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

Skip to comments.

Miller Agrees to Testify in CIA Leak Probe
washingtonpost.com ^ | Sep 129 2005 | JOHN SOLOMON

Posted on 09/29/2005 5:49:33 PM PDT by blogblogginaway

WASHINGTON -- After nearly three months behind bars, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released from a federal prison Thursday after agreeing to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA officer, two people familiar with the case said.

Miller left the federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., after reaching an agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Legal sources said she would appear before a grand jury investigating the case Friday morning. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.

The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving CIA officer Valerie Plame.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; ilewislibby; joewilson; josephwilson; judithmiller; karlrove; lewislibby; libby; miller; plame; scooter; valerieplame; vpleak; wasntrove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-248 next last
To: Lancey Howard

Thanks.


141 posted on 09/30/2005 3:21:08 AM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway
The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving CIA officer Valerie Plame.

I thought she got that a year ago?

142 posted on 09/30/2005 3:42:19 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
The limiting of the scope is just spin from the NY Times. They are just trying to blow smoke when the truth is Judith was told by Fitzgeral testify on Friday or her criminal contempt indictment will be released on Monday and she'd have to spend another 6 months in jail. Fitzgerald is playing hardball.

Well, well, well...

Paging FOX News. You kinda left something out, guys.

143 posted on 09/30/2005 3:44:27 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Statements by Sulzberger, Keller, and Miller on Her Release

Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., Publisher:

As we have throughout this ordeal, we continue to support Judy Miller in the decision she has made. Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source. We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify. We continue to believe that a strong Federal Shield Law must be passed by Congress, so that similar injustices, which the laws of both New York and Washington, D.C. already prevent, are not suffered by other journalists.

Judith Miller:

It's good to be free.

I went to jail to preserve the time-honored principle that a journalist must respect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source. I chose to take the consequences -- 85 days in prison -- rather than violate that promise. The principle was more important to uphold than my personal freedom.

I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter. My attorneys have also reached agreement with the Office of Special Counsel regarding the nature and scope of my testimony, which satisfies my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources.

This enables me to appear before the Grand Jury tomorrow. I'll say nothing more until after my testimony. I do, however, want to thank The New York Times, and my husband, family and friends, for their unwavering support. I am also grateful to the many fellow journalists and citizens from the United States and around the world, who stood with me in fighting for the cause of the free flow of information. It was a source of strength through a difficult three months to know they understood what I did was to affirm one of my profession's highest principles.

Bill Keller, Executive Editor:

It's an enormous relief that Judy's ordeal is over. Her steadfastness in defense of principle has won her admiration from around the world, wherever people value a free, aggressive press.

Judy refused to testify in this case because she gave her professional word that she would keep her interview with her source confidential. At the outset, she had only a generic waiver of this obligation, and she believed she had ample reason to doubt it had been freely given. In recent days, several important things have changed that convinced Judy that she was released from her obligation.

Her friends and colleagues are delighted she's free, and -- if there is satisfaction in what she has endured -- I am satisfied that she has held fast to a principle that matters deeply.

Link to Article in Editor & Publisher


144 posted on 09/30/2005 3:55:45 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

In other words, the New York Times spin monkeys are saying that if Miller hadn't agreed to testify today, she would have been indicted for Criminal Contempt on Monday and would be spending another 6 months in jail at a minimum until her trial.


145 posted on 09/30/2005 3:59:39 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving CIA officer Valerie Plame.

I thought she got that a year ago?

Her claim is that he has now personally spoken to her. She knows he was not coerced.

What it really means is that she and Libby have had time to work up a suitable set of lies and that her hope that media pressure would lead to her release has at last failed. This latest lie will let Libby claim, not too plausibly, that he had no fear of her testimony and couldn't understand why she wouldn't testify, since he had already given her the OK.

There will be some nail-biting going on. I bet Miller doesn't know exactly what conversations of hers or Libby's may have been recorded by the FBI.

146 posted on 09/30/2005 4:01:08 AM PDT by wotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Do not believe the NY Times statements on limiting the scope.

They are certainly spinning that angle, but is pure speculation.

One lawyer involved in the case told the Washington Post today that Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions to her chats with Libby. Under one scenario, Miller won the right to not implicate others she may have talked to about Plame. [yeah, the imaginary scenario where there is no other source] ...

In a written statement today, Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said that Fitzgerald had assured Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers." He said that Fitzgerald had cleared the way to an agreement by assuring Miller and her source that he would not regard a conversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstruction of justice. [Bill Keller deliberatly mischaracterizes the promise not to pursue obstruction charges].

Judith Miller Out of Jail, Will Testify Friday

I haven't found a direct cite for the proposition that Judith Miller was advised that criminal contempt indictment was forthcoming, but it makes sense.

Her rationale and timing for realizing Libby's waiver of confidentiality was voluntary is laughable. Miller didn't accept a telephone confirmation (from Libby) ten days ago - but she waited ten days, until "... after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony".

147 posted on 09/30/2005 4:21:17 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Better now than later.

&&

I don't know. Something stinks to me. What is going to hit it big within the next few days that the Left is trying to drown out with this story?


148 posted on 09/30/2005 4:33:03 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Do not trust Democrats with national security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

So much for her high-minded adherence to journalistic standards.


149 posted on 09/30/2005 4:39:54 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway
The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Sounds like Karl Rove come out clean.

150 posted on 09/30/2005 4:42:25 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
What is going to hit it big within the next few days that the Left is trying to drown out with this story?

- Next nomination to the SCOTUS
- Corruption charges v. Louisiana officials
- That the indictment against DeLay is probably baseless

But seriously, I think the best explanation is that Miller realized the federal law keeping her in jail has teeth.

151 posted on 09/30/2005 4:48:02 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
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.

All right, I concede the point.

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.

That doesn't make a lot of sense; a contradictory statement out of court is not nearly enough to support a perjury charge.

152 posted on 09/30/2005 4:54:05 AM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

"What is going to hit it big within the next few days..."

The Left is too stupid to coordinate ahd have anything 'hit it big'. Seriously, over the last five years, the only things that they have come up with have blown up right back in their faces. Just like those terrorists that accidently blow themselves up while putting together their bombs.


153 posted on 09/30/2005 4:57:47 AM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue; oceanview

"In written statements", they made no reference to the source, blah blah blah. Maybe the problem is in this reporter's story.

Think about it. All this says is that in their written statements they made no reference. It doesn't say that there's no spoken reference to it or that it isn't all over the media.

The real key is the assertion that the Prosecutor assured her of narrow Grand Jury questions, so she would not have to reveal her "other sources". That is the key thing that indicates there are others involved who have not given waivers. Like, we speculate, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Miller herself, etc.? By the way, we don't know if the Prosecutor caved because he could have other ways to get at the truth here.

Of course we want Wilson and the conspiracy to "get theirs". But if this thing ends without Rove or other high admin. officials being indicted for anything, and there is a report not too unfavorable to them, then the Dems and Media have fired off a bunch of BLANKS.

It would be a wash, in the public mind, whereas the Dems wanted it to destroy an administration.


154 posted on 09/30/2005 4:58:52 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway
Stuffinguphisnose just called it the Rove/Libby Scooter CIA leak probe.

Really????????????????????

155 posted on 09/30/2005 5:01:17 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Sounds like Karl Rove come out clean.

That ground was pretty well covered in July, except for confirmation from the prosecutor (which has not yet come).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1444667/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1442288/posts

156 posted on 09/30/2005 5:09:00 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Christopher Lincoln
That doesn't make a lot of sense; a contradictory statement out of court is not nearly enough to support a perjury charge.

Well you're right, if she tells the truth to the grand jury, i.e., "yes, I lied about our conversation to other journalists, the truth of the matter is that our conversation is exactly as Libby testified" then there is no basis for a perjury charge against anyone.

The downside to her and the NYT of her telling the truth in my scenario is that it that it will come to light that a NYT reporter tried through her statements to other reporters to essentially "frame" a republication political operative with the charge of leaking a CIA officer's identity, a crime. Would ruin her career, and another giant scandal for the NYT, just as bad as Jayson Blair, IMO.

Just speculation of course.

157 posted on 09/30/2005 5:11:13 AM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Ask Bill Keller if they were told that Miller was going to be indicted on Monday if she didn't testify tomorrow and watch them squirm. The Times is pulling a Sid Blumenthal to try to coverup the fact that Miller was on her way to a criminal contempt indictment on Monday and an extended jail stay for at least another 6 months.

Now that makes senses

158 posted on 09/30/2005 5:14:39 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

That's my (speculative) story and I'm sticking to it until something better comes along.

#####

Ditto!

Your line of who told who what is the most logical of all. Whether we will ever know it for fact or not is up to the skill and power of Fitzgerald.


159 posted on 09/30/2005 5:18:38 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Purrcival

This is no coincidence. Dems are looking for a "trifecta" here (DeLay, Frist, Rove). This is a full-court press, meant to blitz the media with more "bad" news for Republicans.

*******

This week's dem talking point ---

"culture of corruption" in the Republican Party


160 posted on 09/30/2005 5:20:12 AM PDT by maica (Do not believe the garbage the media is feeding you back home. ---Allegra (in Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-248 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