October 4, 2005

NO, YOU GO FIRST:

Prosecutor Thought Libby Deliberately Failed To Intervene On Reporter's Behalf (JOSH GERSTEIN, October 4, 2005, NY Sun)

A special prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity concluded earlier this year that the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, deliberately failed to intervene with a New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to testify in the probe because it would not be to his advantage for her to speak freely, according to a letter obtained by The New York Sun.

However, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, said in the previously undisclosed letter that he later came to suspect that the standoff might be due to a misunderstanding between attorneys for Mr. Libby and the reporter, Judith Miller.

Ms. Miller, who spent nearly three months in jail, was released last week after she agreed to testify to a grand jury investigating whether White House officials disclosed the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Ms. Miller said she testified only after speaking directly with Mr. Libby and being convinced that he wanted her to do so.


In other words, all she had to do was ask?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 4, 2005 7:49 PM
Comments

No, what she had to do was to get Fitzgerald to agree to limit his questions to Libby alone. I still believe she got the information about Plame from another source, which she refuses to disclose.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 4, 2005 8:24 PM

If this is true, we need to come up with some award for the worst lawyering of the year.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 4, 2005 8:54 PM

early entry in the 2005 Most Tortured Sentence in Journalism Award:

"A special prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity concluded earlier this year that the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, deliberately failed to intervene with a New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to testify in the probe because it would not be to his advantage for her to speak freely..."

how does one 'intervene with' ?

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at October 4, 2005 9:26 PM

This doesn't make any sense. It was widely reported that Libby over a year ago gave Miller the go ahead to talk. She didn't or what Fitzgerald wanted her to talk about wasn't covered by Liddy.

Fitzgerald has a good reputation but he seems to be fishing about for something to hang on the administration. And I continue to not believe that Miller went to jail to protect a GOPer.

Posted by: AWW at October 4, 2005 11:25 PM

Ever get the feeling, that after this is all over, and Fitzgerald has concluded his investigation, that we'll still not have any idea what happened?

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 5, 2005 9:09 AM

Allen:

Try and explain Watergate to yourself--we generally don't know what happened once more than one person is involved.

Posted by: oj at October 5, 2005 9:17 AM

AllenS's Watergate explained:

Burglary of commie headquarters. Arrests made. The law says you can't burgle commies. The beginning of the end of Righteousness.

The End.

Posted by: AllenS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 5, 2005 9:53 AM
« HAPPY NRA, SAD NARAL: | Main | GEORGE WILL VS THE DNC: »