Posted on 09/29/2005 5:49:33 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
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.
Isn't this GJ disbanded in October? The DUmmies have been frothing at the mouth, waiting for Fitzgerald to come down with an indictment AT LEAST against Rove. If Miller was going to testify at all, it would have to be before the GJ disbands. I may be mistaken, but wouldn't she be released when the GJ disbanded? If so, the timing is VERY suspicious. Plus, she got her release from Scooter's office a year ago.
"but wouldn't she be released when the GJ disbanded?"
My (weak) understanding was that Fitzgerald could have charged her with criminal obstruction and kept her in longer (even after GJ disbands). I think.
Fitzgerald was going to file a criminal contempt charge against Miller when the grand jury term expired, so Miller and the Times decided to testify. They are trying to spin and obfuscate the details of the release, but Miller was going to be charged with contempt on Monday if she didn't testify tomorrow.
What Fitzgerald is saying here in that he won't implicate "other sources" is that she won't be asked about sources completely unrelated to the narrow question he is investigating, the source of the identification of Plame as a CIA operative.
In other words, he's giving her assurance that it won't be a fishing expedition in that he gets her sworn under oath and starts asking about a whole bunch of other things, having nothing to do with Plame.
Fitzgerald was going to charge Miller with Criminal Contempt on Monday if she didn't agree to testify tomorrow.
That would certainly explain things, but how do you know this? Has this been reported anywhere?
Miller will testify that she told Libby about Plame, but not who told her in the first place.
if at this point, his purpose is still to chase the "Plame name game" - he should have just closed it up months ago.
It's not going to be reported and it won't be leaked by Fitzgerald. The Times is going to try to spin everything in their favor, knowing that Fitzgerald won't be able to respond. But the word at the Times was that Miller was going to be indicted on Monday.
then why should Fitzgerald offer her any accomodations? either she tells all, or indict her. what's the sense of restricting the scope of her testimony such that she can say next to nothing, and still walk. wasn't the purpose of putting her in jail to get the whole story?
How do you know that "other sources" here means specifically sources unrelated to this case, and not "other sources" i.e., anyone other than Libby? Perhaps you have legal or factual knowledge unknown to me (wouldn't be hard!), but the plain English meaning of Bill Keller's phrase seems to me to say that Miller won't discuss any source except Libby. Please explain......
Agreed, but it may be that how Miller answers his questions on the Plame name game will help him reach a conclusion on whether there are any obstruction or perjury charges that can be feasibly pursued, whether against Miller or others.
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.
Simply because I don't see how a competent prosecutor or special counsel could make such an agreement as you interpret it and be properly discharging his responsibilities. On the other hand, concerns by witnesses to keep these special counsel investigations from becoming fishing expeditions are legitimate and a prosecutor could reasonably give the assurance in the sense I suggested without compromising the integrity of his investigation.
Do not believe the NY Times statements on limiting the scope. They are not telling the truth about what's happening with Fitzgerald. 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.
"Do you know this from some source(s) not known to us.."
Just a theory. But it sounded good.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/09/judy_miller_wal.html
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.