Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Split Between The Times & Miller?
The Washington Post ^ | 10-22-2005 | Howard Kurtz

Posted on 10/22/2005 6:02:54 AM PDT by AliVeritas

New York Times executives "fully encouraged" reporter Judith Miller in her refusal to testify in the CIA leak investigation, a stance that led to her jailing, and later told Miller she could not continue at the paper unless she wrote a first-person account, her attorney said yesterday.

The comments by Robert Bennett came as Executive Editor Bill Keller accused Miller of apparently misleading the newspaper about her dealings with Vice President Cheney's top aide, signaling the first public split between Miller and the management of a newspaper that had fully embraced her in the contentious legal battle.

Bennett, Miller's lawyer, said he argued with Times executives that her agreement with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to testify before a grand jury did not entitle her to put "in the newspaper" her off-the-record conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

Disputing a lengthy Times story last Sunday in which Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said that "this car had her hand on the wheel," Bennett said Sulzberger and Keller "were making it very clear what they thought she should do. . . . She may be controversial in some things, but the bottom line is she spent 85 days in jail, mostly on a principle which the New York Times fully encouraged her to assert." He added that the executives left the final decision to Miller.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; kurtz; miller; nyt; plame
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Piquaboy

Thanks for your service, Piquaboy. We are not worthy!


41 posted on 10/22/2005 11:32:11 AM PDT by bethtopaz (Even a fool is considered wise when he is silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

re: "mostly"
Good catch.


42 posted on 10/22/2005 12:54:48 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: barkeep

Spot on!


43 posted on 10/22/2005 1:10:17 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
Many of us here have been saying that Miller knew Plame years ago, for a very long time. Your research adds weight to that educated supposition.

Thanks for the link!

44 posted on 10/22/2005 1:14:05 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
They'll all try to keep as much of the facts as quite and hidden as possible; however, Fitzgerald may not go along for that ride.

We, at FR, have been sure and certain, that Miller did NOT go to jail to protect Scooter Libby. Bennett now appears to have given they game away and proved us correct.

45 posted on 10/22/2005 1:18:36 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7
Don't be silly. Laws are for the little people, not MSM reporters!

Clearly - I have seen many stories on this website that expound on how the MSM believes it should be able to release CLASSIFIED DATA to the general populace if it helps to "get the truth out about the illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan". The MSM believes they have a "special place" in American truth telling, no matter who it hurts (or gets killed). It would be funny if it wasn't so serious a breach of national security!!

46 posted on 10/22/2005 2:32:03 PM PDT by p23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7

OT but, are you a tube freak too? I've got some nice nos GE 6sj7's.


47 posted on 10/22/2005 2:45:06 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer
This really confuses me. Do Keller and Abramson actually mean that as long as their reporter is in legal jeopardy because of possible misrepresentation of facts,

That may very well be the reason. If I recall, Miller was called back a second time. She may be the one indicted.

48 posted on 10/22/2005 3:21:22 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cloud8
"Until Fitzgerald came after her," Keller wrote, "I didn't know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the . . . whisper campaign" against Joe Wilson, the husband of CIA operative Valerie Plame. "I should have wondered why I was learning this from the special counsel, a year after the fact." Citing a 2003 conversation with Miller that was recalled by Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman, Keller wrote: "Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement."

Keller was traveling yesterday and could not be reached. Managing Editor Jill Abramson and George Freeman, a Times Co. lawyer involved in the case, did not respond to phone messages, and a Times spokeswoman declined comment.

snip

Bennett said he forcefully argued against Miller's accompanying first-person piece about her dealings with Libby because "it could affect the criminal prosecution" of senior administration officials who may have outed Plame as working for the CIA as part of a campaign against her husband, a White House critic. Such an article also "would antagonize the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald," Bennett said.

"At one point Judy agreed to do what I recommended. But she was under tremendous pressure by the New York Times to write the story" as a condition of her employment.

snip

Bennett said he insisted that Miller not provide her notes to the Times reporters conducting the inquiry

snip

"They were documents which had been subpoenaed by the grand jury, and I didn't think it was appropriate to share them," he said. "But even if it wasn't illegal, there was a pending criminal investigation."

49 posted on 10/22/2005 5:12:16 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: barkeep

I agree with you analysis.
In addition Novak claims he spoke to the CIA before publishing his article and was not discouraged from revealing that Wilson's wife worked for the Agency.
Therefore revealing her identity could not be a crime.


50 posted on 10/22/2005 5:21:13 PM PDT by ozdragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Good catch, quite right.


51 posted on 10/22/2005 9:08:24 PM PDT by barkeep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: barkeep

Yours is the only thing Ive read about all this that makes sense


52 posted on 10/22/2005 10:12:27 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson