Yahoo News/Reuters: “Prosecutor asks NYT reporter to testify again.”
… The decision by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald comes just days after Miller found notes from a previously undisclosed conversation — on June 23, 2003 — with Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
“She is to return to the grand jury Wednesday to supplement her earlier testimony,” New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a memo on Tuesday to New York Times staff, a copy of which was forwarded to Reuters.
CNN is also reporting that Judith Miller will testify tomorrow (thanks, Catnip).
Update [2005-10-11 20:41:20 by susanhu]: “Reporter Miller, Prosecutor Have Tangled Before” (AUDIO) , via MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann:
… The legal fight over the CIA leak case isn’t the only time Miller and Fitzgerald have been at odds.
In fall 2001, Miller and Times Washington correspondent Philip Shenon were reporting on Islamic charities suspected of funnelling money to al Qaeda.
At that time, Fitzgerald was leading the prosecution as the newly named U.S. attorney in Chicago. He and the Justice Department argued that Miller’s calls while working the story tipped off a foundation to an impending raid — a charge the Times rejects.… MORE BELOW THE FOLD
(Can this story be used to try to discredit Fitzgerald in going after Miller so hard? Or does it explain that Fitzgerald is initmately aware of how Miller bobs and weaves, deceiving and mucking about with sensitive information.)
Also: MSNBC’s Hardball, which reairs at 8pm PT, is a must-see today for Plamegate-ophiles. (However, MSNBC has not yet broken the story about Miller testifying tomorrow.) Among the topics discussed:
- “Libby Did Not Tell Grand Jury About Key Conversation,” by the indefatigable and ahead-of-the-pack Murray Waas. Published today in the National Journal.
- In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative’s name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.
- Judy Miller might end up being indicted. (Many of us have thought that Judith Miller may have been a source.)
If Miller is indicted, I wonder when the NYT will distance itself from her, and stop its non-reporting reporting of the CIA Leak case.
And don’t miss:
- Catnip’s “Tell Us Who Fabricated the Iraq Evidence”
- BooMan’s “Ripples in the Pond”
- Larry Johnson’s “Mambo Italiano and Plame Gate”
- JPol’s “Is Rove the Scapegoat?”
- JPol’s “Saint Judith Miller”
- and much more (use the search, bottom right)
Update [2005-10-11 20:41:20 by susanhu]: “Reporter Miller, Prosecutor Have Tangled Before” (AUDIO) — CONTINUED from above the fold:
In June 2002, Miller wrote about an Egyptian-American pilot who had been a crucial informant against al-Qaeda in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. The pilot said the American government failed to live up to promises to compensate him and to protect him from severe reprisals in Egypt.
Miller’s front-page story quoted current and former federal officials criticizing the government’s handling of the informant. Fitzgerald was the lead prosecutor.
Michael Greenberger, a senior Justice Department official under President Clinton on counterterrorism issues, said the prosecutor’s approach toward Miller is best explained by his hard-charging efforts to investigate crime — not any bad blood.
“The circumstances of the Plame investigation, and Judy Miller’s incarcercation, etc., really was a story unto itself that was almost certainly not impacted by prior events,” Greenberger said.
Some critics have said that Miller is routinely too cozy with government sources. But several journalists suggest it was almost inevitable that Fitzgerald and Miller would butt heads.
“Isn’t it interesting that a very prominent reporter, working for one of the most prominent newspapers in the world covering terrorism stories, runs against the grain on occasion, runs against the interest, on occasion, of a very prominent public prosecutor working in the very same field of terrorism?” said Marvin Kalb, a former correspondent for CBS News and NBC News.
Kalb said he has no reason to doubt Fitzgerald’s professionalism. But he did say Miller and Fitzgerald have been cast in adversarial roles.
“In this case,” Kalb said, “time and time again, these two professionals have had this apparent conflict of interest.”
Through a spokesman, Fitzgerald declined a detailed request for comment.
The prosecutor’s interest in Miller’s reporting has stretched back several years.
In the summer of 2002, Fitzgerald requested Miller’s phone records to find out who she had talked to at the Islamic charity. The Times refused to cooperate.
Two years later, Fitzgerald told the Times he intended to subpoena those documents. It was roughly the same time he sought to compel Miller’s testimony in the Valerie Plame leak.
The timing made New York Times lawyer George Freeman queasy.
“You know, one wonders why both these things more or less started happening at the same time in the summer of 2004,” Freeman said.
Floyd Abrams, another lawyer for Miller, said he considered trying to force Fitzgerald off the case on grounds of harassment. But that idea was rejected.
“We didn’t think it was either persuasive or accurate to make personal charges against him,” Abrams said. “But it is true that she has been in battles with him in the past—and continues to be.”
Last winter, a federal judge dismissed the subpoenas in the Islamic foundations case. Fitzgerald is still appealing that decision.
In the Valerie Plame case, Fitzgerald is seeking to learn whether government officials leaked Plame’s identity to punish her husband, Joseph C. Wilson, for criticizing the White House in a New York Times op-ed published in July 2003.
Miller served 85 days in a Virginia jail on civil contempt of court charges until Lewis Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff, told her she could testify about their conversations.
Miller is expected to be questioned today about a notebook she just found. It shows she spoke with Libby in late June 2003 — more than a week before Plame’s husband went public with his criticism of President Bush.
I’m thinking that with this news we are one step closer to seeing Libby indicted for obstruction of justice unless Miller has a damn good reason for not telling Fitzgerald and the grand jury about that June 23, 2003 conversation and her notes about it before this time. Then she’ll be indicted too – I hope.
Can’t wait to find out what that conversation was about, regardless.
Also, rumour has it that Rove will testify on Friday.
Wonder if there’s anything to be read with the sources saying ‘Valerie Plame’ (rather than the wife of the former Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, or something like that).
Is it during these conversations that Plame is first used? And if so, doesn’t that suggest that the outing of Valerie Plame comes from a source besides the INR on AF1? In other words, does Libby use the name Plame with Miller?
From the Outside, reading the few clues, it seems as if Fitzgerald has unraveled more at the eleventh hour (this Grand Jury expires soon–next week?). Grand Juries drive everybody crazy since they’re the sole judicial body that operates in secret (balanced by their relative lack of powers except for contempt charges). If Judy Miller is testifying again, if Rove is testifying again, indeed, if several figures are testifying this late in the GJ’s life, something is very much afoot. Usually, the report is being written at this time and testimony is over.
I’m hoping for strong charges aginst the leading figures and perjury or obstuction of justice charges against the more minor figures. I’ve been regarding the NYTimes stonewall as being indicative of a guilty conscience, hmm, maybe there’s even more here.
Wanting imdictments this much is the Buddhist sin of desire. C’mon Fitzgerald, you’re driving me to sin.
Wanting imdictments this much is the Buddhist sin of desire. C’mon Fitzgerald, you’re driving me to sin.
lol – the desire to be perfect is also a no-no. 🙂
(there’s always a loophole)
You talking about you or me?
You!
As if I aspire to perfection (whistling innocently).
Buddhists don’t embrace the concept of sin. It’s the “attachment” of desire they identify as often inimical to ones enlightenment and serenity.
thus my use of the religious term “no-no”. 🙂
Sorry! I thought I was replying to the previous comment by rolfyboy6.
“No no” is a perfectly apt term that seems to embody a concept that transcends all languages and cultures.
ah, remember attachment to semantics is sin.
And I am suffering confusion as a result.
You did respond to rolfy. I butted in. 🙂
That’s happened before around Catnip. Get her started and she’s capable and competent at creating altered states of blogged reality which somehow can include items like feather dusters and small charging mammals. The only viable response is complete surrender.
Does that help?
IMMENSLY!
Keith just sounded very stern/fatherly when he said that Scooter didn’t tell the prosecutor about that conversation.
Is Fitzgerald surprised to discover these conversations? Really? His “surprise” is confusing to me.
Yes. Apparently he didn’t know about the June 23 conversation until last week.
Well, sheesh. Even I knew (or suspected) they were chattering like chipmunks in May, June, and July. Maybe Fitzgerald is feigning surprise?
Not from what I can tell. The source of that June 23 conversation was Miller’s notes. How and why those notes came onto the scene has yet to be determined.
Guess she ran out of white-out. I hate when that happens.
Oops. Someone forgot the Martha Stewart rule. (Never lie to a federal agent or prosecutor.)
Now, the Q is: Why did both Judy and Scooter avoid that date? What’s the big deal about that date? What’s in Judy’s notes about the conversation on the date that is putting her back in front of the jury?
The date, or the content of that particular conversation.
From Huffington Post:
News Orgs Working On Story Tying Cheney Into Plamegate… Developing…
“The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are working on stories that point to Vice President Dick Cheney as the target of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name. “
You’re great, Emma. Thanks.
Someone i know has a subscription to the WSJ so i’ll grab what they have and post it asap… or give it to Catnip to post.
I can do that while I’m watching Commander in Chief. I’m a multi-tasker. I don’t have a subscription to the WSJ however, so e-mail me when you get the goods.
COOL!
May I interrupt this thread to announce that Bloomberg.com has the most fucking irritating Web site?
Thank you for your attention.
No Problemo!
Be still my heart.
(3-pointer from mid-court…swoosh!)
Yes, indeed. Love college b’ball.
beating the buzzer at the half against the Lady Vols?
Ah yes, Di, #3… 🙂
That’ll work.
Or a fade-away 3 from Francesco Garcia in the other team’s court, shooting with leg cramps and four fouls with 3 guys guarding him at the buzzer in the 3rd overtime.
WOW, HOORAY AND YIPPEE!!!!!
If they announce that my “Drop the Hammer” party to celebrate after tommy-boys indictment will look like a kids tea party!
Thanks for making me smile!
This AP story is really making the rounds in the MSM:
Newsview: Bush could lose Rove over probe
New from WaPo:
According to the source, the notes reveal that the two discussed Bush administration critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV about three weeks before the name of Wilson’s wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, appeared in a syndicated column written by Robert D. Novak.
You don’t suppose they had a copy of Who’s Who handy when they talked?
(Okay, I’m being snarky. I’m just so excited!)
Raw Story has sections of the WSJ piece pasted in. Talks about a broader investigation that may include the WHIG. No Cheney, yet, but the WHIG is the VP’s deal — so this is very close to him.
I’ve got to say, that for all my head-banging and theorizing, it’s looking more and more that all I ever really had to do is read Wilson’s interviews and book. This is starting to look exactly like he said it would.
I saw that Raw Story headline, and it may be hype. (Sometimes, it seems, they rewrite headlines for the same story to keep their info looking fresh.)
The list of subpoenaed documents in 2004 shows the Iraq team docs listed … so they have been on Fitz’s radar for quite a while.
Not a headline, excerpts from today’s WSJ. Although speculation about the WHIG has been out there for a long time, and Joe Wilson has said that he believes they initiated a work-up of him in March 2003, for some reason, the WHIG is rising to the surface in this WSJ article. Perhaps this is the theory du jour, or perhaps there’s more confirmation that Wilson’s suspicions are right, and that this group had direct involvement in smearing Joe Wilson, which ultimately led to Plame’s outing.
But hey, I’m just an arm chair critic.