Jailed Times Reporter Freed After Source Waives Confidentiality

New York Times ^ | 29 September 2005 | David Johnson

[shrinkermd]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released from a Virginia detention center this afternoon after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter, the paper's publisher and executive editor said.

[shrinkermd]

I searched on title and looked in messages: I hope this was not posted before.

[newzjunkey]

Do we know who the source is? It clearly wasn't Rove. I'm eager to find out.

[newzjunkey]

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case.

[Boundless]

> I hope this was not posted before.

The news was, but the NYT story hasn't been so far as
I can tell.

Since I'm too lazy to go fight with the NYT reg page,
can you give us the key revelations:
- who the NYT says is the source
- and if Libby, did they ack that he long ago release Miller?
- why now
- what's next, etc.

[Keith in Iowa]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493909/posts

[Cinnamon]

woot.. waht about the sanctity of journalism? revealing sources... why... *gasp*

[shrinkermd]

"That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation.

[stocksthatgoup]

confidentiality was waived over 1 year ago.

[Shermy]

"Her decision to testify came after she obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him."

BS. If she needed another waiver she could have asked for it before going to jail. She must have been facing that threatened extra two years in jail spoken about.

Bush Admin leaves these wrong impressions festering over and over.

Her source could be Libby. She could be LIbby's source. There could be others.

[strategofr]

"But the discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to Ms. Miller's lawyers more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September, saying that he believed her lawyers understood that his waiver was voluntary.

Others involved in the case have said that Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from him directly."

Something hokey is going on in this regard.

[shrinkermd]

"...Ms. Miller never wrote an article about Ms. Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has said that obtaining Ms. Miller's testimony was one of the last remaining objectives of his inquiry, and the deal with Ms. Miller suggests that the prosecutor may soon bring the long-running investigation to an end. It is unknown whether prosecutors will charge anyone in the Bush administration with wrongdoing.

"The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intense negotiations between Ms. Miller; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald. The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone earlier this month as their lawyers listened, according to people briefed on the matter. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.

"But the discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to Ms. Miller's lawyers more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September, saying that he believed her lawyers understood that his waiver was voluntary.

"Others involved in the case have said that Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from him directly.

Go figure on this one. Fitzgerald claims to be wrapping this up. Plame was about a secret CIA operative as I am. This whole thing has been a Democrat effort to besmirch the Administration. The Courts just play along. Maybe we will have a RAT President someday.

[alnick]

The headline is a lie. If the source is Libby, he released her a year ago.

[blogblogginaway]

Excuse my ignorance but does this make any sense to anyone?


"The agreement that led to Ms. Miller's release followed intense negotiations between Ms. Miller; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald. The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone earlier this month as their lawyers listened, according to people briefed on the matter. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.


But the discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to Ms. Miller's lawyers more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September, saying that he believed her lawyers understood that his waiver was voluntary.


Others involved in the case have said that Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from him directly.


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. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Mr. Keller said that Mr. Fitzgerald had cleared the way to an agreement by assuring Ms. Miller and her source that he would not regard a conversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstruction of justice. "

[SuziQ]

Others involved in the case have said that Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from him directly."

Sounds like she was milking the journalistic martyr thing for all it was worth.

[Just mythoughts]

Yes somebody's purpose was served in Miller setting up camp like a martyr in a jail cell. What we don't know is who else her lawyer, Mr. Bennett of Paula Jones fame has been talking to.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Excuse my ignorance but does this make any sense to anyone? "

No.
But, we should remember that this is the NYT -logic and facts are not their forte.

[strategofr]

"Sounds like she was milking the journalistic martyr thing for all it was worth."

Seems like. Also making it appear that the Bush administration was hiding something.

Kind of a "jailicide journalist."

[God luvs America]

I saw that on the thread with the WaComPost story....but clearly on the link it states; "Mr. Fitzgerald has for more than a year sought testimony from Ms. Miller about conversations she had with Mr. Libby. Her willingness to testify was based in part on personal assurances given by Mr. Libby earlier this month that he had no objection to her discussing their conversations with the grand jury, according to those officials briefed on the case. "

so where is everyone getting this waiver from one year ago story??

[Archon of the East]

Excuse my ignorance but does this make any sense to anyone?

No it doesn't. It stinks! Are we really to believe that a miscommunication about a waiver lingered for this long and not one slime ball lawyer on either side noticed? There is something really, really wrong with this whole story from the beginning.

[Zeppo]

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Then that apparently means that Fitzgerald can not or will not ask Miller whether Plame herself was one of Miller's sources? It would be strange that the prosecutor would be so incurious about such contacts. And since when does a Grand Jury witness get to call the shots over what questions may and may not be asked by the prosecutor?