Two of Judith Miller’s attorneys — Bob Bennett, her criminal attorney who was brought in only within the last year, and Floyd Abrams, the New York Times‘s attorney (and a Miller attorney) — differ widely (and apparently without any communications) in their description of the deal that Miller made with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. And both attorneys appear to have independently communicated with Joseph Tate, the attorney for Cheney aide Scooter Libby.
As you who read my earlier Miller story know, Robert Bennett was interviewed at around 12:30pm PT by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Bennett volunteered that Judy’s testimony was “limited to the Valerie Plame matter” and [would not be permitted to be] a “fishing expedition.”
This was clearly a major contrast to what Miller herself said in an interview at around 9:25am PT when Miller left the grand jury. She said that her testimony was “limited to communications with the source from whom I received the voluntary waiver.”
As often happens, Robert Bennett’s differing — and vastly wider interpretation of the scope of Fitzgerald’s agreement over what he could expect to question Miller about — caused a stir in the blogs.
Dumbya, in a recommended diary at Daily Kos, trumpeted:
Judy Miller’s lawyer, Bob Bennett (Bill Bennett’s brother), was on with Wolf and said that Judy’s testimony was focused on the entire Valerie Plame matter. This is big, because her testimony wasn’t limited to Scooter. It appears that Judy negotiated a deal so she wouldn’t have to answer questions regarding her bogus pre-war reporting rather than limiting the questions to Scooter alone. (Emphasis mine.)
To buttress his argument, Dumbya cites Digby:
Ok kidz. Judy’s lawyer Bob Bennett just told Wolf Blitzer that Judy’s agreement with Fitzgerald was limited to “the Valerie Plame matter” not just Libby. Wolf pressed. Fitzgerald reiterated that it was “the Valerie Plame matter.”
Judy was worried that Fitzgerald was going to pursue her bogus WMD claims.
Bolton and Cheney and Rove all the rest aren’t off the hook on Plame. Do you suppose that includes Niger?
Right. Judy doesn’t want any “fishing expeditions” — perhaps into the WMD stories, the aluminum tubes, and Chalabi contacts — as Bob Bennett told Wolf Blitzer today. BUT. And it’s a BIG BUT.
The key point that remains — and is vastly more mportant to the CIA Leak case — is if Miller made a deal with Fitzgerald to testify solely about Scooter Libby, or if she must testify about all matters relating to “the Valerie Plame matter,” as Bob Bennett said twice today to Wolf Blitzer.
At approximately 3:15pm PT, MSNBC’s Dan Abrams interviewed his father, famed civil rights attorney Floyd Abrams, who represents both the New York Times and Judith Miller.
Floyd Abrams stated emphatically, and repeatedly, that Judith Miller, in the agreement with Patrick Fitzgerald, must only testify about Scooter Libby — not, as Bob Bennett said, the “Valerie Plame matter.”
So, Digby and Dumbya, it’s two to one. Both Judith Miiller and Floyd Abrams carefully stated today that Judy need only testify about Scooter Libby, and no one else. Not Cheney, not Rove, not Bolton, or anyone else.
Of note, neither attorney referred to the other, nor was either attorney, unfortunately, asked about the other’s statements. Another oddity was that both attorneys claimed to have had communications with Joseph Tate, Scooter Libby’s attorney, that were not forthcoming about Libby’s permission for Judith Miller to testify, yet neither attorney referred to each other’s communications. Bennett said he didn’t talk to Libby’s attorney until August 31, after Miller was in jail, and that the attorney was not clear about Libby’s wishes. Abrams went further: He said that Libby’s attorney talked a double story. He told Abrams that Libby graciously gave permission for Miller to testify about what Libby told her, but the attorney reminded Abrams that Libby had been coerced into signing a blanket, standard release. Abrams interpreted this as less than forthcoming, and so advised Miller. It was only after Miller received a personal letter from Libby, followed by a personal phone call to her at the jail, that she knew for certain that Libby was giving her permission to testify about what he’d told her, without reference to the blanket release he’d been “coerced” into signing.
So, I don’t trust Bob Bennett’s statement that Fitzgerald’s deal with Miller permits him to ask her about any and all characters involved in the CIA Leak case. I’m inclined moreso to trust the statements of both Miller herself, this morning, and Abrams, this afternoon, that she is only required now to talk about Scooter Libby.
That is perhaps a big blow to the CIA Leak case. It remains to be seen.
Michael Isikoff of Newsweek was interviewed by Chris Matthews this afternoon and reminded us that Fitzgerald said some time ago that his investigation was complete except for the testimony of Matt Cooper (Time magazine) and Judith Miller (New York Times). Isikoff thinks that, since both Cooper and Miller have now cooperated — through deals — the investigation should be wrapped up, and Fitzgerald should bring indictments or give it up. Isikoff also noted that Fitzgerald is not required to provide a report, as Kenneth Starr was under the old independent counsel law.
One question: Will Fitzgerald refer to the CIA’s own report on any damages, even deaths, that it has catalogued as a result of the exposure of Valerie Plame and, by association, any assets or contacts she developed internationally?