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 ...
I think you are referring to the release that the special prosecutor got Libby and Rove to sign. She may have been reluctant to believe that she was really released until the source actually told her directly that that was his desire.
"She may have been reluctant..."
Then she should have done what Cooper did....have her attorneys call his. Maybe they did, but I doubt it...I am sure that would have been leaked.
What's your theory?
the "2nd release" that Cooper got from Rove was all publicity - in fact, it was a mistake by Rove's lawyer - it allowed Cooper to grandstand in front of the courthouse, it meant nothing legally.
why would Scooter Libby and his lawyer do exactly the same thing now, giving a legally meaningless "2nd release" to Miller?
It does have a smell of "the dark cloud hanging over the republican party" thyme to it ... doesn't it?
Remember, for the Dems ... it doesn't matter if you are innocent of any charges
It's about public perception
worst case theory:
the Dems decided they need her "bullet" fired now - the Frist and Delay thing have no legs. The 2nd SCOTUS appointment comes next week, they need something else.
let's face it, she could say anything, it could be a "she said/he said". her only risk comes from a perjury trap, and for that to materialize, there would have to be some substanative evidence that she is lying.
The Dems are trying to paint in the public eye that the Republican party as all corrupt
It won't work .. especially with the reports that are starting to surface about the corruption that occurred in Louisiana
We don't know how much of this is true...remember, Cooper stood on the courthouse steps lying...saying that Rove had called him at the last minute....
If that is worst case, it seems weak.
If this is a ploy to derail the SCOTUS appointment...I'm not worried. If it is a ploy to derail us in 2006, I'm not worried.
Come to think of it, I'm just not that worried. Perhaps I should be, but so far the whole thing seems like much ado about nothing.
she spent all this time in jail over a "misunderstanding" about the waiver? and Fitzgerald is still saying he will restrict the inquiry so as to protect her "other sources"? why?
and what the hell does this statement mean:
"In written statements today, Ms. Miller and executives of The New York Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify."
isn't it clear the "the source" is Libby?
Simply not credible. No one would sit in jail, even in Alexandria, for three months simply because she didn't feel like picking up the phone and calling Libby to hear him say the waiver directly.
She has decided for reasons of her own that right now is the best time for her to come out and face Fitzgerald's questions, and is just using this story about the waiver to fool people into thinking otherwise.
She may have been pursuing other tacks during this time, for example seeing if powerful republican friends could somehow help her out, maybe public outrage would somehow come to her rescue, etc., and has now finally concluded that none these other possibilities will pan out.
Or perhaps she has finally managed to figure out through sources just what Fitzgerald knows, and armed with that knowledge will take her chances with the grand jury hoping to employ some deft Clintonisms while continuing to protect whatever it is she doesn't want to reveal.
indeed, if that is true - then Fitzgerald has caved.
" In written statements today, Ms. Miller and executives of The New York Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. "
Am I reading this right ?
It was Scooter Libby and a " mystery source " who urged Saint Judy to throw off her martyr clothes and testify ?
Good possibilities.... OR... see my #51 above for my current candidate.
"This may tie in to my guess that perhaps Ms. Miller is attempting to run out the clock on Fitzgerald's grand jury. It is not news that under DoJ guidelines, Ms. Miller's subpoena was quite narrowly directed towards her conversations with one named official. And since Fitzgerald's grand jury has a month to run, running out the clock at this point should be easy - for example, Ms. Miller can *HYPOTHETICALLY* testify that she told Libby about Ms. Plame, refuse to discuss the basis of that knowledge, and leave Special Counsel Fitzgerald with the challenge (per DoJ guidelines) of exhausting all reasonable means to ascertain her source before he re-subpoenas her."
From:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/09/judy_miller_wal.html
He has been following this case pretty closely.
it makes no sense, that statement is at odds with the earlier part of the clip that refers to discussions with Libby and his lawyer.
I thought Fitzgerald was supposed to be a real prosecutor. If he caved like that he will deserve only contempt!
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.