Posted on 07/16/2005 10:26:33 AM PDT by Pikamax
Criminal Contempt Could Lengthen Reporter's Jail Stay
By Howard Kurtz and Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, July 16, 2005; A06
Lawyers in the CIA leaks investigation are concerned that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald may seek criminal contempt charges against New York Times reporter Judith Miller, a rare move that could significantly lengthen her time in jail.
Miller, now in her 10th day in the Alexandria jail, already faces as much as four months of incarceration for civil contempt after refusing to answer questions before a grand jury about confidential conversations she had in reporting a story in the summer of 2003. Fitzgerald and Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan have both raised the possibility in open court that Miller could be charged with criminal contempt if she continues to defy Hogan's order to cooperate in the investigation of who may have unlawfully leaked the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Funny how this guessing game came along to fill the void right after we found out who Deep Throat is!
If you read the story it's clear that Fitzgerald knows Miller talked to Libby sometime soon after Wilson's editorial appeared and before Novak's column. (It was probably on the day Wilson's editorial appeared, from other accounts.)
The article mentions two sources, one from Libby's and one from Miller's camp. The latter seems to be the source for the claim that Plame never came up in their talk.
So it looks like this is what it boils down to. Libby is saying he was told about Plame by Miller. And Miller is saying it isn't true (through her mouthpieces) but won't testify about that, so as not to have to reveal where she heard about Plame in the first place.
Not quite what the WaPost and NYT had in mind when they kicked over this rock. hehe
The below links relate to a brief filed on behalf of 36 news organizations, the NYT is conspicuously absent from the list. One of the authors of the brief is Victoria Toensing, who has posed the same points in editorial columns expressing the function of the statute that forbids disclosure of covert operatives.
The brief itself is a 1.5 Mb PDF file - fair warning.
March 23, 2005 brief filed by 36 News organizations <- Arguing "no crime committed"
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/03/journalists_ami.html <- Commentary
Timeline? Was Miller on board AF1 for the Africa trip - memo "passed around"?
It sure aint Rove thats for sure. Ol Judy wouldn't rot for him especially since that news is all out in the open.
I've been saying all along I think it was her hubby that planted the story to create a backlash against Bush.
I confess, I'm having a hard time keeping up with who's who and even more trouble trying to figure out who's playing defense or offense. I'll just have to read the book next year to understand what happened.
Why is the Times absent from the list and how does it benefit them if this is still viewed as a crime even when most media outlets know it isn't? Seems they can't continue to pretend Rove did anything wrong so it looks like they're trying to accomplish some damage control.
"Timeline? Was Miller on board AF1 for the Africa trip - memo "passed around"?"
It's immaterial in this case anyway. The judge is trying to compel Miller to testify about a conversation she had (now almost certainly with Libby) days before:
"Judges Order 2 Reporters to Testify on Leak (washingtonpost.com)
According to the appellate court's opinion, Fitzgerald knows the identity of the person with whom Miller spoke and wants to question her about her contact with that "specified government official" on or about July 6, 2003."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25744-2005Feb15.html
Everything else is just muddying the waters, if you ask me. (And you'll notice it's the NYT who are pushing that State Department angle.)
"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard:"
I disagree. IMO, the sources are in Foggy Bottom.
Help me out as I thought I was following so closely. Where's Libby come into play - that one is new for me. And it comes into play where in the timeline.
If it was someone in the administration she and every other Times reporter would be spilling their guts.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby is an assistant to the president and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
Many in the media have tried to suggest he is the source of the Plame leak.
What kind of Heavy Hitter becomes Ambassador to Gabon? Sounds more like punishment duty.
Here's a Salon article from two years ago about Libby and Plame:
http://tinyurl.com/d93s7
"Help me out as I thought I was following so closely. Where's Libby come into play - that one is new for me. And it comes into play where in the timeline."
It really looks like Miller called Libby on July 6, 2003, which is the day Wilson's editorial was printed in the NYT.
The crux of Fitzgerald's efforts seems to be to get from Miller what they talked about. Miller refuses to answer. Libby has already testified.
This date, July 6th, preceeds in time all the other supposed links offered in other theories. And it's hard to believe anybody would have given a rat's ass about Wilson before July 6th.
So it is very crucial what Miller said to Libby. And very telling that she is willing to go to jail rather than reveal it. (Libby has already given her permission, from his side.)
Miller is not talking because she knows she would then have to reveal where she heard this information, which could be from any number of people (given her extensive contacts) including Plame or Wilson themselves.
Good question, and I haven't conjured up a hypothetical reason. They had to know the brief was being prepared, and their omission reflects a conscious decision. Perhaps they didn't want to taint a planned future story that Rove had committed a crime by arguing ahead of time that a 2003 disclosure of Plame's employer was not criminal.
... how does it benefit them if this is still viewed as a crime even when most media outlets know it isn't?
If a crime was committed, then NYT looks like a genius for not signing up to an argument that no crime was committed.
Seems they can't continue to pretend Rove did anything wrong so it looks like they're trying to accomplish some damage control.
NYT is really good at pretending. Facts are no obstacle whatsoever.
Considering MSM and the demoncRATS tried to sink Rove, keep her in jail.
Thanks on the Libby scoop. I get it now.
I doubt the extent of Miller's involvement is what she might have said to Libby 2 days before Novak's article.
I suspect there's something earlier.
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.