Replies

I've followed this story pretty carefully, and I just cannot make sense of something in Keller's memo to the NYT staff last night. (Interesting that he released it at 7:00 on a Friday night!).

Here's the passage I find unusual:

...I didn't know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson whisper campaign. I should have wondered why I was learning this from the special counsel, a year after the fact. (In November of 2003 Phil Taubman tried to ascertain whether any of our correspondents had been offered similar leaks. As we reported last Sunday, Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement.) This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper.

What does he mean, "...I was learning this from the special counsel..."? Did Keller testify? We've been told throughout that everything he learned, he learned from Miller.

And he says he learned whatever it was "a year after the fact". What fact? He seems to be referring to Miller's original interviews in June/July 03. But that would mean Keller is saying he learned it from the prosecutor a year later: July 04. But that can't be. Miller was already on her way to jail by then (July 6th).

That entire passage is just plain confusing (or intentionally obscure). I keep going back and re-reading it, but can't make any sense of it. Am I reading too much into it? Or is there some "there" there?

"What does he mean, "...I was learning this from the special counsel..."? Did Keller testify? We've been told throughout that everything he learned, he learned from Miller."

It might be because Floyd Abrams was not Miller's attorney- he was the NYTimes' attorney. (Not sure how that works when a lawyer works on a case for another party).

I should have wondered why I was learning this from the special counsel, a year after the fact.

I can understand your confusion over this sentence. I indulged in some head scratching, as well.

My impression is that the reference to the special prosecutor is third person -- it was only when the SP asked Judy the question that Keller himself learned his reporter was actually involved.

Seems to me the awkwardness of the expression evolves from Keller now embarking on a spin mission of his own -- asserting that he had "no idea" Miller knew "anything about anything". As if her being subpoenaed in the first place was all a big mistake. In other words, this whole farce has been "Judy's fault...not mine."

But, if that's the case, why was the Times so enthusiastic about one of their own going to prison "to protect a source." It is as if Keller is asking us to believe that he believed Miller wasn't involved and had no source...at all.

The year probably dates from Miller's discussion with Taubman, when she evidently contended that she had not been a conduit for a misinformation campaign.

Of course, since that time, Judy has evidently forgotten everything she ever knew about Flame...and might've told Keller at the time...if he'd only asked...

At any rate, Keller is trying to re-configure the story, so that it doesn't redound negatively on the Times (or him), shedding any all blame into Miller's lap.

My head hurts...

I keep going back and re-reading it, but can't make any sense of it. Am I reading too much into it? Or is there some "there" there?

I agree with you, I can't really put it all together any more than I could put Miller's article all together. He says he didn't know Miller was at the receiving end of a whisper campaign...so he thinks she went to jail only over the issue of the other sources that Fitzgerald gave her a pass on? And are these other sources related to the Islamic charity that was tipped off or some other trouble the NYTs finds itself in?

Initially I thought that the NYTs was trying to regain the credibility they believe they lost in their WMD reporting. But I'm not so sure it's just that. If we were watching a court case, this would be the moment when the defense team declares their witness hostile.