home

Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 09:23:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Judith Miller's notes of her June 23 meeting with Lewis Libby must be important. After meeting with her today, Fitzgerald has now requested she testify tomorrow before the grand jury.

This doesn't bode well for Lewis Libby.

On the other hand, it does bode well for Judith Miller. Fitzgerald couldn't let her go back to the grand jury without a target warning if he viewed her as a putative defendant. Had he given her that warning, her lawyers would have had her take the 5th, not go back in and testify.

The New York Times provides this version of her appearance tomorrow. There's one comment by Kellor that doesn't make sense.

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in an e-mail to the newspaper's staff that Miller would appear before the grand jury today, delaying the newspaper's promised report about her evidence in the probe because she faces the threat of contempt of court until she finishes testifying.

No she doesn't. Her subpoena was directed to the period July 6 to 13. It didn't include June. The Court of Appeals upheld the contempt order finding her in contempt for failing to comply with that particular subpoena. If she finished her testimony about her July conversations with Libby last week, how could she continue to be in contempt for refusing to answer questions that were outside the scope of the subpoena or court ruling?

Update: Murray Waas is interviewed by Democracy Now on his newest column revealing that Libby didn't tell Fitzgerald or investigators about the June conversation.

< Bushies: Special Prosecutor "a Bully" | Fitzgerald Widening His Probe >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    Wow, prosecutors can be so pushy and aggressive sometimes. Don't they know that's only for Democrats?

    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    Have you considered the possibility that the reason for calling the two witnesses this past week is that Mr. Fitzgerald (a Republican) is planning to indict . . .no one. It could be that he is trying to lay the groundwork for saying that he investigated every possible lead, looked under every rock, and found no violation of law. This is only speculation, of course, but I think Fitzgerald would gain big plusses in Republican circles if he simply shut down the investigation now. The long running Whitewater investigation was a killer not just for the Clintons, but also for the career of Ken Starr. PF may have taken note of this. I guess time will tell.

    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    The long running Whitewater investigation was a killer not just for the Clintons, but also for the career of Ken Starr. PF may have taken note of this.
    Where is the parallel between the Whitewater fishing expedition conducted by Ken Starr and an investigation of a known national security breach that has been requested (to put it mildly) by the CIA? The ultimate conclusion of Whitewater was the following admission by Robert Ray, Kenneth Starr's successor, in September of 2000:
    "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." Ray's report effectively ended the Whitewater investigation. See wikipedia here.
    Are you really suggesting that Fitzgerald can convert the Plame security leak into a conclusion of "no criminal conduct" without appearing incompetent in the process?

    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    The Niger forgeries and the casue to war are on the table.
    Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent's name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy.
    Raw Story via atrios

    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    Are you really suggesting that Fitzgerald can convert the Plame security leak into a conclusion of "no criminal conduct" without appearing incompetent in the process?
    I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of the possible. I've heard lots of stories about how difficult it is to prosecute under the specific statute at issue for knowingly leaking a secret agent's name. If he were to consider that the conspiracy, perjury, and obstruction-type charges just weren't worthy of prosecuting, then...who knows what he might do. I can remember some of the talking head wingers (such as Victoria Toensing) claiming that no law was broken here. And by delivering the essential Karl Rove and Dick's man Libby to the Administration he should get a big reward down the road. How about head of the FBI?

    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    The WSJ has a big story on the charges of a broader conspiracy:
    the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson's claims... .....Systematic coordination began in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG.
    war and peace

    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    actually, with respect to la affair de plame, there is more than one statute under which mr. fitzgerald might choose to prosecute, if he chooses to do so. there is the well known one, which only applies to actual government employees, and a second one, dating back, i believe, to 1918, which applies to everyone, a not insignificant difference. under the older statute, robert novak might find himself facing a firing squad, with judy miller tied to a stake next to him. all the talking heads: right, left and middle, have concentrated on the statute that has nothing to do with anyone outside the federal government, ignoring the second statute entirely. were i mr. novak or ms. miller, i'm not sure i would get too comfy at home just yet, neither are out of the woods as far as indictment is concerned. it's late, and i'm tired, but i will do my research, again, and come up with the specific cite to which i refer. it's been rarely used since legislated, shortly after the end of wwI. perhaps mr. fitzgerald has sent it to the dry cleaners, to be freshened up a bit.

    Re: Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    cpinva: a second one, dating back, i believe, to 1918, which applies to everyone, a not insignificant difference. This may be what you're thinking of... From the NYT
    Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law, which makes it a crime for anyone who "willfully communicates, delivers, transfers or causes to be communicated" to someone "not entitled to receive it" classified information relating the national defense matters. Under this broad statute, a government official or a private citizen who passed classified information to anyone else in or outside the government could potentially be charged with a felony, if they transferred the information to someone without a security clearance to receive it.
    Miller to Testify Again Before Grand Jury | 8 comments (8 topical)