Posted on 09/29/2005 5:49:33 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
"Wait, I need another six weeks to finish my book... do you mind if I stay?"
Miller: "My life at Gitmo"
The Left will be terminally orgasmic.
Updated story from NYT
On Sept. 16, Mr. Tate wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald saying his conversations with Mr. Abrams last year were meant to assure Ms. Miller that a broad waiver that Mr. Libby signed in late 2003 was not coerced and applied specifically to Ms. Miller.
On Thursday, Mr. Abrams wrote to Mr. Tate disputing parts of Mr. Tate's account. His letter said although Mr. Tate had said the waiver was voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver sought as a condition of employment was inherently coercive.
Mr. Tate said in an interview on Thursday, "Her lawyers were provided with a waiver that we said was voluntary more than a year ago." Mr. Abrams would not discuss the question in a brief telephone conversation on Thursday.
According to someone who has been briefed on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes that his statements show he did nothing wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during their conversations in July 2003 whether he knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to discuss the conversations.
Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the former ambassador's wife, an agency employee, might have had a role in arranging a trip that Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson.
Mr. Libby did not know her name or her position at the agency and therefore did not discuss these matters with Ms. Miller, the person who had been briefed on the matter said. Ms. Miller said she believed that the agreement between her lawyers and Mr. Fitzgerald "satisfies my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30COURT.html?hp&ex=1128139200&en=2ad1e58f95f5ea69&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The dims have spent the first 4 years of the Bush presidency hoping for, then demanding, a scandal that never materialized. Following that, they have unsuccessfully tried to manufacture scandals over the next 2 years. They are so desperate, that if a fly lands on a picnic bench in DC they will declare that Bush is a disaster. We really need a new word for "loser", because the old definition hardly suites these pathetic clowns.
Actually My bet is a indictment for Hillary is coming. That is why.
Interesting analysis. I think you are closest to the mark.
Anyone who even thinks about a Hillary indictment will immediately suffer a mysterious brain ailment and inexplicably collapse dead within minutes.
Having read this as many times as possible without leaving myself with bed spins, I am concluding that Miller is leaving jail not because of what Libby has said but because of Fitzgerald has said. He has assured her that his questioning would not implicate her other sources.
I'll bet you're right on this. Given the knowledge requirement under the statute he may have concluded some time ago that even if her name and status was disclosed by an administration person there is not sufficient evidence that a crime was committed.
I gather he thinks somebody has testified falsely to the grand jury, and that Miller's testimony can prove it.
Agreed - either that somebody has testified falsely to the grand jury, or that somebody has obstructed justice by suborning or attempting to suborn the false testimony of someone else who has been or might be a witness in this case.
The only way that could be true is that the testimony concerned something said to Miller, either by the witness or by a third person in his presence. I say something said to Miller, not by her, since could not have had an obligation to withhold what she herself said.
Disagree here - I would bet that the position Miller's and the NYT's lawyers are taking as to First Amendment protection is significantly broader than you suggest, and goes not only to the statements made by a source in an interview but also the statements put to the source by the journalist, in fact that the entire conversation is protected on freedom of the press grounds.
As to speculation. I am highly skeptical that Miller has been languishing in jail for the sole purpose of protecting a republican politician like Libby or Rove. My guess is that what she is really concerned about is that her statements made to a grand jury concerning what she and Libby discussed might contradict what other journalists have given evidence as to, and that either she or the other journalist might be exposed to a perjury charge. This might have arisen, for example, if for some reason she told another journalist something different about what she and Libby discussed than what they really discussed. The testimony of the other journalist would then result in a discrepancy between Libby's own testimony and the version related by the other journalist of Miller's conversation. Why would Miller have retailed to her journalistic colleagues a different version of the conversation than what actually happened? Perhaps because she was attempting to portray Libby in a bad light, for example claiming that Libby told her about Plame being a CIA agent, when in fact she knew it all along. And why not simply tell the grand jury the same false version she told to other journalists and leave Libby out to dry? It must be that Fitzgerald can prove that that version is false and that Libby's version is the truth (e.g., by demonstrating that Miller already knew of Plame's status through her direct relationship with Wilson or Plame). The foregoing is speculation on my part.
The libs are going to be committing suicide after they realize there is no real story here. They smelled blood on this one and so far no one leaked anything.
Little Chrissy Matthews is gonna have a hissy fit tomorrow. The Veep and Scooter are amoungst his FAVORITE pinatas, LMAO.
She is full of crap.
So is the Washington Post which repeated this lie.
Im not worried, either. Like "Missing weapons" story right before the election, Rather's fake memos, and all the other "scandals", these admin trashing stories all start with blaring headlines on a Thursday or Friday, and die out the following week after resonable and honest people have dismissed them as more dem agitprop...
"Libby gave Miller an unconditional release one year ago.
She is full of crap.
So is the Washington Post which repeated this lie."
They keep including the term "voluntarily and personally" for the type of release she was "waiting" for.
Is that what she is claiming or just the reporter?
Perhaps this story is in error and her source has nothing to do with Libby or the White house. That would seem to make more sense.
If you are catching up on this thread, I recommend jumping ahead to posts #76 & #79.
Regards,
LH
bttt
behind bars my ass, she was in a low security open society from all I had read
For two hours starting at 8:00 ET on C-SPAN's Washington Journal:
Call-In
News Review Roundtable
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
Balz, Dan, Correspondent, [Washington Post], Politics
Cooper, Matthew, Correspondent, [Time] Magazine, White House
Hines, Cragg, Columnist, [Houston Chronicle], Washington Bureau
Journalists talk about headline news stories and look back at their previous appearances on the ‘Journalists’ Roundtable’ show.
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.