Miller's Source(s)

Update: 4:30 pm. CNN has changed the headline to "Times reporter details previously undisclosed conversation." Were they reading us blogs today? I know Atrios and War and Piece spotted it as well. And I did get an e-mail saying TalkLeft was mentioned on the CNN blog segment.

On a related note, Arianna weighs in on Miller's second grand jury appearance in Judy, Take Two.

Original Post:

I have re-read this CNN article three times and cannot find a statement in it to back up the headline, "New York Times reporter disclosed conversation with second source." Maybe it's a typo that meant to read, "New York Times reporter disclosed second conversation with source."

Even if true as stated, that doesn't put Miller in any jeopardy. Her agreement with Fitzgerald was limited to conversations with Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame. Among her stated reasons for insisting on the agreement was to ensure she wouldn't be asked about other sources.

If she mentioned another source at the grand jury today, she might have done what Walter Pincus did: acknowledge, but not identify, the source. Fitzgerald made that agreement with Pincus, and there's no reason not to make it with Miller.

I don't get those who are opining Miller is in trouble. I think she is Fitz's new hero. The real question is, as I stated here, did she clear Libby or bury him.

Kristof published his article on Wilson's trip to Africa (without naming him) in May. Miller and Kristof work for the same paper. Maybe Miller got information on Wilson from Kristof and asked Libby about him in June.

The classified State Department Memo is still a unresolved factor. As this New York Times article reported:

Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memorandum, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.

Rove is set to testify on Friday. I know everyone is salivating for an Indictment. But with the grand jury decision at most two weeks away, I am going to try and focus on deductive reasoning and unanswered questions gleaned from publicly available news sources.

< Schapelle Corby Sentence Reduced: Not Enough | Condolences to LA Attorney Robert Shapiro >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Re: Miller's Source(s) (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    Jeralyn- you are the modern day C. Auguste Dupin. Solving the crime without leaving your desk. Poe would be proud as we all are here.

    Re: Miller's Source(s) (none / 0) (#2)
    by hgardner on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    When Miller was released from prison she said she agreed to testify for two reasons, one was permission from her source and the second was that the prosecutor had agreed to narrow the scope of his questions. The NYTimes never reported the second half of her statement. The Philadelphia Inquirer did and news radio carried it live. What if . . . the prosecutor agreed to narrow his questioning and agreed not to ask Miller who she TOLD. That would remove Miller from the danger of an indictment and make it possible for her to testify.

    Re: Miller's Source(s) (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    good point HG. as i noted in an earlier post, were i miller and novak, without immunity, i wouldn't be settling in for a long winter's nap at home just yet. they clearly don't fall under the same statute as rove or libby, regarding the disemmination of classified information, as gov't employees, but they do fall under the earlier statute, which applies to everyone. do you think they'll pull a "martha", and opt for tailored prison togs?

    Re: Miller's Source(s) (none / 0) (#4)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    Yeah, I've seen some 'plausible' but elaborate theories built around the June 23 notes, involving Miller in the conspiracy and Fitzgerald using thumbscrews or something. I think such theories may come mostly from people who do not imagine themselves as the people about whom they are speaking. I, instead, imagine myself as Miller. So here goes I as Judith Miller. First I put on a big martyr act because it is fitting with my grand stature in the journalistic world. Then I get tired of being a martyr, so I make a deal to get out of jail without too much humiliation. As part of the deal I become a willing witness who answers questions of prosecutors and grand jurors. I find it's not so bad and I settle into my new role. So then I go dredge up things that might be helpful in my new role. Voila, the June 23 notes. Every step of the way is explained as a way for Judith Miller to remain comfortable with herself. She's just a 'normal' human being and a very shoddy reporter. BTW I've for a while now suspected Ari Fleischer cooperated with Fitzgerald.

    Re: Miller's Source(s) (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    Yes..it was funny to see TalkLeft on the big screen in the lobby on the way out the door today. Especially considering the lobby in question. I'm more accustomed to being force-fed right wing Fox News propaganda as I hurriedly make my way out of it's range and into the safety of my car. "Democrats reach out to Blogs" was the title drawn on the screen below. I didn't stop to listen, but hopefully the Corporate News Network highlighted comments made by "fragmented leftist bloggers" expressing "distrust, anxiety, and disjoin" towards the "recent actions" of the Democratic party leadership. ...probably not. Congrats anyway, TL.