CNN’s latest article on the Miller case offers some interesting tidbits. It appears that she was keen to avoid having to testify about her reporting on WMD. First some quotes, then some speculation on the flip.
Here, CNN is discussing the negotiations for Miller’s release from jail. They involved Libby’s attorney, Joseph Tate, Miller’s attorney, Bob Bennett, and Fitzgerald’s office.
It took Miller’s lawyers a month, till Sept. 29, to hammer out the details with Libby and Fitzgerald. A legal source told TIME that Fitzgerald gave both camps a letter saying that if Miller and Libby were to have a talk about making a deal, the prosecutor wouldn’t view the conversation as collusive or obstructive as long as they didn’t discuss what Miller would testify to.
Said Bennett: “She would not testify until she was satisfied that the source personally was waiving confidentiality, and she wanted to hear it directly from him.” Negotiations with Fitzgerald were complicated, involving not only Miller’s testimony but her notes as well. The legal source told TIME that the prosecutor did not give the final O.K. for Miller’s release until after he received and reviewed the notes from one of two conversations with Libby in July 2003.
In his deal with Miller, the prosecutor agreed to limit the scope of her testimony before the grand jury, focusing only on the reporter’s conversations with sources about Plame, according to her lawyer Bennett. Miller wanted to rule out of bounds any questions about her reporting on WMD, a lawyer involved in the case told TIME.
:::flip:::
A couple of things stick out. First, Miller and/or her lawyer were approached by a third party who told them it “might be a good time to approach Libby”. A possible explanation for this comes later in the article:
So, it appears everyone and their mother knew that Libby was responsible for Miller’s imprisonment, contrary to Libby’s letter which expressed surprise that he was the source she was protecting. Also directly contrary to Tate’s latest bullshit:
‘The significant fact that you continue to omit, and that seems to be lost here, is that you never told me that your client did not accept my representation of voluntariness or that she wanted to speak personally with my client,’ Tate said in a letter to Abrams. ‘Even you can`t spin those facts away. That is the answer to this unfortunate circumstance of your client`s incarceration, not any failure on our part.’
But another possible explanation comes from Newsweek’s piece:
I don’t know who the third-party is who initiated this phone conference. I thought it might be John Bolton, since it has been reported he visted Miller in jail. But that rumor was floated on August 15th, long before the process leading to Miller’s release got started.
I also am intrigued by the not so subtle use of the (…) by Isikoff. The clear implication of that (…) is to convey that Libby was sending a message. Perhaps even a veiled threat. I’ve been wondering whether Libby’s strange letter also contained a veiled threat. Libby wrote:
Is Miller an ‘aspen’? Does ‘turning’ refer to becoming a state’s witness? Ah, so much to speculate on.
But back to the top clip. Miller was not only negotiating with Libby, she was negotiating with Fitzgerald about limiting the scope of his questioning. She didn’t want to answer questions about her reporting. How very intriguing. And yet, Fitzgerald agreed to limit the scope and not question her about her reporting. So, a lot of speculation about how wide of a net Fitzgerald is casting may be off the mark.
Still, why would Miller want these assurances? Why does she assume that Fitzgerald might want to ask about her WMD reporting?
And this gets back to something else I have always wanted to know. Judy Miller never wrote an article about Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame. So, how did Fitzgerald become aware of her involvement in the leaks? Answer me that question and we will be a lot closer to understanding this case.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported a couple days ago::
One source briefed on Miller’s account of conversations with Libby said it is doubtful her testimony would on its own lead to charges against any government officials. But, the source said, her account could establish a piece of a web of actions taken by officials that had an underlying criminal purpose.
If that ‘web of actions’ connects up all the aspens, this investigation could still be earth-shattering: