    Then its Rove, but Rove points back to Libby.

    No wonder the White House is in chaos, they are acting like a bunch of 1st graders!!!

    Fitz should just indict all of them, then it will be who strikes a deal to avoid jail time.

    God, you have to love it.

    •  If it was Rove (4.00)
      and Judy says shouldn't she couldn't remember who it was, Fitzgerald would make her think 85 days was like a walk in the park.

      My guess is that she said "I think it was someone else", and Fitzgerald and the grand jurors burst of in laughter...

      Fitzgerald:  "Do you think I was born yesterday?  The only reason I am not going to indict you on perjury charges is because you already served time.   You might want to provide some helpful hints to your friends before you head of to Aspen this year.  Take care"  (I can dream right?)

      BTW-If that was the case, why would Scooter drop all of the hints about July in his love letter.

      They have no shame, but maybe I am being to presumptuous.  

  •  Regardless of what Miller said (4.00)
    I think there is no good reason Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should not be charged under IIPA based on this analysis of the elements of the crime.

    Please help me imagine a possible defense to any one of these elements after reading the article.

    To figure out the elements that must be proved, you simply break this run-on sentence into subparts in the following manner:

    A defendant must:

    (1) have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent;

    (2) "intentionally disclose" the information;

    (3) disclose it to one not authorized to receive classified information;

    (4) know the information he is disclosing identifies the covert agent; and

    (5) know that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.

    I have no idea what Fitzgerald will do, but if the leaks of the last three weeks have any shred of truth, and common sense prevails, both Rove, Libby, and maybe others will be preparing for a trial in the very near future.

    •  It's worse than that for them..... (4.00)
      That's only the espionage act. There's guidelines for handling classified material that should have all of these jokers fired out of hand. Whether they "intentionally" leaked the information is immaterial. They discussed an operative--clearly marked on the memo as "secret"--with someone outside the chain. Doesn't matter if they knew she was covert or not. They did it. They burn.
    •  Pure speculation, but given Libby's status (none)
      and interest in WMD and his numerous trips to Langely coupled with Valerie's position at the CIA in the WInpac unit, I'd say someone at the CIA is going to testify that he discussed Valerie with Libby. And as I said in a previous post, unless you think the CIA is haphazard and sloppy, I'd say the INR memo is circumstantial evidence that the person who discussed WMD and Valerie with Libbly  told Libby  told not reveal anything about her. This would cover  elements 1, 4 & 5. Judy's testimlny covers 2 and 3.

      "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

      by molly bloom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:05:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That analysis seems to willingly miss the point. (none)

      From that article:


      The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the law against outing a CIA operative under which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was, in essence, called into existence, is rarely discussed in any serious way -- and then at best only in a passing paragraph or two deep in any story. And yet a media/punditry consensus has formed that it is a law so specifically, even quirkily, written as to be almost impossible to use in a prosecution (hopeless, in fact, against a figure like Karl Rove or Vice President Cheney's right-hand man I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby); and that Special Counsel Fitzgerald has already turned away from the law, moving on to more conceivable avenues of prosecution -- like obstruction of justice.


      The columnist is apparently unaware of the history of the law, which was so narrowly written it almost was a bill of Attainder.  The IIPA was narrowly drafted because it was essentially the "throw Philip Agee in jail" Act.


      The above article ignores the primary issue as to why the IIPA doesn't apply, which, contrary to their assertion, has been discussed in depth.  To summarize the main obstacle:<?P>

      In fact, there is no public evidence that Valerie Wilson had the covert status required by the statute. A covert agent, as defined under this law, is "a present or retired officer or employee" of the CIA, whose identity as such "is classified information," and this person must be serving outside of the United States, or have done so in the last five years.


      It is very unlikely she qualifies for the later part, because, as Vanity Fair reported:


      In 1997, Plame moved back to the Washington area, partly because (as was recently reported in The New York Times) the C.I.A. suspected that her name may have been on a list given to the Russians by the double agent Aldrich Ames in 1994.


      Besides the fact the CIA wanted her in Washington where they could be relatively certain she wouldn't be shot, Valerie decided to have kids (They're five years old now) and had been caring for them at home.  Given that her husband was often gone, it's unlikely she left them to go overseas.  Both Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson have refused to answer questions about whether she served outside the country during that time.

      •  Don't be so sure. (none)
        But why does the INR go to the trouble of labeling Plame S and NF? Seems to me the CIA thinks she is covert. Not to mention they are the ones who made the criminal referral. Also, how do you know she hadn't been out of the US in the last 5 years, notwithstanding the fact she moved to the US in 1997.

        And finally, notwithstanding the fact the Russians may or may not have known her status, does that mean everyone does or that the Russians have reported to every other spy agency and country in the world of her status?

        "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

        by molly bloom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:25:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the Administration talking points... (4.00)
        But I tend to go with the

        Prosecutor,

        District judge,

        Appellate judge,

        FBI,

        Larry Johnson who testified under oath to her status...

        and the CIA...

        who all apparently beg to differ with you...

        Seems like an awful lot they put everyone through the last few years if they couldn't prove that she even met the basic elements of the statute...

        If you don't think a CIA official was one of the first people to testify in the grand jury to prove her status even should be convened, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I am looking to sell.

        That is unless you believe the IIPA was never being investigated by Fitzgerald...which while possible, seems unlikely...

        •  Only the CIA differed with me. (none)

          Everyone else just took the CIA's word.  The CIA has plenty of reason to go ahead with the investigation, even if they couldn't get a conviction on the IIPA.


          So that puts you back where you started: with no evidence.

    •  It's possible you're right (none)
      But, many are assuming that's what they'd be charged with because that's what Fitzgerald was charged to investigate. However, that does not mean he's restricted to charging them with only that crime. How about:

      -- Obstruction of justice

      -- RICO

      -- Perjury

      -- Espionage

      And lots more. I think when indictments come down, and they will though I don't think I know against who specifically, that Fitzgerald will throw the book at these folks, multiple counts against multiple defendants. It won't be just some narrow, beatable rap. It'll be a veritable cornucopia of wrongdoing the defendants will be charged with.

  •  "Couldn't recall" - hah! (4.00)
    The last refuge of a liar.  I wonder if she was able in that event to provide a list of possible sources.  I mean, it's doubtful she heard it from my cat but maybe she just can't tell for sure.
    •  Of course not. (none)
      I wonder if she was able in that event to provide a list of possible sources.

      The deal she struck with Fitzgerald reportedly limited his questioning to one source -- Libby.

      What did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?

      by Pyewacket on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:45:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fine, but... (4.00)
        if there were other sources "possible", or even "necessarily", then the conspiracy aspects come into stark relief.  Anyway the article says she did meet Libby on the 23rd, which is the day of the note, so the idea that it might have come from someone else seems, how you say, "preposterous".
      •  Please post a source link (none)
        to "the deal she struck with Fitzgerald".

        "So if dea's a fiya an I call de engine, who'm I double crossin, DA FIYA"? Billie Dawn - Born Yesterday

        by Sassy on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This little nugget is in the article... (4.00)
          "Mr. Bennett, who by now had carefully reviewed Ms. Miller's extensive notes taken from two interviews with Mr. Libby, assured Mr. Fitzgerald that Ms. Miller had only one meaningful source."
          •  Boo-yah! If she learned he name (none)
            of Valerie "Flame" from someone other than Libby then is her/Bennett's deal with Fitzgerald to limit questions dead?

            OK, Judy, was it Rove or Cheney?

            (-2.75,-4.77) "Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose." Senator Barack Obama

            by Sam I Am on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:04:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the name is irrelevant (4.00)
              once someone told a journalist that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the agency on WMD issues, Valerie Plame had been identified. Only one person in the world fits the description of "Joseph Wilson's wife." From that point on anyone could dig up her name. The law doesn't say it's only a crime if you use someone's name--there are all kinds of ways to identify a covert agent.
          •  I wonder what differentiates a (4.00)
             "meaningful" source from the other possible kinds of sources.
            •  In this case ... (none)
              I don't think parsing is necessary.  Bennett's word to prosecutors is his bread and butter.  He might fib to reporters about what he told Fitz, but if that is what he said, the message to Fitz was "That's what my client's got for you, so let's go forward with it."

              -- Rick Robinson

        •  As you wish. (none)
          From CNN:
          After spending 12 weeks in jail for refusing to name a source, The New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified Friday before a federal grand jury looking into a CIA leak case after her source gave her permission.

          Miller said she agreed to testify before the grand jury only after she received a personal letter and telephone call from her source, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and a promise from the special investigator that her testimony would be limited to her communication between her and her source.

          And from Miss Run Amok's own statement:

          Once I got a personal, voluntary waiver my lawyer, Mr. Bennett, approached the special counsel to see if my grand jury testimony could be limited to the communications with the source from whom I had received that personal and voluntary waiver. The special counsel agreed to this and that was very important to me.

          What did the President know and when did he stop knowing it?

          by Pyewacket on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:48:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't MIller's lawyer say that the limitation (none)
        on questioning was to the Plame matter?  If so, there's no reason not to ask about multiple sources.
        •  Miller's article unclear on limitation. (4.00)
          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.

          Miller wants to leave the impression that Fitz limited his questioning to Libby.  But what she says doesn't make it clear that that was the limitation.

          •  WHOA....waitaminute! (4.00)
            I missed this earlier:
            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.

            "For other articles"...meaning Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing a line of questioning considerably further back than the Wilson/Plame/Niger forgeries? Because Ms. Miller didn't write any articles about Plame or Wilson, correct? She wrote about WMD's and Bushco's side of the attempts to "sell" the war.

            Just how broad is this investigation? Dare we hope it will reach back far enough to involve the Downing Street Memo era?

          •  What it says to me is (none)
            that, as long as it's Plame-related, Fitz could ask her about other sources and information. Remember how it seemed contradictory when Bennett insisted that the deal struck for her release limited her testimony to things related to the Plame affair -- but Miller insisted testimony was limited to discussions about her source (Libby).

            It almost sounds like to me what she doesn't want to discuss is the other Plame/Wilson related information she discussed with others.

      •  Ahem (4.00)
          That was the FIRST time she testified. Who knows, exactly, what Judy agreed to when Fitzgerald hauled her back?

          He got he notes out of her that time too.

        •  Why was Rove called to testify? (none)
          Why was Rove brought in front of the grand jury after Miller's testimony?  Why not Libby?

          Some of you have thought this truth much more thoroughly than I have...

          •  Rove volunteered to testify again (none)
            from all accounts that I have heard.  Maybe to put another nail in Libby's coffin, or to sell out Judy or Cheney even?
          •  Rove asked to testify again (4.00)
            seems that he needed to "Adjust" his previous testimony

            or maybe it was to "clarify" his previous testimony

            I think Karl told Fitz and the GJ that he never talked to news reporters about this

            naturally, Karl had some "remembering" to do after Cooper testified

            Libby is smarter that Karl. Libby knows that "adjustments" and "clarifications" are open invitations to perjury charges

            and having sudden "memory restoration" right after somebody else tells the truth is usually fatal too

          •  He volunteered (none)
            It must have been a very fine tap-dancing routine he put on for the GJ.  He had months to practice
            •  no matter how long he practiced (4.00)
              what are the chances he was able to keep his testimony straight for over four hours, without contradicting anything he previously told the FBI or the grand jury? Slim to none.

              Remember that Rove had incomplete information about what others had told the grand jury already. So he could have prepared a perfect answer, only to have a follow-up question from someone in the room blow him away.

        •  exactly my thought! all deals were off and (none)
          judy was trying to avoid another trip to the slammer.
      •  I'd say this proves she was not (none)
        limiting her answers as you suggest:

        "Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred."

      •  Fitz' deal doesn't limit the Grand Jury (none)
        the grand Jurors can ask their own questions, and Fitzgerald works for them, so Fitz can't make a deal to limit their questions
      •  I'm not a lawyer (none)
        but wouldn't bringing up during her testimony that the name "Valerie Flame" may have come from a source other than Libby open her up to questions about that source as well?

        Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:02:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Plame's name (none)
          Wasn't it in Joe Wilson's Who's Who entry?  I seem to remember that coming up just before the Novak meltdown.

          There doesn't have to have been another human source for that info.  Blind alley.

          "If you [just] wanted to reduce ignorance, you could ... abort every Republican baby in this country, and your ignorance rate would go down."

          by Major Danby on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:56:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Where have we heard this one before? (4.00)
      "To the best of my recollection..."

      "I don't recall..."

      "There may be facts of which I am unaware that I should be aware of before I form a complete response."

      "I can not recall whether I remembered..."

      "I do not possess any independent knowledge..."

      And now, to add to our growing collection:

      "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall..."

      I wish I'd been a fly on the wall to see the expressions on the faces of the Grand Jury upon hearing this.

    •  And Rove says he can't recall (4.00)
      what journalist he heard about Plame from.  Isn't that a funny coincidence?
      •  Sure (none)
        Someone tells you something that helpful to your cause and you just can't quite remember who it was.

        All he can remember is the cartwheels he was doing.

        •  he forgot the terms of SF-312 too (none)
          Karl couldn't remember shit

          can't remember who provided him the name of a NOC agent

          can't remember that he is supposed to activly protect the secrets of the United States

          can't remember that he is supposed to take an active stance to avoid disclosing secret materials

          so

          he had a constitutional duty to report who he heard the name from. And he had specific duties under SF-312 to avoid spreading information that he suspected could be classified

          but don't worry. We have anticipated such failures, and the United States Criminal Code is full of laws to punish people who fail as he has (as karl knows, if he READ the SF-312 he signed)

      •  Rove's memory (none)
        but he remembers every Republican precinct in the country.  Hmmmm.
    •  I'm really thinking slow today. (none)
      If she couldn't remember, why didn't she just tell Fitz that instead of going to jail. Obviously any journalist can easily protect a source by saying "I don't recall," as long as there is no paper trail. I'm not getting this. Perhaps I'm too honest.

      I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

      by John West on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:51:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Valerie Plame (4.00)
    Bob Novak - I don't remember where I got the name from.

    Karl Rove - I don't remember where I heard the name, probably from a journalist whose name I don't recall.

    Libby - I don't remember where I heard the name Valerie Plame, could have been from Tim Russert.

    Judy Miller - I don't remember where I heard the name Valerie Plame. I DO remember that it didn't come from Scooter Libby. THAT I remember for sure.

  •  Aw poor baby (4.00)
    Inside her cell in the Alexandria Detention Center this summer, Ms. Miller was able to peer through a narrow concrete slit to get an obstructed view of a maple tree and a concrete highway barrier. She was losing weight and struggling to sleep on two thin mats on a concrete slab.  

    Sounds like heaven compared to being a grunt in Iraq or a submarine crewman...

    "George W. did cocaine as recently as 1992, when he snorted lines off of Rush Limbaugh's tits at Camp David" - The Onion.

    by calipygian on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:29:40 PM PDT

    •  Missed opportunities... (4.00)
      That's a federal detention facility?  I had no idea!  All the time I sat stuck in traffic on the Beltway, I was in the presence of celebrity slime!

      Damn...and I never once thought to throw lil' Miss Judy a one-finger salute.  Ah, hindsight.

      Who do you trust when everyone's a crook? Revolution Calling!

      by sm1else on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:37:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I only live a few miles away (none)
        and have looked at apartments in and around that complex.  Right now, I only live a few miles away and regularly get my drink on in Old Town.  Zacharais Moussawi is there also.  So many celebreties....

        "George W. did cocaine as recently as 1992, when he snorted lines off of Rush Limbaugh's tits at Camp David" - The Onion.

        by calipygian on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:42:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Room with a View, they call it (4.00)
      "a narrow concrete slit"....losing weight", eh? Heh, heh.

      All those high profile visitors, Bolton, et al, you mean to tell me they weren't allowed to bring her a downy pillow. Awful, I tellya. Just awful.

      Seems to me she helped send some people to a place from which they'll never return, never wake up to hug their loved ones.

      Baby, you got blood on your hands.

      Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

      by idredit on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:41:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps (none)
      Martha Stewart would be willing to redecorate Millers cell before her return. I'd hate to see Judy have to go back to the same old, same old.

      I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

      by John West on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:59:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  all the whiny inmates... (none)
      all the whiny inmates in prison go crying to the doctor about their bad back or some other non-verifiable complaint so they can get a "double mattress pass". those are the two "pads" she's talking about - regular prison mattresses. jesus, she must have been as much fun for the prison staff to manage as martha stewart was.
  •  Game, Set, Match (none)
    In a notebook belonging to Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, amid notations about Iraq and nuclear weapons, appear two small words: "Valerie Flame."

    She might also be up for perjury if some else has testified against her story the she has another source, but that is conjecture.

    Pontificator...Do you think this deserves a Breaking?

    •  if Libby was her "main source" (none)
      then who the hell told her about this?  She deserves to be locked up again!  Trying to lie for Libby like that.
      •  There seems to be a huge push... (4.00)
        in the main stream media to return to a previous meme...this sorta stuff happens all the time in DC.
        So I think they're going for the "Miller-learned-of-this-in-the-DC-circuit" bit.  "Could've been anybody...particularly if you're as -um- profligate as Judy."  Too bad we can't have DNA paternity tests for ideas, eh?

        We've gone from Bush's 2001 "this is really bad and Karl and I want to get to the bottom of it, don't we Karl" to a number of pundits over the summer stating that this just constitutes pleasant cocktail conversation in DC to Kristol and Cohen and who knows who else recently publishing pieces that seem to defend what a low-level activity this was.  "Happens all the time."  I think this whole line of thought has been ginned up to take the heat off of Miller.

        "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

        by mayan on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:50:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the CIA referred it to Justice (4.00)
          and Fitzgerald's been investigating for two years because it's no big deal?  Plame's name and covert status just fell from the sky?  Nice try GOP.  Here's your consolation prize:  a bunch of indictments and the end of your "revolution."

          Why in God's name would Rove testify before the GJ four times if he wasn't up to his neck in deep, deep shit?

          •  Well, apparently a three-judge panel (4.00)
            thought it was a big enough deal to put Judy's stupid ass in jail if she didn't spill the beans.  Anybody who thinks there is nothing to this should go back and read the appellate court finding.  (I'm clearly not a lawyer and don't know legalese but you know what I mean ;-)
            •  you mean "the Plot Against Wilson" (4.00)
              Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks-say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson-the situation would be different

              the appellete court made a direct reference to a "Plot", which leads me to believe that Fitzgerald presented enough evidence to convince the court that there WAS a plot

              such a plot would be considered a criminal conspiricy under the RICO Act, and Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, and under the IIPA, and under the 1917 Espionoge Act

              and Mr. Fitzgerald knows this

              •  Yes, that is what I mean. Whenever I (4.00)
                lose optimism that this will lead to justice, I recall how the judges reacted to the presentation by Fitzgerald in the appeals court.  I don't think the judges believe there is nothing to this affair.
                •  8 pages (4.00)
                  That's not to mention the fact that there were 8 pages of the Appellate decision redacted for National Security reasons. Obviously there is some meat to the whole thing and, an attempt to point one anywhere else, is just so much spin. I think that this is going to be really really bad for the GOP in general and the White House in particular. Given that Fitzgerald has played his hand so close to his vest though, all we can do is speculate at this point. I would venture to guess though, given that Rove has testified four times for several hours each time that he's in it up to his eyeballs. I think it's just a matter of time before this whole thing comes down on their heads.

                  "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Von Goethe

                  by green917 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:39:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  But who else... (none)
          In the DC circle had any knowledge of and reason to want to push Plame's name into the limelight?

          She was under cover.....nobody knew she was CIA except for her husband......only people who had access to intelligence materials would or should know her occupation, and other than the desire to undercut her husband (and earlier than we originally thought in relation to his NYT Op Ed) what other possible reason was there for anyone OTHER than the WHIG group to want to use her name as a means to undercut her husband by implying that she got him sent.

          Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

          by dweb8231 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:22:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who else? (4.00)
            One possibility. Remember Bolton's NSA intercepts? Never clear why he got them. And remember how resistant the administration was to releasing them to committee during Bolton's hearing? They never did and Bush bypassed the whole issue with a recess appointment. Bolton and Judy were cozy - both were interested in WMD - and he visited her in jail. I'd be very surprised if he's not mixed up in this although he's been keeping a low profile. Actually, I was surprised he visited her in jail.

            The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

            by Psyche on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:12:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  That is obviously not a reference to Plame (none)
      Plainly, it is a reference to someone named Valerie FLAME.  Is Valerie Flame married to Joe Wilson?  I dont think so...</snark>

      "George W. did cocaine as recently as 1992, when he snorted lines off of Rush Limbaugh's tits at Camp David" - The Onion.

      by calipygian on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:45:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Flame Plame Blame Game (4.00)
        No he's married to Victoria Wilson. I hope he's not fooling around with this Valerie Flame hussy!

        A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy- Benjamin Disraeli

        by vcmvo2 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:58:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wish I could laugh (none)
          This is where they build the "plausible deniability" defense, on little so-called errors.

          Skanks.

          •  Sorry I couldn't resist (4.00)
            I used to be a criminal defense attorney & I find these slight changes in name not only unconvincing but pathetic as well. I'm sure Fitz & his staff are well aware of what's going on here. What a bunch of laughable mendacity!

            A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy- Benjamin Disraeli

            by vcmvo2 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:40:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Victoria Flame (4.00)
        is Jeff Gannon's professional name for those nights that he performs escort services in drag.

        "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

        by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:36:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Was this in the notes too? (4.00)
          Libby said:

          Let's play a Game

          Ill call her Flame

          Of married to Joe Wilson Fame

          Its almost the Same

          Go do your research Dame

          Expose her now, and character Maim

          I will not get the Blame

          This defense is really Lame

          But now the truth I can Claim

          I didnt give the real Name

          "You're going to be held accountable, and we have the full force of the Democratic Party behind us on this." --georgia10

          by TaraIst on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:31:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe Bianca Flame? (4.00)
        n/t

        "Ninety-nine miles of solid-gold track, lay on the whistle and don't look back..."

        by InquisitiveRaven on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:50:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Up for Perjury? (none)
      I thought the WaPo reported that Millers attorney had been informed that Ms. Miller was a subject and was now free from further legal entanglements.

      Er..I could be wrong but that is how I read it.

        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.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301955_2.html?nav=rss_polit ics/administration

  •  Enough (4.00)
     of the Photoshopped frogmarch pictures. I want the real thing dammit!

    I have one thing to say about the coming justice for the Whit house administration:

    Bring It On

  •  I'm Not Sure... (none)
    this gives me feelings of oceanic well-being.  

    If Miller is walking, as Bennett has claimed, and the substance of her testimony seems to exonerate Libby, where does this leave things?  In other words, for some reason she sat in jail for 85 days and when she finally gets out her testimony actually serves to take the heat off of Libby...it's yo way counter-intuitive to me - but then again I haven't been meeting with Dole, Bolton and receiving mash-up letters from Scooter.  If, at the same time, she's not being charged, doesn't this sort of blow the "mouse-trap" theory - and I was an acolyte of the theory - to smithereens?

    Don't mean to be a downer, just trying to keep myself from imposing what I so desperately want to happen upon what was just written.  And yes, I am also very aware that Fitzgerald has a shit-load of information and testimony to sift and sort through.

    "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:38:39 PM PDT

    •  Could a secret grant of immunity have (none)
       been given? Or would that be known eventually?
    •  I'm worried that it's all code.... (4.00)
      "I'm told that in Aspen, where you like to vacation, the trees bloom together, because they are connected by the roots" is some kind of neospeak for "I'm told that in Vegas, where you like to gamble, people can hear each other screaming in pain as they lie in the shallow holes they've been buried alive in, for talking about things that they should know better than to talk about."
      •  "The roots of the aspen trees (4.00)
        growing through peoples eyesockets and connected where their grey matter used to be..."

        "George W. did cocaine as recently as 1992, when he snorted lines off of Rush Limbaugh's tits at Camp David" - The Onion.

        by calipygian on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:02:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Aspens connected to WMDs (none)
        What's the connection between aspen trees and WMDs, you ask?  Check the following site, which tells us that the wood of aspens is used to make gunpowder charcoal:
        http://www.2020site.org/trees/aspen.html .

        We're all in this together.

        by JTML on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:46:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "If I'm going down, so are you" (4.00)
        I think Libby was telling Judy that the trees are "connected by the roots" in the same way that he and Judy are connected to this criminal conspiracy by its roots. It was his veiled way of saying, "If I go down, I'm taking you with me."

        "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -- Abe Lincoln

        by munky on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:04:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No (4.00)
      "and the substance of her testimony seems to exonerate Libby"

      It doesn't. It implicates him. And why do you think both Miller and Libby failed to initially mention the June meeting? They were obviously hiding something. Judy still is.

    •  Mayan, whatever happened caused (none)
      Rove to be dragged back in to the GJ for another long session.  I know, I know, he asked if he could come for a visit.  But I seriously doubt if it would have taken hours for the GJ to thank him for stopping by for a visit.  I'm think they are all pretty anxious along about now.
  •  Not the article the Times needed (4.00)
    Ok, finished reading it.

    A few more details, the "flame" notation in particular and a tiny bit of introspection by the brass, but not the huge mea culpa the Times needed to restore its credibility.

    This was the chance for the Times to really take the lead on the story and make up for its (somewhat understandable) failure to cover itself. It achieved that goal when it covered Jason Blair; by the time I finished reading their ariticle on him I was done with the story, completely saturated.
    This time, I want to know far more.

    By the way, I say this with deep regret. Despite the  tendancy here to bash the Times, it is a needed independent and powerful force in opposition to the propoganda of the right. We should attack its failures, but not seek to weaken its place in the media world

    •  Come again? (2.50)
      Are you familiar with the prewar propaganda?  They are no more reliable than the corporate media. Which is to say that there interest is in the maintenance of important friendships, and that requires the avoidance of facts if they are uncomfortable.

      There are a few great columnists there still, but those folks should save their pride and move on from the Washington Times New York bureau.  

    •  It seems like their main intention (none)
      is just to throw Judy under the bus and distance themselves from her reporting, not to mention her "principled stand".
      •  No (3.00)
        Ms. Miller has placed herself under that bus.  Did you miss the part of the article which mentioned the limitations that Miller placed on the interviews she did with the Times reporters who were working on the article?  Also, we saw reports over the past couple of days which suggested that she was dragging her heels participating in such interviews.  I'm going to be interested in seeing what the Times public editor has to say about that, when he responds to the many complaints he has received.

        We're all in this together.

        by JTML on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:58:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What's it done for us lately? (4.00)
      The Times WAS a "needed independent and powerful force in opposition to the propaganda of the Right," but it hasn't been that since, oh, about the time Michael Powell was fighting to allow even more corporate media consolidation, and the Times refused to so much as mention that story -- despite the fact that a loathing of corporatist media is probably the only thing every American agrees on!

      Interestingly, this was ca. 2001 -- right around when we reality-based types began noticing (even before 9/11) that the entire MSM was taking its cues for White House relations from Monica Lewinsky.

      And what's happened since, in the last four years? Printing lies that justified the Iraq debacle was really only the most famous example of the Times' abdication of its once-proud role in the natural discourse. There was also torture. Guantanamo. Billions and billions of dollars of US funds unaccounted for in Iraq. Unprecedented Republican corruption. Etc. Etc. We could all name fifty or sixty important, vital stories the Times hasn't even bothered to take a stand on. Maybe one example will suffice: who was the Times' "independent and powerful voice" in NOLA after Katrina?

      Sorry, the quicker the Times remakes itself into "the Big Apple's #1 Wedding Announcement Weekly," the better off all of America will be. Time to support other media sources that still have the potential of maintaining credibility and integrity.  

      •  LoL (none)
        the quicker the Times remakes itself into "the Big Apple's #1 Wedding Announcement Weekly," the better off all of America will be.

        Made me laugh.  

        I was reading in another paper the other week about a couple; his name was Moan and hers was Hearder-Moan.  Must be a karmic thing, I think.

        It made me laugh too.

        Don't forget, ePluribus Media isn't them, it's US. That means you too.

        by Bionic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:52:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see... abandoned Iraq ammo dumps (none)
        a pretty good investigation of the Swift Boat liars, etc...
        I'm not about to write off the most influential MSM newspaper that reaches million more than any solely internet based site could ever hope to.
        I see the Times as a fairly critical lifeline for the left, frayed it may be, but still functioning as such.
    •  The entire thing-- (4.00)
      Miller's water-carrying for the administration, the Times letting itself be done out of important coverage, the lies and deaths that have resulted, and now the utterly inadequate and bland report on La Miller--leaves me feeling profoundly sad.

      Like a lot of us, I grew up reading the Times. I know people who've written for it. It has done brilliant reporting over the years. But now? It's a bit like watching Gloria Swanson in "Sunset Boulevard"--clinging desperately to what was past, and probably won't come again. Very sad.

      Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

      by Mnemosyne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:57:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reading About How She Was Pained... (4.00)
        to protect a character like Libby was quite pathetic. Then to see that her editors think that their behavior should have "Profiles Of Courage" rewritten with a chapter for them was somewhere beyond the realm of patheic. Definitely in the "I'm ready for my close-up" territory.
  •  thnx for the link pontificator (none)
    judy's schaden meets her freude.

    Get some popcorn kids cause this is gonna be delicious.

  •  Doesn't This Nail Scooter Under Espionage Act??? (4.00)
    Judy writes: "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."

    If Fitzgerald is working under the Espionage Act (instead of or in addition to the IIPA), this should be a nail in his coffin, yes?

    •  I think so. . . (none)
      Her testimony should be enough to indict him on a couple of counts. . .Witness tampering for one. I've got a hunch Tate (his lawyer) may get indicted too.
    •  This is the point which most people miss! (4.00)
      The fact that Joseph Wilson's wife was the former Valerie Plame wasn't a secret -- it was on his website, and I've always assumed that Novak may have gotten the NAME simply from looking up Joe Wilson's website.  The right-wing media consistently say that her identity wasn't a secret or that it was Joe Wilson who blew her cover by listing her name on his website.  BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT WAS SECRET.

      What WAS a secret WAS THE FACT THAT SHE WORKED FOR THE CIA.  That's why any public information about her (and presumably what she told her contacts) listed her employer as Brewster-Jennings Associates, which was ostensibly an energy consulting firm.  And there appears to be no doubt from the NYT article that she obtained the information that she was employed by the CIA from Libby.

      What's more, I don't think her testimony necessarily even clears Libby under the IIPA, since whether or not the "Valerie Flame" reference came from him, he clearly revealed the identity of a covert agent (namely, that she was Mrs. Joseph Wilson, who was publicly known to be the former Valerie Plame).  If the other elements of a violation can be shown, Judy Miller's testimony gets him on that statute, as well.

      •  If the JW Website Identified Her (4.00)
        as an employee of some non-governmental consulting firm, then didn't Libby saying she was employed by the CIA necessarily disclose classified information, thus blowing her cover?  The common GOP talking points say that everyone knew she was a CIA employee, and that it was only her status as a covert operative that was secret. So that references to her by Rove or Libby as a CIA employee were benign.

        This is a really important point that has not been made clear by MSM coverage, including, alas, the two NYT articles I just read.

        "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

        by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The website didn't identify her employer (4.00)
          Joe Wilson's website didn't identify her employer at all; it merely identified her as the former Valerie Plame.  (My understanding is that she actually went by "Valerie Wilson" after her marriage.)

          But other public documents (including at least FEC campaign contribution records)  identified "Valerie Plame" as an employee of "Brewster-Jennings Associates," which was presumably who she told others (including foreign contacts) was her employer.  Identifying her as an employee of the CIA working on WMD issues NECESSARILY blows that cover, and tells anybody who had dealt with her as a supposed employee of Brewster-Jennings Associates that she was not only CIA, she was COVERT CIA working under non-official cover.

          •  Exactly <n/t> (none)

            "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

            by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:15:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The right conveniently forgets (none)
            that blowing her cover not only hurt her, but it blew the cover of Brewster-Jennings and all people who used that cover.  It also exposed people who may have interacted with Brewster-Jennings internationally, whether intentionally or not.  I wonder if anyone was killed because of this.

            Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out.

            by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:26:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Douchebag (none)
              Wasn't it Novak who first wrote the name of Brewster-Jennings in a column a few weeks later? I seem to recall hearing that in one of Randi's timeline accounts.

              "I know it's hard to defend an unpopular policy every once in a while" -- FZ

              by BobzCat on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:26:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Bigger than that (3.75)
        The secret was not only did she work for the CIA, but that she was NOC on WMD.

        Deep, deep cover, to be denied by all including the Veep and POTUS if blown.

        Only the smallest number of people would have access to this information, that she was NOC -- I'm guessing POTUS, Veep, CIA director and perhaps one other associate director or two inside CIA, possibly SecDef and SecState.

        This has always limited the field of leakers to me.

        I'm still wondering who prepared the State Department document that Powell had marked [S] and [NF]; who requested it?

        •  Oh, so it was probably Tenet who told. (none)
          ;-)

          No wonder he got the medal of freedom of whatever it was he got.

        •  Another Defense Blown (4.00)
          The meme that Rove and Libby didn't explicitly tell anyone that she was a NOC just doesn't work as a defense.  If she had a "cover" employer, as she did, then disclosing any affiliation with CIA was a leak of classified information.  Ironically, it may be that even Novak wasn't explicitly told that she was a NOC.  If Rove or Libby told Novak that she worked at CIA on WMD, and Rove did a little research on her and discovered her cover employment, all he had to do was put 2+2 together and print what he did.  

          I love all those freepers who post about how everyone knew she worked for the CIA.  Maybe Rove and Libby told them too.

          "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

          by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:20:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Plame was not identified on the Wilson (EPIC) site (none)
        The biography of Wilson there is a current page that did not exist in June of 2003.

        The page changed in late July 2003 (after Plame was outed) to reflect that Wilson was married to her.

         Check the Internet Wayback Machine.

        This idea that Plame's name was widely known or knowable is showing up all over the place to discredit the idea that she was outed at all.

  •  She fried his bacon. (4.00)
    Her answers about "Wife works at bureau?" are so lame. Can remember if he told her. Ha!
    If not from Libby, then who? And why on the page with her notes?

    I believe, somewhere, a fat lady is singing.

    Libby, Rove-indicted
    Bush, Cheney-unindicted co-conspiritors.

    Oh, if dreams can come true, please do so NOW!

    You only regret the things you don't do.

    by DailyLife on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:50:19 PM PDT

    •  he fried her first (4.00)
      My interview notes show that Mr. Libby sought from the beginning, before Mr. Wilson's name became public, to insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson's charges. According to my notes, he told me at our June meeting that Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program.
      Yet we know that the VP ordered the work-up on Joe Wilson in March 2003. This generated the State Dept. memo that got passed around. What did they do, pull his name out of a hat? Calvin Klein that's a name.

      They're all lying to each other it's standard operating procedure. I try to keep lying simply, easy to remember cause it gets so complicated, these people get confused by the truth. Priceless.

  •  Miller: Has Complete Contempt for GJ & Fitz (4.00)

    "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today.

    For Fitzgerald and the people ont he grand jury if she thinks they buy her "I could not recall" story...

    Its not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:51:12 PM PDT

    •  I hope you are right... (none)
      BUT then why would Fitzgerald be allowing Judy to walk, as Bennett has so forthrightly stated?  You would think that with the disregard she's showing to Fitzgerald and the GJ process, he would be looking to lock her down for perjury, etc.  Somethings just not clicking - maybe - sigh I just gotta wait but if someone wants to take a crack at trying to explain the above situation, I'd be grateful.

      "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:57:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He doesn't have anything to hold her on just now (4.00)
        Remember, she was only in jail because of the contempt. Once she agreed to testify, she's in the same boat as everybody else: out until indictments come out. It's quite, quite possible she gets indicted.
      •  Perjury is still a very real possibility, (none)
        but "I can't recall" is tough to disprove (That's why Republicans and their apologists) use it so much.  Ollie North used it about a million times in Iran/Contra.  

        Once Miller agreed to talk, she had to be let out.  That doesn't mean jailtime isn't in her future.

      •  Because (none)
        BUT then why would Fitzgerald be allowing Judy to walk

        Judy is free because Fitz doesn't need anything more. He's got 'em nailed on this and other evidence.

      •  We don't know for sure (none)
        why would Fitzgerald be allowing Judy to walk, as Bennett has so forthrightly stated

        that she is being allowed to walk. We have only a statement by Bennett.

        Bennet=lawyer=vested interest=probably not exactly telling the whole story there.

        N.B. Lawyer-specific comment, not intended to dis lawyers in general.  

        Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

        by Mnemosyne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:06:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I forgive you <n/t> (none)

          "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

          by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:16:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  My Logic for the above musings is this... (none)
          Bennett, Miller's lawyer, pronounces confidently that she will not be charged.  To boot, Miller then writes a five page apologia which, while not saying much of anything, is not something would expect from someone facing federal charges.

          I doubt that Bennett would be so forthright nor would Miller have written a five page evidence tract unless she knew that she was not being charged.  So, sez I...what are the different options:  1) she cut a deal; 20 Fitzgerald let it be known that he was not interested in her penny-ante yellow journalism; or 3) she was confident, somehow, that the whole thing was going away.  

          Maybe there are options I'm leaving out - like Bennett is talking through his ass and that Miller's lawyers (some of the best in the biz) have absolutely no control over their client.  I'm striking that possibility.  Feel free to list other possibilities - I'm a little impaired from a friendly get-together earlier in the evening.

          I simply refuse to believe Option 3 - at least at this point.  My gut and my best knowledge of the case tell me otherwise. There's too much at play currently.  At least I really really hope it's not true.

          So, that leaves 1) and 2).  Miller's testimony, as presented by Miller, does not seem to suggest that she was nailing anybody in her testimony - unless she was doing it obliquely by taking a very weak "I don't remember" defense.  Maybe - that leaves me thinking that maybe it's ol' number 2) - that Fitzgerald is just not as interested in her as we are. He has enough without her and doesn't desire to waste his time trying to imprison her again.

          Feel free to comment.  I'm out of mind with fascination for this.  We may need a twelve step program to address addiction to Plameiates.  
           

          "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

          by mayan on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:48:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If she could not recall the source... (4.00)
      ...she would not have sat in jail for 85 days.

      This reeks.  She never claimed to have a failure of memory, she claimed to be protecting a source!

      Are we expected to believe Miller spent 85 days in lockup rather than tell the SC "I don't remember who told me."?

      I call bullshit.  Can anyone explain why I am wrong?

      "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H. L. Mencken

      by roxtar on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:58:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One thought (none)
        Do bear in mind that while Fitzgerald could make her life hell if she lied, the Times was already planning on firing her.

        So, really, why do you expect her to be MORE honest out in the open than in a private Grand Jury room?

       

  •  How's this for definition of a scumbag lawyer: (none)
    "Ms. Miller recalled Mr. Bennett saying as he signed onto her case: "I don't want to represent a principle. I want to represent Judy Miller." "
    •  So confused about the Bennettes (4.00)
      Bob Benette is her lawyer
      He is Bill "lets abort black babies" Bennett's brother?
      Bob Bennette also legal counsel for Clinton?

      Bob Benette-openly a democrat?
      Bill Bennette--obviously a republican (hard core right winger)

      Do I have this right??

      Its not easy being a Floridian.

      by lawstudent922 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:01:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes -- the Bennett Brothers (none)
        Bob Bennett was Clinton's personal lawyer  for the Paula Jones business.  Clinton used other, additional lawyers for the impeachment trial.

        Bob is the brother of Bill-abort-them-black-babies-Bennett.  

        Bob the lawyer is a nonpartisan lawyer-dealmaker. It is not unusual for these top tier lawyers to defend diverse clients (Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's attorney!).

        "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll (CA-15)

        by kathyp on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:35:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, that's generally what good lawyers do. (none)
      Their obligations are first and foremost to their clients, though of course one can pick one's clients in part for which side they're on.  (Mostly one doesn't refuse paying clients, but one can.)

      The problem here lies with Ms. Miller, who seems to have been cloaking very scummy behavior in the mantle of a cause. (The story upthread about letting Libby re-negotiate the description under which he appeared is a case in point.  One can promise anonymity to get a story, but once one has the story, why renegotiate?) But scummy people deserve lawyers too.

    •  Remember the context ... (4.00)
      This was his way of telling her, "My job is to get you out of jail."  If you want to play First Amendment martyr, I'm not your guy.

      Bennett saying this was not good news for Scooter.

      -- Rick Robinson

  •  This needs to be on the front page (4.00)
    of DKos.  Also there is a "personal account" from J. Miller on line..

    DAMN YOU JUDY MILLER I HAVE HOMEWORK TO DO I CAN'T READ THIS NOW!!!

    Its not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 01:57:03 PM PDT

    •  Shit! (none)
      I have to subscribe to read it and I just won't!

      Canadians care too...

      by jbalazs on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:00:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its free (none)
        n/t

        Its not easy being a Floridian.

        by lawstudent922 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:10:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Go to Huffington Post.com (none)
        I found both articles there almost two hours ago.

        "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

        by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:40:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I read it from the link in the diary above. (4.00)
        I wrote an irate letter but couldn't get it to send from the site of the article so I sent it as email to letters department from the OpEd/Editorial/Letters to Editor page.  I don't expect it to be printed but I did get my two-cents-worth said.

        I wrote:

        I just read your article about Judith Miller.  I am mystified as to how Miller could possibly think anything she has done is a victory for journalism or for the public.  She has done more to damage journalism than all of the other fake reporters who have worked for the Times.  She was a willing shill for the Bush administration and the neocons who invaded Iraq.  She wrote the propaganda handed to her using the weight of the reputation of the Times to convince the American people of the existence of WMD.  She made a mockery of the First Amendment using it to shield a criminal element in the White House who were out to destroy a legitimate whistle-blower.  Shame on her and shame on you for supporting her while she laughed at the American people.

  •  There is a concerted effort (none)
    by Cooper and Miller to make it seem as though ROve and Libby didn't tell them she was covert.

    But if you read my comment above, there is no element of the crime that requires them to disclose that she is undercover, the don't even have to know, they only need to disclose the name of an undercover agent intentionally.

    At least that is my reading of the article linked, please correct me if I am wrong...

    •  agree, reporters are all scumbags Cooper included (none)
      Cooper and Miller both did not want to be seen as people who responsible for taking Rove and Scooter down.

      IF Fitzgerald can't issue indictments now, the guy is a fake.

    •  Agreed (none)
      If Plame/Wilson's "official" job was as an employee of an energy consulting company, then ANY mention of her as a CIA employee, analyst, operative or cleaning lady, was a disclosure of her covert status.  

      "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

      by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:41:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Explain Novak's role to me (none)
    Since Novak is the one who specifically identified Plame as an undercover agent, tell me about his history before the grand jury. Has he testified, has he cooperated? Could he be the one who is telling all that he was told by Rove and Libby?
    •  It is so obvious (4.00)
      that that guy sang to keep his elderly, bad-hipped ass out of prison.  No scruples, no morality, no courage, a cowardly, empty shell of a former man.

      "George W. did cocaine as recently as 1992, when he snorted lines off of Rush Limbaugh's tits at Camp David" - The Onion.

      by calipygian on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:14:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yoo hoo....Scooter Fried CHENEY! (4.00)
    I had to read this three times before it soaked in what I was seeing:

    On June 23, 2003, Ms. Miller visited Mr. Libby at the Old Executive Office Building in Washington. Mr. Libby was the vice president's top aide and had played an important role in shaping the argument for going to war in Iraq. He was "a good-faith source who was usually straight with me," Ms. Miller said in an interview.

    Her assignment was to write an article about the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. She said Mr. Libby wanted to talk about a diplomat's fact-finding trip in 2002 to the African nation of Niger to determine whether Iraq sought uranium there. The diplomat was Mr. Wilson, and his wife worked for the C.I.A.

    Mr. Wilson had already become known among Washington insiders as a fierce Bush critic. He would go public the next month, accusing the White House in an opinion article in The Times of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

    But Mr. Libby was already defending Vice President Dick Cheney, saying his boss knew nothing about Mr. Wilson or his findings.

    What's the Bible verse, "The wicked flee when no one pursueth"?

    Game, set, match. Cheney's goin' down.

    Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?

    by Xan on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:06:37 PM PDT

  •  In Judy's words (4.00)
    Miller also wrote an article about her testimony. Reading through it so far, the big revelation is about what Fitzgerald has been looking for, and who is has been looking at:

    During my testimony on Sept. 30 and Oct. 12, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, asked me whether Mr. Libby had shared classified information with me during our several encounters before Mr. Novak's article. He also asked whether I thought Mr. Libby had tried to shape my testimony through a letter he sent to me in jail last month. And Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Cheney had known what his chief aide was doing and saying.
  •  The Times limited itself? (none)
    The article's second-to-last paragraph:
    The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions.

    (Emphasis mine.)  What the heck do they mean by that?  In what way does the Times think it limited itself?

    Seems to me that the Times has been as free as anyone to pursue the story.  In fact, they're in a better position to do so than any other news organization, what with them having one of the scandal's actual participants on staff.

    That paragraph -- and the whole article -- is a pile of self-serving, nonsense sentences.

    •  Their lawyers were Judy's lawyers (none)
      The conflicting advise from Bennett and Abrams makes it pretty obvious that Bennett was protecting Judy's interests while Abrams and Freeman were protecting the paper's.

      While Mr. Bennett urged Ms. Miller to test the waters, some of her other lawyers were counseling caution. Mr. Freeman, The Times's company lawyer, and Mr. Abrams worried that if Ms. Miller sought and received permission to testify and was released from jail, people would say that she and the newspaper had simply caved in.

      "I was afraid that people would draw the wrong conclusions," Mr. Freeman said.

    •  Legal fees........................ (none)

      Can't help wondering if those business expenses will include the massage, manicure and martini?  Or did Judy have to pay for those out of her book advance?

      "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

      by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:44:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there's any real justice (none)
        in the world, whichever publisher (I've forgotten who it was) that signed JudyJudyJudy will cancel the contract, demand return of any advance monies paid, and kill the book.

        Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

        by Mnemosyne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:22:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which would, (none)
           in effect, kill Judy.  No NYT,  no book deal and not a chance anyone would hire her to write for a reputable major  publication.  I suspect her next gig will be a weekly in rural Kansas where no one has ever read the NYT or anything else.

          "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

          by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:30:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not a chance (none)
          That 1.2 million is a reward. It may come from deep pockets on the left to induce her to talk, or a last ditch attempt by deep pockets on the right to hush her up. I read that an advance that size makes no economic sense for a publisher. It almost guarantees that they will lose money on the deal. So maybe the Bob Bennett, Clinton's former lawyer, connection starts to make some sense.
          •  An advance (none)
            that size can be earned out, but I'm kind of doubtful that it would be in Judy's case. Unless she had much more bombshell info than seems apparent so far.

            Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

            by Mnemosyne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:52:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Self-Limitation (none)
      The Times claims it "limited its own ability" to report on the story.  That is a literally true sentence. They were not limited BY anything.  They limited themselves, as surely as if they'd locked themselves into a lightless, soundproof room. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

      "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

      by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So how will the shareholders feel (none)
        About this admission?

        With people here, the NYT's purported main audience, declaring their contempt for the paper how much more than those millions will this debacle cost?

        Do you think there might be repercussions from that quarter?

        Don't forget, ePluribus Media isn't them, it's US. That means you too.

        by Bionic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:04:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  what about the return grand jury appearance? (none)
    "She testified before the grand jury for a second time on Wednesday about notes from her first meeting with Mr. Libby."

    this is laughable reporting. I told the public editor my opinion

    "90% of everything is crud" - Sturgeon's Law.

    by newore on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:07:03 PM PDT

  •  Key passage: conspiracy? (4.00)

    Ms. Miller authorized Mr. Abrams to talk to Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate. The question was whether Mr. Libby really wanted her to testify. Mr. Abrams passed the details of his conversation with Mr. Tate along to Ms. Miller and to Times executives and lawyers, people involved in the internal discussion said.

    People present at the meetings said that what they heard about the preliminary negotiations was troubling.

    Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

    That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify.

    According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there.' "

    Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion, Mr. Tate asked me for a recitation of what Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one."

    In an e-mail message Friday, Mr. Tate called Ms. Miller's interpretation "outrageous

    I dunno...  I'm not a lawyer...  but doesn't this sound like two people conspiring to obstruct justice?

    •  same page (none)
      you and I noticed the same thing.

      "I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong - seldom turns out the way it does in a song."

      by Glic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:16:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ouch. (none)
      That doesn't sound good for Libby OR his lawyer.  And Judy is still carrying water for these a-holes?

      Apparently, Valerie Plame/Wilson's name and covert status just fell from the sky.  Well, who would have access to that info?  Top WH officials?  Or a "reporter" like Miller all too eager to slobber over the scraps dropped by the powerful.  

      I think Fitzgerald is going to drop some bombs on the White House.  And if I was Miller, I'd be worried about the collateral damage.

      •  "Joint Defense Communications" (4.00)
        Lawyers for different witnesses in an investigation share information all the time about what their respective clients are likely to say.  That's not obstruction of justice.

        What IS troubling is that Libby's lawyer seemed to want assurances that Miller would not contradict him about whether they discussed Plame/Wilson. A theme seemingly reiterated in the Turning Aspens letter.  

        What is EQUALLY troubling is that Miller decided Libby's waiver wasn't "voluntary" because her testimony would incriminate him.  Not just because her testimony would show that they had discussed Plame/Wilson, which might or might not be illegal in and of itself, but because her testimony would show that he, Libby, had committed perjury about their conversations when he testified before the GJ.

        So, based on her own words, Miller appears to have gone to jail to protect Libby from possible leak charges, and certain perjury charges.  

        "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

        by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:00:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Joint Defense Communications Question (none)
          What IS troubling is that Libby's lawyer seemed to want assurances that Miller would not contradict him about whether they discussed Plame/Wilson. A theme seemingly reiterated in the Turning Aspens letter. Wouldn't this negate this as a defense?. . .If Libby and his lawyer were trying to influence Miller's testimony, that seems to go beyond sharing information about content. . .Is it witness tampering for a lawyer to communicate a message from a client to another witness, when that message suggests what the substance of the testimony should be?
        •  But most of them don't tell the other parties (none)
          what to do, do they?  

          I used to work for a very good criminal lawyer. My boss would not have told the lawyer for a witness under subpoena that we did not want them to testify.

          Criminal defense lawyers generally have to be very careful because they know that the government would just as soon go after them as their clients.  Or maybe I'm naive about Washington lawyers.

          •  Joint Defense Communications (4.00)
            When lawyers share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, it is always clear that you are sharing information but that each client will testify to what each client actually remembers.  The point of the information sharing is to keep all the lawyers apprised of what information the prosecutor has gotten, good bad or indifferent.

            Of course, you always hope that the other witnesses aren't going to rat out your client.  But if you think there is a strong possibility that another witness is going to rat out your client, or vice versa, you probably aren't entitled to be having joint defense communications in the first place.  The fundamental premise of a joint defense agreement is the the various witnesses have COMMON legal interests, rather than adverse ones.  Doesn't mean their testimony is likely to be identical, but giving incriminating testimony about another witness means you don't have a common legal interest.

            If Tate was so concerned that Miller might rat out his client, the Miller and Libby shouldn't have had -- and probably didn't -- have a joint defense agreement.  Indeed, the very fact that the Times has reported on the Tate/Bennett conversations indicates that they were not joint defense communications, which are subject to a qualified attorney-client privilege.  

            Which does make what Tate was saying to Bennett sound rather sinister.

            "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

            by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:25:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Or to protect (4.00)
          Cheney.  I don't believe for one minute that we've gotten the whole, or even a tenth of the  story here.  As Fitzgerald said, "Do you think I (or we) was born yesterday?"  Does anyone at the WH expect the American public, those with an IQ over 80, to buy the obvious coming hogwash that Chney had no idea, no idea at all, what Libby was doing?  I mean, we've seen that chilling Cheney in action.  And the outing of Plame was not a one-time, impetuous act of spite.  A charge of conspiracy must be coming, among, one would hope, a number of other charges.
  •  is this our obstruction charge? (4.00)
    Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

    That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify.

    According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there.' "

    Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion, Mr. Tate asked me for a recitation of what Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one."

    In an e-mail message Friday, Mr. Tate called Ms. Miller's interpretation "outrageous."

    "I never once suggested that she should not testify," Mr. Tate wrote. "It was just the opposite. I told Mr. Abrams that the waiver was voluntary."

    "I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong - seldom turns out the way it does in a song."

    by Glic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:11:46 PM PDT

    •  Tampering with a witness, I think n/t (none)
      •  Witness tampering elements (none)

        I think these are the elements of a witness tampering charge:

        1. the defendant knowingly used intimidation or threats, or knowingly attempted to use intimidation or threats against a witness; and

        2. the defendant did so with the intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of a witness in a particular case.

         

        We're all in this together.

        by JTML on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 06:02:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  airing dirty laundry (4.00)
    wow, the Times is really hanging Judy out to dry.

    Judy's a bitch:

    Inside the newsroom, she was a divisive figure. A few colleagues refused to work with her.

    Judy's a loose cannon:

    Douglas Frantz, who succeeded Mr. Engelberg as investigative editor, recalled 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.' "
    ...
    "Everyone admires our paper's willingness to stand behind us and our work, but most people I talk to have been troubled and puzzled by Judy's seeming ability to operate outside of conventional reportorial channels and managerial controls," said Todd S. Purdum, a Washington reporter for The Times.

    Judy's insubordinate:

    Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, "she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm."

    Judy's a liar:

    Neither that article nor any in the following months by Ms. Miller discussed Mr. Wilson or his wife. It is not clear why. Ms. Miller said in an interview that she "made a strong recommendation to my editor" that a story be pursued. "I was told no," she said. She would not identify the editor. Ms. Abramson, the Washington bureau chief at the time, said Ms. Miller never made any such recommendation.

    in conclusion, she wasn't worth it:

    Asked what she regretted about The Times's handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: "The entire thing."
    ...
    The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions.

    •  MAJOR management issue (3.66)
      The way the Times wrote off both Jayson Blair and now Judith Miller makes it perfectly plain that the editors have no control over any of their reporters; that the editors themselves are completely incapable of dealing with criticism of their staff -- even when warranted -- are inept at sussing out the outlines of a metastory and play favorites.

      This is a MAJOR management issue. The editors lack credibility and common sense. They don't have a handle on their staffers' backstabbing and other motivations, ill or good. They are disconnected from their business and their employees.

      In short, just like any other paper. ;)

      But it galls me how they are laying the smack down on Miller like they did on Blair. Those two did NOT operate alone and LOTS of people read that copy before it went to press. There was LOTS of feedback and legit criticism and they were blind and deaf to it all (and presumptuous and rude to their critics). They didn't put two and two together.

      This story says to me that there are some editors that should be making the walk of shame; even moreso than Miller. Instead, they are acting as stunned and disparaging as everyone else after giving her carte blanche and telling everyone else to fuck off.

      "God alone knows how many times our bellies, by the refusal of one single fart, have brought us to the door of an agonising death." -- Montaigne

      by Spaz Cadet on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:18:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, if all this was true, then (none)
      why on earth does she still have a job there?

      My guess is because the "truth" isn't the #1 priority of the Times (or any other paper?).  The #1 priority is:

      1.  Selling papers, which
      2.  Sells advertising space, which
      3.  Makes the owners money.

      Judy's stories sold papers.

      End. Of. Story.

      If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:53:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Money Shot graf (4.00)
    Here is all you need to know about the article:

    "...In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes..."

    Move along, very little to see, just as many predicted...

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:12:56 PM PDT

    •  Some interesting grafs (none)

      • "...Interviews show that the paper's leadership, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control...."

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

      •  "W.M.D. - I got it totally wrong," she said. "The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them - we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could."

      --

      I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

      by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:14:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hedging your bets, Ms. Chalabi? (4.00)
        "...Ms. Miller said her notes leave open the possibility that Mr. Libby told her Mr. Wilson's wife might work at the agency..."

        Leave open the possibility, eh?

        I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

        by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:16:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Move along, folks. nothing here (none)
          "...Ms. Miller returned to the subject on July 12 in a phone call with Mr. Libby. Another variant on Valerie Wilson's name - "Victoria Wilson" - appears in the notes of that call. Ms. Miller had by then called other sources about Mr. Wilson's wife. In an interview, she would not discuss her sources."

          Got that?

          "...In an interview, she would not discuss her sources..."

          Move along.

          I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

          by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:19:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sources (4.00)
        "If your sources are wrong, you are wrong."

        But Judy by limiting your sources to neocons you fixed your findings. You could have seeked out other sources, non neocons, war critics. You chose not to talk to them. Could it be because you had an agenda? You wanted to confirm your own prejudices instead of search for truth?

      •  No, Judy (4.00)
        "W.M.D. - I got it totally wrong," she said. "The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them - we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could."

        Real reporters don't just take the word of a source. They verify it via a second, third, or even fourth source.

        If that was doing the best job you could, your best isn't good enough to cover the zoning board of East Elbow, Nebraska.

        Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

        by Mnemosyne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:29:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Non-Intrepid Investigator (4.00)
          Miller points out that in her first breakfast meeting with Libby, she told him that he just seemed to be repeating the Administration's talking points about WMD, and that she couldn't do a story based on that.  (Of course, that hadn't stopped her before.) But more importantly, she seems to have been expecting him to offer her up a new story on a silver platter.  There seemed to be no thought of getting Libby's talking points, and then going to other sources to see if they were consistent, or inconsistent.  Kinda like what a prosecutor does....

          I think we now know why Judy's reporting was so crappy.  She doesn't like to actually work a story, she just wants to be given one.

          "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

          by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:51:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is a real similarity (4.00)
            between, as you say, prosecutors and investigative reporters. Both are working to get at the truth of a matter, have to ask lots of questions, get used to being lied to.

            Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

            by Mnemosyne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:19:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Umm....no Judy, (4.00)
          you shit-for-brains, the one analyst/expert who got it right YOU TRASHED. Remember Joe Wilson?

          "So if dea's a fiya an I call de engine, who'm I double crossin, DA FIYA"? Billie Dawn - Born Yesterday

          by Sassy on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:05:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  fair and balanced judy (none)
            here's her justifying conspiring with scooter to do Joe Wilson in...

            "I said I felt that since The Times had run Mr. Wilson's original essay, it had an obligation to explore any allegation that undercut his credibility."

            gee, she had to leap over all five of the(uncorrected by her) 180-degree-wrong WMD stories she wrote to get to this one op-ed that may give a less than comprehensive view of the issue. see? she really IS watching out for the times' accuracy (not)

  •  Well, I certainly am disappointed (none)
    This is full un-varnished truth - THE ARTICLE we've been waiting for?!

    Could there be possibly be another article coming, because I can't quite square the words used here:

    And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today.
    If this IS the article, why wouldn't they say "for this article today". "For an article" sounds like their may be another?  No?

    If Judy got the name "Valerie Flame" (written as pronounced) from "another source," why wouldn't Fitzgerald follow-up on that?  After all, that is central to the investigation.  I can't believe he'd let her off the hook for not revealing who that "other source" is.

  •  Times smears Wilson (4.00)
    "...Mr. Wilson had already become known among Washington insiders as a fierce Bush critic..."

    Oh, really? A fierce Bush critic, this Former Bush I diplomat? For pointing out the truth, he is a "fierce Bush critic?"

    Nice. Classic Beltway smear...

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:15:50 PM PDT

    •  Exactly (4.00)
      Still taking shots at Wilson. What the article & Judy Miller's own piece both fail to point out is that Joe Wilson was right! Libby, Cheney & Bush as outraged as they all professed to be were wrong about the intel & went ahead with the war anyway! Cheney,Powell, Bolton, Rice all refused to look at the possibility that there were no WMD's. They were blinded by ideology & they used Judy!

      A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy- Benjamin Disraeli

      by vcmvo2 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:08:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's the timing of this reference? (none)
      Wilson had written a piece in March 2003 -- if memory serves, had something to do with "empires", was probably critical of the war at that time.

      I suspect this is the point at which he earned the label, having pissed off the White House.  They were tied up for the first three months of the war, didn't get around to "taking care of him", but began the smear campaign with labeling.

      Bet he'd already told the White House before March '03 that they were full of crap several times over, and that he'd say something when they went to war.

      Their smear doesn't and didn't jibe with the known facts about Joe, though, being the last man to tell Saddam to f*-off to his face, being recognized by both Bush and Clinton as a straightup dude.  By June they had to do something more since Wilson was going to be more specific in his op-ed that they'd already known as in the works.

  •  total bullshit (4.00)
    ...the NYT is history.

    Never have I seen more simple minded gobblyglock crap to try to justify the NYT and Miller under the guise of 'shield laws" for reporters.

    A sixth grader can understand the difference between protecting a reporter's "whistle blowing source" and giving reporters license to lie and influence the public with lies and cover up for criminal acts of their sources. Leave it up to the courts when the dispute arises.

    RIP NYT...you are still full of shit.

    But hopefully everyone who reads the news by now knows enough to check the backgound and associations and ideology of the reporter writting it before believing a word they read.

  •  Miller's excuse: Thought Plame was an analyst (4.00)
    "...During the breakfast, Mr. Libby provided a detail about Ms. Wilson, saying that she worked in a C.I.A. unit known as Winpac; the name stands for weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control. Ms. Miller said she understood this to mean that Ms. Wilson was an analyst rather than an undercover operative..."

    So it was ok to smear her, right?

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:18:31 PM PDT

    •  Might Excuse Miller. . . (4.00)
      But not Libby. In fact, it damns him, since it doesn't really matter what Miller thought. It also suggests that he might have had sufficient knowledge under the IIPA to have the intent. Working for WINPAC is pretty specific.
      •  One has to wonder (none)
        why she should so conveniently assume that anyway, it's not obvious to me that someone in "intel" is an "analyst" as opposed to an "operative".
        •  I'd've made the same assumption (none)
          since a man with a security clearance would presumably know not to out an undercover operative, and therefore presumably would have made sure the CIA employee wasn't undercover before explicitly mentioning the employee's identity to a NYT reporter. These were all good faith assumptions before the Plame case.
          •  Except that she thought she had (none)
            clearance because she had been embedded...
            •  Miller's State of Mind. . . (none)
              Doesn't seem relevant to me. . .It's Libby's that is at issue.
              •  she thinks he thought (none)
                Here's Miller's state of mind on Libby's state of mind:

                I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq...Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know.

                Pretty weak, since the burden was on Libby to make sure.

                •  Judith should have known (none)
                  even if Libby did not at the time.  Surely if she was given any type of security clearance while in Iraq, it would have been for only a specific period of time.  What moron wouldn't remember the expiration date (give or take days) of a security clearance?
                  •  Additionally, Even If She Had... (4.00)
                    a still-effective clearance, she had no need to know a NOC's identity while working a political story in D.C.  Clearances do not give any cleared person access to all classified data anywhere, anytime.

                    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. W. B. Yeats

                    by majcmb1 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:06:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  In fact they're required to do just that (none)
            if they signed the SR 312. And I'm sure Scooter signed it.

            "I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong - seldom turns out the way it does in a song."

            by Glic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:06:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  One has to wonder (4.00)
          I highly doubt that Judy had anything above a secret clearance, which is pretty much the standard level of clearance for most enlisted military. Top Secret investigations are damned expensive, and take too long to acquire. Someone who claims to be an "expert" in national security issues would know this.

          Even if she did have a clearance high enough, just because A has X level clearance and B has X level clearance doesn't mean that A and B can reveal what they know to each other. For instance, the guys who know the launch code for nukes on a sub can't reveal that knowledge to the State Department, or even to another sub.

          In short, this blather about the security issue is one steaming pile of...

      •  Exactly (none)

        "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

        by Lying eyes on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:52:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So that means Judy did no research (4.00)
      on Plame of her own to confirm what Libby said?  She didn't google her?  Didn't find out that Plame was supposedly employed by someone other than the CIA?  It was just, if Scooter said so, it must be true?  

      Its not just that she was a credulous dupe of the White House.  She's a shit reporter.

      "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

      by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:53:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the head's up... (4.00)
    I didn't think we'd see this article before late tonight...

    Sad that the newspaper that stood its ground on the Pentagon Papers is now serving as a prophylactic for an administration that took our nation to war on the basis of lies.

    New on EWM: DeLay Releases "Earle's Gone Wild" Video

  •  major crapola from NYT - they still have not (none)
    confessed , apologized for their actions YET.

    I am beginning to worry about our hero Fitzy now. I have a feeling that Fitzy does not have the goods here...hope not..

    •  He does (none)
      or else he would not be being so careful.

      inspire change...don't back down

      by missliberties on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:25:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reading Ms. Judy's account... (none)
      I also felt Fitzgerald does not have the goods on these guys.

      But then again, this account is coming from Miller.  She is a liar.  She is most likely leaving alot of stuff out, and at best, is slanting the testimony and questioning to her own perspective.

      She knows that Fitzgerald is not going to issue a statement in response.

      We just have to wait.

      Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

      by landrew on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:38:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you're mistaken. . . (4.00)
        I'm a lawyer (non-practicing), and I think Miller's account alone is enough for several indictments. Libby and his lawyer to start with. Libby for violating the IIPA and the espionage act. Throw in conspiracy, witness tampering, obstruction of justice. . .you get the idea. As self-serving as her account may be, she didn't do Scooter any favors.
        •  Agreed (none)
          There look like several activities in her account that could be integral to criminal offenses.  And this prosecutor has had 2 years to collect corraborating evidence.  I am going to stay posted.
        •  plus (none)
          you toss in the fact that this is not a transcript, but rather Miller's sanatized version of her testimony, and if this is the best spin she can put on it, it was really bad, imho. Certainly Libby will be indicted.

          Fitz, don't fail me now...

          by seesdifferent on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:51:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you (4.00)
        Miller lied before and during...why anyone takes what she says now as the whole truth and nothing but the truth is beyond me. Anything she says needs to be run through a lie detector and several BS meters.
    •  He's got 2 yrs worth of goods. (none)
      This is all icing.
      •  And the court felt strongly enough (none)
        ...to put a journalist in the can for as long as it took.  They already saw what they knew wasn't a First Amendment right but aiding and abetting a crime.
  •  Winpac, Fleitz, Bolton, Plame (4.00)
    This NYT article says:

    During the breakfast, Mr. Libby provided a detail about Ms. Wilson, saying that she worked in a C.I.A. unit known as Winpac; the name stands for weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control. Ms. Miller said she understood this to mean that Ms. Wilson was an analyst rather than an undercover operative.

    Back in July I speculated that Fred Fleitz, the Bolton chief of staff who worked for Winpac, knew Valerie Plame and her role in the CIA. I was assuming Valerie Plame also worked for Winpac, and this NYT piece confirms that.

    Here's another reference to Fleitz's background.

    My bottom line is that no memos were needed to find out who Wilson's wife was, just word of mouth from Fleitz, Bolton, to Libby, Rove, etc. They all knew this very early on when Wilson became a target for a smear. That was back at the beginning of 2003.

    •  Neither Fleitz nor Bolton has testified, right? (none)
      •  Bolton did testify (none)
        ....or something. Not clear whether it was an interview or testimony before the GJ. There was a flap for a time because in the disclosure statement for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for appointment as UN Ambassador, he neglected to say that he had been interviewed/testified and that is apparently required for a political appointment appointments vetted by the committee.

        The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

        by Psyche on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:42:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  we don't know exactly who and all has or has not (none)
        testified or who has just given statements after being contacted by fitz. we don't know what fitz has. and judy doesn't know either.
  •  It's just disgusting (4.00)
    I mean, basically she went to jail to protect LIbby, and cracked when she couldn't go very many more days without a manicure.

    Don't cry for me, Alexandria...

    But yeah, I think basically this is gonna be great.  Libby and Rove twofer.

    WOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Eleanor A on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:20:54 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like Libby didn't want Miller to talk (none)
    And, here all of this time I thought Libby wanted Miller to speak. I am shocked, just shocked to find out otherwise:

    "...According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there....' "

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:23:05 PM PDT

    •  Libby is going down (4.00)
      She just tried to hedge her bets. My guess is she "KNEW" Libby was afraid of her testimony.....

      "Judy believed Libby was afraid of her testimony," Mr. Keller said, noting that he did not know the basis for the fear. "She thought Libby had reason to be afraid of her testimony."

      I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

      by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:24:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Miller implies Libby lied (4.00)
        Scooter is going down, no doubt about it:

        "...When Ms. Miller testified before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked her about the letter. She said she responded that it could be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby "to suggest that I, too, would say that we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity." But she added that "my notes suggested that we had discussed her job..."

        Nice try, Scooter....

        I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

        by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:34:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Implies, is right (none)
          This deep into this fiasco, and they're still trying for "plausible deniability" in regards TO EACH OTHER!

          But, but Libby-meister-schnookums, that's not what I MEANT when I said that under oath.  They took it the wrong way!  Speaking of the "wrong way" dear, that's not the right hole....

          If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

          by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:04:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is unbelievable (4.00)
        "Judy believed Libby was afraid of her testimony," Mr. Keller said, noting that he did not know the basis for the fear. "She thought Libby had reason to be afraid of her testimony."

        Keller thinks he's protecting a principle, and yet he doesn't question this when he realizes that Libby is afraid of Miller's testimony?  He knows that Libby isn't a whistleblower.  He knows that what Libby is afraid of not retaliation from an employer, but criminal liability.  And he never looks at her notes?  Never questions her about the conversations (which of course she's now "forgotten" because it was so long ago).  

        My God.  What a weakling Keller is.  BTW, am I the only one who thinks that Miller's article was not written by her, but by a lawyer?

        "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

        by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:00:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  let's say it was (none)
          "edited" by a good lawyer. At least they still edit the crap they print over there at the NYTimes.
          My notes indicate that..
          My notes do not show that...
          This account is based on what I remember of my meetings with Mr. Fitzgerald...
          And that's just from the first couple of paragraphs for Christ's sake.
          Anyone want to rent some prime commercial space, conveniently located near the bus station, near Times Square?
  •  I get a sense (none)
    that the leak itself was conspirational.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:23:48 PM PDT

    •  Conspiratorial? (none)
      I think--as with Watergate--the coverup may be bigger than the crime.  But there is little doubt that the WH collaborated to defame a key critic, even if that meant harming America's security to do so.
      •  I like "conspirational" (none)
        = when you're inspired to start a conspiracy.
        usage: "Scooter was much more conspirational to me than Ahmad ever had been."
      •  yes, because the real crime (none)
        is not the leaking of a an undercover agent's name per se, but in context of silencing a critic who has accused the administration of embellishing and using beautified CIA documents to produce a justification to start a war killing thousands of people. One shouldn't forget the motive behind the leak.

        The leak was certainly conspirational to cover up the fact that the administration (VP's office especially) used knowingly doctored documents evidence to justify the war. That is a HUGE crime.

    •  Bush+Cheney=Unindicted co-conspiritors (none)
      I think it's true.

      With Rove and Libby indicted conspiritors.

      DC rumor mill says-they got together and had a meeting and sent their henchmen on their way to do their nasty stinky bidnez. Pres and VP just never though Rove and Libby wouldn't delegate.

      That's what I heard.

      You only regret the things you don't do.

      by DailyLife on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:07:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting (4.00)
    Much has been speculated about when the name "Plame" was first discussed; From Judy's article today
    I also told the grand jury I thought it was odd that I had written "Wilson" because my memory is that I had heard her referred to only as Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether this suggested that Mr. Libby had given me the name Wilson. I told him I didn't know and didn't want to guess.
    •  but first she does guess (none)
      I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I was not sure whether Mr. Libby had used this name or whether I just made a mistake in writing it on my own. Another possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the wrong name on purpose to see whether he would correct me and confirm her identity.

      Funny thing is, I remember reading the name Victoria Wilson all the time when this first came out a couple of years ago. Makes me think that one of the original leakers had the wrong name to begin with.

  •  Yay-- (none)
    We're a democracy again.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:27:00 PM PDT

  •  Keller knew the truth in 2004 (4.00)
    So, the Executive Editor of the New York Times knew that the President's spokesperson lied to the country about Libby's involvement and he did nothing about it. Nice.

    '...Throughout this year, reporters at the paper spent weeks trying to determine the identity of Ms. Miller's source. All the while, Mr. Keller knew it, but declined to tell his own reporters...."

    Thanks, Mr. Keller....

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:27:38 PM PDT

    •  The end of the NYTimes (4.00)
      All the News that's Fit to Print, R.I.P.

      "...Some reporters said editors seemed reluctant to publish articles about other aspects of the case as well, like how it was being investigated by Mr. Fitzgerald. In July, Richard W. Stevenson and other reporters in the Washington bureau wrote an article about the role of Mr. Cheney's senior aides, including Mr. Libby, in the leak case. The article, which did not disclose that Mr. Libby was Ms. Miller's source, was not published.

      Mr. Stevenson said he was told by his editors that the article did not break enough new ground. "It was taken pretty clearly among us as a signal that we were cutting too close to the bone, that we were getting into an area that could complicate Judy's situation," he said...."

      I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

      by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:29:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All the shit, unfit to print! (none)
        and then some.

        I hope they get dragged through the dirt for this pathetic waste of paper and ink.

        I hope all the good op-ed writers  LEAVE, because they are the only thing worth reading in that fucking rag anymore.

        Their new motto should be

        No News is Good News!

      •  Since print outfits tend not to (none)
        write stories on each other, wouldn't it be a blast if 60 Minutes blew the whole NYTimes thing wide open on national TV?

        yummy.

        If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:36:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah,and Keller is a "journalist"??? (none)
      ..who is investigating the "truth" and he hides this?
    •  Keller should resign, along with Miller!! (4.00)
  •  Whatever (none)
    Tell me something I don't know already.  What about the notes found after the get out of jail testimony?  What about the "Oh yah, I forgot about the June meeting"?  What about the issue of there is no principle is you are just covering for bad, possibly criminal, behavior?  Enough - I get my news first, I get it on the net.
    •  Good point (4.00)
      Remember, Judy didn't talk about the "Valerie Flame" notes at first. It was only after her first appearance in front of the Grand Jury that the notes were "found." She then discussed them in her second appearance.

      Needless to say, this implies something happened during her testimony that magically made these notes "found."

      That is where the story is. Have faith that Fitzgerald sprung something on her very subtly that made her know she was headed back to the pokey unless she gave up something....

      I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

      by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:07:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The article is total BS (4.00)
    And so is Miller.  For someone who is supposed to be a top-notch report, she sure has problems remembering critical facts.  Maybe she has Alzheimer's or something.  Whenever I conducted interviews as a reporter, I was always very clear about which notes where from which interviewee.  I mean, it's pretty basic interview 101 stuff.  So she should surely be able to know which interview who "Valerie Flame" notation came from.  She's just continuing to obstruct justice.  Yet the Times treats her curious memory lapse like a logical explanation.

    Her explanation about why she waited to testify is so full of holes you can drive a train through it.  Yet the times also takes Miller's explanations at face value, pretty much, and doesn't even try to connect the dots or cast serious doubts on her explanations and backpedaling.  

    Very sad stuff indeed.

    •  My response to the article was (none)
      exactly the same: total, complete BS.

      How sad, what has happened to the Times.

      Admittedly, never been perfect, but this is the most miserable piece of blather I have seen in ages.

      Blah, fucking blah.blah.blah.

      Why did I bother to waste the time?

      Incidentally, anyone noticed what a great job HARPERS' has been doing lately?

      I'm going to give away Harpers' subscriptions for Xmas this year. Lots and lots of them!

      I wish editor Lewis Lapham would take over the Times editorship.

      His most recent editorial, "On Message" tells it like it is. Truly.

      •  Harpers (none)
        yes Harpers is a great publication. It is owned by a trust not a major corporation so they are not afraid to challenge power.

        There is zero chance of Lewis Lapham being hired by the NYT or any other MSM for anything.

        •  I said *wish* didn't I? (none)
          And I didn't suggest that he should be hired by the NYT, I suggested that he "take over."

          Horse of a very different color there.

          Of course I know it'll never happen.

          Still....Harpers' is about the only paper media I consider worth reading anymore.

          •  Thanks for the reminder (none)
            I'd been meaning to re-subscribe to Harper's. Now, I'll do it.

            Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

            by Mnemosyne on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:37:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lapham pretty much comes out and (4.00)
              says: we are now living in a fascist state.

              Someone wrote me saying, "Wow. It really blew me away to hear the editor of a nat'l publication say this."

              My response: yeah, don't you wish he'd started being that blunt about it already ten years ago when some of us (who happen to be intimately familiar, on a personal and professional basis, with the workings of fascist regimes) were saying THIS is where things are headed?

              It's a little hard to dismantle a fascist state once it's established itself. Prevention is the only way.

              So sayeth a person who left the country in 1984 b/c it was very, very apparent that already then the seeds of fascist were not only planted, they had begun to sprout. Now, the shit is in full fucking bloom. Great.

    •  Well said: Total BS!!!!!!!! (none)
  •  Saw this (none)
    "Reporter in leak case to take leave of absence effective immediately" on rawstory.com

    If someone else has posted it already, sorry. There isn't too much oxygen in my brain just now.

    Witness protection program ... is what I wish.

  •  It does not appear tha tthe Grand Jury believes (none)
    Miller.  That's why they keep questioning her on the notation.  The Grand Jury could easily conclude based on other evidence that the info had to have come from someone in the Administration, so conmspiracy or a specific charge against Libby are possibilities.
  •  Something to consider- (none)
    Until this investigation is over, the only one who can actually say what Miller testified is Miller. She might have actually said, "George Bush and Dick Cheney walked up to me holding hands and whispered 'Valerie Plame is a CIA agent and is Joe Wilson's wife!' softly, one in each ear." but we won't know what she actually said until this is over. The woman is a professional liar.
  •  I saw this on Buzzflash just now, all 8 pages... (none)
    or so.

    What a grim read.

    "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

    by boilerman10 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:35:20 PM PDT

  •  Judy (none)
    lied to the Grand Jury, and is concerned that she will be indicted as part of the conspiracy.

    She's definitely an asshole and liar.  I hope she goes down, and I don't mean in the biblical sense.

    The Times needs to unequivocally fire her.  Now.

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:36:29 PM PDT

  •  I want to be a cowboy (none)
    and you can be my cowgirl!
    Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter's closing lines. "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

    How did I interpret that? Mr. Fitzgerald asked.

    In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

    "Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

  •  Miller sounds like Chimp on Iraq (none)
    You see, she and Times just didn't do a good job of explaining how their lies were the truth and that up was really down....

    "You could see it in people's faces," Ms. Miller said later. "I'm a reporter. People were confused and perplexed, and I realized then that The Times and I hadn't done a very good job of making people understand what has been accomplished."

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:37:07 PM PDT

  •  AP: Miller 'Can't Recall' (none)
    AP implies Miller is full of shit....

    -----

    Miller Can't Recall Who Gave Agent's Name

    By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

    Notes by the New York Times' Judith Miller that were turned over in a criminal investigation contain the name of a covert CIA officer, but the reporter has told prosecutors she cannot recall who disclosed the name, the newspaper reported Saturday.

    The prosecutor in the case asked Miller in recent days to explain how Valerie Plame -- misspelled in those notes as "Valerie Flame" -- appeared in the same notebook the reporter used in interviewing her confidential source, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to the Times.

    In response to questioning by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Miller replied that she "didn't think" she heard Plame's name from Cheney's aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

    "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," Miller wrote, recounting her testimony for an article that the newspaper posted on its Web site Saturday afternoon.

    "Valerie Flame" actually was the name in the notebook, and the Times said Miller should have written Valerie Plame.

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:40:21 PM PDT

    •  The misspelling "Flame" may be important (none)
      clue.  As I post above, I suspect someone with a foreign accent mispronounced the name.  But prosecutors should investigate who, if anyone, has misspelled Plame's name in this way.  There's most probably the source.
      •  doesn't matter (4.00)
        Miller probably mispelled it on purpose (code to CYA). The name is not important, as they were referring to Wilson's wife, who is a CIA NOC.

        Or she heard it from Chief Inpsector Clouseau:

        This IZ Chief Inspector Clouseau speaking on the pheaun... He's well known for his accent:

        Clouseau: Does yer dewg bite?

        Inn Keeper: No

        Clouseau: Nice Doggy (bends down to pet a dachshund - it snarls and bites him) I thought you said yer dewg did not bite!

        Inn Keeper: Zat... iz not my dog!

        •  Criminal mindset (none)
          The name was elsewhere in the notebook so it could be removed should the need arise, not because it from another source.
        •  or she associates Plame with a Flame (none)
          a blonde femail lightning rod, in German we would call an attractive spy woman like Valerie Plame Mr. Wilson's Flamme (German word for flame). It could just be a harmless, sarcastic wordplay of her own or drawn from the "Aspen's Institutes Working Vocabulary".
    •  If the prosecutor was any good there were followup (4.00)
      questions about her note-taking habits.

      "Are you in the habit of writing information from one source on pages recording conversations with other sources?" and similar more artfully asked questions.

      Miller will likely have replied to them in ways that did not make her look incomeptent.  And that would be bad for Libby.

      •  Name was on a different page.... (none)
        The notebook Ms. Miller used that day includes the reference to "Valerie Flame." But she said the name did not appear in the same portion of her notebook as the interview notes from Mr. Libby.
  •  Part of the reason this is so convoluted (4.00)
    was discussed in a diary the other day.  When the news media becomes the news it makes it a bit hard to be objective.  Rove et al has been able to capitalize on this from day 1.  He sees to it that snippets of information are given to select reporters by unnamed sources and then verified by named sources who are all in the same group... WHIG.  How many reporters/journalists have been in on this deal--Miller, Cooper, Mathews, Russert, Novak,  Mitchel...who else?? It was originally stated that 6 reporters were contacted.  Are these the 6 or are others involved as well?   It is especially weird to watch Hardball with Tweety speculating about who might go down WHEN HE IS PART OF THE STORY!!!

    "Do Iraqi children scream when the bombs fall if no one is in the White House to hear them?" Bernard Chazelle

    by dmac on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:41:51 PM PDT

  •  Cheney integral to Fitz and GJ (none)
      In her own article , Miller wrote:

    Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer was no.

    Does Fitz know something that you don't, Mr Veep? It looks like the circle may be closing in around your little lying ways.....

  •  Miller (none)
    Miller is so full of shit I'm surprised it's not dripping from her ears.

    "Oh uh... can't remember that one"
    "Don't know what that means..."
    "Did I write that?"
    "Well I remember the first part of that day but not THIS part"

    The bitch is lying, and if Fitzgerald is the man his reputation makes him out to be, he smelled the horse shit from where he was sitting. I only hope their testimonies conflict with each others and they all get sent up the river, with bush in tow. That would be an early christmas for me.

  •  Miller covers for Libby (4.00)
    Here is the coverrup in all its glory. Four "could not recalls" in four paragraphs.

    ----

    "...I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation...

    Mr. Fitzgerald asked me whether Mr. Libby had mentioned nepotism. I said no. And as I told the grand jury, I did not recall - and my interview notes do not show - that Mr. Libby suggested that Ms. Plame had helped arrange her husband's trip to Niger. My notes do suggest that our conversation about Ms. Plame was brief.

    "...Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words "Valerie Flame," clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall..."

    Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or: when those conversations occurred...."

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:48:52 PM PDT

    •  She stayed in jail for three months (3.50)
      when she couldn't remember who told her? That testimony would implicate no one, in fact it helps since it supports the "everyone knew" meme.

      She should have spent some of the time in jail working on a better story than that one.

    •  These people need to get some (none)
      gingko biloba or something.

      This BS about "I cannot recall" is just that, and so transparent.

      Personally, I can recall just about every friggin detail of my own professional and personal life down to my first year of life. OK, so I'm known for having a (more than) murderous memory, but you know, anyone trying to get through a basic MA program in this country is required to retain a certain degree of information for at least two years, even without the help of NOTES.

      Anyone who's memory is that fuzzy should really look for a less rigorous profession. Like cleaning toilets or something. Giving manicures?

  •  Are the notes electronic? Judy's spycraft? (3.85)
    Valerie Flame? Victoria? These are not typos. Are Judy's notes in electronic form, or does she later transfer them to such? This is something that happens in secure documentation - keywords are deliberately mispelled so that right people will know what they are reading, but an electronic search for  keywords will be defeated. If this is what is happening, it means Judy Miller knew she was doing something illegal at the time, and deliberately tried to pre-empt future investigation.

    I like how it was all a misunderstanding, and what mattered was the release, but what changed her mind was the  prospect of serious jailtime. NYT tongue fork like decision tree.

  •  Iraq War due to 'simple miscommunication' (none)
    No big deal, folks:

    "...With the understanding that I would attribute the information to an administration official, Mr. Libby also sought to explain why Mr. Bush included the disputed uranium allegation in his 2003 State of the Union address, a sentence of 16 words that his administration would later retract. Mr. Libby described it as the product of a simple miscommunication between the White House and the C.I.A...."

    See, it was all simple miscommunication. No big deal.

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 02:53:18 PM PDT

  •  Former Hill staffer??? (4.00)
    So if he asked her to report that she got her information from a former second grade student (which he presumably was at some point), she'd do that?
    •  I thought that was weird too (none)
      When you get these unnamed sources talking, part of the decision you make about whether the source is worth anything is how the source is described.  Why would a former Hill staffer have anything of consequence to say on this subject?

      "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

      by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:05:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Judy perjured herself (4.00)
    If she testified that Libby didn't tell her about Flame/Plame, and then the notebook is discovered, what can she say in the subsequent GJ appearance that will not incriminate her as a perjurer?

    She's not protecting Libby, she's protecting her own ass.

    This means Libby and Rove are definitely indicted.  The question is who else?  And how does Novakula play in this drama?

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:00:51 PM PDT

  •  My guess on Flame vs. Plame (none)
    It might be as a result of only SEEING Plame's name in written text, not hearing it aloud.

    "P" and "F" look an awful lot alike in print.

  •  Why is this not on the front page (none)
    of D Kos yet?!?!?!  As it is on other blogs. While the Thatcher story is clearly important and interesting, this story is WAY more important and a story we've been waiting for, for a long time!

    Its not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:07:16 PM PDT

  •  So the first thing Judy does after getting out (none)
    is to run home and get her kneepads?

    A modern day Murrow she is not....

    "I aim to misbehave." Capt. Malcom Reinolds

    by Ralfast on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:16 PM PDT

  •  Strong start, weak finish (3.88)
    Opening with the pathetic "Valerie Flame" gambit is a dead give-away:  Van Natta & Co. think that Judy is guilty as sin, which she clearly is.  It could be that she got the name from someone else, but as her own lawyer (the egregious and vastly over-rated Bob Bennett) divulges, she had only one significant source--Libby.

    "I don't recall" is the last refuge (with patriotism) of the scoundrel.  Judy says she wants to devote herself to combatting threats to our beloved country.  I suggest she be assigned to a permanent beat on the Baghdad Airport Road until the Judy problem takes care of itself.

    Back to the main theme:  she clearly heard about Ms. "Flame"'s job from Libby--that's the crime, right there.

    Furthermore, she is obviously part of the conspiracy.  She didn't ever want to give up Libby, and he only urged her to testify when he was getting heat from Fitz.  That she wouldn't share her notes with her own fellow reporters from the once great NYT indicates the depths of her shame and her unwillingness to fuly come clean.  

    That is further corroborated in the curious conclusion of the story, where we get almost NOTHING about the second appearance.  She must have refused to co-operate at all.

    IMHO Judy will be indicted for conspiracy and will then ignominiously roll over on Scooter and Karl.  Why did she never write a story on Plame/Flame?  She was helping the WHIG spread the dirt.

    Final prediction--all the references to former NYT editors presages only one thing:  a wholesale exodus from the once great, now fishrap toady of the Establishment.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.  And may Judy rot in jail forever.

    What rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches toward Bethlehem waiting to be born?

    by cova1 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:20:41 PM PDT

  •  Smoking gun from Judy's story at the NYT (4.00)
    From the 2nd Libby meeting:

    Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully.

    Read that, Very carefully.

  •  Fire Her (4.00)
    I have just read Judy Miller's long-awaited "story" in the Times.  My response to it is two words of advice to the Times: fire her.  For one simple reason; she is supposed to be a reporter and she did not report.  And this should be the easiest story she ever wrote as it is about her own knowledge; no need for concern as to whom to interview and how reliable their information is.  Just tell your own story.  

    How did you get WMD so wrong? Do you feel you were used?  Do you feel there was a White House campaign to "sex up" the WMD evidence and/or impugn and punish others, such as Wilson, who contradicted it?  What is your relationship to Libby?  Was the reference in his letter to you about roots some sort of "code," and, if so, for what?  I could go on and on.

    Rather, her story was, at most, a bare bones account of her testimony before Fitzgerald: what did he ask and what did she answer.  Clearly, all she was trying to do was to make sure that she got that correct so that Fitzgerald could not point to the story as a basis for alleging that she had commited perjury in her testimony.  If I were her lawyer, I would have advised her to do exactly that and nothing more -- if she had to write anything at all.  But Judy Miller is supposed to be a reporter and a reporter is under a professional duty to report all he/she knows.  She didn't even begin to do that.  Fire her.

    •  Fire Her.... (4.00)
      What about Keller and the publisher?

      This is the end of the Times unless rthere is a total house cleaning...

    •  Reads to me as though (none)
      She sic'd her lawyer on them and said:  If you write an article about me, I have to have the right to write my own article.

      Or, when she wouldn't cooperate with the reporters writing the Times article, then they told her she would have to explain herself directly, in her own words.

      Either way, both she and the Times are compromised, and by each other!

    •  I agree with firing her, but (none)
      Seems the reason she ain't "telling all" yet, is because her $1.2m deal for the book probably includes a little bitty clause that insures that the book is the first full expose on her involvement.

      She publishes all that now, and what good is a book in six months?

      If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 08:58:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Since the day I heard Rove carefully describe (none)
    his response to a reporter's question about Plame, I saw the whole thing a s carefully worked up muddying of the waters about the source of the name and what that name meant. A bit of info here, a bit there to raise her profile, a subtle hint, a wink, a nod, an off hand shrug, a small memory lapse, and poof, an exposed CIA agent.

    Fitz has his work cut out for him. There folks are pros, but it looks like he is as well.

    I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

    by John West on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:36:59 PM PDT

  •  The Media's muzzle is slowly taken out (4.00)
    I am beginning to notice that finally, after being muzzled for 5 years, the media is slowly developing a backbone.  Conventional Wisdom here is now being discussed in the media.  

    Better late than never but the Iraq fiasco,high gas prices, high deficits and Bush win in 2004 and 2000 would not have happened if media did its job of exposing the truth.

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

    by timber on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:38:06 PM PDT

  •  Won't it be interesting... (none)
    to see what our favorite credible columnists/commentators have to say about this bogus mea culpa?  I imagine it'll be ripped asunder very quickly and soundly.  When the mighty fall....    
  •  A Whole Lotta Whitewash. . . But Will It Stick? (4.00)
    Ok, Judy has a conveniently sloppy memory on the most key points. She has even less credibility now than she did a few hours ago.

    She seems to be walking a tightrope: trying to save her skin while protecting Libby and her First Amerdment Martyr myth as much as possible.

    In PR terms, both Judy and the Times have deployed a classic "modified limited hangout."

    Judy has given Fitgerald some pieces, and it seems to be enough to hang Libby if PF can establish with any clarity that Libby had had previous access to the infamous State Department memo identifying Plame/Wilson. This may be all PF wanted, and if all he needed was to confirm that Libby had discussed Plame/Wilson with Judy and thereby violated the Espionage Act, then Judy gave him up (notice how Judy's testimony seems tailored to elide an IIPA charge). But Judy's article is an attempt to communicate directly to Libby and to the administration that she tried to put the best spin on all this that she could, losing her memory when she felt like she could get away with doing so.

    I also agree that Judy has not been forthcoming about all her previous work with Libby, including the perhaps the aluminum tubes and other stories, and she has signaled to Libby that she managed to hold that stuff back as best she could, perhaps with success.

    The Times account is odd: it reads more like an apologia for the hard position management and editors found themselves in as they bravely tried to stand by principle while (regrettably) letting Judy drive the car. My favorite is Abramson's ambiguous expression of regret, saying she regrets "everything" about the paper's handling of these matters, which could be taken to mean she regrets being caught in the vice of management's (cough, Pinch, cough) cowardice, of the bad editorial decision making, or that so many people simply misunderstood her good intentions and difficult position.

    The Times is clearly cutting Judy loose. They damn her with faint praise, disagree with her on whether she recommended a story, and paint her as a rogue elephant who unfortunately was given (note the passive voice) too free a hand.

    I see no real effort to take responsibility for its wider role in perverting the truth and betraying the trust of its readers in all this. They buried stories, obfuscated, let ownership interfere with reporting to cover the paper's legal ass, etc. I see no real expression of remorse or taking of responsibility among Keller, Pinch or Abramson. Expect an exodus of reportorial talent from the Times.

    All parties here are trying to dodge the issues. Notice that Judy gives no explanation for offering her June notes when Fitzy had originally asked for July stuff. She is hiding a whole lot, just skating over those issues hoping no one will notice. It's still not clear to me at all what prompted the resurfacing of those notes.

    If the Times hoped to put this thing behind it with this story, it will be sadly mistaken.

    Now, if Judy really is in the clear, it's not because she has been guiltless, but because Fitzy feels she is a smaller fish who has given him enough to get the bigger fish, and whose continuing testimony will be useful to that effort.

    And we still don't know what else Fitzy knows, or who else has been feeding him, from the CIA or wherever.

    Very interesting.

    We are not "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

    by Pachacutec on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:51:18 PM PDT

  •  E&P 's reaction (4.00)

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 03:56:56 PM PDT

    •  "devastating...article" (none)
      Also makes Pinch and Keller look like fools:

      Just as surprising, the article reveals that the Times' publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, and executive editor, Bill Keller, did not review her notes. Keller said he learned about the "Valerie Flame" notation only this month. Sulzberger knew nothing about it until told by his reporters on Thursday.

      "I ain't always right, but I've never been wrong - seldom turns out the way it does in a song."

      by Glic on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:15:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This paragraph is choice (none)
      The article reveals, also for the first time, that Keller took her off Iraq and weapons issues after he became editor in July 2003. Nevertheless, he admits, "she kept drifting on her own back into the national security realm," making one wonder who was in charge of her.

      hmmmm...

  •  Arianna (4.00)
    The lovely Arianna Huffington makes a great point:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/times-judyculp_b_8938.html

    "As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from," Miller writes.

    When the Plame case broke open in July 2003, these notes were presumably no more than a few weeks old. But who had revealed Plame's name was not seared on Miller's mind?

  •  What a dishonorable mess (4.00)
    -and to imagine, just a decade ago, any trivial smidge of nothing, a conspiracy theory launched in a Scaife cessbucket, an unsubstantiated whisper or rumor among the cocktail crowd, could have launched a new major all-out assault on the integrity of the Clinton White House in a weekend.

    Its staggering the unpayable debt the New York Times owes to the truth and common decency.

    The New York Times is simply a cheap yellow rag clad in a carefully crafted costume of genteel civility, grand responsibility, and oh-so-faux honor.

    We have a war that will cause suffering for years to come, thousands of dead, a nation drowing in debt and a submerged nation of middle class and working poor Americans drowning in the bashwash of echochamber conservatism... and these bastards were willing co-conspirators to the whole damn lot of it. They didn't just push the war. They've been pushing every little nugget of Bushit from day one of the 2000 campaign. 'Al Gore invented the internet'. Nobody thought twice about slapping whatever neocon bullshit Judy was peddling on the front page. Nobody did a damned thing about questioning any of it on the ed. board, and that makes them all accessories to the Armstrong Williamsing and Jeff Gannoning of our news as far as I'm concerned.

    The Bush administration advertised they were liars, crooks, and deceptive abusers of power from right out of the gate in Texas, and you had to do was open your eyes and fucking look at 'em. Enron execs were in on Energy policy for Christ's sake. Fuck the New York Times. At least the New York Post walks openly on the street corner in fishnets and winking as you drive by instead of pretending its something its not.

     

    Daddy, what did you do during the great 'Don't-you-Jamma-Obama-you-damma-llama!' Diarylanche?

    by LeftHandedMan on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:01:14 PM PDT

    •  This (4.00)
      At least the New York Post walks openly on the street corner in fishnets and winking as you drive by instead of pretending its something its not.

      was brilliant.

      "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

      by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:12:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A paper is only as good as the publisher it seems. (4.00)
      There may be some sort of "tesion" between the publisher and the "principled news reporters" that keeps things "pure", but clearly the Times management has lost any shred of journalistic integrity.

      So what? They lost it years ago. This is all just bull.

      Its all Fox News America!

  •  Gap between phone call and release (none)
    Another mystery this article does nothing to clear up is that of the time it took for Miller to be released from jail after the phone call from Libby. The article jumps casually from the Sep. 19 call to "At 1 p.m. on Sept. 26, Ms. Miller convened her lawyers". Might not be important, but there were some questions about this at the time of her release.
  •  Witness tampering? (none)
    Once Ms. Miller was issued a subpoena in August 2004 to testify about her conversations with Mr. Libby, she and The Times vowed to fight it. Behind the scenes, however, her lawyer made inquiries to see if Mr. Libby would release her from their confidentiality agreement. Ms. Miller said she decided not to testify in part because she thought that Mr. Libby's lawyer might be signaling to keep her quiet unless she would exonerate his client. The lawyer denies it, and Mr. Libby did not respond to requests for an interview.

    Notice how quick the lawyer is to deny that he might have been trying to tamper with a witness.

    Isn't that what she's saying? That she was assuming that Libby was trying to keep her from testifying and telling her what she couldn't say?  I don't believe there's a real reporter's privilege, but even if there is, it sounds like he's telling her-- you can testify if you're going to say I'm innocent. If you're going to say I'm guilty, shut up.  That can't be legal, can it?

  •  And this B***H (4.00)
    is receiving a "First Amendment Award" on the 18th from the Society of "Professional" Journalists...

    New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was jailed 85 days for refusing to reveal the source who disclosed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, will speak to participants of the 2005 SPJ Convention & National Journalism Conference at 8:15 a.m., Oct. 18. in Las Vegas.

    Miller, who also will receive a First Amendment Award, will then join a panel discussion titled "The Reporter's Privilege Under Siege." Joining Miller on the panel is Associated Press reporter Josef Hebert, Patricia Hurtado of Newsday, and Bruce Sanford of Baker and Hostetler law firm.

    Miller's speech is scheduled for 8:15 to 9 a.m. in Grand Ballroom 4 at the Aladdin Hotel and Casino. The panel discussion will follow from 9 to 9:45 a.m.

    For information about covering this program, contact Julie Grimes, Deputy Executive Director, Society of Professional Journalists, at (317) 431-3785

    Perhaps we should call Ms. Grimes and ask her why they are awarding a FIRST AMENDMENT award to a traitor.

    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

    by jillian on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:12:58 PM PDT

    •  I think a bunch of Kossacks should (4.00)
      show up there and show Miss Judy just what a reporter "Under Siege" really looks like.

      I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

      by John West on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:30:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is Society of Professional Journalists (none)
      a legitimate professional organization?  What is the award recipient decision process?  Who sits on the deciding committee?
      •  Guy in charge of Awards and Honors (4.00)
        Awards & Honors
        Guy Baehr
        Assistant Director
        Journalism Resources Institute
        Rutgers University of New Jersey
        4 Huntington St.
        New Brunswick, NJ  08901-1071
        gbaehr@spj.org

        and these are the "ethics folks"

        Ethics
        Gary Hill, chair
        Director of Investigations
        KSTP-TV
        3415 University Avenue
        Minneapolis, MN 55414
        Work: 651/642-4437
        ghill@kstp.com

        Fred Brown, co-chair
        The Denver Post
        1560 Broadway
        Denver, Colo. 80202
        Work: 303/820-1663
        Fax: 303/864-9759
        punditfwb@aol.com

        Casey Bukro, CO-chair
        Chicago Tribune
        Work: 312/222-5743
        Fax: 312/222-4674
        cbukro@tribune.com

        And this is "supposedly" their Mission Statement

        The Society of Professional Journalists is dedicated to the perpetuation of a free press as the cornerstone of our nation and our liberty.

        To ensure that the concept of self-government outlined by the U.S. Constitution remains a reality into future centuries, the American people must be well informed in order to make decisions regarding their lives, and their local and national communities.

        It is the role of journalists to provide this information in an accurate, comprehensive, timely and understandable manner.

        It is the mission of the Society of Professional Journalists:

        To promote this flow of information.
        To maintain constant vigilance in protection of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
        To stimulate high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism.
        To foster excellence among journalists.
        To inspire successive generations of talented individuals to become dedicated journalists.
        To encourage diversity in journalism.
        To be the pre-eminent, broad-based membership organization for journalists.
        To encourage a climate in which journalism can be practiced freely.


        I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

        by jillian on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:54:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Julie Grimes' voice mail... (none)
      isn't full yet.  But feel free to call and complain about the SPJ giving an award to a journalist involved in the biggest cover-up scandal our country has seen since Watergate.  I just did.

      Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Samuel Clemens

      by wvillmike on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:14:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Judy's First Amendment Award (4.00)
      These things don't happen by themselves.

      Look at the timeline: Judy gets out and testifies (against the background of the whole mess the Times made defending her) and immediately receives an award which is an affirmation of the Times position!

      Methinks Sulzberger or Keller called in a favor from someone. Idiots. Like the WH they think they can just manage the problem away without the need to ever finally tell the truth.  

      •  They need one another (none)
        The PSoJ to further their cause for a federal shield law by using a noteworthy yet unrelated case and Miller to latch onto some sense of moral standing.

        'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.' Mussolini

        by jorndorff on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:50:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps we can get Judy to just (none)
    list the names of all the people she didn't hear the name from, and we'll fill in the blank.

    I'm a devout believer in irreverence. - JW -

    by John West on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:27:02 PM PDT

    •  Or piece together the dates / sources (none)
      ...from the surrounding notes. Are they all from the same date/source? Can she remember anything about these notes at all?

      'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.' Mussolini

      by jorndorff on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:55:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  pontificator (4.00)
    I can almost hear Scooter Libby channelling Mayor Marion Barry:
    Bitch set me up!

    There is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. -- Sherlock Holmes

    by Carnacki on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:28:29 PM PDT

  •  Interesting contradiction... (4.00)
    In Arianna Huffington's July 27th post she included in exerpt of Judith Miller's interview w/ Salon.com in which she defended her reporting on WMDs; it read...

    Miller has steadfastly refused to apologize for her role in misleading the public in the lead up to the war. Indeed, in an interview with the author of Bush's Brain, James Moore, she, in the words of Moore, "remained righteously indignant, unwilling to accept that she had goofed in the grandest of fashions", telling him: "I was proved fucking right."

    Conversly, in today's story Miller is quoted as having said...

    "WMD-I got it totally wrong, the analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them-we were all wrong.  If your sources are wrong, you are wrong"

    Miller said "I was proved fucking right" in May of 2004. Proved right by what exactly?? Obviously today's comment is a calculated attempt by Miller to look as though she is taking responsibility. To salvage her reputation. Too late Ms. Miller.  

    Its not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:39:05 PM PDT

  •  What you get from the flavor of this... (none)
    Is absolute self-absorption. Miller dummied up for a simple reason- she wanted to be the "go to girl" for things that Sy Hersh did better years back and still does today.

    Keller says,

    "I hope that people will remember that this institution stood behind a reporter, and the principle, when it wasn't easy to do that, or popular to do that."

    Ummm... she facilitated people who endangered how many covert operatives and their contacts. There is no principle here; none at all other than being "connected" to sources.  

    They're no better than Pravda back in the old Soviet Union.

    "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

    by Mumon on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:39:48 PM PDT

  •  I don't see anything about June 23, 2003 (none)
    did i miss something?  this seems to focus on july 8th-july 12th, 2003.  I'm surprised that there is nothing on this matter.
  •  Novak Outed CIA Cover Firm Too (4.00)
    According to this WaPo article from October 2003 -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40012-2003Oct3&notFound =true -- Novak disclosed not only that Plame was a CIA "operative" in July, but subsequently disclosed that her putative employer, Brewster Jennings, was a CIA front company.  The reason for this disclosure? To show that Plame (under the name Valerie Wilson) had donated money to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.  (Election regulations require donors to list their employers.)  Novak also questioned whether Plame had really been undercover, since undercover agents are supposed to work for "real" companies.  Alas, Brewster Jennings was a real company, as the article discusses, and the disclosure of a CIA front company could have further endangered other intelligence "assets" -- including people.

    "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

    by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:46:29 PM PDT

  •  What Fitz will soon say to Libby (4.00)
    Or perhaps already has...

    "Do you really want to take the fall for all of these assholes?  You think they care about you?  Don't kid yourself.  You're jjust another speed bump in the road for them.  They'd drive over you and not give it a second thought.  Don't be a chump.  'Cause that's what you'll be if you go along with this crap and take the rap for everyone involved in this mess.  Play ball and we'll work something out."
  •  Perfect Halloween decoration (none)
    On my very red neighborhood
    I've been thinking of putting a life size picture of Fitzgerald on the lawn!

    Daily Kos: Inexpensive Halloween Costumes

    1 An evangelical. Tear half the pages out of the Bible that you're carrying. Never open it. Criticize everyone else's religion.
    2 A Republican: Carry a Bible and a copy of the Bill of Rights. Never open either one. (If you really want to do this one right, spend twice as much money as you actually have and declare war on Canada.)
    ...
    15 Rumsfeld: Wrap yourself in Ace bandages, tie a balloon to each foot and go as a prick.

  •  Miller had security clearance? (4.00)
    This jumped out at me:
    In my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald repeatedly turned to the subject of how Mr. Libby handled classified information with me. He asked, for example, whether I had discussed my security status with Mr. Libby. During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment "embedded" with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.

    'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.' Mussolini

    by jorndorff on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 04:59:40 PM PDT

  •  she' on the bus (4.00)
    You don't have to read any further than the second page to know that she's on the bus. It reads:
    In May and in early June, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist at The Times, wrote of Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger without naming him. Mr. Kristof wrote that Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger "at the behest" of Mr. Cheney's office.

    My notes indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson," I wrote, referring to the vice president. "Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us."

    How could the veep not know who Joe Wilson was?  The veep was there during gulf war one.  Joe Wilson was the man in Baghdad who kept the Americans alive in the Embassy while wearing a noose around his neck.  The veep knew very well who Joe Wilson was.  Libby knew the veep knew.  Judy knew Libby knew that the veep knew.  

    She's on the bus.  She drank the kool aid.  However you slice it, she' still doing all she can to go along with the cover up.

  •  Ain't No Middle Ground (none)
    Libby is parsing with words like "identity" in his letter and Miller, thankfully, admits that they did indeed discuss Valerie Plame's job. Implicit is that they discussed her job in some detail, including the fact that she was a covert agent. If their discussion had been anything less, Miller would have said so. It seem like she is trying to play it down the middle by denying that she heard "Valerie Flame" from Libby's lips and that she "does not recall" why Libby asked her to refer to Wilson as a former Hill staffer. But I think her testimony nails Libby.
  •  Contact the New York Times (none)
    And let them know what you think about this piece: nytnews@nytimes.com
  •  Now it is subscription... (none)
    First time I looked the Miller piece was available. Now it is sign up subscription only. Want's going on?
  •  What about Rove (none)
    My fear is that Fitzerald is going to nail Libby and give Rove a pass, or at best indict him on a lesser charge (conspiracy maybe)? This won't be nearly as bad for the Rethugs if only Libby goes down. Most people don't even know who he is.
  •  Judy lies (none)
    Detailed analysis of the lies represented in Miller's article about her testimony here at Left I on the News
  •  I haven't seen anyone mention These yet (4.00)
    I noticed a couple of things in the two articles that don't make any sense.  The first one just plain stinks .

    Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

    That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify.

    Look especially at the two bits I boldfaced.  Scooter tells Miller it's okay to testify, and by the way I LIED TO THE GRAND JURY.  So, now, Miller, a reporter, has concrete evidence that a high-placed White House Official has just LIED TO A GRAND JURY.  What does she conclude?  Does she say to herself, "Hot damn!  So much for protecting my source!  And I've got a hell of story for the Times, too!  I at least have a duty to let the Times know that Scooter is a lying sack of shit!"

    No, she interprets this as meaning that should not testify.

    Next, from Miller's own account :

    As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq's uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium.

    My notes indicate that Mr. Libby told me the report on the 1999 delegation had been attributed to Joe Wilson.

    Mr. Libby also told me that on the basis of these two reports and other intelligence, his office had asked the C.I.A. for more analysis and investigation of Iraq's dealings with Niger. According to my interview notes, Mr. Libby told me that the resulting cable - based on Mr. Wilson's fact-finding mission, as it turned out - barely made it out of the bowels of the C.I.A. He asserted that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, had never even heard of Mr. Wilson.

    Again, look at the boldface.  Libby is saying that 1 of the 2 most important intelligence reports on Niger Uranium -- the 1999 one -- was attributed to Joe Wilson . . . and then Scooter says the Director of the fucking CIA has never heard of Wilson.

    And Miller does not find this odd?

    "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

    by LithiumCola on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:19:41 PM PDT

  •  To see Jason Leopold's name on the Raw Story (none)
    piece has to be the most incredible bit of schadenfreude ever!  Oh man, that's sweet.

    Jump up and down on 'em Jason!

    "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

    by boilerman10 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:21:33 PM PDT

  •  400 comments, I'll probably post in open thread, (none)
    but wouldn't the smartest thing the Bush admin could do at this point is blame everything on Miller and then have Bush pardon miller? The admin could say they were right all along, they got the info from a journalist. said journalist could clam up and wait for pardon. Some of this plan doesn't seem possible based on the statements and deductions here, but can the WH pull this off?

    Spoken like a true Rovian troll-spy...

    by NeoconSemanticist on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:23:14 PM PDT

    •  No, he'd let Judy swing.... (none)
      any interference looks far more suspicious of a bigger conspiracy involving Chimpy in obstruction and conspiracy.

      However, there is nothing to stop Bush from pardoning anyone AFTER the trials are complete.  That's his constitutional right.

      But if this affair goes down really ugly, then Miller could end up the fall gal for the whole crew!

      As the old farmer says, "If you wallow with hogs, expect to get dirty."

      "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

      by boilerman10 on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:31:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  On a third reading of Miller's piece (none)
    Miller's story made little sense to me on first read, and after a couple of more reads I think I've figured out why.  Miller's story does not recount her testimony chronologically, but rather recounts the events themselves chronologically.  When viewed from this perspective, her coyness about whether Libby gave her the name "Valerie Flame" makes a little more sense (although its still unbelievable).    

    First, let's look at her discussion of the FIRST meeting Miller had with Libby, on June 23 (emphasis is mine):

    ...[Libby] added that the C.I.A. "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" by sending a "clandestine guy" to Niger to investigate. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I thought "clandestine guy" was a reference to Mr. Wilson - Mr. Libby's first reference to him in my notes.
    [snip]
    Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.

    So in the very first meeting she had with Libby, BEFORE Wilson's op-ed piece was published, Libby told her that "Wilson's wife" worked at the CIA on WMD.

    This also means that all the sturm und drang about whether Libby told her the name "Valerie Flame" during their SECOND meeting on July 8 is completely irrelevant.  She already had been told the classified information TWO WEEKS EARLIER.  

    So why did Miller back and fill about "Valerie Flame" and whether it came from Libby or someone else?  Remember Miller's testimony about the SECOND meeting came before her testimony about the FIRST meeting.  She was still focused (erroneously) on whether Libby told her Plame's name explicitly.

    But presumably, Fitz pressed Miller hard during her first GJ session about where "Valerie Flame" came from, and whether there were any other possible sources than Libby. If the name came from someone other than Libby, it would indeed be incredible that she didn't remember who it had been, and Fitz would have pounded her on that.  It was only after that grilling that Miller went home, "remembered" the notes of her first meeting with Libby, and found the reference to "Wife works at bureau."  Then, she was able to go back to Fitz and tell him, I talked to Libby before, and Wilson's wife came up.  

    Which would also get her off the hook about "remembering" who her other sources were.

    "Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush

    by litigatormom on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:34:26 PM PDT

    •  Sounds she came up herself with that wordplay (none)
      Either other insider people (journalists) had already made a joke about Valerie Plame renaming her Valerie Flame, because her case is like a lightning rod, it causes fire, makes sense to refer to her sarcastically as Valerie Flame. Or Miller herself might have come up with that wordplay, found it amusing and she made herself a note to use it.

      Is there a proof somewhere or did she admit that she made that note of "Valerie Flame" before Mr. Wilson wrote his article? I am still getting confused with all these dates.

  •  Another contradiction in Miller's account (none)
    this time on her attempt at writing a story:
    It is not clear why. Ms. Miller said in an interview that she "made a strong recommendation to my editor" that a story be pursued. "I was told no," she said. She would not identify the editor.

    Ms. Abramson, the Washington bureau chief at the time, said Ms. Miller never made any such recommendation.

    'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.' Mussolini

    by jorndorff on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:34:30 PM PDT

  •  Sulzberger: this car had her hand on the wheel (none)
    "This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk," Mr. Sulzberger said.

    Now I understand. Judith Miller is a car. She had her hand on her own wheel.

    Whew. That really clears a few things up.

  •  A Plame by Any Other Name (none)
    Judy is a co-conspirator n'est-ce pas?
  •  Lets all write NYT (none)
    And express our displeasure with Keller & Sulzberger and their continued association with NYT. Even the judge saw obstruction.
  •  What I never understood (none)
    was how come Judy didn't try and seek out Scooter to get the waiver in the days between when the supreme court declined the case and when she went to jail.  I mean 85 days in jail!?!?  I can understand why Libby was surprised to be her 'only source'.  

    Couple quotes from the "The Miller Case":
    emphasis mine, of course

    The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genuine.
    Judy did go back to her source... see the next one.
    Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.
    Hunter thinks this bit is a really really big deal.  So do I.  Basically after she went back to her source the source is signaling (in code it looks like) to not testify because it would contradict his own testimony.  AND JUDY TAKES 85 FOR THE TEAM!
    Mr. Bennett called Mr. Tate on Aug. 31. Mr. Tate told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Libby had given permission to Ms. Miller to testify a year earlier. "I called Tate and this guy could not have been clearer - 'Bob, my client has given a waiver,' " Mr. Bennett said.
    My head is going to explode.
    After much deliberation, Ms. Miller said, she finally told Mr. Bennett to call Mr. Libby's lawyer. After two months in jail, Ms. Miller said, "I owed it to myself to see whether or not Libby had had a change of heart, the special prosecutor had had a change of heart."
    why not owe it to yourself to stay out of jail?

    "Infinite love is the only truth. Everything else is illusion." -David Icke
    (-6.25 ,-4.51)

    by Dr Seuss on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:46:46 PM PDT

    •  it doesn't matter! (none)
      It's all bullshit!

      "was how come Judy didn't try and seek out Scooter to get the waiver in the days between when the supreme court declined the case and when she went to jail.  I mean 85 days in jail!?!?"

      Why did Judy bother to spend 85 days in jail to protect a source that she couldn't remember? Answer: because she's lying about everything.

    •  It's a plot, an attempt to distract the public (none)
      from the facts of the real story, who ordered to beautify the evidence that Saddam was about to get nuclear weapons material from Niger and who planned to silence Mr. Wilson for being a whistleblower revealing the "CIA documentation beautification efforts" of the admnistration. Of course after eight weeks in prison with the outlook to stay there longer any actress wants the curtain to fall and the play come to an end.

      What better way to distract everybody from the fact by living out a "drama", a greek tragedy with the leading female role sacrificing her life for press freedom. Makes a lot of noise in the media and distracts everybody (and shamefully the other NYT reporters as well) from reporting what should have been reported on.

      It's a show and the First Amendment Award is part of the plot.

  •  Nicely done. Thank you. (none)
    Rec'd.
  •  For all you 'secret code' theorists out there.. (none)
    look at the last lines of Judy's article...

    "Judy... It's scooter...."

    What's up with that?

    •  They had a nice weekend together ;-) (none)
      with ample time to pillow talk about who says what and what not. She just "happened" to travel to Jackson Hole after her Aspen conference to just accidentically bump into guy with cowboy hat and sunglasses to introduce himself: "Hi Judy, it's Scooter Libby". Statistically speaking how probable is it that this "running into each other" was incidentically?

      The fact that Miller didn't approach Libby or Libby's lawyer through her lawyer on her own to get this "personalized waiver in person" etc. for a whole year, the fact that she is "humbly waiting for him" to approach her to let her personally of the hook from her pledge to reveal freely in front of the GJ possibly more than that her source was just a "former Hill Staffer" is IMHO a sign that both decided on a sweet memorable weekend in Wyoming, Jackson Hole "to not communicate openly anymore with each other". I guess they seemed to think it's better to "cool it down" a little, to give the impression they didn't have "any other contacts" than three "nice reporter's working breakfeasts" in St. Regis hotel (really nice hotel).

      Yes, right. Drama queen.

      Remember what she said after Novak had written his piece? That she was p**ssed Novak had beaten her with that story and she wasn't the one to be first. Yes, right. The Lady has an agenda.

      Do you realize how she is getting Libby off the hook with her way of "not being clear" about her having discussed her security status with Libby?
      She writes she had Pentagon clearance to see sectret information, but she didn't write that she had discussed or confirmed her status with Libby. She goes on to say that "she believes that Libby thought she still had security clearance, given her embedded status in Iraq." But she doesn't say, yes I told Libby I am permitted to see classified documents. She also said she didn't know if she was allowed to discuss classified information with Libby at that time. And that Lady wants to be an expert in Security Issues? Isn't that funny?

  •  breakfast on July 8 (none)
    At breakfast where in the St. Regis?  The public restaurant?  Is Scooter in the habit of having convos like this in public restaurants?  Or was it breakfast in an undisclosed location at the St. Regis?  Would appear to give new meaning to the term embedded.
  •  This NYT article, Floyd and serendipity (none)
    Kinda weird little thing I just experienced, although not too much so.

    I'm reading Daily Kos here. Have a little background music on, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon (no stoner jokes please, I'm perfectly sober). I'm listening to the whole album through, to this point anyway (I won't be up much longer). I was barely even paying attention to it, it's so quiet in the background.

    As THE EXACT SAME MOMENT as the NYT page loaded and displayed after clicking the link to it at the top of this thread, I hear:

    "Ka-ching -- Money!..."

  •  So, according to Judy (none)
    Libby didn't tell her Wilson's wife's name, but he did discuss Wilson's wife, and complained about CIA trying to blame Iraq on the administration.

    Meanwhile, another person DID give Judy the name of "Flame", but she can't remember who..

    Does that sound to anybody like a conspiracy?

  •  The F and the P in Flame/Plame (none)
    If these notes are handwritten, I understand the possible confusion Miller had with the P and F. The F and the P are two of the most similar letters in their structure. The eye may perceive the F as having a curved stroke that turns it into a P, especially if these letters are small in size. Also the ink in a pen sometimes falters, explaining why the P might have missed its curved stroke in the 1/100th of a second in which ink stopped flowing onto the tip of the pen.
    Now if these notes were stored digitally I don't buy the confusion theory, because the F and the P are placed very far from each other on the keyboard.
    conclusion: Plame was writing in code if she was using the computer. A mistake is likely if the text was handwritten.
  •  Rove cancels campaign appearance (Oct. 15) (none)
    WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 (UPI) -- Presidential adviser Karl Rove unexpectedly canceled an appearance at a Republican breakfast in Virginia where he was to have delivered the keynote address.

    Rove was scheduled to speak Saturday on behalf of Jerry Kilgore, the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia, before an audience of 300 in Tysons Corner. Instead, the audience heard from Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.

    No detailed explanation was given, The Washington Post reported. The incident occurred one day after Rove made his fourth appearance before a federal grand jury investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity.
    link

  •  Rice admits "cooperating" with Fitz (none)
    WALLACE: Secretary Rice, a new subject. Were you part of an effort in July of 2003 to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was a critic of the Bush Iraq policy.

    RICE: I am not going to talk about, Chris, as you might imagine, an ongoing investigation. I have, like everybody else, cooperated with prosecutor Fitzgerald and am quite certain that he will make his report. But I don't think that it's appropriate to comment about those events.
    The Raw Story

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site