Looks like the caged bird is about to sing.
Posted by kimster at September 29, 2005 05:44 PMIt was Tom DeLay's fault!
Posted by bbtb at September 29, 2005 05:55 PMNormally astute, you seem to not understand the issue here. She was only in jail because her source, Cheney’s chief of staff, wanted to remain confidential. She’ll testify now, whereas she would not before because he had made a promise. Now I. Lewis Libby has released Miller from her earlier promise, exposing himself to possible legal troubles. As far as Miller’s time in jail convincing her of the “values of being a good citizen,” well, she WAS being a good citizen and a good reporter in going to jail. Source confidentiality is critical to a free press, and in most cases works against the powers that be. Perhaps that’s not the case here, but that doesn’t invalidate the general principle. Miller should be proud of herself, not humiliated.
Posted by good citizen at September 29, 2005 06:11 PMgood citizen = medium lobster?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 29, 2005 06:22 PMgood citizen, you and I will simply have to differ as to our assessments of Ms. Miller's motives.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 29, 2005 06:49 PMAt 9:00, driving home from a dinner engagement, I heard the news on NPR. Stayed tuned.
Posted by Judith at September 29, 2005 07:14 PMAs far as Miller’s time in jail convincing her of the “values of being a good citizen,” well, she WAS being a good citizen and a good reporter in going to jail. Source confidentiality is critical to a free press...
She was being a good citizen by going to jail. She could have fled. That would not have been the action of a good citizen. It had nothing to do with her maintaining confidentiality though.
Posted by muckcat at September 29, 2005 07:17 PMFitzgerald blinks and lost his reputation as tough dude.
Posted by john at September 29, 2005 07:28 PMIt really doesn’t have anything to do with Judy Miller’s motives or even her capabilities as a reporter. If she had given in, journalists of lesser stature trying to protect actual whistle-blowers would have been left open to attack. Maybe saying that she should be proud is a bit extreme, but I do think it’s good that it worked out this way.
Posted by good citizen at September 29, 2005 07:45 PMIf she had given in, journalists of lesser stature trying to protect actual whistle-blowers would have been left open to attack.
We do have whistleblower laws you know. Being a journalist does not give you the authority to decide which court orders to obey and which ones to ignore. She made a choice. She went to jail. And for going to jail she was a good citizen. I'm willing to give her that much.
Posted by muckcat at September 29, 2005 07:57 PMSource confidentiality is critical to a free press,….
I agree but abet a crime is not. If you are driving the car unknowingly in a robbery, you go to jail as the one who did the act. She should have known better, that a crime was been commit and that is unacceptable.
Journalist like her is no better than any “Faux News” and all other on any other corporate media talking heads. The News today is pitiful.
Fitzgerald blinks and lost his reputation as tough dude.
How do you know that Fitzgerald didn't get what he was after and has no further need to incarcerate The News Whore of Babylon?
Posted by pessimist at September 29, 2005 08:07 PMYour are not a good citizen or reporter when you knowingly become part of a crime, by covering up for the criminals. You do not have the right to stand in the way of a criminal investigation. Judith Miller's problems are not first amendment issues. Probably more likely her problems are fifth amendment issues.
Posted by Judith at September 29, 2005 08:11 PMgood citizen said: She was only in jail because her source, Cheney’s chief of staff, wanted to remain confidential. She’ll testify now, whereas she would not before because he had made a promise.
See, this is where I disagree with your assessment of her motives. She'll testify now because if she didn't, she'd do another six months in the pen if Fitzgerald extended the grand jury, or maybe more if he then slapped criminal contempt charges on her.
Miller, being a big badass in her profession, thought she was too tough to be muscled. She was mistaken.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 29, 2005 08:26 PMGood Citizen:
Go read all of Ms. Miller's articles in the run-up to the war.....then come back and tell me how proud I should be of her.
Are they letting her out because she agreed to testify against her sources?
Or are they letting her out because she will still remain silent and keep her sources secret?
Is anyone else confused?
The news media is in a less-than-ideal position in the Plame probe.
The reporters' sources - rather than being whistle-blowers exposing wrongdoing and facing retaliation if identified - are government officials whose motives in leaking appear to have been to undermine the credibility of a critic of the Bush administration.
AP reporter Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this report
That's not honorable. That is protecting those who created this culture of corruption.
Posted by Judith at September 30, 2005 04:15 AMSo does this event qualify as part of a just-prior-to-weekend-news-worthy-item-dump that the Bushies are famous for?
It'll headline this morning, but could easily drop off by his evening.
Posted by idiosynchronic at September 30, 2005 04:44 AMidio, I guess it depends on what she says and what Fitz allows into the press. He's been very tight-lipped. Of course, she could come out of the grand jury and say that she said nothing, but would you believe her? I'd say, watch her bank account to see which way she'll swing. I just have to wonder what Bolton had to say to her in his recent visit.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 30, 2005 05:26 AMFrist, DeLay, Miller, Libby, Bennett. No, I don't think any of the above stories will drop off by the evening news. It is becoming more and more difficult to keep up with all the stories. The MSM has been given enough red meat for a feeding frenzy. We shall see.
Posted by Judith at September 30, 2005 05:28 AMAccording to the MSM, Miller was released from confidentialty over a year ago by Libby.
Posted by Judith at September 30, 2005 05:32 AMI'd say, watch her bank account to see which way she'll swing. I just have to wonder what Bolton had to say to her in his recent visit.
Fitzgerald was willing to slap contempt charges on her, so it's tough to imagine he would let her get away with perjuring herself. So unless they've cooked up a really good story, and she's a very good liar, I'd guess she will be playing it straight.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 30, 2005 06:47 AMAs I said over at my place last night I don't think Libby had anything to do with Miller's decision. I think Fitzgerald told her he was going to go after her as a participent rather than a reporter.
Posted by Ron In Portland at September 30, 2005 07:15 AMJudy Changes Her Mind
There was a slight typo in the initial report. Judith has in fact changed her underwear following her incarceration.