It’s now official crunch time with the news that jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller has been freed and will testify in the Valerie Plame leak case — freed from a confidentiality agreement by her reputed source…Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, “Scooter” Libby.
The case becomes touchier for the Bush administration since White House political guru Karl Rove is already under the microscope in this probe that raises the (as yet unsubstantiated) question as to whether White House bigwigs revealed the name of a CIA official to get back at her politically troublesome husband. So now, more than ever, it’s going to be the Plame Game, as Editor & Publisher (link is above) reports:
Judith Miller, The New York Times reporter who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to identify a source, has been released, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on its Web site tonight, confirmed by The New York Times shortly after 8 p.m.
Miller said in a statement that she expected to appear before the grand jury on Friday.
According to the Times, she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter.
The Inquirer had reported that an unnamed jail official had revealed that Miller left an Alexandria, Va. jail late this afternoon, at 3:55 pm., adding, “She was released after she had a telephone conversation with the Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, sources said.
According to the Times, Libby “had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.”
But the Times account, published tonight, revealed that Libby and his lawyers asserted that they had given his waiver a year ago–and then again two weeks ago–but Miller did not accept it.
Miller met with Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, according to the Times. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation in the Valerie Plame case.
She was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony, the Times revealed.
The Times‘ publisher, Arthur M. Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller’s decision to testify. “Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source,” Sulzberger said. “We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify.”
The agreement that led to Miller’s release, the Times said, followed “intense negotiations between Ms. Miller; her lawyer, Robert Bennett; Mr. Libby’s lawyer, Joseph Tate; and Mr. Fitzgerald. The talks began with a telephone call from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Tate in late August. Ms. Miller spoke with Mr. Libby by telephone earlier this month as their lawyers listened, according to people briefed on the matter. It was then that Mr. Libby told Ms. Miller that she had his personal and voluntary waiver.
The AP story adds these tidbits:
As we have throughout this ordeal, we continue to support Judy Miller in the decision she has made,” said Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. “We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify.”
Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn declined to comment.
Until this past summer, President Bush said leakers in the Plame probe would be fired. But in July after it was revealed that top aide Karl Rove and Libby had been involved in the leaks, Bush said “if someone committed a crime,” he would be fired.
The latter continues to be one of the most troubling aspects of this case.
A laudable standard was set down by the President — a standard that Republicans would presumably demand of any Democratic administration — but once it emerged that this case might actually involve some VIP on the White House’s power team (who has the initials K.R), new lawyerly language akin to Bill Clinton’s “it all depends on what is is” (frequently and rightfully mocked by Republicans) was suddenly inserted as if it had been the original statement all along. It wasn’t. (GO HERE for a news story on the White House’s changes in standards.)
And, in the nature of 21st century politics with its attention deficit news media, newer more compelling stories popping up that inhale media attention and resources plus set-in-cement political polarization changing the definition of what was acceptable didn’t create any lasting controversy. This set a precedent: you can set standards, announce them, then just change them later with another statement as if the second statement had been the first.
In reality, no one knows how this case will play out so both sides (Republicans and Democrats) are jumping the gun with their assumptions of what has happened. The facts will come out in court.
But given the change in definition that already took place the question would become: if there is an indictment of one or more high White House officials in this case will they be allowed to hold their jobs? Or will a new definition be issued (that says “no one convicted”)? Stay tuned…
The transcript of statements by New York Times officials is here. The New York Times piece on the story is here. The key section:
Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the criminal inquiry. Her decision to testify came after she obtained what she described as a waiver offered “voluntarily and personally” by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. She said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.
That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week. Discussions between government officials and journalists that week have been a central focus of the investigation.
Ms. Miller said in a statement that she expected to appear before the grand jury on Friday. Ms. Miller was released after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the case, to discuss her testimony.
Let the Plame Game blame begin….
SOME OTHER VOICES ON THIS ISSUE (these are excerpts so go to link for full post)
—James Joyner:”If the source is indeed Libby–or, for that matter, even if it isn’t– allowing Miller to spend three months in prison before releasing her from her pledge is pretty low.”
–The Volokh Conspiracy’s Orin Kerr:” Am I missing something, or was the jailing of Judith Miller not about high principle and the First Amendment but about a factual dispute as to whether Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff had really waived his confidentiality? If you’re Bob Bennett, Judith Miller’s top-shelf lawyer, wouldn’t you try to clear this up before your client spent three months in jail? Something about this seems fishy to me.”
This will probably disappoint those who anticipated that Miller went to prison to protect Karl Rove. It may not mean all that much, anyway, since we don’t know what Lewis told Miller. Miller never wrote anything for publication about Valerie Plame, which made her arrest on contempt charges so provocative. It probably will turn out that Miller passed the information to Robert Novak or to some other people in the media.
The grand jury expires on October 28th, so we may finally see some answers from Fitzgerald and his lengthy investigation. Perhaps we’ll also discover why someone who didn’t write about Valerie Plame wound up doing prison time protecting Lewis Libby.
—Americablog:”Wonder if seeing the DeLay/Frist/Katrina house of cards start to fall got her to start singing…”
—Kevin Drum:”Translation: “Miller’s lawyer called Libby’s lawyer last month; Libby said his generic waiver a year ago was plenty; Miller said it wasn’t; Libby said fine, I’m telling you now you have a waiver; really and truly?; yes, yes, really and truly. So tomorrow morning Miller testifies. And as near as I can tell, that’s all that Patrick Fitzgerald needs to wrap up the Plame case. Before long, we should know if he’s got anything or not.”
–Needlenose has a long post but suggests this testimony may not be that big a deal:
In any event, the Inquirer’s reticence aside, it’s a good bet that Miller has indeed agreed to answer questions for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury — and I’d go double or nothing that she caved in because Fitzgerald was willing to keep her in jail well past October, by charging her with criminal contempt and/or extending the term of the grand jury.
There’s also a chance that Fitzgerald, as he did with other journalists, agreed to limit his questioning in some way. In any event, Miller found the deal acceptable and got in touch with Libby to
give him a head’s-upconfirm his permission.
All indications are that Fitzgerald already knows everything she’s going to testify to. Fitzgerald indicated months ago that his case was complete, save for the testimony of Time Magazine‘s Matthew Cooper and Miller.
Millerwent to prison is because she maintained that the unconditional release signed by Scooter Libby (the old one, not the new one) was signed under duress. I’m not sure how this new release is any different than the old one…
—Tom Maguire has a detailed analysis and we’d ruin it if we quote from it — so read the whole thing yasself.
—Charging RINO:”Now that this investigation is apparently winding toward a conclusion (finally), we should soon know whether any indictments will be forthcoming. It could be a very unpleasant fall for the Bush Administration … or the entire thing could fizzle out in a week or so. Only time will tell.”‘
—Michelle Malkin has a good roundup.
–Jazz Shaw:
What I find truly ironic about this story is that, for once, it’s the red state, right wing bloggers defending a New York Times writer holding information that could potentially damage the Bush presidency even further, and the lefties who have been yelling for her scalp. Of course, this can be easily explained because Miller’s reporting and her refusal to reveal sources have all played in Bush’s favor ever since he was elected.
NOTE TO READERS: Please scroll down since we reposted this post due to the story’s timeliness. Several NEWER posts actually are under this one.