RAW STORY informs us, via a New York Times spokesperson, that Judith Miller is taking a little holiday. Note the wording:
“until we decide”
That suggests that this is not a voluntary leave.
The two extremely disappointing New York Times stories finally covering this ordeal, The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal, by Times reporters Don Van Natta Jr., Adam Liptak and Clifford J. Levy, along with Miller’s own account, My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room depict a news organization scrambling to maintain any integrity it might have left after this long, sordid affair. Despite some attempts by some editors to stand behind Judith Miller, it is clear that her situation has caused considerable friction in the offices of the Times and that her presence is not supported by several fellow staff members. At this juncture, the smartest thing the NYT management could do would be to cut their losses, fire her and move on.
Hunter over at Daily Kos writes that Miller has sunk Libby with her testimony. I’m not so sure. Her inability to “recall” why she had written the name “Valerie Flame” in her notebook, despite the fact that Plame’s name would become the subject of such a spectacular story mere weeks later coupled with her sweetheart deal with Fitzgerald that he limit her testimony only to discussions she had with Scooter Libby, show a conniving strategy on her part to either cover for Libby as her source of Plame’s name or to hide the name of the real source from Fitzgerald and the grand jury. It appears she may have gotten away with her plan.
She proclaims that Libby had not given her the “personal waiver”, free from coercion, until she spoke to him on the phone and received the now infamous “aspens are turning” letter. Yet, in the same breath, she states bluntly that she was tired of sitting in jail. She knew she had something that Fitzgerald wanted, but apparently she played her cards well enough not to give him exactly what she did have.
The issue of whether or not the fight between the lawyers amounted to some sort of witness tampering is best left to legal scholars and, in the end, the grand jury. We don’t have the full picture yet.
Some postulate that Libby is at least guilty of passing on classified information and that that may land him in trouble. The intricacies of the laws involved may not allow such charges to be brought, depending on how Libby characterized his part in his talks with Miller. There has only been one conviction to date under the relevant Espionage Act statute since its inception. Even a charge under a related statute that might be easier to prosecute is far from being assured at this point. Libby may not be in the clear, but I doubt we’ll see any big charges against him – although any charge could cost him serious political points in this scandal-infested administration.
In the end, we’re not much further along than we were on Friday. The accounts given by Miller and the NYT reporters offer many tidbits for discussion about what really happened at the newspaper while this was going on and we can even speculate on the fate of Scooter Libby, but we are far from knowing everything Fitzgerald and the grand jury have at this point or what direction this investigation might actually take in the end.
So, once again, we are left waiting and wanting and the New York Times is left as just a shell of its former greatness. Restoring its integrity as the paper of record will best be served by the firing of Judith Miller and a new atmosphere of openness and support for all NYT reporters and staff members – never again placing a journalist like Miller on the untouchable pedestal of self-proclaimed importance and superiority.
The Left Coaster reminds us what Miller said about her WMD coverage in May, 2004:
And here’s what she said in her NYT article on Saturday:
The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them – we were all wrong.
As the Left Coaster points out, that last statement is a bald-faced lie from someone who, even now, cannot take full responsibility for her roll in pushing Bushco propaganda.
And that begs the question: what else is she so blatanly lying about?
Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher has this to say:
He should also apologize to all the “armchair critics” and “vultures” he denounced this week for spreading unfounded stories and “myths” about what Miller and the newspaper had been up to. If anything, this sad and outrageous story is worse than most expected.
Indeed.
I suspect there’s already a petition up somewhere to get Judy fired. Find it and I’ll sign it.
But Can Fitzie still indict Judy? I want her behind bars forever. she is a pile. A steaming pile. A pile you smell from around the corner. She deserves nothing but misfortune. I hope she rots behind bars for the rest of her life, although maybe better punishment is having to face the world and be looked upon as Benedict Arnold. I want Cindy Sheehan to take her down…”What Nobel Cause JUDY” FUcking Moron.
yes but..question is Did Fitzie cut a deal with her to keep her out of jail and out of trouble. I wonder if he was suckered into Judys web, Judy agreed, she went under oath with GJ, said what she said…and got immunity. I want her behind bars, Damnit. I’m damn Mad.
Did she get immunity or just a promise from Fitzgerald that he would only limit his questioning to her conversations with Libby? I don’t think she’s necessarily free and clear yet.
Having taken leave of her senses, it makes a great deal of sense for her to take a leave of absence.
One more question: Why is it becoming so difficult to fire this blatant liar?
.
… one aspect of their relationship has been largely overlooked — the two have tangled before.
Fitzgerald is a prosecutor who routinely gets high marks, even from lawyers for some of the people he’s put in the hot seat. “Mr. Fitzgerald has handled himself very professionally,” said George Freeman, assistant general counsel for the New York Times. “His word has been good throughout all these matters.”
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.
Read more »»
Reporter Miller, Prosecutor Fitzgerald Have Tangled Before
▼ ▼ ▼
Knowing a little about the Times culture, my response is that the story made it very clear that Judy is not welcome to return to the Times. And she won’t. As I suggested elsewhere, her book contract will be enhanced by her being jailed, but not by being fired. She’ll be “excited and looking forward to a new challenge.”
I’ve become interested in the suggestion that Judy snookered her lawyer and Fitzgerald in getting Fitz to agree to limit the scope of her testimony to Libby. I recall a story quoting Bennett that Judy was told she wasn’t going to be charged. If Fitz thinks she lied to him, all bets could be off. Including the disbanding of this jury and indictments this week—we might see a new one empaneled, and the investigation go on. It depends on what else Fitz has that we don’t know about.
.
I trust the Counseler’s strategy will win out in this investigation!
I my opinion, Fitzgerald’s focus in the investigation, Miller’s testimony was not essential to close the case. Further emphasis by Fitzgerald on Miller would indicate a broadening of his investigation, which would be interesting. I do hope this is a first step for a Congressional hearing on the LIES & DECEIT by this administration just ahead of the mid-term Election 2002, when the decision to invade Iraq had been made long before.
Review the book by Bob Woodward, no where in Bush’s and neocon timeline, a Cabinet decision to go to war was formally made. In sliding ethics and morals by the Bush Cabal, the decision to invade was just a minor addition to the WOT as demanded after 911.
Judith Miller in the end, will just be a bug someone will step on, and no one will notice.
CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) August 26, 2002 — White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Monday that administration lawyers believe President Bush does not need congressional approval to launch an attack against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Fleischer said that: “In all cases, the president will consult with Congress, because Congress has an important role to play”. He did not say whether such consultation would include a congressional vote approving military action, as was done before the Gulf War in 1991.
“The president knows that any decision he makes on a hypothetical congressional vote will be guided by more than one factor, more than legal factors alone,” Fleischer said.
“The president … would consider a variety of legal, policy, historical factors in making up his mind about this, if it again becomes a relevant matter.
Iraq War Debate – 2002/2005 plus links
▼ ▼ ▼ READ MY DIARY!
What if her source was not Libby at all but someone higher such as (wink, wink) guess who.
.
I don’t think she was ever invited to have breakfast, lunch or dinner with GWB.
Judith would have been vetoed by Condi or Karin!
What do you think after all, someone spending time with plumbers and then invited at His Master’s table?
▼ ▼ ▼ READ MY DIARY!