Judith Miller Released!!! (1 Viewer)

[gordontravels]

So Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter that went to jail rather than reveal her source for the CIA leak story she wrote, was released yesterday and will testify before the Grand Jury today. May I ask, what was the big deal? If you remember your media told you that she went to jail rather han reveal her source because of her priviledge as a reporter and her respect for confidentiality for her sources. This was pounded as Karl Rove was painted as hiding something along with the Bush Administration.

Turns out that was the side of the story the New York Times and most other news outlets wanted us to hear. By only telling us half of the story they kept the scandal going until the Supreme Court stories took over. It only reinforces my belief that the mainstream media in this country and elsewhere is despicable in their treatment of the victims of their stories and OF US. Who do you trust for your news?

It turns out that the source that Judith Miller was protecting was Scooter Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Now before you libs start thinking that Dick Cheney is there with the big leather gag for Judith, listen to what the Washington Post is reporting this morning:

From the Washington Post: QUOTING "It's good to be free," Miller said in a statement last night. "I went to jail to preserve the time-honored principle that a journalist must respect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source. . . . I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter."

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a statement: "Judy refused to testify in this case because she gave her professional word that she would keep her interview with her source confidential. In recent days, several important things have changed that convinced Judy that she was released from her obligation."

But Joseph Tate, an attorney for Libby, said yesterday that he told Miller attorney Floyd Abrams a year ago that Libby's waiver was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify. He said last night that he was contacted by Bennett several weeks ago, and was surprised to learn that Miller had not accepted that representation as authorization to speak with prosecutors.

"We told her lawyers it was not coerced," Tate said. "We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration." END QUOTING

Libby's office apparently thought that she had other sources that she was "protecting" and since they knew they had given her the waiver through her attorney, they didn't think they were the reason she wouldn't testify. Makes me wonder - since she and her attorney knew who she was "protecting" and, since that source (Libby) had, through his attorneys, given the waiver over a year ago, why would she go to jail? Doesn't it make you wonder or should we blame the Vice President or the conservative columnist Robert Novak? How about President Bush? Don't you think her attorney would go to the source before she went to jail? Don't you wonder?

Six White House officials including Scotter Libby and Karl Rove testified in front of the Grand Jury. Investigators also interviewed the President and he never came close to denying them the opportunity or claiming Executive Priviledge. The White House cooperated and the media speculated. And the New York Times? What did they know? When did they know it? Why didn't they tell us?

So, a year after her attorney was told confidentiality was no problem by Libby's attorneys and, after the media bashing of Karl Rove finally ended when a new story (Sandra Day O'Conner) came along that they could exploit (because they had nothing on Karl Rove), now we find that she didn't have to go to jail after all. So, why did she? Anyone? :duel

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What is your point? We already knew that Rove and Libby had outed Plame.

Let see what happens when the investigation closes before we jump to conclusions.

 

[Deegan]

Very interesting, I was just slamming Libby in the other thread, because I wondered why he had never released her from her confidentiality, now it appears he did, a year ago. I read many articles this morning, but none mentioned this, why am I not surprised.:roll:

 

[aps]

So Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter that went to jail rather than reveal her source for the CIA leak story she wrote, was released yesterday and will testify before the Grand Jury today. May I ask, what was the big deal? If you remember your media told you that she went to jail rather han reveal her source because of her priviledge as a reporter and her respect for confidentiality for her sources. This was pounded as Karl Rove was painted as hiding something along with the Bush Administration.

Turns out that was the side of the story the New York Times and most other news outlets wanted us to hear. By only telling us half of the story they kept the scandal going until the Supreme Court stories took over. It only reinforces my belief that the mainstream media in this country and elsewhere is despicable in their treatment of the victims of their stories and OF US. Who do you trust for your news?

It turns out that the source that Judith Miller was protecting was Scooter Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Now before you libs start thinking that Dick Cheney is there with the big leather gag for Judith, listen to what the Washington Post is reporting this morning:

From the Washington Post: QUOTING "It's good to be free," Miller said in a statement last night. "I went to jail to preserve the time-honored principle that a journalist must respect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source. . . . I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter."

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a statement: "Judy refused to testify in this case because she gave her professional word that she would keep her interview with her source confidential. In recent days, several important things have changed that convinced Judy that she was released from her obligation."

But Joseph Tate, an attorney for Libby, said yesterday that he told Miller attorney Floyd Abrams a year ago that Libby's waiver was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify. He said last night that he was contacted by Bennett several weeks ago, and was surprised to learn that Miller had not accepted that representation as authorization to speak with prosecutors.

"We told her lawyers it was not coerced," Tate said. "We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration." END QUOTING

Libby's office apparently thought that she had other sources that she was "protecting" and since they knew they had given her the waiver through her attorney, they didn't think they were the reason she wouldn't testify. Makes me wonder - since she and her attorney knew who she was "protecting" and, since that source (Libby) had, through his attorneys, given the waiver over a year ago, why would she go to jail? Doesn't it make you wonder or should we blame the Vice President or the conservative columnist Robert Novak? How about President Bush? Don't you think her attorney would go to the source before she went to jail? Don't you wonder?

Six White House officials including Scotter Libby and Karl Rove testified in front of the Grand Jury. Investigators also interviewed the President and he never came close to denying them the opportunity or claiming Executive Priviledge. The White House cooperated and the media speculated. And the New York Times? What did they know? When did they know it? Why didn't they tell us?

So, a year after her attorney was told confidentiality was no problem by Libby's attorneys and, after the media bashing of Karl Rove finally ended when a new story (Sandra Day O'Conner) came along that they could exploit (because they had nothing on Karl Rove), now we find that she didn't have to go to jail after all. So, why did she? Anyone? :duel

What are you talking about? They told us only half the story? Gordon, you are a very cynical person. First of all, do you read the NYT every day? They were furious that Miller went to jail. There were news articles and editorials that supported her. They printed an op-ed piece by Bob Dole, which was in favor of Miller.

You quoted Miller—she noted that her source just NOW informed her that she was released. So what part of the story was the media and the NYT hiding?

So you’re going to give more probative value to Libby’s attorney than Miller’s employer? Why? What does the NYT have to gain by not revealing what they supposedly knew? Again, do some research on the NYT's website on Judy Miller. You will see a newspaper that stood behind her.

 

[ShamMol]

Great, great great...so the fact that almost every state in the union gives protection to news reporters (shield laws as they are known) except the UNION ITSELF is not the issue, but really the issue is whether Judith Miller and the mainstream media should be hounded for doing their bloody jobs. Gotcha.

How many people know that their state (I tihnk all but three have shield laws) gives protection? How many people would therefore like that protection given to reporters who cover national issues? I know I do, save for extreme cases (such as treasonous activity).

 

[gordontravels]

What are you talking about? They told us only half the story? Gordon, you are a very cynical person. First of all, do you read the NYT every day? They were furious that Miller went to jail. There were news articles and editorials that supported her. They printed an op-ed piece by Bob Dole, which was in favor of Miller.

You quoted Miller—she noted that her source just NOW informed her that she was released. So what part of the story was the media and the NYT hiding?

So you’re going to give more probative value to Libby’s attorney than Miller’s employer? Why? What does the NYT have to gain by not revealing what they supposedly knew? Again, do some research on the NYT's website on Judy Miller. You will see a newspaper that stood behind her.

Yes, I read the New York Times and the Washington Post every day along with the New York Post and the Washington Times. At least once a week I read the LA Times, the Orange County Register and the Houston Cronicle. I usually read the headlines and stories from the major paper in my home state as well more than once a week. I don't glue myself to FNC and usually watch MSNBC or CNN for my news (CNN if it is international and breaking). Where you get cynicism from any of my posts other than to understand that Republicans and Democrats aren't worth the powder to blow them up as far as working with each other is beyond me.

Libby's attorney went directly through Miller's attorney because it was Miller that would need the waiver and not Libby's duty to seek her out to see if she wanted one. There was nothing to suggest that it was "only" Libby she was trying to protect so if she was, wouldn't it be her attorney contacting Libby's to ask for the waiver so she could testify and not go to jail. If not, isn't it just logical to assume that she didn't want to testify in the first place?

Miller, as reported in the Washington Post today made these moves because she and her attorney realized that Fitzgerald could extend the Grand Jury another 18 months and keep her in jail another 6. Cooper testified because he was given a waiver and Miller was given a waiver directly from attorney to attorney by Libby to Miller. What's cynical about thinking that if the New York Times has a reporter going to jail they would just sit back and let her hang out to dry? Don't you think they would question her about waivers, not actual sources, and come up with "well I do have a waiver"?

Tell me what's cynical about believing, in light of what the Washington Post prints, that the New York Times didn't tell the whole story. She was their reporter. She was going to jail for what? She didn't have to go to jail and is testifying today and will tell the same story she would have last Spring, won't she? It is true that Rove, Libby and others from the White House went to the Grand Jury without benefit of an attorney and testified. The New York Times stood by their reporter? And she went to jail? Who put her in jail when Cooper didn't go? Why didn't she use the waiver that was provided? I'm cynical.

I'm afraid that if the New York Times had anything to gain then it would have been to keep or help keep their reporter out of jail. They could have said, "Judy? Call your source and ask them for a waiver." Is that simple? What would she have said? "Ok"? "I already did"? "I have a waiver already"? Don't you think that the New York Times is aware of how it works?

Her statement of "they just informed me" would be a lot different if her editor had simply said, "Call your source and see if they will allow you a waiver." You tell me, the cynical one - why did she go to jail? If she wasn't given a waiver and now she has it don't you think she would be saying "THEY WOULDN'T GIVE ME ONE AND I WENT TO JAIL BECAUSE OF IT"? You will be painted as cynical yourself if you think a year ago Libby's office gave her a waiver and she wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops today.

I'm not concerned about who has the best probative value because in your context it would be political. Did the New York Times stand behind their reporter as they should? Of course. They were on the right side of the bars when the door slammed. :duel

 

[aps]

Yes, I read the New York Times and the Washington Post every day along with the New York Post and the Washington Times. At least once a week I read the LA Times, the Orange County Register and the Houston Cronicle. I usually read the headlines and stories from the major paper in my home state as well more than once a week. I don't glue myself to FNC and usually watch MSNBC or CNN for my news (CNN if it is international and breaking). Where you get cynicism from any of my posts other than to understand that Republicans and Democrats aren't worth the powder to blow them up as far as working with each other is beyond me.

You seem to think that there is a hidden agenda in all of this. To me, that is cynicism.

Libby's attorney went directly through Miller's attorney because it was Miller that would need the waiver and not Libby's duty to seek her out to see if she wanted one. There was nothing to suggest that it was "only" Libby she was trying to protect so if she was, wouldn't it be her attorney contacting Libby's to ask for the waiver so she could testify and not go to jail. If not, isn't it just logical to assume that she didn't want to testify in the first place?

Miller was dealing with the Office of the Vice President. I would think that a reporter would rather go to jail than call the VP's office and ask if they can give her a waiver. She risks losing them as a source not just for her but for the New York Times.

Miller, as reported in the Washington Post today made these moves because she and her attorney realized that Fitzgerald could extend the Grand Jury another 18 months and keep her in jail another 6. Cooper testified because he was given a waiver and Miller was given a waiver directly from attorney to attorney by Libby to Miller. What's cynical about thinking that if the New York Times has a reporter going to jail they would just sit back and let her hang out to dry? Don't you think they would question her about waivers, not actual sources, and come up with "well I do have a waiver"?

How do you know they didn’t do that? And tell me what you think the New York Times could have done to prevent her from going to jail?

I want to see the alleged waiver that Libby claimed he gave to Miller’s attorney a year ago, because I have a hard time believing that. Rove claimed the same thing, stating that he had given Cooper a waiver way back when. Yet Cooper would not testify until Rove called him on the phone and gave him a waiver. I do not believe that Cooper called Rove asking, “Would you please give me a waiver so I don’t go to jail? Pretty please?”

Tell me what's cynical about believing, in light of what the Washington Post prints, that the New York Times didn't tell the whole story. She was their reporter. She was going to jail for what? She didn't have to go to jail and is testifying today and will tell the same story she would have last Spring, won't she? It is true that Rove, Libby and others from the White House went to the Grand Jury without benefit of an attorney and testified. The New York Times stood by their reporter? And she went to jail? Who put her in jail when Cooper didn't go? Why didn't she use the waiver that was provided? I'm cynical.

I am not understanding your logic above. Where do the Wash Post and NYT conflict? What part of the story did the NYT fail to provide? And you genuinely think they did it on purpose? I think that’s cynical, and not because I am a democrat, but because that newspaper is considered one of the best, and I am not buying that it would intentionally fail to provide information.

Is there a point that you're making by saying Rove and Libby testified without an attorney? What, like they had nothing to hide? I would not be surprised if that was their strategy--show up without a lawyer (after all, I believe they are both lawyers) to make it seem as though they have nothing to hide.

I'm afraid that if the New York Times had anything to gain then it would have been to keep or help keep their reporter out of jail. They could have said, "Judy? Call your source and ask them for a waiver." Is that simple? What would she have said? "Ok"? "I already did"? "I have a waiver already"? Don't you think that the New York Times is aware of how it works?

They can’t force her to reveal her source. I am sure they are aware how it works, but still, what could they have done to keep her out of jail?

Her statement of "they just informed me" would be a lot different if her editor had simply said, "Call your source and see if they will allow you a waiver." You tell me, the cynical one - why did she go to jail? If she wasn't given a waiver and now she has it don't you think she would be saying "THEY WOULDN'T GIVE ME ONE AND I WENT TO JAIL BECAUSE OF IT"? You will be painted as cynical yourself if you think a year ago Libby's office gave her a waiver and she wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops today.

I believe Miller did what she did out of priciple. And, no, I don’t think she would be complaining that the Office of the Vice President didn’t give her a waiver and so she went to jail. Again, she would lose them as a source.

I'm not concerned about who has the best probative value because in your context it would be political. Did the New York Times stand behind their reporter as they should? Of course. They were on the right side of the bars when the door slammed.

Huh? Do you understand the meaning of using “probative value”? You were giving more credence to Libby’s attorney than to Judith Miller, and I wanted to know why. She had nothing to gain by going to jail except showing that she would keep her word about not revealing her source. Libby had everything to lose by giving her a waiver, not because he would be guilty of committing a crime, but because it would provide some justification to Joe Wilson’s allegation.

 

[gordontravels]

QUOTES FROM aps are in Black: You seem to think that there is a hidden agenda in all of this. To me, that is cynicism.

I don't think there's a hidden agenda. I read the New York Times every day. I see their agenda and have private emails with editors questioning why no book review of a conservatives work that is in the top 5 of their own list and emails asking why they have an article, not an opinion piece, that discovers the conservative of this or that but no mention of liberal. I agree that cynicism would rule if my attitude were truely scornful or negative in my distrust of the New York Times but, that isn't the case. It's what I read and then what I think about what I read. My attitude is quite open.

Miller was dealing with the Office of the Vice President. I would think that a reporter would rather go to jail than call the VP's office and ask if they can give her a waiver. She risks losing them as a source not just for her but for the New York Times.

She didn't have to call the VP's office for a waiver. She had a written waiver for nearly a full year before she was even threatened with jail. The waiver was to her attorney from Libby's attorney. She claims she didn't know, in effect, if he meant what the waiver said. One simple call from her attorney or an attorney for the paper asking for clarification would have done the job and alerted Libby's office that he was the source that she was worried about. Without that, he could assume, if he thought of it at all, that her problem was with some other source. He had already provided a waiver. What is so mysterious about this?

How do you know they didn’t do that? And tell me what you think the New York Times could have done to prevent her from going to jail?

I want to see the alleged waiver that Libby claimed he gave to Miller’s attorney a year ago, because I have a hard time believing that. Rove claimed the same thing, stating that he had given Cooper a waiver way back when. Yet Cooper would not testify until Rove called him on the phone and gave him a waiver. I do not believe that Cooper called Rove asking, “Would you please give me a waiver so I don’t go to jail? Pretty please?”

FROM TODAY'S NEW YORK TIMES: QUOTING: The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone this month as their lawyers listened, according to people who have been briefed on the case. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.

The discussions were at times strained, with Mr. Libby and Mr. Tate's asserting that they communicated their voluntary waiver to another lawyer for Ms. Miller, Floyd Abrams, more than year ago, according to those briefed on the case.

Other people involved in the case have said Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given and did not accept it until she had heard from Mr. Libby directly.

Ms. Miller authorized her lawyers to seek further clarification from Mr. Libby's representatives in late August, after she had been in jail for more than a month. Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September saying he believed that her lawyers understood during discussions last year that his waiver was voluntary. END QUOTING

Rove didn't call Cooper, Cooper's attorney call Rove's office and received a waiver with no strings. Cooper testified. Libby did the same and it wasn't his position to have to call Miller and ask her if she wanted to out him as a source since he didn't know he was the source she was protecting. She goes to jail and doesn't even check the waiver her attorney held for nearly a year? Hey, no pretty please needed for a waiver already delivered. Read the above from the New York Times themselves.

I am not understanding your logic above. Where do the Wash Post and NYT conflict? What part of the story did the NYT fail to provide? And you genuinely think they did it on purpose? I think that’s cynical, and not because I am a democrat, but because that newspaper is considered one of the best, and I am not buying that it would intentionally fail to provide information.

Is there a point that you're making by saying Rove and Libby testified without an attorney? What, like they had nothing to hide? I would not be surprised if that was their strategy--show up without a lawyer (after all, I believe they are both lawyers) to make it seem as though they have nothing to hide.

Logic has nothing to do with it. The New York Times never revealed that Miller had the waiver for nearly a year. The Washington Post revealed it yesterday and today the New York Times confirmed it. Logic? Has nothing to do with it. The New York Times only leaned on her protecting her source; not that the source had already given a waiver that could have been questioned before she went to jail and kept her out of jail.

And you think Rove and Libby showed up at the Grand Jury without attorneys as some kind of evil strategy? Don't you know you AREN'T ALLOWED AN ATTORNEY WHEN YOU GO IN FRONT OF ANY GRAND JURY?? Please; no I'm sorry, pretty please. Read my original post on this and see if that isn't what I meant thinking you knew how the basics of a Grand Jury works. You don't get to have an attorney when you testify in front of any Grand Jury; no attorney to block questions and you have to answer every question asked.

They can’t force her to reveal her source. I am sure they are aware how it works, but still, what could they have done to keep her out of jail?

Simply verify the waiver she had with Libby's office with one simple phonecall. Logic, if you will, says that how does Libby know she doesn't think a waiver is good when he gave her a good waiver? Her attorney or the New York Times attorney could have called and said, "Is this waiver good if she testifies or are you going to be the reason she goes to jail?" Logic? Libby had already done what she wanted.

I believe Miller did what she did out of priciple. And, no, I don’t think she would be complaining that the Office of the Vice President didn’t give her a waiver and so she went to jail. Again, she would lose them as a source.

SHE HAD THE WAIVER FOR OVER A YEAR BEFORE SHE WENT TO JAIL. She didn't use it. Her choice. Hey, she is testifying today. After she testifies she can talk about the waiver if she wants. Best she can do is say she didn't think the waiver was on the up and up. Did she check? Shall we ask? Cooper used his waiver from Karl Rove and didn't go to jail. What's the difference? Do you wonder? No? Ok.

Huh? Do you understand the meaning of using “probative value”? You were giving more credence to Libby’s attorney than to Judith Miller, and I wanted to know why. She had nothing to gain by going to jail except showing that she would keep her word about not revealing her source. Libby had everything to lose by giving her a waiver, not because he would be guilty of committing a crime, but because it would provide some justification to Joe Wilson’s allegation.

Joe Wilson's now discredited allegations had nothing to do with her waiver. Sheesh, she already had the waiver nearly a year before she went to jail. If Libby was the loser then why give the waiver that he gave over a year..... feel like I'm repeating myself and I'm getting hungry.

I'm not giving creedence to anyone, I'm just telling you what the Washington Post said yesterday and what the New York Times said today. I couldn't tell you what the New York Times said about the waiver because they never reported it until today and it was the Washington Post that forced their hand. Gosh, I didn't do it lol.

Remember that the waiver was only that Miller could identify Libby as her source. She had already interviewed him and if he had anything to lose it was what he said in the interview. You believe he sat there and told her all the stuff that would give creedence to Wilson's allegations. Please, get real. The whole point of Rove and Libby giving the interviews in the first place was to show that Wilson had an agenda and to show that other intelligence from other countries had shown Iraq was interested in yellow cake uranium and the country in Africa wasn't even named.

Creedence or credibility has nothing to do with this and it isn't cynicism. It has everything to do with the New York Times not reporting the waiver during their "support" of Judith Miller. Now the cat, er, the waiver is out of the bag. What don't you understand about that except that you can't have an attorney with you in front of a Grand Jury? Sandwich time.
:duel

 

[stsburns]

Wouldn't the case be different if there were not Media immunity laws. The source eventually confessed. How would her reveiling her source, be any different than, her source revealing itself?

 

[gordontravels]

Wouldn't the case be different if there were not Media immunity laws. The source eventually confessed. How would her reveiling her source, be any different than, her source revealing itself?

I don't see anything wrong with "source protection laws" because at times it is the only way to get to the truth. I do believe that if a prosecution results from an interview with a protected source then that source should realize that they can't simply state what may or may not be fact, putting a person or group in legal jeopardy and then walk away.

It doesn't go the other way though since the source only provides information and does not desiminate it. The reporter writes the story and the publication or news outlet desiminates the story.

In this case of Miller and Libby, Libby never confessed. I have no idea what you mean by that. The New York Times today reports that over a year ago Libby's lawyer, Mr. Tate told Miller's lawyer, Mr. Abrams, that the waiver from Libby was not coerced (reports said he gave the waiver under threat of being fired by the White House which would have been fine anyway). The waiver was given freely so Miller could disclose Libby as her source. Libby or his attorneys read the same reports you and I did. Miller went to jail to protect the "source confidentiality" position of journalism and made no mention of not haveing a waiver from anyone. Libby had no idea he was involved since thay had not only given a waiver but made sure, attorney to attorney that the waiver was freely given.

It is not incumbent on a source to give up their right to confidentiality with a reporter. It is incumbent on the reporter to request a waiver if they need to reveal the source. Libby gave Miller the waiver. Judity Miller had the waiver and didn't use it. Her attorney or the legal department for the New York Times could have either called Libby's office (Miller) or run stories about no waivers given (the paper) and in the event of the telephone call being made, Libby's office would have known about why she was withholding him as her source. Miller, her attorney and the New York Times never did any of that. They never went back to Libby and asked if the waiver they actually had, in writing, was a waiver and that was a year ago. Sheesh.

Read the New York Times today and see that they reference 3 letters from a year ago that explain to Miller and her attorneys all about the waiver. Miller and her attorneys blew it.

Miller went to jail and didn't have to but, it was her fault along with her attorney and maybe the New York Times themselves. Libby confessed? I don't get that. :duel

 

[Stinger]

Great, great great...so the fact that almost every state in the union gives protection to news reporters (shield laws as they are known) except the UNION ITSELF is not the issue, but really the issue is whether Judith Miller and the mainstream media should be hounded for doing their bloody jobs. Gotcha.

Not if they may have participated in a crime. Now I thought all you guys believed that all the people involved who may have committed a crime should be punished and that we should get to the bottom of this. She had been released to testify a year ago. Why didn't she?

 

[gordontravels]

Not if they may have participated in a crime. Now I thought all you guys believed that all the people involved who may have committed a crime should be punished and that we should get to the bottom of this. She had been released to testify a year ago. Why didn't she?

The answer is obvious but when you can read the Washington Post for the last 3 days and the New York Times for the last two and still not understand that Judith Miller didn't have to go to jail; I don't understand the resistance to reality.

I can understand partisan politics. One poster here in the last day has said he understands that someone is not guilty until proven but he hopes the accused is guilty. The depths that people will go to just in the name of party loyalty or as I see it, partisanship, is only detrimental to our country. When President Clinton said he "didn't have sex with that woman" I not only wanted to believe him but I did.

You may disagree with your neighbor on the fence line but after the survey is done you will still be neighbors. The venom people have in the name of politics is shameful. Not the differences in philosophy or issues but the venom. Not knowing how sick some people sound when "hoping" someone is guilty or simply hoping someone is guilty is not know how sick their point of view is.

Would any Democrat want only Republican ideas or leadership? Would any Republican want the opposite? It's two neighbors working together and accepting the fact that working together gets the job done with compromise and debate. As for the partisanship, I'm glad I don't belong to one of these time wasting parties. :duel

 

[aps]

The answer is obvious but when you can read the Washington Post for the last 3 days and the New York Times for the last two and still not understand that Judith Miller didn't have to go to jail; I don't understand the resistance to reality.

I can understand partisan politics. One poster here in the last day has said he understands that someone is not guilty until proven but he hopes the accused is guilty. The depths that people will go to just in the name of party loyalty or as I see it, partisanship, is only detrimental to our country. When President Clinton said he "didn't have sex with that woman" I not only wanted to believe him but I did.:duel

First, Gordon, you are assuming that your interpretation of the facts is the only way to interpret them. Let me break it to you, Mr/Ms Omnicient, not so. You're surprised that people are resisting reality because it's your reality. Not everyone agrees with your assessment, including me.

Second, I am a woman.

 

[ShamMol]

Not if they may have participated in a crime. Now I thought all you guys believed that all the people involved who may have committed a crime should be punished and that we should get to the bottom of this. She had been released to testify a year ago. Why didn't she?

She must have had her reasons, like believing that she wasn't released by her source to testify. You just assume taht you are right and she is wrong with no middle ground. We don't know the whole story yet, but I will continue the call for national shield laws for reporters.

 

[gordontravels]

First, Gordon, you are assuming that your interpretation of the facts is the only way to interpret them. Let me break it to you, Mr/Ms Omnicient, not so. You're surprised that people are resisting reality because it's your reality. Not everyone agrees with your assessment, including me.

Second, I am a woman.

Here is what I based my interpretation on in that other thread:

QUOTING MY POST: From the Washington Post, October 1, 2005:

QUOTE: Private e-mail between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and his advisers reflects that Frist began discussing the sale of his HCA Inc. stock in April, months before it became clear that the hospital firm's shares would decline in value, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post. END QUOTE

This is what an investigation is for. END OF MY POST

This is the reality of that very investigation where now it comes to light that Frist began his sale months before there was any news of lower expectations of the stock sliding or before any of the company officers began selling their stock (always public record and reported in the financial section of any large newspaper).

I have been consistent in pointing out that an investigation is what finds facts and if an indictment is forthcoming then that investigation will provide the evidence one way or the other. That reality is not mine but just simple logic.

Your reality on the other hand is to hope that Senator Frist is guilty. You actually wrote those words and I pointed it out. That is your reality. I say right or wrong. You say only wrong. You want him to be hurt by this and I only am interested in whether he did something wrong or not.

Partisan politics is just that and you display your penchant for the game. I don't. You are a woman? I'm not. Now that I know you are a woman, that makes not one bit of difference to me that we have a difference in our attitudes to politics or are of different sexes. Were you a man it wouldn't matter either just as it doesn't make a difference to me that I am a man.

Partisan politics at the level you practice it is such a waste of time and against what our country stands for. Wanting someone to be guilty so you can get a leg up? Reality? How would you know? :duel

 

[aps]

Here is what I based my interpretation on in that other thread:

QUOTING MY POST: From the Washington Post, October 1, 2005:

QUOTE: Private e-mail between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and his advisers reflects that Frist began discussing the sale of his HCA Inc. stock in April, months before it became clear that the hospital firm's shares would decline in value, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post. END QUOTE

This is what an investigation is for. END OF MY POST

This is the reality of that very investigation where now it comes to light that Frist began his sale months before there was any news of lower expectations of the stock sliding or before any of the company officers began selling their stock (always public record and reported in the financial section of any large newspaper).

I have been consistent in pointing out that an investigation is what finds facts and if an indictment is forthcoming then that investigation will provide the evidence one way or the other. That reality is not mine but just simple logic.

Your reality on the other hand is to hope that Senator Frist is guilty. You actually wrote those words and I pointed it out. That is your reality. I say right or wrong. You say only wrong. You want him to be hurt by this and I only am interested in whether he did something wrong or not.

Partisan politics is just that and you display your penchant for the game. I don't. You are a woman? I'm not. Now that I know you are a woman, that makes not one bit of difference to me that we have a difference in our attitudes to politics or are of different sexes. Were you a man it wouldn't matter either just as it doesn't make a difference to me that I am a man.

Partisan politics at the level you practice it is such a waste of time and against what our country stands for. Wanting someone to be guilty so you can get a leg up? Reality? How would you know? :duel

Gordon, this thread is about Judith Miller. That's what I was addressing in my post above. Again, the Bill Frist issue.........yawn. BTW, I am clearly not the only one who is wondering about his sale. The SEC and the Dept. of Justice are investigating, which I know is standard procedure. Nevertheless, there is a reason why there are procedures in place when someone sells a lot of stock right before it tumbles....

 

[gordontravels]

Gordon, this thread is about Judith Miller. That's what I was addressing in my post above. Again, the Bill Frist issue.........yawn. BTW, I am clearly not the only one who is wondering about his sale. The SEC and the Dept. of Justice are investigating, which I know is standard procedure. Nevertheless, there is a reason why there are procedures in place when someone sells a lot of stock right before it tumbles....

Well aps, you are completely right as to this thread's content on Judith Miller and I do apologize. I put the Frist issue that I have with you in the Frist thread and it shall stand there.

You still hope for someone to be guilty in the Miller incident but I will bet you my best steer that the guilty party will be one or more of Ms. Miller's attorneys who gave her advice that was wrong. She had a written waiver from Libby and not only didn't she use it but she went to jail. I would do anything to avoid jail unless it was a matter of principle and apparently that is what she did but.... if she had a waiver, why go to jail? I think she had bad advice.

I am facing suing one of America's largest corporations beginning this month. I have a letter from them stating why they turned down a claim I made. Now that I have their words on paper, I can take that letter and my 5 witnesses into court and prevail. Like jail, I wish to avoid court because it should be the last resort so..... I will call the corporation and address 2 points they complain about and if they refuse to budge then I will let them know that it is likely that if they go to court with what they said in their letter, I have 5 witnesses to make them see their people aren't telling the truth. Judith Miller could have avoided jail simply by having her attorney make one phone call for clarification of the Libby waiver. She didn't.

I haven't seen one bit of evidence reported that says Karl Rove or Scooter Libby did anything wrong. I see a lot of speculation from a ravenous media that suggests they are but there is no corresponding proof. Of course for those that "hope" they are guilty, what's proof got to do with it? :duel

 

[Stinger]

Wouldn't the case be different if there were not Media immunity laws. The source eventually confessed.

"eventually confessed"? Evenutally confessed to what and whyt eh eventurally framing of his willful testimony to the GJ and his release to her over year ago.

How would her reveiling her source, be any different than, her source revealing itself?

None and since she had the waiver over a year ago it's all been a moot point anyway. She now has her book and probably made-for-TV movie with Meryl Streep playing the couragous, preyed upon, pitful little reporter.

 

[gordontravels]

"eventually confessed"? Evenutally confessed to what and whyt eh eventurally framing of his willful testimony to the GJ and his release to her over year ago.

None and since she had the waiver over a year ago it's all been a moot point anyway. She now has her book and probably made-for-TV movie with Meryl Streep playing the couragous, preyed upon, pitful little reporter.

LOL imagine confessing to being a source, "I DID IT???" and then throw yourself on the mercy of CBS. Remember, Libby's office didn't even announce this latest round; it was Miller's attorney who is probably wondering how stupid he looks now that she spent 5 weeks in jail with the waiver in his file. Does the word "clarification" mean anything?

Otherwise I say of course there will be a book which could have had something to do with the prelude (I'm writing a book, maybe I should go into politics. Naw, it's a ghost novel). Otherwise number 2; I vote for Barbara Streisand although I don't like musicals. :duel

 

[Stinger]

LOL imagine confessing to being a source, "I DID IT???" and then throw yourself on the mercy of CBS. Remember, Libby's office didn't even announce this latest round; it was Miller's attorney who is probably wondering how stupid he looks now that she spent 5 weeks in jail with the waiver in his file. Does the word "clarification" mean anything?

Otherwise I say of course there will be a book which could have had something to do with the prelude (I'm writing a book, maybe I should go into politics. Naw, it's a ghost novel). Otherwise number 2; I vote for Barbara Streisand although I don't like musicals. :duel

What gets me is the whole "principle" thing. She says sent went to jail for one reaons only, the PRINCIPLE. The principle that if reports start telling the government who tells them things then the whole world is doomed. She had less than a month to go so what happened to the principle. She had the release already, why did she seek additional confirmation of what she already had if she was acting on principle.

BTW did you know that both the prosecutor and the judge, before she went to jail, asked her why she was going to jail since she had a wavier? Even THEY knew about it and believed, officially,that it fully covered her.

 

[gordontravels]

What gets me is the whole "principle" thing. She says sent went to jail for one reaons only, the PRINCIPLE. The principle that if reports start telling the government who tells them things then the whole world is doomed. She had less than a month to go so what happened to the principle. She had the release already, why did she seek additional confirmation of what she already had if she was acting on principle.

BTW did you know that both the prosecutor and the judge, before she went to jail, asked her why she was going to jail since she had a wavier? Even THEY knew about it and believed, officially,that it fully covered her.

I have thought all along that there was motive in the madness and, madness it was.

As far as only having one month to go on her sentence, the Washington Post original article speculated that she knew that Fitzgerald could extend the Grand Jury 18 more months and that would put her in jail for another 6. What if she actually understood the waiver? Even her attorney has to keep his mouth shut over "attorney client priviledge". But, this is also speculation on my part.

I'm happy, as usual and in any circumstance, whether a stock sale, jailed reporter or an intern doinking, to wait until the investigation is complete and the outcome announced. Let the chips fall where they may.

"Don't try to live your life in one day; don't go speed your time away." - Howard Jones, Techno Rocker from an 80's album. :duel

 

[Stinger]

I have thought all along that there was motive in the madness and, madness it was.

As far as only having one month to go on her sentence, the Washington Post original article speculated that she knew that Fitzgerald could extend the Grand Jury 18 more months and that would put her in jail for another 6. What if she actually understood the waiver? Even her attorney has to keep his mouth shut over "attorney client priviledge". But, this is also speculation on my part.

I con't think that judge would give her one more hour in jail even if Fitzgerald extended the Grand Jury, I think he'd tell Fitz it's over may as well disband and get on with. I really doubt she had anything of any importance to add.

Let's say she testified that Libby told her indeed Plame HAD been a covert agent. Still not covered under the law since it was more than 5 years ago. Even still Libby says he didn't know her name let alone what she did at the CIA and there is no reason to believe the prosecutor could prove otherwise. If he didn't know then again no crime.

I'm happy, as usual and in any circumstance, whether a stock sale, jailed reporter or an intern doinking, to wait until the investigation is complete and the outcome announced. Let the chips fall where they may.

Hey if there was publicly know evidence of a crime I would have no problem express my opinion if I thought it proved someones guilt. The problem with this case is the there is no evidence a crime was committed in the first place.:screwy

 

[gordontravels]

I con't think that judge would give her one more hour in jail even if Fitzgerald extended the Grand Jury, I think he'd tell Fitz it's over may as well disband and get on with. I really doubt she had anything of any importance to add.

Let's say she testified that Libby told her indeed Plame HAD been a covert agent. Still not covered under the law since it was more than 5 years ago. Even still Libby says he didn't know her name let alone what she did at the CIA and there is no reason to believe the prosecutor could prove otherwise. If he didn't know then again no crime.

Hey if there was publicly know evidence of a crime I would have no problem express my opinion if I thought it proved someones guilt. The problem with this case is the there is no evidence a crime was committed in the first place.:screwy

I think Fitzgerald, knowing she had a waiver, threatened to extend the Grand Jury for just that purpose; to rattle her tree. If he didn't get her testimony and there were no indictments then that would leave a door open and you would only feed the scandal mongers amongst politicians and media. I believe Fitzgerald knew he needed ALL witnesses to testify for a complete investigation and that included Miller.

It has been reported for nearly a year that she was back in this country for 6 years at the time of this incident with Robert Novak and once in the country for 5 years she is no longer considered covert. Good point.

The only thing that caused this investigation in the first place was the 2 columns by Robert Novak where he used Valerie Plame's name. In his second column he stated out in the open that no one gave him her name but rather, he gave others her name. That is the only possible charge that can be brought against anyone and there is, according to the man that wrote the column in question, no one that gave him the name.

Screwy? You betcha. Partisan politics at it's best and the media ate it up but..... the media sure did drop all the Karl Rove talk as soon as Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement and then the hurricanes hit. They knew they had nothing but wanted to keep Karl Rove on the hook to fill time. Partisan politics practiced by our media is the most shameful whether used against a Democrat or Republican. :duel

 

[aps]

Well aps, you are completely right as to this thread's content on Judith Miller and I do apologize. I put the Frist issue that I have with you in the Frist thread and it shall stand there.

You still hope for someone to be guilty in the Miller incident but I will bet you my best steer that the guilty party will be one or more of Ms. Miller's attorneys who gave her advice that was wrong. She had a written waiver from Libby and not only didn't she use it but she went to jail. I would do anything to avoid jail unless it was a matter of principle and apparently that is what she did but.... if she had a waiver, why go to jail? I think she had bad advice.

I am facing suing one of America's largest corporations beginning this month. I have a letter from them stating why they turned down a claim I made. Now that I have their words on paper, I can take that letter and my 5 witnesses into court and prevail. Like jail, I wish to avoid court because it should be the last resort so..... I will call the corporation and address 2 points they complain about and if they refuse to budge then I will let them know that it is likely that if they go to court with what they said in their letter, I have 5 witnesses to make them see their people aren't telling the truth. Judith Miller could have avoided jail simply by having her attorney make one phone call for clarification of the Libby waiver. She didn't.

I haven't seen one bit of evidence reported that says Karl Rove or Scooter Libby did anything wrong. I see a lot of speculation from a ravenous media that suggests they are but there is no corresponding proof. Of course for those that "hope" they are guilty, what's proof got to do with it? :duel

Okay, Gordon, I have some articles I want you to read. I know, I know, the New York Times leans to the left (okay, is totally left), but I think it explains the waiver issue. Tell me what you think of it. I will post the articles in two, separate posts. I have highlighted the parts I think address your concerns:

Judith Miller Leaves Jail

After nearly three months in jail, Judith Miller was released on Thursday. No newspaper reporter has ever spent so much time in custody to defend the right to protect confidential sources. She is a Times colleague, and our chief reaction is relief that she is finally free.

The turning point came when Ms. Miller's source spoke to her on the phone and urged her to testify before a grand jury about their conversations relating to Valerie Wilson, an undercover C.I.A. agent whose identity was revealed by the columnist Robert Novak. A grand jury is investigating whether any government official broke the law by leaking that story. Ms. Miller testified yesterday.

Reporters are not given the luxury of choosing the circumstances under which they take a stand on their right to guarantee confidentiality to their sources. The case that enveloped Ms. Miller was not a situation in which a whistleblower came forth, under promises of anonymity, to offer information that would protect the public from wrongdoing. Instead, the questions involved the murky world of Washington politics, where reporters and government officials talk and trade information. But reporters do not get to limit themselves to working with saintly and heroic figures. While The Times and other news organizations have made enormous efforts to restrict references to unnamed sources, it is impossible to report on what happens in any administration - particularly one as secretive as this - if journalists talk only to people who are willing to be quoted by name.

The saga began when the C.I.A. asked Mrs. Wilson's husband, Joseph, a retired ambassador, to look into claims by the Bush administration that Iraq had been acquiring material for nuclear weapons from Niger. Mr. Wilson published an Op-Ed article in The New York Times debunking those claims. Later, Mr. Novak published a column linking Mr. Wilson's assignment to his wife's job and revealing that Mrs. Wilson was a C.I.A. operative. Since then, there have been questions about whether members of the Bush administration leaked the information to try to punish Mr. Wilson or undercut his credibility.

When Ms. Miller was subpoenaed by the grand jury investigating the case, she declined to testify about any conversations she had under guarantees of confidentiality. She did that even though the Bush administration had required every government employee who might have been involved to sign a waiver of any confidentiality agreement they had with reporters. Ms. Miller believed that a waiver that government employees were forced to sign or risk being fired was by its nature coercive. She was obviously right. Her source's lawyer admitted as much to Floyd Abrams, Ms. Miller's lawyer.

Why, then, did she agree to testify yesterday? Could Ms. Miller have gotten the permission earlier? Why didn't she just pick up the phone and ask?

When a journalist guarantees confidentiality, it means that he or she is willing to go to jail rather than disclose the source's identity. We also believe it means that the journalist will not try to coerce the source into granting a waiver to that promise - even if her back is against the wall. If Ms. Miller's source had wanted to release her from her promise, he could have held a press conference and identified himself. And obviously, he could have picked up the phone. Ms. Miller believed - and we agree - that it was not her place to try to hound him into telling her that she did not need to keep her promise.

Some journalists feel that when it comes to government employees, no waiver short of a public statement can be judged to be freely granted. We believe the person in the best position to judge when a source is sincerely waiving promises of confidentiality is the reporter who made the guarantee. We have confidence that Judith Miller's conversation with her source gave her the assurances she needed. She has won the right to that confidence with three months' stay in a tough jail.

The important lesson from her travails is the need for a federal shield law that would resolve such issues in the future. Judith Miller's rights would have been protected by state shield laws, including laws in New York and Washington D.C., which provide total protection. It is humiliating to realize that the rest of the world has been watching the federal government jail a reporter for doing her job.

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia provide reporters limited or full protection from testifying about confidential sources. No state attorney general has ever said a case was abandoned or a trial sabotaged by a reporter's guarantee of confidentiality to a source.

It would be easy to extend such a shield to the federal courts. A law has even been written - a bipartisan bill languishing in Congress that would protect this vital tool of a free press while providing an exception in case of an immediate and demonstrable threat to national security.

We hope the sight of Judith Miller finally gaining her freedom will help spur Congressional leaders to take this one simple action to keep the First Amendment's promise of a free press.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/opinion/01sat1.html

 

[aps]

Article #2

Phone Call With Source and Deal Led Reporter to Testify
By ADAM LIPTAK

Two developments drove the decision of Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to testify about conversations with a confidential source, to appear before a grand jury in Washington yesterday in exchange for her freedom, she and her lawyers said yesterday.

One was a long phone call with the source. The other was a deal with the special prosecutor in the case.

But three recent letters from people involved in the case debate whether a similar deal may have been available for some time and raise questions about why Ms. Miller decided to testify now.

In essence, the dueling letters give sharply divergent accounts of what was said a year ago when lawyers for Ms. Miller and her source, I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, discussed the possibility of Ms. Miller's testimony before a grand jury investigating the possibly unlawful disclosure of the identity of a C.I.A. officer.

Mr. Libby's side says he gave Ms. Miller unequivocal permission to testify about her conversations with Mr. Libby concerning his role, if any, in the disclosure of the identify of the officer, Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame.

In a letter from Mr. Libby to Ms. Miller this month, he expressed surprise that her lawyers had asked him to "repeat for you the waiver of confidentiality that I specifically gave to your counsel over a year ago." He added that he expected her testimony to help him.

One of Ms. Miller's lawyers, Floyd Abrams, wrote a letter to Mr. Libby's lawyer on Thursday in what he said was an effort "to set the record straight." Mr. Abrams acknowledged that the lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, had told him in the summer of 2004 that Mr. Libby had no objection to Ms. Miller's testifying about a meeting with him a year earlier. But Mr. Abrams also said Mr. Libby's lawyer had said that a blanket form waiver Mr. Libby signed at the request of investigators in January 2004 had been "coerced and had been required as a condition for Mr. Libby's continued employment at the White House."

"The message you sent to me was viewed by Ms. Miller as inherently 'mixed,' " Mr. Abrams wrote.

He said Mr. Libby's failure to contact Ms. Miller as the case proceeded had also led her to conclude that he did not want her to testify.

In a third letter, Mr. Tate wrote to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the leak, about his conversations with Mr. Abrams. "Over a year ago, I assured him that Mr. Libby's waiver was voluntary and not coerced and she should accept it for what it was."

He added that he understood from his conversations with Mr. Abrams that Ms. Miller's "position was not based on a reluctance to testify about her communications with Mr. Libby" but on journalistic principle and an effort to protect "others with whom she may have spoken."

At least four other reporters have testified in the investigation, which has repeatedly reached into the White House. They all testified wholly or partly about conversations with Mr. Libby, and one, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, testified about a conversation with Karl Rove, the president's chief strategist. Only Ms. Miller, who never wrote an article about the C.I.A. operative, was jailed in an effort to force her to testify.

The second factor in Ms. Miller's decision to go before the grand jury was a change in the position of the special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, concerning the scope of the questions she would be asked, according to Mr. Abrams. Mr. Fitzgerald only recently agreed to confine his questions to Ms. Miller's conversations with Mr. Libby concerning the identification of Ms. Wilson, Mr. Abrams said.

But other reporters struck deals with Mr. Fitzgerald last year that also limited the questions they would be asked. For instance, Glenn Kessler, a reporter for The Washington Post, testified in June 2004 on ground rules essentially identical to those Ms. Miller obtained, according to an article in The Post at the time.

Mr. Kessler, The Post said, testified that the subject of Ms. Wilson had not come up in his conversations with Mr. Libby.

A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, Randall Samborn, declined to comment yesterday.

Ms. Miller expanded her legal team as the prospect of jail loomed, and it was a new lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, who initiated the recent negotiations in late August.

Bill Keller, The Times's executive editor, said that it was Ms. Miller's decision to resist the subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald and to testify after the latest developments.

"It wasn't the paper's decision," he said. "It was hers. We supported her in her decisions. If we thought her decision in either case was frivolous, she wouldn't have had the kind of support she had."

One of her lawyers, George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company, said the phone call between Ms. Miller and her source had been crucial.

"This was a call," he said, "that lasted about 15 minutes, and Judy could measure the timbre and tone of the source's response and real feelings regarding whether or not he was being coerced and whether or not he really wanted her to testify."

Ms. Miller said nothing about the substance of her testimony after court yesterday and has not publicly named her source. Ms. Miller declined to discuss her grand jury testimony on the advice of her lawyers.

Mr. Abrams said that she provided the grand jury with an edited version of her notes.

"The notes were redacted to omit everything but the notes taken concerning discussions with Libby about Plame," Mr. Abrams said.

"At its core," Mr. Abrams said, "a time had come when it was possible to resolve this. Judy had no desire to continue to endure life in the detention center."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01waiver.html