I've read that theory. To me there are two plausible explanations and they both have to do with the special prosecutors deal with Miller.
Was she trying to avoid questioning about the Holy Land matter? Is this the same grand jury panel that was investigating that leak? If not, could he even ask her about it? Can a grand jury "combine" two investigations during the testimony of one witness?
The more plausible reason is that she had another source she's still hiding. Libby has already testified about his discussions with Miller. She had his waiver for 17 months. The NYT reports that she agreed to testify only after Fitzgerald provided her written assurance that he would ONLY ask about Libby. It sounds to me like she had another source (I think it was Wilson). But, why would the prosecutor agree to such a deal?!
This whole thing makes no sense.
Maybe because the prosecutor already knows who the other source is.
I think the answer to those amounts to "no," regarding Miller and the Holy Land matter. More below on that.
The more plausible reason is that she had another source she's still hiding. Libby has already testified about his discussions with Miller.
That makes sense too, and I am drawing a blank on the charge to the investigator. If the charge is to uncover government leaks (which is what I think it was), then Fitzgerald may be happy to avoid questions outside of that - other than probing obstruction of getting to the bottom of "government leaks." Fitzgerald wants to get to the bottom of the case he's chartered with, and needs Miller's testimony. He is willing to play hardball to get it. She'd had enough at 85 days, and didn't want the time or other baggage that comes with criminal contempt. Maybe she was willing to be used as a pawn to advance a federal reporters shield law. Her name and situation was used liberally in testimony before Congress.
OK, here is what I've stumbled across regarding Miller and the Holy Land Foundation matter.
U.S. Attorney Can't Force N.Y. Times to Supply DocumentsLink to Sweet's opinion -> http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/nyt022405.pdf
By John Mintz - Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 25, 2005; Page A03U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled that a federal prosecutor in Chicago cannot compel the newspaper to turn over records of two Times reporters' phone calls in 2001 as part of an investigation into possible government leaks. The effort by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald came in the cases of two Muslim charities accused of possible ties to terrorists. ...
On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government's probable crackdown on the group.New York Times v. Gonzales, 04 Civ. 7677 is cited often, but I haven't found its track in the appellate courts. The NYT v. Gonzales case is -NOT- part of the legal action relating to Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame Leak. That legal action involved a February 15, 2005 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court. The petition for rehearing en banc was denied, and certiori was denied by the Supreme Court.U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller's article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day.
On Dec. 13, Times reporter Philip Shenon called the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation and asked for comment about the government's intention to freeze its assets because of allegations it had ties to terrorists. "FBI personnel learned that some of the targets [of the investigation] may be destroying documents," and agents "hastily assembled" a raid on the charity on Dec. 14, according to a report by the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51840-2005Feb24.html
New York Times Co. v. Gonzales, 04 Civ. 7677 - (Case involving telephone records of reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon.) "Based upon the Second Circuit's interpretation of Branzburg in the cases just described, district courts in this circuit have recognized the existence of a qualified reporter's privilege derived from the First Amendment. In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Second Circuit, based on Branzburg, has recognized a qualified First Amendment privilege, applicable in civil actions and in all phases of a criminal prosecution, that protects reporters from compelled disclosure of confidential sources. Pursuant to this qualified privilege, the party seeking disclosure must make `a clear and specific showing that the sought information is: [1] highly material and relevant, [2] necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim, and [3] not obtainable from other available sources.'"http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=15525
The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press reports that an appeal was filed in late May 2005.http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=15634
At any rate, Fitzgerald is presently bound by the lower court's decision in NYT v. Gonzales, and therefore cannot compel testimony regarding the telephone records, etc. of the Holy Land Foundation. That case is still working its way through the courts, and any links to current status of the case will be much appreciated.
I keep hearing that she either was, or might have been, cozy with Ms. Plame/Wilson. If this turns out to be true, the "other" source is likely the outee herself.
"But, why would the prosecutor agree to such a deal?!"
I think the only reason that he would agree is that the purpose of the investigation is to see if an adminstration official had leaked it. If, after all, the person(s) who leaked were not in the adminstration, he would not have reason to prosecute anyway. Her testimony jived with Libby's. The real crime here was that she held on to that information and dragged the whole process out. She deserved to spend time in jail. Will we ever know?
I think the answer is what most have already said: Plame's identity was NOT a closely guarded secret...the journalists put two and two together..especially if Plame's name was listed in public documents with Joe Wilson...and it was.