Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times Statement on Judith Miller
The Forward ^ | Friday, Kuly 15, 2005 | Catherine Mathis

Posted on 07/15/2005 11:17:43 AM PDT by kristinn

"Ms. Miller learned about Valerie Plame from a confidential source or sources whose identity she continues to protect to this day. If the suggestion is that she is covering up for herself or some fictitious source, that is preposterous. Given that she is suffering in jail, it is also mean-spirited."


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; judithmiller; nyt; statement; tellthetruthjudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last
To: JediForce

Your tag line...

They take them off once they're potty trained. lol


181 posted on 07/15/2005 3:21:43 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (My tagline snapped the last time the MSM blew smoke up my ass. Now its gone forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: An American In Dairyland
Being a liberal and a "journalist" she wouldn't tell that truth about herself.

What evidence do you have that Judith Miller is a liberal? (beyond the asumption that since she writes for the NYT she must be one).

182 posted on 07/15/2005 3:36:19 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Would anyone outside the NY Times even know Judith Miller's name today if it weren't for ...this case?

The short answer is yes.

183 posted on 07/15/2005 3:42:29 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
If it's an administration source, you have the BIZARRE case that the NYT is protecting the administration, whose head they have called for on a pike.

I think it's possible to disassociate the individual actions of Judith Miller from the management of the NYT. It is therefore not unreasonable that Miller is protecting a confidential source in the administration, possibly at CIA, who confirmed Plame was the originator of the Wilson trip.

184 posted on 07/15/2005 4:00:07 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Swanks
My guess in Wilson or Plame themselves.

Yes, or maybe David Corn.

185 posted on 07/15/2005 4:03:23 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
I think it's possible to disassociate the individual actions of Judith Miller from the management of the NYT.

Something's going on with this prosecutor. In an 1/2 hour, one lawyer can determine IF the the five year limitations timeframe wa violated or not. Or was she an undercover agent at the time or not. Or, did the leaker do it with 'intent' or not.

Doesn't take friggin' two + years to sort this out. No, I think this prosecutor is working leaks but not this bulls**t tempest-in-a-teapot-leak.

remember who leaked to a Front for a PLO terror Org. that the Feds were about to crash their party. The prosecutor was the same Ferguson, and the leaker was Judith Miller.....

186 posted on 07/15/2005 4:16:21 PM PDT by Swanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Has she been made to wear Barney Frank's bra on her head yet? Don't hold back, give er the full treatment!!


187 posted on 07/15/2005 5:10:57 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

fine, then you go to jail for contempt. the government can grant immunity ("use" immunity is the most common) to compel testimony.


188 posted on 07/15/2005 5:13:22 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I could be wrong, but I think the 5th can be stretched to cover testimony that you would give not only to directly incriminate you, but that could allow the prosecution to develop a chain of evidence that leads back to you - for a different charge.

but since she didn't take the 5th, I guess this doesn't apply anyway.


189 posted on 07/15/2005 5:16:50 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

actually, a new GJ could reconvene regarding a case to which the information she refuses to provide is related - and she could be jailed again for contempt.


190 posted on 07/15/2005 5:18:54 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Given that she is suffering in jail, it is also mean-spirited."

And also PDS if you ask me. Wonder who the Lib is that she is protecting........Will we ever know? Will she meet new friends in prison? Will she do her full time? Will she get to see the season premier of Battlestar Gallactica tonight on the SciFi channel? Does she have to worry about picking up soap in the shower?

So many questions, so few answers and so few people who really care......... LOL!

191 posted on 07/15/2005 5:19:04 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Too many idiots, too little time to deal with them all......I'll just shoot what I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swanks
The prosecutor was the same Ferguson, and the leaker was Judith Miller.....

I will agree with you that the SP is dragging this case out and likely enlarging the scope of the investigation. However, I do not believe nor have I seen a credible source to substantiate the claim that Miller leaked the news of a raid to the Holyland charity.

192 posted on 07/15/2005 6:01:29 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne

As I have said in the past ....please feel free to use that tag line at will. Pass it on.


193 posted on 07/15/2005 7:47:08 PM PDT by JediForce (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

The NY Slimes has left a steaming dump in their own Easter Basket ---- and now they wonder why no one wants to "eat their chocolates..."

F'em

Semper Fi


194 posted on 07/15/2005 7:59:54 PM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
This is how Momo Giancana was thrown into jail during the 60s provoking an undying and deadly hatred of the Kennedy administration.

And the fact that both John and Bobby Kennedy enjoyed the "favors" of Judith Exner, while Momo was "otherwise occupied" had nothing to do with that hatred?

the infwarrior

195 posted on 07/15/2005 10:42:21 PM PDT by infowarrior (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras

"Maybe the Times could question why Mr. Wilson hasn't released all journalists from any confidentiality agreements..."

Don't leave home without one, confidentiality agreement, that is.


196 posted on 07/16/2005 4:30:40 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

Not at all. Judy was Sam's spy he didn't give a shiite that she was bonking JFK and may have even set it up after all the introduction came through Sinatra. I don't think she was banging RFK though.


197 posted on 07/16/2005 11:02:06 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Contact Investor Relations at the NY Times parent company and tell them that paying hush money to keep an employee silent about criminal behavior is against the law and against the Sarbanes-Oxley act:


The New York Times Company

Catherine J. Mathis, 212-556-1981
E-mail: mathis@nytimes.com

Paula Schwartz, 212-556-522
E-mail: schwap@nytimes.com


198 posted on 07/16/2005 11:04:52 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Right but she would still be in jail for not obeying the court whether or not there was a crime. Merely impeding the investigation of a possible crime would do it. I do not believe there was a crime here certainly not involving Rove.


199 posted on 07/16/2005 11:27:36 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Could minor Ambassador Joe Wilson himself have been the source in blowing his own Wife's cover?

It is distinctly possible, (though it may be unlikely that Joe Wilson himself directly was NY Times Judith Miller's source), since Joe Wilson himself evidently routinely bragged openly to strangers about her CIA employment, prior to such "cover" being "blown" in the press.

Here's an example of Joe's apparently routine and open bragging about Valerie being a "CIA agent," which became known directly to me over a year ago:

He certainly bragged about it per a famous and highly reliable source's (named below) account of his own face-to-face encounter with Amb. Joe Wilson prior to Valerie Plame's "outing" as a CIA agent/employee.

Based upon a personal conversation (we were in a small group eating; it was NOT an "off the record") I had with eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson (we were at a luncheon table together during a trip to Europe), it appeared entirely possible that Joe Wilson himself was the (or one source, if not the original one) possible source in revealing his own wife's status as a CIA agent or employee.

Victor Davis Hanson (Wilson presumably knew Victor Davis Hanson wrote regularly for NRO (National Review Online), had done OpEds for the Wall street Journal, and other publications, and had his own Website with a widespread following) said he (VDH) & Joe Wilson were both in the same "Green Room" before a televised debate-discussion on Iraq, etc. and Joe first warned the TV make-up person not to get powder on his $14,000 Rolex watch, then he bragged to Victor about several things (possessions and trips to Aspen, etc.), like his expensive car (I think it was a Mercedes), and then bragged about his beautiful ("hot") wife who, Joe Wilson said (braggingly) was a CIA operative.

I asked Victor Davis Hanson Why he didn't write up this account.(?) He replied that Joe Wilson would probably simply deny it, since only he (VDH) & Joe Wilson were in the Green Room together before the broadcast.

However, it is now easy to surmise that Joe Wilson is a crass, materialistic, self-promoting, vain, egotistical, bragaddocio-opportunist, so this account is perfectly consistent with Valerie Plame's TWO photo shoots in Vanity Fair. (Or was it Vogue? No, probably too crass for Vogue, n'est pas?)


200 posted on 07/17/2005 4:34:51 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Gonzales appears to be quite WEAK on Property rights!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson