New Confirmation that Libby was a Source for Miller

[paineinthearse]

Does John Conyers ever sleep?

http://www.conyersblog.us/

New Confirmation that Libby was a Source for Miller

I just read Murray Wass' excellent piece in the American Prospect describing a private meeting between Judith Miller and Scooter Libby on July 8, 2003, two days after Ambassador Wilson's now famous column questioning the WMD assertions of the Administration, and before Novak's outing of Wilson's wife -- based on two administration sources. This is a very comprehensive piece, and adds much critical information to what we know about Treasongate. Wass also explains that one of the key hold ups in Fitzgerald's investigation is that Libby has not yet issued a specific privelege waiver to Miller allowing her to tell the prosecutor what she knows about these alleged crimes. Given that the president said he wanted full cooperation so that the prosecutor could get to the bottom of the security leak, and that he he raised the bar for dismissal to committing a federal crime, this is nothing less than outrageous. Needless to say, I intend to pursue this matter further in the coming days.

Way to go, Rep. Conyers!

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10077

THE MEETING

Scooter Libby and Judy Miller met on July 8, 2003, two days after Joe Wilson published his column. And Patrick Fitzgerald is very interested.

By Murray Waas
Web Exclusive: 08.06.05

Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has told federal investigators that he met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to legal sources familiar with Libby's account. The meeting between Libby and Miller has been a central focus of the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald as to whether any Bush administration official broke the law by unmasking Plame's identity or relied on classified information to discredit former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, according to sources close to the case as well as documents filed in federal court by Fitzgerald.

The meeting took place in Washington, D.C., six days before columnist Robert Novak wrote his now-infamous column unmasking Plame as a "CIA operative." Although little noticed at the time, Novak's column would cause the appointment of a special prosecutor, ultimately place in potential legal jeopardy senior advisers to the president of the United States, and lead to the jailing of a New York Times reporter. The meeting between Libby and Miller also occurred during a week of intense activity by Libby and White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove aimed at discrediting Plame's husband, Wilson, who on July 6, 2003, had gone public in a New York Times opinion piece with allegations that the Bush administration was misrepresenting intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.

Miller was jailed in July -- two years to the day after Wilson’s Times op-ed appeared -- for civil contempt of court after she refused to answer questions posed to her by Fitzgerald’s grand jury regarding her contacts discussing Plame with Libby and other Bush administration officials. Ironically, even though she never wrote a story about Plame, she has so far been the only person jailed in the case. The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in his administration have done everything possible to assist Fitzgerald's grand-jury probe. Sources close to the investigation, and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal probe, said that Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may have played a significant role in Miller’s decision not to testify about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8, 2003.

Libby signed a more generalized waiver during the early course of the investigation granting journalists the right to testify about their conversations with him if they wished to do so. At least two reporters -- Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC -- have testified about their conversations with Libby. But Miller has said she would not consider providing any information to investigators about conversations with Libby or anyone else without a more specific, or personal, waiver. She said she considers general waivers to be inherently coercive. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, has previously said Miller had not been granted "any kind of a waiver … that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given." Libby has never offered to provide such a personalized waiver for Miller, according to three legal sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter. Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for Libby, declined to comment for this story.

more....

[tiptoe]

1. Hmm...So, Libby never offered a "specific privilege waiver" to Miller...

Because of Miller's known "reportorial style" (see below) -- or perhaps even by explicit agreement -- Washington insiders with "high security clearances" might know that -- when dealing as a source for Judith Miller -- any waiver less than a "specific privilege waiver" would not suffice for Miller releasing herself from confidentiality promises.

So, while Libby apparently might have provided a general waiver (to all reporters) for satisfying appearances of "cooperation" with Fitzgerald's investigation, nevertheless Libby would have known such a waiver to be inadequate for gaining Miller's self-compliance with release from confidentiality obligations. Indeed, in the context of Miller's style (or by agreement), the very absence of a necessary "specific privilege" waiver could be a "coded request" (or "order"?) for Miller NOT to disclose...at least not immediately...And, implicitly, this could be in exchange for political favors later, e.g. a Presidential pardon. But the latter consideration would only make sense for Miller *if* she were (or could become) at risk for charges more serious than just failure to obey a court order to disclose, something worse than obstruction of justice (e.g. how about conspiracy?...to commit treason??)

It will be interesting to see what results from Conyers' stated intent "to pursue this matter further in the coming days."

The question becomes: Can Libby be compelled to extend a "specific privilege waiver" to Judith Miller (to force the issue), as "full cooperation" would dictate of any high-security-clearance source dealing with her? Or has Libby satisified all his legal obligation by extending the "general waiver" (perhaps as negotiated with Fitzgerald)?

From The Source of the Trouble

There’s an important difference in reportorial style between Miller and her colleagues. Risen and Bergman are diggers, excavating documents and sources hidden deep in the bureaucracy. Miller, on the other hand, relies on her well-placed, carefully tended-to connections to nab her stories. In February, on the public-radio show “The Connection,” she said, “My job was not to collect information and analyze it independently as an intelligence agency; my job was to tell readers of the New York Times, as best as I could figure out, what people inside the governments, who had very high security clearances, who were not supposed to talk to me, were saying to one another about what they thought Iraq had and did not have in the area of weapons of mass destruction.”

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. I've wondered whether they will use Libby as the fall guy

Recommended and bookmarked.

[welshTerrier2]

3. Carville's little rumours ...

Carville was on the Imus show on Monday morning ... hid hideous wife is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday) ... maybe they'll run that Leave It To Beaver episode where the Beave needs to get his tonsils out ... i can't stand Mrs. Carville ...

anyway, Carville basically said that Fitzgerald, unlike media whore Ken Starr, does not like to have any information get out to the media ... he said most of what you hear about the case is little more than speculation ...

and then he speculated ...

he said he had heard rumours that Miller may not end up claiming her first amendment rights as a journalist but rather her fifth amendment rights as someone who may be accused of more serious crimes ...

Carville also said he had heard talk that Fitzgerald was in the process of going after other employees of the NY Times ... the speculation is that others know who Miller's source was and if they won't talk, they could be going to jail too ...

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. If Cheney is truly the source of the move against Wilson/Plame, then it's

that much more likely that the leak was NOT just an attack on Wilson's credibility, it was primarily a direct knockdown of Plame's WMD investigations. There are many truths that this administration cannot afford, and the true state of Middle-East WMDs was and is one of them.

If Libby was so centrally involved, you know Cheney had to be calling the shots.

Here's a thread on this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4286017
thread title: Interesting second opinion of the Plame case.

...and :kick:

[tiptoe]

6. (Indeed, on 8/26/02 Cheney initiated the "marketing rollout" for war...)

On Aug 26, 2002, Cheney initiated LIE #1 about the WMDs of Saddam Hussein.

Ray McGovern, Ex-CIA, 27 yrs:

"The marketing rollout for the war was keynoted by the vice president, who in a shrill speech on Aug. 26 charged, 'We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.'"

Also: 34:30 into video of House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Hearing on Downing Street Memo and Iraq War, 8/16/2005

[paineinthearse]

5. JC's follow-on post

This shit keeps getting better and better....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1995986

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. And remember - they didn't just take out Plame, they destroyed the CIA

investigation of Bush-connected businesses like ARAMCO and its involvement in weapons proleiferation under cover of Brewster-Jennings. Read more about this here:

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/node/211

I do think that it wasn't Wison so much as Plame and the investigation of Saudi Oil/ARAMCO/Bush interests that they wanted taken out.