October 1, 2005
LIBBYRATION DAY:
Phone Call With Source and Deal Led Reporter to Testify (ADAM LIPTAK, 10/01/05, NY Times)
Two developments drove the decision of Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to testify about conversations with a confidential source, to appear before a grand jury in Washington yesterday in exchange for her freedom, she and her lawyers said yesterday.One was a long phone call with the source. The other was a deal with the special prosecutor in the case.
But three recent letters from people involved in the case debate whether a similar deal may have been available for some time and raise questions about why Ms. Miller decided to testify now.
Pretty bad when your colleagues are this dubious. I think it was Mort Kondracke who last night said that she wanted to go to jail in order to earn back the cred she lost by pushing WMD disinformation. It's not working out that way.
MORE:
Who is Judy Miller kidding?: The New York Times reporter needs to write the truth about her involvment in Plamegate. (ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, October 1, 2005, LA Times)
NOW THAT Judy Miller has finished testifying, finished spinning for the cameras on the courthouse steps, finished hugging her dog and finished eating that special meal she wanted her husband to prepare, she needs to do what Time reporter Matt Cooper did and immediately publish a full and truthful account of her involvement in Plamegate.Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2005 8:02 AMBecause what she — and the New York Times' publisher and editor — have said so far just doesn't add up.
I've tried to follow this story since its start. The only thing that I've gotten, is this dizzy feeling in my head.
Posted by: AllenS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 1, 2005 8:56 AM
Allen:
Here's all you need to know about the story: the central charge against the Administration is that they sought to discredit Joe Wilson by pointing out that the fact that his wife is with the CIA which sent him on his trip.
The acknowledgement that the truth would discredit his testimony gives away the whole game.
Posted by: oj at October 1, 2005 9:04 AMThe NYT must be taking some lumps, too - as Podhoretz wrote on Thursday, they keep proclaiming that there are mysteries, but Bill Keller knows all the answers (just like Miller).
Aside from Judy's desire for atonement, the other possibility is that the Times knows full disclosure will clear Rove, Libby, et al., so they are keeping mum. In the end, this is just media froth, with Novak's sidebar turning into puree downstream (via David Corn, Milbank and Pincus, Matt Cooper, and Miller). Sure, they talked to people at CIA, who just kept the blender spinning.
I imagine Joe Wilson thought himself DCI if Kerry won the election. Or maybe Valerie is like Lady Macbeth, driving him on.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 1, 2005 9:56 AMoj:
That's the only part I understand. Everything else that has happened, makes no sense.
Posted by: AllenS at October 1, 2005 9:58 AM
Allen:
Any time someone tells the truth there's a price to be paid.
Posted by: oj at October 1, 2005 10:06 AMIt was either jail or elizabeth arden, and jail is a lot cheaper.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 1, 2005 10:30 AMThere's some interesting speculation out there that this was the deal she cut cos she had called a mosque the day before it was raided. Fitzpatrick is also working on that case......
Posted by: Sandy P at October 1, 2005 11:12 AMWow, even Arianna Huffington gets something right on occasion!
Posted by: kevin whited at October 1, 2005 11:53 AM