Update [2005-9-30 15:32:36 by susanhu]: Robert Bennett was just interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Bennett volunteered that Judy’s testimony was “limited to the Valerie Plame matter and not a fishing expedition.”
Blitzer then said that some speculate that Miller is protecting more people than just Scooter Libby, and asked Bennett if Fitzgerald made an agreement to limit Miller’s testimony to Scooter Libby. Bennett would only reiterate that they made an agreement that the questions would be confined to the Valerie Plame matter. He said that he was able to work things out with “the prosecutor that judy could live with … those things came together …”
Even though Bennett refused to name Scooter Libby as the subject of Miller’s testimony, he did refute the charge by Libby’s attorney that he was told before Miller went to jail that Libby released her to testify. Bennett argued that Libby’s attorney did not call him until August 31, after Miller was in jail. Bennett edged towards anger, saying that Libby’s attorney and Libby knew where Judy was and how to reach her.
Update [2005-9-30 13:27:34 by susanhu]: Judith Miiller is speaking before the cameras, having concluded her testimony (?). She says that she received a “personal” letter from her source, followed by a phone conversation. Miller said that the special counsel “assured us that such communication would not be regarded as obstruction of justice.”
Her testimony was “limited to communications with the source from whom I received the voluntary waiver.” (She has not — and refuses to — name the source.)
“The special counsel agreed to this.”
She says that she spent 85 days in jail, and was prepared to spend more, and would not testify “if there was not [BOTH] a personal waiver and the [GUARANTEE OF] narrow testimony.”
She said that she is looking forward to going home, to Sag Harbor, to a special dinner prepared by her husband and to hugging her dog. Questions were brief, and ended quickly.
Judy, Judy, Judy … Scooter didn’t think he was the ONLY ONE for you! He suspected you had other … um … sources, reports the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Libby also expressed surprise that Ms. Miller had been holding out for his sake. Mr. Libby and his lawyer had assumed that Ms. Miller had been protecting other sources. Mr. Tate, in a brief telephone interview last night, added that Mr. Libby has testified already to the grand jury about his conversation with Ms. Miller. He declined to discuss specifics, but noted that his side hasn’t heard from prosecutors in more than a year. Mr. Tate previously has said that Mr. Libby has not been told that he’s a target of the investigation.
Those other sources might be? I’d do a poll, but it’d need to be multiple choice, don’t you think?
The WSJ also reports:
Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate, said last night that the breakthrough began around Labor Day, when he got a call from Mr. Bennett, who asked first whether Mr. Libby’s waiver — offered more than a year earlier — had been voluntary. Assured that it had been, Mr. Bennett conveyed that news to Ms. Miller, and then called back to say that Ms. Miller wanted to hear it directly from Mr. Libby.
At [Robert] Bennett’s request [Bennett, the brother of Bill Bennett, is Judith Miller’s attorney], Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide a letter saying that if Ms. Miller and Mr. Libby talked on the phone, the special prosecutor wouldn’t consider it obstruction of justice. The call — with Ms. Miller, Mr. Libby, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Tate taking part — occurred on Sept. 19. Ms. Miller told Mr. Libby simply that “I wanted you to tell me personally” that his waiver was voluntary. “Why didn’t somebody call us?” Mr. Tate asked.
Mr. Tate, no need to be perplexed. You were right to assume Judy had other sources, and you have to know that Judy is just USING your client and you as excuses to grab a “get out of jail free” card.
My gut tells me that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t believe Judy for a moment, and may give her a rougher time on the stand today — with some shillelagh-hard grilling — than she had during 12 weeks in the hoosegow.
Adds Catnip in an e-mail to me, quoting from a Yahoo news story:
Legal sources close to the case said Miller was under growing pressure to testify because Fitzgerald could have sought to impose a stiffer criminal sentence against her.
So Fitzgerald used MORE prison time as leverage. We can put away the hankies being distributed by, sniff, sob-sister New York Times. (Bill Keller, cut the crap. Just how stupid do you think we are?) Patrick, give ‘er the smackin’ you know she’s got comin’!
9:30 am Update: I’ll go further with my speculation:
- Judith Miller lied to her editors (a no-no since reporters are required to tell their editors the true identity of their various sources, and editors depend on truthful reporters to avoid embarrassment down the road)
- Judith Miller is eager to make her next book a best-seller
- The NYT publisher and editors are desperate to make Miller’s a noble cause because their recent scandals have landed them in the gutter. That desperation is leading to clouded judgment, and a lack of self-examination and tough questioning of Ms. Miller (which might save them some future embarrassment)
- Evan Derkacz at Alternet’s PEEK quips, “Because principled stands are dreadfully boring…” — and he has some priceless quotes about Judy’s sudden release
- And, then there’s the 900-lb. gorilla in the room: Judith Miller is — herself — a source. (I suggested that in July 3rd’s “Was Judith Miller a Source?” And many more people have suggested this as well.)
honorable man and not a ringer in the mix to save big daddy. It is the end of September and the fellow in Texas who recently indicted Delay issued indictment after indictment getting closer and closer to Delay until they finally issued the one count indictment recently. This Fitzgerald guy has not issued one indictment. And while he could be playing it close to his vest, he could also be playing a traitor’s game. We’ve had our hopes ripped open so many times before.
And I hope — when Fitzgerald acts — that the charges are substantive.
Even Molly Ivins told CHris Matthews yesterday that she was NOT keen on the “conspiracy” charge against Delay because she is foremost a civil libertarian, and such charges can be so badly abused, and are resorted to when there isn’t better evidence to nail him with stronger charges.
I’m worried about the Delay indictment. For one thing, it is going to galvanize the ‘wingers because they’ll also see it as a weak charge.
There are other, better things to nail Delay on…. and, god, Jon Stewart did a funny number on Delay last night, and Delay’s own recounting of his long history of ethics charges (!). Wonder if C&L has that up.
My gut tells me that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t believe Judy for a moment, and may give her a rougher time on the stand today — with some shillelagh-hard grilling — than she had during 12 weeks in the hoosegow.
Pfitz has a reputation of going hard after uncooperative witnesses… Especially when he thinks he is being lied to.
Even Molly Ivins told CHris Matthews yesterday that she was NOT keen on the “conspiracy” charge against Delay because she is foremost a civil libertarian
A conspiracy charge, especially in the case of an ultra-corrupt guy like DeLay, is a good tool to open pandoras box. (IMHO)
Also, the rumors going around before the indictment was brought down oficially was that the Prosecutor was not going going “hard” after certain conspiracy charges… But that the charges were urged by the Grand Jury. Though, they never mentioned who the Grand Jury was urging charges against specifically? Also, the news report that I read that in seems to have disappeared Or, at least, I can’t find it anymore. lol
But here is an interesting tidbit from TPM that covers a little news on DeLay and Abramoff.
The plot thickens…
Maybe Bolton is the one she is really covering for…
–John R. Bolton, President Bush’s new ambassador to the United Nations,
-former “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw
-former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.).
–Gonzalo Marroquin, president of the Inter-American Press Society and director of the Guatemalan daily Prensa Libre
-Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.)
–Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism adviser under Clinton and Bush
-his former aides, Roger Cressey and
–Lisa Gordon-Haggerty.
–Charles Duelfer, who concluded in 2005 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction but uncovered bribes in the United Nations’ oil-for-food program.
-a former secretary of the navy, Richard Danzig, who now works as a bioterrorism consultant to the Pentagon, came through.
appears in the editorial pages of the WSJ then you can bet the farm on a bargain.
It sure feels like Blue Light Special Friday don’t it. 🙂
Nothing on Judy in the editorial section. I think that their reporters are often independent of the editorial staff .. hope so.
but I wouldn’t count on it being true any more.
I stopped reading the WSJ on a daily basis when the Journalists started cheerleading the invasion of Iraq and the search for WMD.
Well, a lot of newspapers did that back then. Sigh.
Makes me skittish about all of them, especially the NYT.
This is from Editor and Publisher
“The Times story also revealed that Libby and his lawyers say he offered the waiver a year ago — and then again 10 days ago — but Miller did not accept it. She was released today after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Fitzgerald to discuss her testimony, which will be severely limited, the Times revealed.”
If her testimony is severly limited, it’s not going to open much up is it?
She got what she wanted. She is not going to make herself look bad. Most of these investigations start out with small indictments and build up. Fitzgerald is investigating Daley in Chicago and Ryan in Chicago. His pattern was to get the small guys to turn on the big guys. There has not been one indictment so far. Why is that? Only Judy Miller going to jail and leaviing with a big grin on her face.
I am afraid that everyone is missing the fact that Fitzgerald is a republican investigating Republicans. Why oh why do people put so much faith in this man? Why isn’t there some hard nosed skepticism about his motives? You know there has to be another side to the story that he is this man who believes in Truth Justice and the American Way. He’s human isn’t he? His position is very political.
Read this article. It has actual information in it.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/9/29/151720/108
Your quote refers to her own newspaper, the NYT, claiming that her testimony will be limited.
And your view of this is contradicted by the Yahoo/AP story, which quotes *legal sources”, NOT the self-interested NYT:
And we don’t know that, if it’s true that her testimony today is curtailed to the Libby connection, that she may not be called back before the GJ — again and again — to discuss more sources.
Yes. Maybe we have to ignore the NYT and the legal sources “close to the case” Who knows what that means. They are both can be biased or misinformed.
But we do know that unlike Fitzgerald’s other recent investigations, no one has been indicted for the purpose of turning on someone bigger. I have to ask why?
Stu, I can’t tell you how disappointed I was to learn of the deal that Judith Miller and Bennett struck with Fitzgerald.
I doubt they’d fabricate such an arrangement so it must be true. If her testimony is restricted solely to what she knows about Scooter Libby, well, then …
I hope I’m wrong. Again.
Stu, one thing that just gave me more hope is that Robert Bennett was just on with Wolf. I typed up his comments in an UPDATE at the top of the story.
But the key thing I heard him say — twice — was that the agreement with Fitzgerald was NOT to confine her testimony to Scooter Libby per se but to limit her testimony to the “Valerie Plame matter” and not extend into a “fishing expedition.”
What “fishing expedition” might mean, we can only guess .. AIPAC? Chalabi? What?
But, anyway, if Fitzgerald PRESERVED the right to ask Judy questions about ANYONE involved in the Valerie Plame matter, that’s to the good. For us. We hope.
It looks like Fitzgerald is tied indirectly through this trail of people to Cheney. Why is that not surprising? All these rich Republicans seems to know each other and do favors for each other.
Stu Piddy wrote that diary. It’s a hell of a diary.
And I’m really depressed.
Yes, but I and all of us are still pretty far away from the center. So it seems so maybe this will turn out well and i and others will be wrong. Don’t give up hope, we don’t really know for sure. And if it turns out bad…take to the streets or something.
Gosh, everyone’s so innocent and wide eyed around the Miller case. I’ve lost count of the people and organizations “standing on principle.” Now it starts to unravel. That prison laundry just wasn’t comfy. Scooter says, “Oh, you mean that was ME you were talking about?”
The New York Times wrapping the flag, the Constitution, the tenets of the goddess Journalism, and the Times long reputation around themeselves, wound up looking tacky and bulky and nobody was running to their aid (yeah, like the sleazebag “news” networks would anyway). Hand dramatically pressed to their forehead week after week, they proclaimed for freedom of the press, ignoring the snickers of “Yo, Times, ain’t you the sucker that bought Chalabi?” Gee, I wonder why it didn’t work?
Come on Fitzgerald, whack somebody, start with Suckup Judy, and make some moves on the West Wing.
I have ONE question:
Did Fitz give her immunity?
(Susan grabs head.) Oh no oh god no oh please say no please.)
P.S. Keith O is on it — the headline of his newsletter today is “Scooter’s Permission Slip.”
That’s a good question. Tha’ts the kind of question people should be asking rather than specualting on how Patrick Fitzgerald feels about being lied to as if he is running this Investigation all on his own without any influence from the outside.
What if he did? What does that indicate?
There is no question that a deal has been made. A deal that perhaps is to everyone’s liking more or less given the circumstances.
What would Judy want? Immunity and limited questioning.
What would Fitzgerald want? Hmmmm. That’ all I can say becuase he’s a republican.
What would Libby want for what he gave Judy? A promise not to implicate him any more than she has to or a promise not to implicate anyone else in the WH other than Libby?
I don’t think he can just arbitrarily give her immunity UNLESS she is giving back something they want in return… And that means poaching for bigger fish than Judy could ever be.
Not that I am a lawyer and would honestly know? lol Just a guess, if immunity was even part of the deal at all?
But that is just building speculation on more speculation based on my own ignorant point of view… lol
Off point here, but is anyone else slightly disturbed how small a world it is in DC? Robert Bennett, brother of that great orator Bill Bennett, is representing Judy. I suppose that he is no less sanctimonious.
I would agree with some of your speculation. But the motives of the NY Times itself is another matter.
I think the Times is defending Miller for only one reason: they agree with her stances.
Why does everyone think of the Times as the same newspaper they’ve known for 20 years — it’s not. The Times is now a major media corporation, run by another generation of the Sulzberger family. Since Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. has become publisher the paper has gone after the Clintons over Whitewater, over supposed Chinese espionage within the Clinton administration, and has championed both the war in Iraq and Chalabi. The Times has also grown to become a major media player — buying up the Boston Globe, for instance.
I sincerely believe that the Times is covering for Miller because they see that Miller has helped the Bush administration and they don’t want to be seen (by the Bushies) as throwing her out the window.
Sometimes there is a reasonable explanation why people do strange things — and sometimes the answer is “because they want to”. And when in doubt, always remember that when money is involved, it drives the actions. That is why you are seeing two formerly great newspapers, the Times and the Post, consistently embarrass themselves — they both are acting like major corporations who need the Bush administration to continue their growth through acquisitions.
One thing for sure is this: you are right about Miller being a source. I am sure she was on the phone spreading the story about Plame — that’s why there was never any need for her to write the story, she knew others would. To the media people she talked to, the story was always about Plame — but it should have been about the adminstration’s dirty tricks.
My daughter — hey, she’s supposed to be working! — just sent this to me from Gawker:
Your work, and the comments here, sure beats the MSM and CNN for example. I too hope that this leads to some charges against whoever was involved at the White House, no matter how far up the ladder that might lead.
The optimistic side of me is beginning to hope, which in turn stimulates my natural tendency towards cynical pessimism. Wouldn’t it be great, if we had another indictment party, or two, or more the day after Bush announces his next pick for SCOTUS? My anxiety was going up up up on this matter as October approached, and now this! Come on Fitz!