Replies

Keller wrote that if he had known of Miller's "entanglement" with Libby, he might have been more willing to explore compromises with the prosecutor who was trying to get her testimony for the criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.

What does this mean? More double-speak?

How does the NYT (Keller) get involved with compromising with the prosecutor? It was Keller/NYT who was encouraging Miller to "protect her sources" and go to jail to do so. (Of course it was Miller's decision -- but the paper encouraged her.)

We know, now, that it was Miller's testimony (after 80+ days in jail) that it wasn't Libby who gave her the name; in fact, she claims she cannot remember who gave her the name!

Of course, that makes perfect sense, that she would sit in jail for 80+ days to protect someone who can't remember! Right!

She went to jail because she was told to by her employer. And of course there was some enticement, book deal, etc.

I hope all of the biased journalists are taking note. They compromise their ethics for their editors; then they are discredited and discarded if the scenario to smear the Administration doesn't pan out!

Absolutely -- there's no way Miller doesn't remember who told her. She says stuff like, "After a year and a half, it's so hard to remember..." But surely she'd remember after a week or two -- the point at which the Novak story came out at caused a big stir. And once that story came out, how could she forget? Not possible.

She went to jail because she was told to by her employer.

Maybe, but more likely she went to jail because there is no source.

That's the beauty of anynomous sources, you can attribute anything to them you want...until you get caught.

Add to Keller's most curious comments the fact that the NY Times is openly abandoning its formerly star reporter (Maureen Dowd had the knife out today and plunged it into Judy Miller's back) and the comment from Miller's lawyer (Bennet) that she went to jail 'MOSTLY' to protect the (alleged) principle of confidentiality of sources and we have all sorts of possibilities for what Miller's 'entanglement' with Libby might be:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507192/posts?page=42#31

The great journalistic heroine, who the NY Times editors are now throwing overboard, had some reason(s) other than protecting confidentiality of sources to go to jail rather than testify. Here own lawyer says so. There IS more to this story, as so many of us have suspected, and whatever her 'entanglement' (interesting word for her Exec. Editor to use now for talking about her contact with a source she barely knew) might be, it goes beyond simply standing on journalistic principle of not revealing confidential sources.......