Centerfield

I really don't understand this one, doesn't add up.

Posted by: Susan at September 29, 2005 11:30 PM

Col. Mustard in the study with the candlestick.

Posted by: c3 at September 30, 2005 12:12 AM

When the news story first broke, within two or three days Pat Buchanan had outed Scooter Libby as being the person to have done it - at least it's what his sources told him. Which he then told America. Only for me to realize that I was one of the 9 people watching MSNBC.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 30, 2005 10:48 AM

Let me add it up for you, Susan.

Miller knew she had the Libby waivers in hand, has known for over a year, knew again two weeks ago when Libby's lawyer passed the word, and then Libby called her personally and made it very very clear that she had his free and uncoerced waiver. That objection is probably a blind.

Miller didn't consent to testify until FitzGerald agreed to question her only about the conversation with Scooter Libby, and not about anything else.

Conclusion: It wasn't Libby she was really protecting. He was an excuse to avoid unlimited questioning under oath in front of the grand jury.

Posted by: Tully at October 1, 2005 11:39 AM

Tully;
As a follow up and after hearing several comments regarding this issue I have to aks myself if this is another example of what happens with special prosecutors. "Dammit, I know there's something in there!"

Posted by: c3 at October 1, 2005 03:19 PM

Why everyone was so happy when that "independent counsel" office and authority went away. Give 'em a budget and no boundaries, and they become the Energizer Bunnies of perpetual investigation. I remember that Lawrence Walsh was still "investigating" Iran-Contra in the late 1990's a full decade after the final report, and last I looked the Cisneros independent counsel was still in business.

It all makes me wonder about the specifics of Cooper's agreement to testify as well. We'll get some indicators at the end of the month, when the grand jury lapses.

Posted by: Tully at October 1, 2005 05:36 PM

I don't know if this is true, but supposedly Libby sent a letter to Miller with the following paragraph:

“You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover--Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work---and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.”

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/02/124446.php

Their roots connect them? Darn strange thing to send to someone in jail. Kind of says “You rat me out and I'll take you down with me.”

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 2, 2005 02:54 PM

The only place I could find the letters was at the rightie blog Powerline, which has JPG's. Link here. They have Libby's letter to Miller of 9/15, Libby's lawyer's letter to FitzGerald of 9/16, and Miller's lawyer's letter to Libby's lawyer of 9/29. You accurately quote the close of Libby's letter to Miller.

Libby pretty much begs Miller to testify to anything they discussed, and reiterates that he affirmed last year that his waiver was voluntary. He says "I waived the privilege voluntarily to cooperate with the Grand Jury, but also because the reporters' testimony served my best interests. I believed a year ago, as now, that testimony by all will benefit all."

Libby's lawyer's letter to FitzGerald re-affirms a prior communication about affirming the waiver, notes that Libby's lawyer has re-affirmed that the waiver was voluntary to several other reporter's lawyers and to Miller's lawyer several times, including within the last few weeks.

Miller's lawyer's letter calls Libby's lawyer a damned liar, if in slightly more polite terms. Repeatedly. He claims that Libby's lawyer repeatedly told him the waiver WAS coerced as a condition of continued employment at the White House. He affirms only that Miller's decision to testify was due to Libby's personal letter and personal phone call--but was it?

Got me. What the hell is really going on here, other than some very high-stakes poker? All the crosstalk leads me back to that little detail in the E&P story about Miller's release.

One lawyer involved in the case told the Washington Post Thursday that Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions to her chats with Libby. Under one scenario, Miller won the right to not implicate others she may have talked to about Plame.

I note that the story does NOT say which side the lawyer giving the info was on, so keep your salt shaker handy. But the NYT story about Miller's release also notes that she was allowed to confine her testimony to only her conversations with Libby. Since Miller's attorney had already acknowledged Libby's waiver as voluntary for Cooper (whom he also represented, and who raised the same objection about testifying to his meeting with Rove) I just gotta think there's something going on there behind the scenes. When Miller managed to get her testimony confined to the conversations with Libby, she (her attorney) finally acknowledged the Libby waiver as "voluntary."

Which leads me back to my conclusion above, that there are other things and/or other sources that Miller was simply not going to talk about, and Libby made a good "shield" for legal/PR purposes. The other possibility is that Libby's lawyer is flat-out lying about his discussion with Miller's lawyer--but if so, FitzGerald would likely know about it. And if true, why change up now? They had the result in the bag under that scenario, and under that scenario there was no reason for Miller to press for her testimony to be confined to Libby.

Once again, you come back to the firm conclusion that there are things Miller does not want to testify about under oath apart from Libby. Which leads back to Libby's waiver being a convenient excuse.

Posted by: Tully at October 2, 2005 03:56 PM

I hadn't pay much attention to this situation up till now. I figured it was just some primadonna reporter looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

Now I think this women is afraid of something.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 2, 2005 05:32 PM

Bob;

the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.

That could simply be stating fact. Many folks wonder why doe the entire hillside of aspens turn yellow at the same time: because their roots connect. It s a beautiful thing>.

Posted by: c3 at October 3, 2005 04:21 PM

Here's some more fog for the curious....

Judy Miller is telling friends that she has made a $1.2 million book deal with Simon & Schuster

Then again, consider the source.

Posted by: Tully at October 3, 2005 04:33 PM

Miller's attorney confirms!!!!

The conclusion is apparently 100% correct. On CNN's Reliable Sources, the following exchange between Howie Kurtz and Floyd Abrams, Miller's (and the NYT's) attorney. Emphasis mine.

KURTZ: I talked to people at the "New York Times" who are angry and confused about this. They say, understanding -- look, many journalists have used confidential sources. Most of us have not gone to jail. They say you could have had something approaching the same deal before she went to jail. You and Judy Miller took an absolutist position -- we cannot possibly betray the source -- by going to jail and what happens at the end? She takes the waiver and testifies before the grand jury.

ABRAMS: We couldn't have had the same deal. Indeed, in one respect I tried to get a deal a year ago. I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, and he did not agree at that time to something that he later did agree to, which was to limit the scope of the questions he would ask, so as to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby. She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources, or going back to jail because of them.

Let's follow the bouncing ball....

Miller agreed to testify only because FitzGerald agreed to limit his questioning to just her exchanges with Libby. Abrams accepted Libby's original waiver and/or reaffirmation through his attorney as valid as applied to other journalists Abrams was representing earlier in the investigation (e.g., Matt Cooper). Abrams (on Miller's behalf) justified her refusal to testify on the "coerced waiver" argument. What Abrams and Libby's attorney actually discussed in private meetings and what passed between them is unknown to us--their respective stories regarding their unrecorded face-to-face meetings are in, um, intense conflict.

And now Miller's attorney says that Miller refused to testify to protect other sources, not Libby.

Posted by: Tully at October 3, 2005 10:56 PM

roots connect unseen under the ground one to each other which are in turn connected to others. Since they are all connected but not seen they turn in tandem to give one appearance all together as it must be. One that stands out different would cause dissonance and jar the view. All are joined in the same destiny there fore to live and thrive all must be as one.

Posted by: mickey bee at October 7, 2005 01:21 PM