Posted on 10/22/2005 10:09:02 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Judith Miller's boss says the New York Times reporter appears to have misled the newspaper about her role in the CIA leak controversy.
In an e-mail memo Friday to the newspaper's staff, Executive Editor Bill Keller said that until Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald subpoenaed Miller in the criminal probe, "I didn't know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end" of leaks aimed at Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.
"Judy seems to have misled" Times Washington bureau chief Bill Taubman about the extent of her involvement, Keller wrote.
Taubman asked Miller in the fall of 2003 whether she was among the reporters who had gotten leaks about the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.
"Ms. Miller denied it," the newspaper reported in a weekend story.
Miller and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, discussed Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, in three conversations in the weeks before the CIA officer's status was outed by columnist Robert Novak.
Keller said he might have been more willing to compromise with Fitzgerald over Miller's testimony "if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement with Libby."
In response, Miller told the Times that Keller's memo was "seriously inaccurate," the newspaper said in a story for Saturday editions. It reported that in a memo to Keller, Miller wrote she "never meant to mislead Phil (Taubman), nor did I mislead him."
As for Keller's remark about "my `entanglement' with Mr. Libby, I had no personal, social, or other relationship with him except as a source," Miller wrote.
Miller's attorney, Bob Bennett, told The Washington Post that it was "absolutely false" to suggest she withheld information about a June 2003 meeting with Libby, saying the conversation hadn't seemed like "a big deal at the time."
Responding to Keller's memo, Bennett said: "I am very concerned now that there are people trying to even old scores and undercut her as a heroic journalist."
Bennett did not return calls by The Associated Press seeking comment.
The criticism of the reporter came amid a sign that the prosecutor may be preparing indictments. Fitzgerald's office set up a Web site containing the record of the broad investigative mandate handed to him by the Justice Department at the outset of his investigation two years ago.
Unlike some of his predecessors who operated under a law that has since expired, Fitzgerald does not need to write a final report, so he would not need a Web site for that purpose.
The criticism of Miller emerged amid new details about how she belatedly turned over notes of a June 23, 2003, conversation she had with Libby.
In her first grand jury appearance Sept. 30 after being freed from prison for refusing to testify, Miller did not mention the meeting.
She retrieved her notes about it only when prosecutors showed her White House visitor logs showing she had met with Libby in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, said two lawyers, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing secrecy of the grand jury probe.
One lawyer familiar with Miller's testimony said the reporter told prosecutors at first that she did not believe the June meeting would have involved Plame because she had just returned from covering the Iraq war. She said she was probably giving Libby an update of her experiences there, the lawyer said.
However, in reviewing her notes, Miller discovered they indicated that Libby had given her information about Plame at that meeting. Fitzgerald then arranged for her to return to the grand jury to testify about it, the lawyers said.
The evidence of that meeting has become important to the investigation because it indicates that Libby was passing information to reporters about Plame well before her husband went public with accusations that the Bush administration had twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq.
Libby and Bush political adviser Karl Rove have emerged as central figures in the probe because both had contacts with reporter who ultimately disclosed Plame's identity in news stories.
Conflicts between presidential aides' testimony and other evidence could result in criminal charges. The grand jury investigating the matter for the last two years is set to expire next Friday.
___
On the Web:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
Wilson was already becoming known to insiders as the anonymous "former ambassador" source for Kristof's May 6, 2003 column in the NY Times and a Pincus article in WaPo on June 12, 2003. I still think the the 'revenge' scenario is purely Joe Wilson talking points, but someone trying to allege a 'conspiracy' by Libby and others could say that anytime after May 6, 2003 the WH may have learned about what Wilson was alleging against them and may have begun its "opposition research" and alleged leaking regarding Wilson's role.
This dishonest one-sided campaign is truly a diabolical move on Wilson's part: go public with wild allegations about classified matters knowing that if the WH tries to respond it will implicate your wife's role in getting you this stupid "Niger uranium" mission. Write an unbearably self-righteous book and call it "The Politics of Truth" (that came later). Either the WH will risk violations to security laws trying to respond to you (and you can call everyone a "lying son of a bitch" and allege a revenge/smear campaign against you) or else your lies will stand as the final public record.
It's really quite diabolical and effective for a leftist twit like Wilson. Would never work for a Republican because the MSM would either ignore it all or else tear that person into tiny shreds (and no one would deem it 'revenge' by the Clintonistas, etc.). The extreme bias of the MSM is showing itself once more in how this case is covered.
How could Keller compromise with Fitzgerald? When asked before a Grand Jury you either tell the truth and all you know or you don't! What's to compromise?
This is bad news on so many levels for the Old Grey Whore.
This guy from the Times is trying to implicate Libby when Miller wouldn't, inserting himself as a witness (maybe the guy Miller refused to finger). If there is a criminal trial (God forfend) it will be a who's who of Liberal Journalism called to testify.
No bias here -- move along.
Hey, I think I might qualify for a spot on the NYT Editorial Board with conjecture like this! Maybe they are looking for somebody new to make up news now that they are close to dumping Miller.
Flaking for the NYT are we. Miller's story is about the only one that is consistent among the media types and the Wilsons.
I believe that Kristof had breakfast with the Wilson's before Kirstof wrote that column. I can't imagine that the big mouthed Wilson didn't let Kristof know about where Plame worked and her part in the whole (on background, of course) but other NYT journalists were either told or figured it out). Kristof will be a witness too!
"The face that launched a thousand days of investigation, all for nought"
I think We should get a return on OUR investment! Two years of tax payer money down the drain!
Wake me when one does his/her job OK?
Makes one wonder if SHE wasn't part of a plot to undermine the Iraq War and the Bush admin.
Yes, Fitzgerald should be all over Kristof (and Pincus, and other MSM reporters) to determine what they learned directly from Joe Wilson and/or Valerie Plame, and/or people around them who were also flogging this story.
Was it Kerry who said: "The Bush house is a bunch of liars" when his mike was still on?" Wonder when that was?
Remember that Dem "treason" memo? Does that fit into the Plamegate story?
Exactly. Or, as I said, when her bosses instructed her to stop reporting the facts and jump to the left, she neglected to ask, "how high?"
Miller obviously knows that she's Times toast. Saying that your NYT Executive Editor is all wrong surely means that she knows that she can never return home. And Taubman's caught in the middle because Keller says she misled Taubie, and she said she didn't. Her career's shot, and this could turn into a real knive fight between them (I hope,I hope,I hope).:)
Why is it that when a liberal is caught in an obvious damn lie, it is defined as misleading, while a conservative who is merely aleged to be in error, is defined as a liar???
The question is merely rectumorical-no answer required or expected.
bpjam wrote: Are they finally just going to come out of the closest and admit that SHE is the source of all of this nonsense? SHE is the only one who is lying to the grand jury???? That Fitzgerald is only really preparing ONE indictment - against MILLER???
Hey, I think I might qualify for a spot on the NYT Editorial Board with conjecture like this! Maybe they are looking for somebody new to make up news now that they are close to dumping Miller.
*end quote*
I'm still trying to sort out what the throwing of Miller under the bus by the NYT indicates. I'm thinking it must mean good news for Libby/Rove and bad news for the MSM.
1. The NYT has debriefed Miller and knows much more than any of us about her testimony. They have many more important clues like what questions was she asked, what other testimony and documents were shown to her, etc. They have a much better "feel" for where this thing is going than most of us, other than perhaps some key attorneys. Recall that they had extensive attorney involvement throughout.
2. The NYT has already admitted now that there will be no "outing" indictments. So all that will come is purgery/obstruction of justice type BS indictments, which everyone has always said are hard to prove. But who is the most likely candidate? Rove corrected his erroneous testimony and produced the email that refreshed his memory. Most read the purgery statutes as allowing for an exception in this very type of situation. But Miller had to be shown by the SP that she had not disclosed her June meeting with Libby, after he produced the records. She then returned with her notes of that meeting, and is still not coming completely clean about it.
3. The NYT expects an indictment of Miller for obstruction/lying about her earliest meeting with Libby. It exonerates Libby, and she throws the blame on another source, whom she testifies that she can't recall. I doubt that Libby lied about this meeting, as he should have checked the records of visits while preparing for his testimony. It's also hard to believe the SP would have approved of Libby's letter to Miller (where Libby says no other witness has fingered him), if it were untrue.
They are dumping Miller now to try and position themselves ahead of the Jayson Blair type bashing they are about to undergo when Miller is indicted next week.
4. If Keller really didn't know as many details as he claims now, it was only because he didn't WANT to know. He didn't want to be subpenaed as a witness, as could anyone to whom Miller disclosed her info. He's very cowardly and disingenuous now to blame her for not telling him, when he could have insisted if he really wanted to know. He's trying to save his job. Remember, he came in after the Jayson Blair fiasco to restore their reputation.
5. If the NYT expected anything coming to indict Libby, why would they discredit one of their own reporters, who would be a key witness in that charge?
They've given up the ghost on this whole mess, and there is no other explanation other than there is nothing coming that they would consider "good" news. They'd gladly give away a reporter or two if it took out Rove, but they know there is no hope of that happening.
Regarding questions about duplicate posts, search is flaky at the moment.
Her Comment to Taubmen denying a leak As Rush says, didnb't fit the story template. They didn't leak, They apparently repeated hearsay. Miller told the truth and that truth was not acceptable to advance the story.
But in this case I missed what should have been significant alarm bells. Until Fitzgerald came after her, I didn't know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson whisper campaign. I should have wondered why I was learning this from the special counsel, a year after the fact. (In November of 2003 Phil Taubman tried to ascertain whether any of our correspondents had been offered similar leaks. As we reported last Sunday, Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement.) This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper.What does he mean, "...I was learning this from the special counsel"? Did Keller get called before the grand jury?In the end, I'm pretty sure I would have concluded that we had to fight this case in court. For one thing, we were facing an insidious new menace in these blanket waivers, ostensibly voluntary, that Administration officials had been compelled to sign. But if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense, and perhaps more willing than I had been to support efforts aimed at exploring compromises.
And he says he learned whatever it was "a year after the fact". What fact? It sounds like he's referring to Miller's original interviews in June/July 03. But that would mean Keller is saying he heard about it from the prosecutor a year later: July 04. But that can't be. Miller was already on her way to jail by then.
That entire passage is just plain confusing (or intentionally obscure).
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.