[Sam Hill]

I don't know about yours and others' speculation on this point. If one can believe the Washington Post on this particular, it seems to be that Fitzgerald wants to hear what Miller has to say about a government official:

Judges Order 2 Reporters to Testify on Leak (washingtonpost.com)

According to the appellate court's opinion, Fitzgerald knows the identity of the person with whom Miller spoke and wants to question her about her contact with that "specified government official" on or about July 6, 2003. Miller never wrote a story on the subject.

In a statement, Fitzgerald said: "We look forward to resuming our progress in this investigation and bringing it to a prompt conclusion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25744-2005Feb15.html

I think a lot of people are letting their imaginations get too far ahead of the story. For one thing, Miller NEVER published Plame's name in public, so even if Plame were covert (and she wasn't) it would be moot, AFAIK.

[Alberta's Child]

Good point, Sam. If Miller isn't the target of the investigation, then her 5th Amendment rights are meaningless. She can assert them on the stand, and the prosecutor could force her to testify by granting her immunity from prosecution.

[Sam Hill]

BTW, notice something here about the dates:

"According to the appellate court's opinion, Fitzgerald knows the identity of the person with whom Miller spoke and wants to question her about her contact with that "specified government official" on or about July 6, 2003. Miller never wrote a story on the subject."

"What I Didn't Find in Africa
Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times. What I Didn't Find in Africa. by Joseph C. Wilson 4th."

[jveritas]

This is because Judith Miller is the source of the leak to either Novak or Rove or Libby and Fitzegerald wants to know who is her original source how did she get the information about Plame. That is why Miller is a center figure in this investigation.