Here's something new: A copy of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's letter(pdf) to Libby's lawyer Joseph Tate, dated September 12, 2005. [Via How Appealing.] Some points from the letter, old and new:

• Libby was interviewed in October and November, 2003. He testified twice before the grand jury in 2004.
• Libby testified about his recollection of conversations with Judith Miller that occurred during their July 8 meeting and their July 12 phone call.
• Libby was the indiviual specified as "an identified government official" in Miller's subpoena.
• Fitzgerald assumed Miller remained in jail either in spite of the subpoena or because Libby thought it was not in his best interest to encourage her to testify.
• As a result of reading recent press articles, he now thinks there might have been a communication between Libby and Miller regarding the waiver.
• He wants Libby to know that he can reach out to Miller and assure her the waiver is valid and encourage her to testify and it will not be considered obstructive conduct.

It probably was bound to happen now that three lawyers are writing for Talkleft. The National Journal's Blogometer quotes me as saying:

"Miers falls into the black hole of controversial nominees that "Advise and Consent" should reject.

Not so. I do not think Harriet Miers is controversial or should be rejected. That particular post clearly states it was written by Last Night in Little Rock, who is John Wesley Hall.

For those of you who are new to TalkLeft, all posts are written by Jeralyn Merritt unless they say at the top "by TChris" or "by Last Night in Little Rock." TChris is T. Christopher Kelly. The Blogometer has graciously agreed to correct its post, but it probably has already gone to Lexis as being written by me so I wanted to correct the record.

As to things I did say, here's an audio interview (mp3) that Matt Margolis of Blogs for Bush and I did yesterday for BBC World News Radio on Ms. Miers.

by TChris

Why should there be a deadline to correct an unjust loss of freedom? An editorial in the Palm Beach Post praises the Florida Supreme Court for extending (for the third time) the deadline by which wrongfully convicted inmates must seek DNA testing that might exonerate them. It also argues that the state legislature should eliminate the deadline.

Why? Ask Wilton Dedge, whom DNA evidence freed in August 2004 after the state wrongfully imprisoned him for 22 years. Ask Luis Diaz, whom DNA evidence freed last August after wrongful conviction stole 26 years from his life. In both cases, the crime was rape. Ask the men who have been released from Death Row and exonerated. Ask the family of the man whom DNA evidence cleared after he had died of cancer while on Death Row.

The Tallahassee Democrat agrees that "any deadline runs contrary to the interest of justice."

Here's an interview with Pastor Ron Key, who until a few weeks ago, was Ms. Miers' pastor at the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. The radio host conducting the interview says it's proof that Ms. Miers is anti-abortion, but the interview doesn't bear that out.

It shows she's very faith based, and that her Church is pro-life and against gay marriages. But, Pastor Key admits he has not talked to her about those issues. On the other hand, he says she is the same kind of person as Priscilla Owen and that they are good friends.

I don't think anyone really doubts that Ms. Miers is pro-life, but if she has gone through her career not publicly stating her view, maybe she will not let her personal views affect her rulings as a Judge. I'm also getting tired of the abortion debate. It's not the only important issue. I'm far more concerned with her position on criminal justice and civil liberties issues.

President Bush told reporters today he didn't ask Ms. Miers her views on abortion. That's not surprising.

The Associated Press (Feb. 2, 1992) (available on Lexis.com) reported on Ms. Miers' participation in an American Bar Association panel discussion on Supreme Court nominations. The panel was asked whether a President, who was elected partially based on his abortion stance, should ask a potential nominee about his or her views on abortion.

You've been elected president of the United States, in part due to your views on abortion. In picking a Supreme Court justice, would you ask apotential nominee how he or she will vote in abortion- related cases?

...."Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it," said Harriet Miers, a Dallas lawyer and president-elect of the State Bar of Texas.
She said people who think such inquiries are proper display "a misunderstanding of the separation of powers by proposing that judicial nominees should mirror a president's views."

My thoughts on the implications of Harriet Miers' nomination for the radical right, and some blogger reaction from both sides, are over at Eric Alterman's Altercation today in another edition of Scoring Scotus. A snippet:

In order to accept Ms. Miers, evangelicals will have to place blind faith in the promise by Cheney and Bush that she's one of them. Even though faith lies at the core of their existence, with the stakes so high on abortion, gay rights and other hot-button issues, Miers' nomination may put that faith to the ultimate test.

....If there was any common ground between the right and left Monday, it was over the lack of available information on Miers. While ultimately, Republican Senators and influential evangelists may be willing to take the Bush Leap of Faith, Democrats must demand more.

by Last Night in Little Rock

Editor and Publisher reports today that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is in the photograph of the infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, and it was on the front page of yesterday's NY Times without a specific date.

E&P also reports the conflicting nature of how news outlets played the picture. AP sent it out with the correct date, and many papers apparently did not appreciate the date or the photograph. The Times downplayed the omission of the date as lacking significance. HA!

by TChris

An Ithaca judge dismissed "resisting arrest" charges against five Cornell protestors, in part because she found it "difficult to understand" a prosecutor's assertion that was contradicted by documentary evidence. In other words, she thinks the prosecutor lied to her.

by Last Night in Little Rock

USA Today reports that Congress is attempting to put a significant number of unconvicted arrestees into CODIS, the National DNA Database. The ACLU is, of course, opposed. This is also discussed on Paper Chase. From USA Today:

by Last Night in Little Rock

This should be no surprise to anyone: Ex-Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ousted by the state judicial discipline commission for openly defying a federal court order to remove his monument to the Ten Commandments after losing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, is running for Governor of Alabama as noted here on Paper Chase.

It was always assumed that the whole charade was to start a run for Governor. It is now coming to fruition.

by Last Night in Little Rock

Yes, TChris, the hits do just keep on coming.

Just when we thought that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers had no paper trail, we find that the law firm that she was heading at the time paid $22M to settle a class action law suit for assisting law firm clients in defrauding investors, as noted here and picked up by HuffingtonPost.com. The original source: No less than the Class Action Newsletter (May 1, 2000).

It gets better.

by TChris

And the hits just keep on coming.

A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering Monday, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

Update:

The new indictment, handed up by a grand jury seated Monday, contained two counts. The money laundering charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison.

(Another update below the fold.)