1
   

Judith Miller to name Scooter Libby

 
 
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 06:56 pm
According to the NYT. Judith Miller will name Scooter Libby as her source for the Plame leak. I'm guessing this is a direct connect to the office of the V.P. (wherever he may be)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,401 • Replies: 90
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 07:39 pm
Hmmmmm....big surprise.


What is their sourcing for the claim?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 07:43 pm
will be in tomorrow's NYT
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 09:37 pm
Miller released, agrees to testify

The story I am getting is that Scooter did not issue a new release. Speculation is she just finally had enough of prison. Folks, this could get real interesting.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 10:49 pm
Fitzgerald said he plans to wrap up his operation in October.

Has anyone heard when he plans to release his report?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Sep, 2005 10:55 pm
BBB
I'm not surprised Miller fingered Libby. He was at the top of my list of suspects.

I have no respect for Miller and her cohorts.

BBB
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 03:10 am
Why?


She went to prison for an ideal and an ethical belief.


???????????

I am interested in your reasons.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 07:56 am
Wait. Does this mean that Judith Miller will be freed to write for the NYT again?

Fight on, Judy! Stand by your principles! Don't give up now!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 07:57 am
Watching with interest.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 08:00 am
Quote:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation_16
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 08:56 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Fitzgerald said he plans to wrap up his operation in October.

Has anyone heard when he plans to release his report?


Fitzgerald isn't an IC so I don't think he is mandated to do a report.

I'm looking for the indictments and the smear job with claims that Fitzgerald is a partisan hack. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 09:03 am
BUt Ken Mehlman has complete confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald...at least he did. From everything I understand, Fitzgerald will issue a report.

This whole Miller thing seems like a paradox.

I don't think we will have problems with the political forum winding down, although there might be few righties who slither away rather than digest the crow.

Although I am sure they will whine "it's a weak indictment!"
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 09:15 am
Judith Miller did the right thing in this case, but there are those (myself included) who also despise her for reporting absolute BS in the Times about WMDs in Iraq prior to the war. Her "source" was Chalabi.

The fact that the NY Times was publishing her stories on the front page day after day was a factor in making the war happen. After all, if the Times says there are WMDs, then there must be.

Except there weren't. Judy has lot to answer for, the current case notwithstanding.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 09:24 am
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I'm not surprised Miller fingered Libby. He was at the top of my list of suspects.

I have no respect for Miller and her cohorts.

BBB


"fingered" Libby? What are you talking about?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 09:25 am
Quote:
...

'Why didn't someone call us?'

Tate [Libby's attorney] said Libby signed a waiver of confidentiality more than a year ago, which Tate followed with a phone call to New York Times attorney Floyd Abrams assuring him that Libby's waiver was voluntary.

Over the Labor Day weekend, Miller's attorney, Robert Bennett, tracked Tate down in Martha's Vineyard to tell him she had not accepted the waiver as valid because "it came from lawyers."

"I assured Bennett that it was voluntary, and he asked, 'Would Scooter say that to Judy?' And I said, 'Scooter doesn't want to see Judy in jail,'" Tate said.

"My reaction was, why didn't someone call us 80 days ago?" he said of his conversation with Bennett.

After receiving assurance from Fitzgerald that a call between Libby and Miller would not be obstructing justice, the call was set up by Bennett and both attorneys listened in, Tate said.

"Scooter said to her, 'Judy, Joe Tate talked to Floyd Abrams more than a year ago and said it's voluntary. Joe assured me you understood,'" Tate recalled from the conversation. "'But we want you to know the waiver was voluntary.'"

Tate said Miller responded that she and Abrams had discussed it but that she was not willing to "rely on lawyers."

Libby said, "Well, why didn't someone call us?" Tate said. "There was no answer."

Tate told CNN Libby testified before a grand jury about his "conversations with Judy Miller and everyone else," appearing two or three times in 2003 and 2004. But he said he has not gone before the grand jury since, and until called by Bennett in early September had not been contacted by anyone in connection with the case in more than a year. Tate said he has no reason to believe Libby is a target of the investigation.

Libby testified he talked about the Plame matter with a few reporters, including Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper as well as two Washington Post reporters, Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus. He said he had assured Kessler and Pincus' attorney that Libby's waiver of confidentiality was voluntary. "To me, that was the end of the story," Tate said.

He said he and Libby assumed Miller was jailed for protecting another source or for another unknown reason, and said he did not know why it took 10 days to release Miller following her conversation with Libby.


SOURCE
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 09:29 am
D'artagnan WROTE

Quote:
The fact that the NY Times was publishing her stories on the front page day after day was a factor in making the war happen. After all, if the Times says there are WMDs, then there must be.


The stories in the NY Times facilitated the war. Are you kidding. Remember Bush doesn't read the papers. Confused
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 09:39 am
dlowanL
dlowan, you asked why I have no respect for Judy Miller. I've posted a lot of articles and my personal opinions on A2K over the months so I won't repeat them here. Miller was/is the Bush's administration's mole at the New York Times. She conluded with Chalabi and the neocons to fabricate the lies that made it possible to delude the congress to give Bush carte blanch to invade Iraq. She published opinion under the color of news when, if she wished to espouse admiration for Bush administration policies, she should have done so as an opinion columnist.
Normally I would respect a journalist who is willing to go to prison to protect the confidentially of a source. A source who is a whistle blower acting for the Common Good. But Miller's source was not a whistle blower. She was protecting at least one and probably many more, including herself, who were committing a felony. There is a difference.

Judy Miller is a disgrace to journalism and the First Amendment. I despise her for her role and for her betrayal of the American people.

The following gives you some additional information. ---BBB
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 10:44 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
...

'Why didn't someone call us?'

Tate [Libby's attorney] said Libby signed a waiver of confidentiality more than a year ago, which Tate followed with a phone call to New York Times attorney Floyd Abrams assuring him that Libby's waiver was voluntary.




SOURCE


That headline reminds me of the statement by Brown and others about New Orleans convention center.

It seems the WH doesn't have the time to stay on top of the news.

What's next? "Why didn't someone tell us that Iraq has an insurgency?"
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 11:20 am
au1929 wrote:
D'artagnan WROTE

Quote:
The fact that the NY Times was publishing her stories on the front page day after day was a factor in making the war happen. After all, if the Times says there are WMDs, then there must be.


The stories in the NY Times facilitated the war. Are you kidding. Remember Bush doesn't read the papers. Confused


Agreed re Bush's reading habits, but those articles in the Times certainly undercut opposition to the war. Lest we forget, the idea that Saddam had WMD was THE major rationale for this stupid war, until, of course, we found out that there were no WMD.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2005 11:24 am
I can't get too exercised about the Miller thing -- I was reading the front page of the New York Times (and the rest of it) in the run-up to war and I certainly wasn't for it, based on what I was reading.

Chalabi was a bad source, yes, but I don't think it goes too much beyond that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Judith Miller to name Scooter Libby
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 08:26:04