Quite a turn of events this evening, as Judith Miller agrees to testify and was released from jail in Alexandria, VA. Many serious questions remain. Inside I explore a few of them.
First, let's look at today's statements from the
NYT.
From Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of NYT:
As we have throughout this ordeal, we continue to support Judy Miller in the decision she has made. Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source.
Note the singular - source. This furthers the NYT's mythic portrayal of Miller as 1st amendment queen, galantly protecting the freedoms of journalists. But is reality so convenient? Follow with me here.
Bill Keller, executive editor of NYT:
Judy refused to testify in this case because she gave her professional word that she would keep her interview with her source confidential.
Again, the singular.
Now Judith Miller:
I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter.
Once again, the singular.
But what about this from the NYT?
Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."
That's sources. Other sources. Multiple sources which could be implicated. That's not protecting a source. That's being an accomplice of a crime, quite possibly to the extent of Miller acting as a launderer of classified information between administration officials and other reporters.
The entire fabricated story of the NYT & Miller taking a stand by protecting a whistleblower is doubly blown to hell. If Miller was given information from multiple sources in violation of the law, then Miller would be wise to soak up all the free living she can stand. More, if she was a source of Novak's (as has been reported), then her testimony becomes relevant only to the extent that Libby is further implicated. Based on the preliminary reports this evening, Miller will only be asked about Libby (per the subpoena issued to her). All other information will not be pursued.
Further, the original subpoena did not ask for anything but testimony regarding one specific source. From the DC Court of Appeals' opinion:
In the meantime, on August 12 and August 14 [of 2004], grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her ans a specified government official "occuring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003,...concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium."
This _does not mean_ that other subpoenaes stemming from other conversations Miller had with WH officials aren't forthcoming.
From Tom Maguire:
Ms. Miller can (*HYPOTHETICALLY*) testify that she told Libby about Ms. Plame, refuse to discuss the basis of that knowledge, and leave Special Counsel Fitzgerald with the challenge (per DoJ guidelines) of exhausting all reasonable means to ascertain her source before he re-subpoenas her. Presumably Fitzgerald could battle Plame-fatigue and extend his grand jury, but at a minimum, Ms. Miller has deferred the threat of criminal contempt.
Maguire gets it half-right, in that Fitzgerald can simply re-subpoena her if he needs further information from her. This first subpoena, and the resulting testimony, could be a foundation towards issuing additional subpoenas. But, we now know that Libby was Miller's source, not the other way around. (More on that below.)
More importantly, why would Fitzgerald subpoena her for more testimony? Because he knows that she told Novak.
Radar Online reported in mid-July:
While some have suggested Miller--who never wrote a word about CIA spook Valerie Plame--was dragged into the leak probe when her name turned up on a White House call log, several beltway insiders close to the investigation say special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald learned of Miller's involvement from Novak himself.
If Fitzgerald already knows that Miller was Novak's original source from Novak's testimony, then Miller becomes a co-conspirator. Her testimony tomorrow would further establish her role and set up the jury to force Miller to further explain her role.
Update [2005-9-30 1:51:22 by jorndorff]: Pollyusa notes a fresh WaPo article confirming that Libby had originally testified that he'd told Miller about Plame:
Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.
Libby had a second conversation with Miller on July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he said he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame's name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.