Judith Miller Talks on Belatedly Discovered Notes

In a telephone interview with the Wall Street Journal (free link), Judith Miller Sunday explained how she came to look for and find her notes of her earlier converstion with Scooter Libby, the ones that led to her second grand jury testimony.

In a brief telephone interview Sunday, Ms. Miller said she discovered the June 2003 notes in her office after being prompted to seek out answers to another question Mr. Fitzgerald had asked her. "There was an open question about something, and I said I would go back and look and see if there was anything in my notes that would address that question," she said Sunday.

That's similar to my speculation about her notes, only I assumed Fitzgerald asked her directly about previous conversations with Libby:

It still seems more likely to me that Miller disclosed the June conversation spontaneously in response to another question, and then agreed to look for notes about it. That's a pretty ordinary occurrence.

On related issues, Miller got a little defensive with the Wall St. Journal reporter.

She said she found the notebook in her office. She reiterated that she couldn't recall who told her the name that she transcribed as "Valerie Flame." "I don't remember who told me the name," she said, growing agitated. "I wasn't writing a story, remember?" Asked if the other source was Mr. Rove, she replied, "I'm not going to discuss anyone else that I talked to."

< Federal Grand Jury Witnesses & Secrecy Laws | Bloomberg: Wilsons May Sue Bush, Cheney >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Fitzgerald specifically deposed Miller before her grand jury appearance because his intent was to ensure that her answers to him don't differ from her answers to the grand jury. It would have had to be an important question from him to require Judy to go back and check her notes - so its hard to believe he wouldn't have asked this before her grand jury appearance to ensure that he didn't have to drag her back to the grand jury later. If he had asked the question prior to her grand jury appearance, then Miller would have first been asked to consult her notes before coming to the grand jury. Moreover, it is incredulous to suggest that she was finding "new" notes now in an investigation that is 2 years or so old. This is not a convincing story. Finally, her statement indicates that she testified in her first appearance to having met Libby first on July 8th. Her stories simply have no credibility. Forgetting source names, forgetting meeting dates, forgetting to look at notes relevant to the investigation...all this is complete B.S. No other reporter seems to have piled up such a record of "forgetfulness" in this investigation.

    Jeralyn, The other quote about her not writing the story is equally revolting. As I explain in this post: A person who wrote (yesterday) that she badly wanted to write a story using the information she had, is today defending her claim of amnesia about the information's source by saying it was understandable since she wasn't writing a story. In other words, if she had been allowed to write the story it would NOT have been understandable to forget who the source was. But since she claimed she pushed for a story to be written, that would mean she had to have known the source's name in order to do so. Just revolting.

    Re: Judith Miller Talks on Belatedly Discovered No (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    It turns out that Judy may be looking to abandon the NYT and start working for the WSJ as she seems more cooperative with them than the NYT. Many subscription readers to the NYT failed to get the two big weekend stories on Plamegate because of Judy's shennagins.
    The paper's two-story Sunday package--a 5,800-word account of Miller's role in the Valerie Plame affair and Miller's own first-person tale of her conversations with vice-presidential chief of staff I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby--missed the deadline to be included in the bulldog edition, 100,000 copies distributed nationally. Deputy managing editor Jon Landman, who oversaw the reporting team, said the slipped deadline was a result of Miller's delaying. Throughout the previous week, Landman said, Miller gave conflicting signals about whether she would write a story herself or not.
    link via josh marshall

    She was lying when she "found" the notes, and she's lying when she "can't recall" who gave her the potential scoop of her ill-gotten career. The only thing sounds like the truth is that Libby dropped her the dime...and she's afraid to finger him directly, so goes the "my notes say he did it, but I'm not saying that," route... Total chickensh*t testimony... If Fitz doesn't let her off for letting him nail the Libster, Judy's written her last "free" article for some time to come...