The only thing that makes any sense is that she told the grand jury the "I can't recall" bullshit before she got busted on the June notes and had to cut a deal. Because even a bad prosecutor wouldn't let such a pathetic lie stand as her testimony and not threaten her with perjury and/or obstruction charges.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 16, 2005 10:17 AMOr her other source is Big Time or Chimpy.
Posted by Tim at October 16, 2005 10:20 AMMaybe this is why she uses so many anonymous sources: she can’t remember who they were.
Posted by Chuck Dupree (Belisarius) at October 16, 2005 11:05 AMMiller's whole story in the NYT's makes no sense whatsoever. Step back and look at the big picture:
Fitz needs Cooper and Miller to testify to complete his case. He's able to convince a judge that would normally be very reticent to make a reporter testify that this is so important they they must come clean.
Cooper comes clean. All that remains to wrap up the whole thing is Miller, and by now she's out of appeals and headed to jail. At last she signals to Fitz she's ready to talk.
Fitz meets with her prior to her first GJ testimony. I can only assume that he demands the goods...why go through all of this trouble, otherwise? I can also assume that he asks her each and every question he's gonna ask her once they get in the GJ.
Now, assuming she answered the same way in this meeting as she did in the grand jury...ie, that on every point of interest to Fitz she 'can't remember', why does Fitz even put her on the stand? Why doesn't he throw her right back into jail until she can remember?
I don't buy her account to the NYT's, in fact don't buy anything she says.
Posted by nonsense at October 16, 2005 11:16 AMIs this a simple-simon question, or a reasonable one:
Miller "made a strong recommendation to my editor" that an article be pursued. "I was told no," she said. She would not identify the editor.
Ms. Abramson, the Washington bureau chief at the time, said Ms. Miller never made any such recommendation".
OK. So why didn't the team writing this account think to ask all editors if they had been approached by Miller? Miller, by their account, was a loose cannon with connections. If not Abramson, then who? If she is flat out lying, that's one thing. But if, say, Keller himself refused her request, a reasonable question is why did he do that? What did he know about the yet unpublished allegations? What criteria was brought to bear in rejecting her request?
Were every editor at the Times asked to respond to that question, instead of just Abramson, Miller would either be exposed as a liar, or another bit of the story could be reported in the "paper of (hardee har har) record".
Posted by at October 16, 2005 11:39 AMOh darn, does this mean that Judy didn't implicate Rove in your Left Wing concocted scandal? I would have loved it if Judy had claimed to get tehnformation from a Lucy Ramirez, but this is good too.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 16, 2005 01:31 PMCyber Stooge: Oh darn, does this mean that Judy didn't implicate Rove in your Left Wing concocted scandal?
Yes, that's precisely what it means.
Of course, nobody--except perhaps those who weren't paying any attention--ever thought she would implicate Rove. We thought she would implicate Libby--and lo! and behold!, she did. The fact that Fitz may have let Judy get away with this particular lie has precisely zero bearing on our Frogmarch Watch™.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 16, 2005 01:37 PM... does this mean that Judy didn't implicate Rove...Posted by Cilly Sarge
Nope, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine did that. Tough luck, sucka.
...does this mean that Judy didn't implicate Rove
Yup, but Cooper did as mentioned above and so didn't Chris Matthews when he said Karl Rove told him Wilson's wife was fair game.
Okay another (long) parsing note here...
Judy states or infers that because she had special security clearance that may allow her to see classified information that Libby was giving her about (F)lame-winpac etc). Perhaps it is just her hope at this point that it may cover Libby, but she brought it up in her interview. Okay so since there has been much written about the fact that this special security clearance would allow her to see classified information that she as a journalist would not be allowed to give to the public that conflicts in a big way with her journalistic code to report all she knows to the public.
Hanyway....my point is that she says perhaps the Libby information she recieved was classified but she had clearance to see it so no harm no foul here... but that also means she knows she shouldn't be writing about it too. However the contradiction is when she states that she was annoyed that she got scooped on the story by Novak and that she pursued her editors into writing a story about this....(knowing it was classified and she shouldn't divulge it).
So which is it conflict of major interest Judy...you break your oath to your gov't and the security clearance that says you will keep classified gov't secrets secret, or you break your oath to professional journalistic principles of reporting things you know for the public? Sounds like were trying to have it both ways here when it was a convenient (excuse) for you to explain things in your story that didn't make sense or would CYA or Libby's arse.
Posted by emal at October 17, 2005 04:56 AMcan any forensic experts out there tell us if millers notes can be tested for age like the shroud of turin beach towell? do they have the prison`s letterhead ?
Posted by tiki al at October 17, 2005 06:36 AM"Miller 'made a strong recommendation to my editor' that an article be pursued."
The reason Miller told this lie is so that she could pretend that her role in this affair was simply that of a journalist trying to pursue a story. Because if that was her role, she would then have had at least some justification for not revealing sources. But that was not her role. Instead, her meetings with Libby were really nothing more than her hob-nobbing with administration members. That's the way the press works these days, they are intimately intertwined with the people they are supposed to only be reporting on. When you realize that, then you also realize that Miller hasn't been trying to protect a "source" - she has been trying to protect an accomplice.
Posted by Romdinstler Jones at October 17, 2005 06:53 AMeRiposte:
Judy's telling the truth here. Abramson is demonstrably lying. She was the editor who refused to print the story. But, of course, she's the Managing editor, so she gets to say what gets in there about here.
But then, as you point out, since Judy tried to publish a story, it's clear she knew the real name.
Posted by emptywheel at October 17, 2005 07:43 PM