Posted on 10/02/2005 11:44:40 PM PDT by YaYa123
Scooter Libby may just be misdirection to shield Judith Miller from another source of legal exposure.
LAST SUMMER, New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail rather than reveal to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald the identity of the source who told her that Valerie Plame was an employee of the CIA. Or so she said. But there was always some doubt as to what motivated Miller. It has been widely reported that her source was Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. Libby himself has testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury that he met with Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed Ms. Plame.
Further, more than a year ago, both Libby and his lawyer, Joe Tate, signed a document that specifically waived any privilege that might belong to Libby as a source. And Libby has urged any reporters that he spoke to about Ms. Plame to testify, on the ground that their testimony would help to exculpate him. So many observers have wondered whether Miller had a motive for defying the special prosecutor's subpoena other than "protecting" Libby.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Miller's speaker fees shall at least double and she'll be booked for years at many of the Politburo colleges as some kind of MSM heroine.
*ding* Your 15 minutes are up, Frau Miller.
ping
Not with voice of hers!
People would pay NOT to hear her speak!
I think that it's been conventional wisdom for several months now that Miller went to jail to protect her paper's party from the political damage that would result if she revealed her Democrat source(s)
The ONLY other possible explanation is that Miller wanted to martyr herself and get a few photo ops in an orange jumper, etc. You know - - be the next Susan MacDougal. But then, Miller would have to be stone freaking nuts. Of course, there IS the money angle, and that could well be a huge part of Miller's shenanigans, too.
I am looking forward to reading what Bob Novak has to say about all of this when the time comes, probably in about a month.
Here's the real bomb in that article:
MIller tipped off the "Holy Land Foundation" on Dec. 3, '01, that an FBI raid was imminent!
That's what she's really in trouble for.
"Moreover, Miller has said that the reason she did not accept Libby's original waiver was that she did not believe it could be freely given, since White House employees are required to give such waivers, or else be fired. But that is still true, and Libby still works for the White House. If he couldn't voluntarily waive confidentiality a year ago, he couldn't do it last week, either. Yet, suddenly, Miller saw her way clear to getting out of jail."
I watched Howard Kurtz and Andrea Mitchell on CNN's Reliable Sources agree that Judith Miller's little speech on the courthouse steps didn't make sense at all. And both of them wondered why Judith Miller didn't have a column in the Sunday New York Times. The MSM is skeptical of Judith Miller, to say the least. And watching her two lawyers, Floyd Abrams and Bill Bennett, will make you dizzy from all the spin!
then how can they stand that 5 year old voice of sheehan's? oh, that's right, lunatics are paying to hear her speak.
I think some of these posters haven't read page 2 of the cited post. This reporter from the Weekly Standard is on to something. Why did it take so long to surface?
Is it just me, or am I wrong in thinking that this whole thing should be tossed because she wasn't covert?
</badlanguageregulator>
You wrote: "Miller tipped off the "Holy Land Foundation" on Dec. 3, '01, that an FBI raid was imminent! "
I agree this is important. I don't think I knew till I read this article, that Fitzgerald was the investigator on the Holy Land Foundation. I must have missed the following:
_______________________________________________________
"Fitzgerald notified the New York Times of his intent to subpoena the telephone records of Judith Miller and her Times colleague Philip Shenon. The 9/11 report alleges that an Islamic charity in Illinois was tipped off about a government raid and potential seizure of assets by a call from Times reporters. Evidently, Fitzgerald wants to resolve that question
Sept. 17, 2004
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106812/
________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Bravo, John Hinderaker. That's advancing the story.
I love to read something first thing in the morning that clears away the cobwebs. That piece sure did some clearing.
Why did [Bob] Bennett take over from Abrams?
Could this Miller thing be another "Dan Rathergate"????
I agree. From what I understand, most employees who are really covert don't report for work at Langley.
And the FBI leaker might lead to a current Senate member, who may have been working the other side in the WOT. Sen. from Ill.?/ N.Y.??? Hmmmm
This is an interesting detail. Miller is covering herself, but why is the prosecutor letting the other investigation go.
The HLF angle could explain why Novak is not further involved?
Plame is not the important issue.
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.