Thursday :: Oct 20, 2005

Treasongate: The Truth About Judy

by eriposte

In my detailed post examining Judith Miller's mysterious "discovery" of "notes" leading to her second grand jury testimony, I showed how the facts make it quite clear that Miller must have misled or lied to the grand jury in her first appearance and had to return for a second appearance after getting caught. My post was an exposition of the perjury trap theory of Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake) and Emptywheel (The Next Hurrah). There was a slight modification I offered to the theory. The theory was that Fitzgerald was expecting Miller to lie for Libby and sprung a trap. My modification was that Fitzgerald may not have known for certain that Miller would lie for Libby but realized it as he went along:

Fitzgerald's ultimate goal was to catch Libby in a lie, not Miller (Miller was not his original person of interest). So, once he knew Libby had not disclosed a June meeting with Miller involving Joseph Wilson, he needed to get Miller on the stand to contradict Libby. However, he COULD NOT include the June 2003 date in the subpoena to Miller because that would tip off LIBBY (not Miller) that Fitzgerald was on to him and allow him to come back to the grand jury saying he "misspoke", before Miller contradicted him. That's the key.

Now, on to Miller. I suspect Patrick Fitzgerald did not expect that Miller would deny or hide the June 2003 meeting [I say this because I don't know of any a priori evidence that Fitzgerald had which would have convinced him that Miller would collude with Libby, as she did]. That may have come as a mild surprise to him. The Miller trap, in that sense, was applied ONCE Miller was deposed by Fitzgerald prior to her grand jury appearance and just after she was released from jail. When Miller didn't mention the June 2003 meeting during her deposition, Fitzgerald must have realized she was trying to help Libby and had to get her under oath - so that he could flip her.

Murray Waas' latest article - showing that Judith Miller denied meeting Libby on June 23, 2003, until she was shown secret service logs of their meeting - offers further proof of this theory, as ReddHedd and Swopa have discussed.

It shows once and for all that Judith Miller was indeed a "charter member" of the White House Iraq Group, a lying propaganda queen for a criminal administration, a person who willingly colluded in the cover-up of a high crime (with her partner-in-collusion Robert Novak) for a long time - and whose debased conduct finally got revealed by a smart prosecutor. Let me also add this. The corrupt and morally bankrupt Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is perhaps the worst publisher in the history of the New York Times. No one bears more responsibility for reducing the Times to the New Pravda gutter it is in today, than this man. I feel bad for all the good journalists in the Times who have had to work under an atmosphere of corruption and collusion with the Bush White House all these years, created by Sulzberger's constant coddling of the biggest crook to hit the arena of mainstream journalism in modern American history - Judith Miller. Even Michael Isikoff has noticed what Miller is/was doing (via Billmon):

What's fascinating, if you read Judy Miller's account closely, is it's very clear she is still trying to be protective of Scooter Libby, and in fact, as I sort of reread it this morning, I saw point by point where, if she is on the stand, as presumably she would be, if Libby gets indicted and the case goes to trial, the defense lawyer for Libby could go through her account and find passages where she is giving information that could be helpful to Libby's defense.

Let me now jump to the topic of Libby's testimony, because there is a serious discrepancy that has emerged: Waas' latest article contradicts his earlier reporting (as Swopa notes). In his earlier reporting Waas said that Libby had not disclosed his June 23, 2003 meeting with Miller. In the latest article, he says he did close it but only after he was "pressed" on it. The previous article said that Libby disclosed his meetings on July 8 and July 12. This article says Libby disclosed his meetings on June 23 and July 8. For example, in the latest article, Waas says:

But Libby testified regarding both the June 23 and July 8 meeting that he had never named Plame nor told Miller that she worked for the CIA, because either he did not know that at the time, or, if he had heard Plame was a CIA employee, he did not know whether it was true.

Did the dates accidentally get switched? I have a hard time believing that Libby testified about his June 23 meeting with Miller because Libby's letter to Miller only spoke about meetings in July:

The Special Counsel identified every reporter with whom I had spoken about anything in July 2003, including you.

Why would Libby testify about his June meetings but mention only the meetings in July to Miller in his letter?? This doesn't make sense.

Also, the Fitzgerald subpoena spoke about July meetings as well, not June. Why would Fitzgerald not include the June meeting in the subpoena if Libby testified to it?

I hope Waas takes a second look at both of his articles and reconciles this discrepancy.

eriposte :: 11:39 PM :: Comments (1) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!