Libby Did Not Tell Grand Jury About Key Conversation

National Journal ^ | Oct 11 05 | Murray Waas

[cyncooper]

Different grand jury but same prosecutor (Fitzgerald).

Google Judith Miller + Philip Shenon

Add in words like charity or Islamic or Fitzgerald and you should get some good articles.

Sorry, I'd give you some links but don't have the time at the moment.

[mass55th]

"Scooter isn't big enough and the MSM won't be happy unless Rove and/or Cheney are perp-walked."

That's 'frog-marched' to those in the know :-)

[Dolphy]

1. They underestimated him. I find this to be highly unlikely, as the guy is well known for his aggresive style and unrelenting resolve.

2. They were unaware of extent of Libby/Rove's role in this matter.

I am not at my home computer with the link but if you look at the press conference when Fitzgerald was named you will see that he was told to pursue the facts wherever they may lead. In light of that, I'd add a number 3 to your list...they had an idea where this was leading (Wilson or CIA leaks) and wanted a credible apolitical messenger...(not the Bush DOJ) to deliver the findings.

[Steve_Seattle]

Didn't Miller recently change her legal team? Normally, that means that things aren't going well for the client. That, plus growing unease in the NYT newsroom - reported on another thread - suggests that it might be Miller who is in trouble.

[cyncooper]

Abrams is a First Amendment lawyer so I think she had him to litigate the reporter's privilege claim and now Bennet advising her on her actual testimony.

Just guessing,though.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Meanwhile, in recent days Fitzgerald has also expressed significant interest in whether Libby may have sought to discourage Miller-either directly or indirectly through her attorney-from testifying before the grand jury, or cooperating in other ways with the criminal probe, according to attorneys familiar with Miller's discussions with prosecutors."

These "attorneys familiar with the case" are either Miller's attorneys or the prosecutor's; if the latter, they are breaking the law, so I assume it is the former. This is just spin; Libby gave a blanket waiver allowing Miller to testify - this is the OPPOSITE of encouraging Miller not to cooperate with investigators.

[Glic]

Thanks for posting the link and quotes. I noticed that both Cooper and Miller refer to "sources" - plural. I wonder what's up with that.

[Steve_Seattle]

"You can say that he's overeager, or overly ambitious, and so overly zealous."

He is thorough, and in a high profile case like this, he has to be, even if it seems like this has dragged on impossibly long given the fact that it's an investigation about an alleged leak, which you would think would involve a max of 30 or 40 witnesses and be wrapped up in a couple of months.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I noticed that both Cooper and Miller refer to "sources" - plural. I wonder what's up with that."

Miller went to jail to protect these "other" sources, not to protect Libby or Rove. That is apparent because she agreed to testify after the SP agreed to limit his questions to Libby. I've assumed that she will not reveal these other sources because (1) they have not given waivers and (2) revealing their identity would prove extremely embarrassing to Miller, the NYT, or the sources themselves. Since Bush demanded waivers of all his staff, these other sources are therefore not currently employed by the government, or at least by the White House. Thus the sources could be other media people, government employees other than WH staff, or even Plame or Wilson themselves.

[sono]

Notes turned in from someone in the Rose Law Firm ...

Along with ...

[Glic]

Thanks - I think she is in some trouble and it would not surprise me if she goes right back to jail.

[Purrcival]

You forgot hangnails, which are also Bush's fault.

[blinachka]

Check out this article from 10/3. The details are in it and this is one reason I think Miller may be in deep you-know-what.

The Plame Truth About Judith Miller!

By John H. Hinderaker

Weekly Standard | October 3, 2005

[Dolphy]

Interesting article. I would like to believe that Fitzgerald has more going on (in an investigation that has taken him nearly 2 years) than figuring out if Plame's name was leaked by the White House. At the end of the day it seems all we know is what the various journalists that have been subpoenaed provide. That they ricochet guilt from Rove to Libby at lightning pace tells me they are as clueless as the rest.

[Steve_Seattle]

The Hinderaker article is very interesting. The easiest part to agree with is that Miller's attorney's version of why she finally agreed to testify does not stand up to scrutiny. But I am less sure that this has anything to do with the Islamic charity case. I think it equally possible that Miller is still trying to conceal another source in the Plame case, and that revealing this source would be very embarrassing either to the source or to Miller herself.

Possibly Fitzgerald is thinking that he doesn't necessarily need to know who the other source is, merely that the source exists, in order to determine that neither Rove nor Libby can be singled out as culpable leakers in this case. Fitzgerald may conclude that Plame's identity was so widely known among her friends and associates prior to the Novak article, that it would be both impossible and unfair to attach criminal culpability to anyone for passing on that information.

[Sacajaweau]

Does the Grand Jury work under the same system as a regular jury, i.e., one attorney questions and the responding attorney can only ask questions about the questions asked?

[hsalaw]

No, actually the person(s) under investigation have no right to have counsel present or to question witnesses or present evidence. In fact, the person(s) under investigation have no right even to be present. The grand jury's findings, if any, are based entirely on the evidence presented by the prosecutor. It's not at all like a regular trial.

[blinachka]

I have a hinkering that Plame just may be protecting Wilson. I've always believed that he was the ultimate "source" in this so-called "leak".

I do think that there is something to the Islamic charity case though...(something criminal on Millers part).

[Always Right]

I knew this is what it would all come down to. Someone not remembering a specific converstion will be the HUGE crime....

[churchillbuff]

Someone not remembering a specific converstion will be the HUGE crime...."""

I think Richard Cohen is right: Fitgerald should close down his investigation, because it's all focusing on minutiae, and continuing the trend of criminalizing policy-making and the ordinary workings of government.