August 7, 2005


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. (Murray Waas, 08.06.05, American Prospect)

I. 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 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. [...]

Just how crucial Miller's testimony -- most notably her meeting with Libby -- might be to concluding Fitzgerald's investigation is best underscored in part by a filing in federal court last March that his investigation had been "for all practical purposes complete" as long as six months earlier, except for the potential testimony of Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper.

The investigation had become “stalled,” Fitzgerald asserted, almost entirely by the refusal of Miller and Cooper to testify. Declaring that “[t]he public's right to have this investigation concluded diligently should be delayed no further," Fitzgerald sought the jailing on civil contempt of court charges of both Miller and Cooper.

So the investigation is over and no one's been charged. Ms Miller has a waiver to testify about what Mr. Libby told her. And even if he told her Ms Plame worked at CIA he didn't violate the law. Yet the Left continues to expend hope and energy on this?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 7, 2005 12:00 AM

It's all they've got.

Posted by: jd watson at August 7, 2005 4:39 AM

It's much more likely that Miller, who had been workng the WMD beat for the Times, told Libby that Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, CIA WMD specialist Valerie Plame.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 7, 2005 9:57 AM

Wouldn't she have to be taking the 5th instead of the 1st then?

Posted by: oj at August 7, 2005 10:07 AM

What crime could she possibly have committed?

Posted by: David Cohen at August 7, 2005 12:38 PM

Never interrupt your opponent when he is busy destroying himself.

Posted by: ray at August 7, 2005 12:42 PM

Revealing Plame's identity.

Posted by: oj at August 7, 2005 1:39 PM

Revealing Plame's identity.

Posted by: oj at August 7, 2005 1:40 PM

Clearly not a crime for her, even if it would be a crime for someone else, which is doubtful. The statute purposely makes it a crime only for someone with a security clearance to name a covert agent. It is not crime for a newspaper to whom that someone leaks to name the agent. Note that Novak is not being indicted.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 8, 2005 6:56 PM


No one's going to be indicted. But there's a special prosecutor.

Posted by: oj at August 8, 2005 7:08 PM

To take the Fifth, there has to be some colorable crime hanging out there that the witness could be convicted of.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 8, 2005 8:13 PM

Yes, and it's easy enough to pretend there's one here. The Prosecutor and the Press are.

Posted by: oj at August 9, 2005 11:44 AM

Actually, the Press, in its filings against the reporter's subpoenas, has taken the position that there can't possibly be a crime here, so there's no point questioning the reporters.

No one thinks that the reporters committed a crime, particularly the reporters that never wrote a story, and thus Miller has no relevant Fifth Amendment rights.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 9, 2005 12:30 PM

"position" That'll be for the courts to determine. Meanwhile, folks can legitimately take the Fifth.

Posted by: oj at August 9, 2005 12:39 PM

Not reporters unless they can identify a crime they might have committed.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 9, 2005 1:09 PM

If she was trafficking in classified information she can likely get away with the 5th.

Posted by: oj at August 9, 2005 1:15 PM

No, there's a reason that Bob Novak, who actually published the information, along with every other reporter who was gossiping about it, have now testified.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 9, 2005 9:46 PM

Yes, they weren't the ones who revealed her identity.

Posted by: oj at August 9, 2005 10:02 PM

Only under my theory, not under yours.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 10, 2005 8:21 AM

They didn't take the 5th.

Posted by: oj at August 10, 2005 8:42 AM