home

Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 09:25:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

No wonder Judith Miller is now Fitzgerald's hero. Here's her lawyer, Bob Bennett, on ABC's "This Week" today when asked if Libby tried to influence Miller's testimony. [Update: BradBlog has the video.]:

"I wouldn't say the answer to that is yes, but it was very troubling," Bennett said on ABC's "This Week." "Our reaction when we got that letter, both Judy's and mine, is that was a very stupid thing to put in a letter because it just complicated the situation," Bennett said.

"It was a very foolish thing to put in a letter, as evidenced by the fact that you're highlighting it here," Bennett said. "It was a close call and she was troubled by it; no question about it."

The import of what Bennett is saying: Libby should have known Miller wouldn't lie for him and his letter was a suggestion that she should.

Time Magazine has a succinct explanation of why Libby is in trouble:

One key point that Fitzgerald is sure to pursue: in his letter to Miller allowing her to testify, Libby asserted that "the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me." In her account, Miller made clear that while she could not recall if Libby had ever identified Wilson's wife by name, he did in fact tell her in a two-hour breakfast meeting on July 8, 2003—six days before columnist Novak disclosed to the world Plame's name and her role as an operative at the agency—that Wilson's wife worked at WINPAC, which stands for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, a CIA unit that tracks unconventional weapons. Miller testified that she assumed that meant Wilson's wife worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative.

< Right Wing Extremists Threaten to Boycott American Girl | Miers' Nomination Theories >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby | 7 comments (7 topical)
    Re: Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    The quote "the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me" is wrong. This is a truncated version of the full quote which is "...the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call." Miller deliberately omitted the last part in her article and everyone seems to not care about this even though this changes the entire meaning of what Libby was trying to say. I've written about the implication of this three times already to make people aware of it. I hope you won't fall for it as well. Here's my latest post on this:

    Re: Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    If she lied like a cowardly rug to get her nation into a war, why wouldn't she lie here? We're dealing with egomaniacs here, personalities irreparably damaged by power, fame, and the notion that their sh*t doesn't smell. They'll do whatever they have to to maintain that illusion for themselves. I'm starting to believe this whole story will never be known. Period.

    Re: Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    You've got a little problem with your exception to the quote, eriposte: 1. You imply that Libby's discussion of Plame with Miller would have been one in which she already knew of Plame's identity, but you ignore the fact (as stated by Miller herself) that she only could have learned of Plame's identity from him if they both admit he told her Plame was a "CIA insider," whether covert or not. 2. Whether or not Plame was covert is old hat by now, since another felony, violation of the Espionage Act, makes it illegal to divulge classified info to one not cleared to receive. Unless you wish to assert that Miller was cleared to receive the contents of the classified brief on Plame circulating Air Force One on that now infamous flight to Africa, that's strike two. Your contention with the incomplete quote is a red herring, for it is now Miller's word against Libby's that he told her. Considering what is common knowledge, it would stretch imagination to believe that Miller knew of Plame's identity before Libby did.

    Re: Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Laughing Jackal, You didn't read my post it appears. Regarding your comment: "you ignore the fact (as stated by Miller herself) that she only could have learned of Plame's identity from him if they both admit he told her Plame was a "CIA insider," whether covert or not"... I didn't ignore this or anything else. She doesn't say anywhere that she learnt that Plame worked in the CIA first from Libby. She talks about having learnt that Plame was at WINPAC from Libby, but not CIA. The issue here is not that Libby did not reveal classified information to Miller - he obviously did and then lied about it to the grand jury. The issue is what Miller is hiding about the other source of hers who told her about Valerie Plame. By truncating Libby's sentence she hid the fact that Libby was implying she already knew about Valerie Plame and her CIA identity before they spoke. Libby may have confirmed this to her after the fact. I also point out that Libby may be lying. But Miller obfuscated enough to leave the truth ambiguous.

    Re: Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    "Unless you wish to assert that Miller was cleared to receive the contents of the classified brief on Plame circulating Air Force One on that now infamous flight to Africa," For the record, she has now asserted that she had/has a security clearance. WHY a reporter has a security clearance, and WHY that isn't disclaimed for every article is pretty much like asking WHY Judas Miller wrote lies, covered up for liars, and tailored her actions to the wishes of persons not in her employer's employ, and why they are still covering for her. We have to find more real reporters who will work over the quotes and the evidence such as we have it. Until then, it is obvious to those who have worked through the voluminous evidence that the ONLY way she isn't found guilty for her part is if she gets one of the thirty or so pardons Bush will have to make. The presidential pardon can be blanket, right? I wonder if TL, perhaps TChris?, could find the time to review the limits on the pp. Can he preemptively pardon? Isn't this feature of his misbegotten power the real eventuality here?

    Re: Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    eripo-As much as I do not like Miller who has written self serving propaganda for many years now, including today's NYT piece, I do not understand the significance of your point. The conversation Libby was referring to was July 12. They had at least two proir Plame coversations, July 8 and June 23. Libby did think that Miller was going to talk about the June meeting as is was not part of Fitzgerald's subpoena. Miller is a liar so I would not believe anything she says. One possibility is that the June meeting was where he talked about Plame, and Miller is lying about July 8 in her article.
    My third interview with Mr. Libby occurred on July 12, two days before Robert D. Novak's column identified Ms. Plame for the first time as a C.I.A. operative. I believe I spoke to Mr. Libby by telephone from my home in Sag Harbor, N.Y. I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife. In my notebook I had written the words "Victoria Wilson" with a box around it, another apparent reference to Ms. Plame, who is also known as Valerie Wilson.
    The reference to Victoria Wilson seems to me like an oblique reference to the who's who defense. Perhaps she talked to Novak to help him along with his article. Since we are talking about conspiracy to obstruct justice, they had to all get the talkingpoints down. Her truncated quote may be Fitzgerald's quote as he asked her about this portion.
    Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me," Mr. Libby wrote. The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words....
    Yes, I believe she knew of Plame before she spoke to Libby. The ommited line may be a way for Libby to suggest that Miller is the one who leaked Plame to Novak, and Libby knew Fitzpatrick would get the letter. The quote and ommission by Miller seems like a big red herring designed by Libby and used by Miller to deflect attention away from the fact that they were all in it from the start. That is the January 2001 break in to the Niger embassy in Rome to the forgeries INR memo and leaks.
    She talks about having learnt that Plame was at WINPAC from Libby, but not CIA.
    WINPAC was CIA, mostly analysts although some covert DO agents as well. Fleitz, from Bolton's office worked at WINPAC and was covert.
    WINPAC is an umbrella organization set up early in Bush’s first term to bring together all the expertise on WMD in one place. The thing is, though, WINPAC is organizationally part of the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), the analysis side of the CIA as opposed to the spying side, the Directorate of Operations (DO).
    empty wheel

    Re: Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    eriposte- you have a correct point in that, should she of the 85-day Slimfast course have been incredibly given a security pass, she may well have learned of Plame before Libby blabbed to her. However: In Libby's letter to Miller, while it ends with the paragraph whose omission so grieves you, he explicitly "informs" her without any need to do so of the public perception that he's not the source...ergo, with or without the ending "or," the statement's intent is clearly to "jog her memory" as to what he wishes her to re-inforce. Libby's conversations with other people are about as relevant, eriposte, as yours were with your co-workers about the same subject. What Libby told Miller is what Libby told Miller, and for him to include that tract in his missive is Machiavelian in the extreme. You have also fallen victim to an obvious lie, eri...in that if Miller had "larned" of Plame before her conversations with Libby, said operative's name wouldn't have been scrawled so hap-hazardly in note-jotting form if she was already familiar with the woman and her role in Wilson vs Bushco. If you approach Scooter Libby about Robert Novack's role in the affair armed with foreknowledge, you don't jot "Rob Nofact" and "Blowback" all over your notes...you're more than familiar with him if Libby's Beans then spill all over your trousers. Miller didn't know of Plame before Libby, it is plain to see by her notes...

    Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby | 7 comments (7 topical)