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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-205 next last
To: kristinn
"Ms. Miller learned about Valerie Plame from a confidential source or sources whose identity she continues to protect to this day. I think it's either Wilson and Plame, themselves, or another reporter to whom Wilson and Plame had blabbed.
I think W and P went around Washington shopping their story to the MSM. Novak got wind of it and wrote a story. Other members of the MSM who weren't connected automatically assumed that Novak's piece had been planted by the WH and they smelled blood.
The long knives came out and before they could be drawn back, it was too late.
Meanwhile, W and Rove are sitting in the Oval Office laughing their heads off.
21
posted on
07/15/2005 11:26:32 AM PDT
by
Pete
To: oceanview
Good point. I did not think of the 5th Amendment protection.
Who is the NYTimes protecting? We should list requirements to qualify for their protection:
1. Must be liberal/socialist
2. Must be anti-AMERICAN
3. Must be qualified propagandist/liar
4. Must be tied to the MSM umbilical cord
5. Must have access to classified information
6. Must have access to personnel/personal files (FBI, etc.)
7. Must be dedicated to the destruction of the Bush Administration
8. Must...
To: linkinpunk
"I don't understand why she is willing to going to jail over this."
She will become a martyr to the lib press.
23
posted on
07/15/2005 11:27:12 AM PDT
by
alice_in_bubbaland
("Consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies")
To: oceanview
I don't see how she can be protecting herself - because then she would be entitled to 5th amendment protection. And the minute she invokes her 5th Amendment protection -- while she can't be directly prosecuted for it -- she effectively says, "Yes, I was my own source, but don't expect me to say so."
To: kristinn
Ms. Miller learned about Valerie Plame from a confidential source or sources whose identity she continues to protect to this day. DUH!
And that source is clearly Plame and / or Wilson themselves!
She is suffering? Where is she Abu-Garib? Gitmo? Did they make her wear panties on her head? My god, the humanity.
26
posted on
07/15/2005 11:27:45 AM PDT
by
Vermont Lt
(I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
To: kristinn
This one is even better than Buckhead having Dan Rather fired.
I think this is going to get real bad for the media.
In the end, I think she is going to get caught committing fraud to lay falsely lay the blame on Rove.
I can't wait.
Maybe she ought to go on a hunger strike.
27
posted on
07/15/2005 11:28:05 AM PDT
by
AlGone2001
(I'm still waiting to hear from the RNC Chairman)
To: oceanview
I don't see how she can be protecting herself - because then she would be entitled to 5th amendment protection. she cannot be forced to out herself. it must be someone else. If Miller takes the 5th she is openly stating she is her own source (IOW she made it up ala Jason Blair). Being a liberal and a "journalist" she wouldn't tell that truth about herself. What's more, the Times wouldn't want her to. They don't need another Jason Blair type of scandal. Since liberals all lie like dirty old rugs she could well be "protecting" herself and her employer with just one more tired liberal lie. If she never coughs up a source we can figure she made it up herself and there was no anonymous source.
To: linkinpunk
she can't reveal Plame or Wilson as a source because then the whole media + DemoncRAT driven conspiracy is clear & proven for all as obvious now can be seen!
To: oceanview
I don't see how she can be protecting herself - because then she would be entitled to 5th amendment protection. she cannot be forced to out herself. it must be someone else. She might be entitled to the protection, but invoking the 5th as a defense against revealing her source would pretty much lead everyone, even Dingy Harry Reid, to the conclusion that she was the source.
It's a catch 22 of the best kind.
Hoist by her own petard.
And I consider that an apt phrase in this case, as well:
A petard was a medieval term for a small bomb used to blow up gates and walls when breaching fortifications. Etymology: Middle French, from peter to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from Latin peditum, from neuter of peditus, past participle of pedere to break wind; akin to Greek bdein to break wind. [Merriam-Webster]
30
posted on
07/15/2005 11:29:11 AM PDT
by
Phsstpok
(There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
To: Vermont Lt
She is suffering? Where is she Abu-Garib? Gitmo? Did they make her wear panties on her head? My god, the humanity. No, actually, her Chicken L'Orange was slightly undercooked. And, no, nobody should be forced to suffer like that.
31
posted on
07/15/2005 11:29:17 AM PDT
by
Pete
To: massgopguy
You gotta laugh of these losers :). They bring it on themselves and live to regret/lie again...
32
posted on
07/15/2005 11:29:46 AM PDT
by
Toidylop
To: kristinn
Given that she is suffering in jail, it is also mean-spirited.
Shame on me! Bad Andy!
33
posted on
07/15/2005 11:30:03 AM PDT
by
andyk
(Go Matt Kenseth!)
To: kristinn
Maybe the Times could question why Mr. Wilson hasn't released all journalists from any confidentiality agreements...
34
posted on
07/15/2005 11:30:05 AM PDT
by
Hatteras
To: oceanview
"I don't see how she can be protecting herself - because then she would be entitled to 5th amendment protection."
Wait a minute. If she invoked the 5th that would be saying "I am protecting myself." Not a good thing to do if you don't want people to know you made up the "source" to start with, or you are protecting some within your newspaper.
Don't know if that's what's going on, but you can't discount the idea of self protection.
35
posted on
07/15/2005 11:31:17 AM PDT
by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom!)
To: kristinn
and the Times knows this to be true.... how?
36
posted on
07/15/2005 11:31:46 AM PDT
by
ken5050
To: Brilliant
Would like to hear more details, please. :>)
Now that's mean-spirited - LOL
37
posted on
07/15/2005 11:31:52 AM PDT
by
andyk
(Go Matt Kenseth!)
To: Brilliant
She's suffering? Would like to hear more details, please. :>)
Oh no, you don't mean.......panties on her head?
As a journalist, I'm sure she's soaking up the jail house
realism for a later column, maybe she'll write about her
cellmate "Bull".
38
posted on
07/15/2005 11:32:12 AM PDT
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: Phsstpok
Crud. You beat me to it, both with the self incrimination and the petard.
39
posted on
07/15/2005 11:33:12 AM PDT
by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom!)
To: kristinn
Given that she is suffering in jail... Uh oh. Another prison abuse scandal.
40
posted on
07/15/2005 11:33:24 AM PDT
by
Egon
(By the way, I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-205 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson