Miller out of jail, Libby was her source

Posted by: ST on September 30, 2005 at 9:20 am

The NYT reports:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 – Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released from a Virginia detention center this afternoon after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter, the paper’s publisher and executive editor said.

Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the criminal inquiry. Her decision to testify came after she obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. She said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation.

Ms. Miller said in a statement that she expected to appear before the grand jury on Friday. Ms. Miller was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony.

The Times’ publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller’s decision to testify, just as it backed her earlier refusal to cooperate. "Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."

Mr. Fitzgerald has for more than a year sought testimony from Ms. Miller about conversations she had with Mr. Libby. Her willingness to testify was based in part on personal assurances given by Mr. Libby earlier this month that he had no objection to her discussing their conversations with the grand jury, according to those officials briefed on the case.

So Libby wants her to talk.  Hmmm ….  oh wait, I know what this is! Rove wants Tom Delay’s name off the front pages.  THAT’s it. emoticon

How many liberals out there do you think are disappointed that her source wasn’t Rove himself?

More: Tom Maguire dissects the Times piece.

Related Toldjah So posts: The ST Plamegate/JoeWilson section

RSS feed for comments on this post.

19 Responses to “Miller out of jail, Libby was her source”


  1. John Gillnitz says:

    Libby may get pinched for perjury and obstructing justice. Don’t worry. Bush will pardon the whole lot.

  2. robert lewis says:

    It’s going to be hard to Bush to pardon anyone if he’s indicted. Bush was interviewed by Fitzgerald for almost two hours, and I can’t conceive he could answer questions from a smart prosecutor for that long without lying a couple of time. As Marth Stewart taught us all, you don’t have to be under oath to serve time for lying to the Feds.

    Re Delay: If Tom Delay does not know what the charges are agisnt him, how is it possible that, as the indictment says in black and white:

    “The Grand Jury further presents that, with the advise and consent of counsel, the defendent, Thomas Dale DeLay, did heretofore knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive application of Articles 12.01 and 12.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to the indictment presented herein. In particular, the Grand Jury present that with the advice and consent of counsel, the defendent, Thomas Dale DeLay, did knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the requirement that an indictment for the felony offense of criminal conspiracy, the object of which is felony other than those listed in Subdivisions (1) and (5) of Article 12.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, may be presented within three years from the date of commission of the offense, and not afterward, insofar as such requirement pertains to the indictment presented herein,”

    In other words, folks, DeLay waived the statute of limitations on the very felony with which he is charged. Now, why would he do that? Odds are he’s already agreed to plead nolo contendere in order to avoid more serious charges. He’ll preen and strut, then plead and skip the hard time.

  3. alibidrain says:

    Because, as we all know, Rove is the source of all that is bad in this world.

  4. The Professot says:

    So let me get this straight, since it”s the cheif of staff for the VP it’s now not a big deal since it’s not Rove. And how, might I ask, does this mean that Rove had nothing to do with the leak? The point is, the leak came from within and Joe Wilson was right all along. Your desperation smells even over the internet.

  5. Steve Skubinna says:

    Good goalpost moving, Professot! If I may summarize your argument, it goes as follows:

    “So what if the leak wasn’t Rove! It was still… uh, some guy! QED!”

    And the Joe Wilson vindication – priceless! He was right all along! About what, incidentally? Wilson has not told the truth in public since his lying op-ed.

  6. robert lewis says:

    Steve – hate to burst your bubble, but just because Rove wasn’t the leak to Judy Miller does not mean he wasn’t the leak to Bob Novak. Furthermore, both Libby and Rove are more likely to be indicted for lying to the Feds about their participation in the Plame/Wilson smear than for the leak itself. edited insult – ST

  7. Baklava says:

    Might I remind Robert that no law was broken even though the press keeps reporting that because the law covers people who were an undercover agent within the last 5 years which Plame wasn’t.

  8. robert lewis says:

    Baklava – who says she wasn’t? Not the CIA. The CIA, her EMPLOYER, and an agency in the Executive branch of the US Government filed a criminal complaint with the US Department of Justice – another Executive agency – alleging that a covert operative had been unlawfully outed in contravention of the law. If the freakin’ CIA doesn’t know who is covert and who isn’t – who does? Bob Novak? Instead of parroting dittohead talking points – why don’t you look at the actual allegations. Additonally, Rove and Libby lied when they were interviewed by the Feds – and ask Martha Stewart what happens when you do that. Rove and Libby are going to be indicted – you can take that to the bank.

  9. John Gillnitz says:

    Wasn’t Rove spotted wearing a nice button that said I Am A Source, Not a Target? Why yes he was. Standing with Bob Navak:


  10. Baklava says:


    Washington Post story on Plame mentioning the five years

    No need to hurl insults Robert. Why are you so worked up? Read the linked story please.

  11. robert lewis says:

    Victoria Toensing is a paid Bush apologist. If I have to choose between Toensing’s read on what constitutes a crime and the CIA and Justice Department’s analysis – I think I’ll go with the pros. Fitzgerald doesn’t go on wild goose chases, and the idea that Libby/Rove didn’t out a covert agent is laughable.

  12. Bilbo Baggins says:

    We already know Rove was the source for Mathew Cooper, so the entire premise of this dish is lame. And, if his father could pardon four indicted co-conspirators from the Iran-Contra scandal who were schedule to testify as to Bush I’s part in that scandal and get away with it, Bush II will certainly feel he can get away with pardoning anyone he wants. The key is the media and what they call a scandal. Bush I not only pardon the co-conspirators, but the head of Occidental Petroleum (illegal campaign contributions) and a heroin smuggler 2 years into a 55 year sentence. The NYT published one article on these pardons. The NYT published 17 articles on Clinton’s pardon of a fugitive financier, none of which mentioned that Clinton did this as a personal favor for the Prime Minister of Israel. Liberal media indeed.

  13. Baklava says:

    Nice pattern of yours….

    You wrote earlier, “why don’t you look at the actual allegations.”

    We do Robert, it’s an incessant pattern of liberals. Lot of fun huh…

  14. Bachbone says:

    Since guilt by association is being tossed about, it should also be mentioned here that Joe Wilson supported Gore against Bush and worked as a paid advisor for Kerry’s campaign against Bush. The truth will come out, eventually, one way or the other. Conservative bloggers have no difficulty condemning wrongdoing by conservatives. But liberal bloggers seem to criticize in one direction only.

    At least Bush said at a press conference that he would not abide any laws being broken. He didn’t send out his wife to complain about a vast left-wing conspiracy, or have one of his flacks go on SeeBS and call Mr. Wilson a left-wing, Christian who sang hymns on his way to work, or wag his finger at the camera and say, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.”

    No one in Washington can claim to be holier than anyone else.

  15. Pete says:

    Regarding theommnt to Robert: No law may have been broken in the release of Plume’s name, but I’m betting they are now looking at perjury and obsstruction charges. Sort of like the Clinton indictment.

  16. Evil Progressive says:

    Not to worry. I am sure that Fitzgerald has already been visited by people who wish him well… As in implying that something unfortunate could very well happen to members of his family if he dares go ahead with anything that could embarass the boy-in-the-bubble.

    As for me, I am waiting for Abramoff and Savafian to sing like canaris to save their sleazy asses.

    The next few months should be really entertaining.

  17. Evil Progressive,

    Yeah, so if nothing at all comes of this once Fitzgerald releases his findings, no doubt it will be because someone in the admin threatened him right, not because there might actually be nothing to this, right?

  18. Chris says:

    Hey, Steve Skubinna, talk about goalpost moving. The Professot didn’t say “it was some guy” and that’s not an accurate paraphrase. The left is admittedly focused on Rove, but don’t think for a minute if the fall guy in all this is the Chief of Staff for the Vice President, the public will look at him as “some guy.” If Libby is as high as it goes, that’s pretty high, despite your atempts to minimize who he is.

    And Baklava, nice try referring to your link as a Washington Post “story.” It was an op-ed by one of Robert Novak’s best friends and a long-time Republican activist. Believe it if you choose, but it’s not a “Washington Post story.”

    I love the way the Right continues to bring up the “Vast right wing conspiracy” (which was true, by the way,) and will in the same breath talk about how all of the major media outlets get their orders from the Democrats and conspire to suppress any news that might make a Republican look good. Who’s the paranoid conspiracy freak now?

  19. Bachbone says:

    “As in implying that something unfortunate could very well happen to members of his family if he dares go ahead with anything that could embarass (sic) the boy-in-the-bubble.”

    Perhaps Eddie means something like Kathleen Willey endured after she revealed that Clinton had molested her? Or that numerous other women Clinton had adulterous affairs with said they suffered from anonymous phone calls? Or like Juanita Broaddrick being raped by Clinton? (Oh, sorry, to liberals, that was only “alleged” though it came from the raped woman’s own NBC report.)

    “…for Abramoff and Savafian to sing like canaris (sic)…”

    Or perhaps Eddie means like Webb Hubbell agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for a lenient sentence, then reneging on that promise while a wealthy foreign Clinton donor paid Hubbel for services never performed? Or Sidney Blumenthal testifying before a grand jury, then coming out of the courthouse and lying about what he’d said inside? Or like Clinton himself lying under oath and being impeached?

    Conservatives will condemn whatever wrongdoing occurred during Bush’s administration. Liberals still refuse to condemn the illegal sleaze that took place during the Clintons’ years, and Bubba still is trying to rewrite history. He will fail.

    The Moving Finger writes; and having writ
    Moves on; not all thy Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
    Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

    Lord Byron