home

Judith Miller and Lewis Libby

Murray Waas has a new column in which he says Judith Miller met with Lewis Libby on July 8, 2003, six days before Robert Novak published his column outing Valerie Plame Wilson. While much of what Waas writes today is more in the nature of a summary or wrap-up, I found this to be a "new dot" for me:

In an affidavit prepared by Miller to respond to the request [for documents requested in the subpoena], Miller said she "did not receive any documents" from the person she met, but declined to say who the person was that she met on July 8. In subsequent court papers filed in federal court by attorneys for Miller and The New York Times, the newspaper said that Miller "had no documents responsive" to Fitzgerald's request of any documents given to her on July 8, 2003.

But Miller's affidavit and other court filings by the Times -- and the narrow language contained therein -- did not say whether Miller might have read or reviewed any documents that might have brought to the July 8, 2003, meeting.

I think that's the crucial question at this point. Why would Miller and Libby meet in person unless it was to do something they couldn't do over the phone - like review a document. What we don't know is whether Miller showed Libby a document she received from another source or whether Libby showed Miller a document. Libby has testified and thus provided his version to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald needs to question Miller to determine whether Libby told the truth.

Waas says sources tell him that if Libby would give Miller a "personalized waiver," she might comply and be released from jail. I wonder whether those sources aren't the beginning of an an attempt by the Rove team to start dumping on Libby, something I wondered about here.

The unanswered questions remain:

  • Was there a coverup by White House Officials, in particular, Libby, Rove, members of Cheney's staff, those in the White House Iraq Group or members of the Defense Policy Board?
  • Did an Administration official improperly leak the contents of a classified document to reporters, particularly, Judith Miller?

Some points, followed by references to past postings of the information and news sources supporting them:

  • The July 8, 2003 meeting between Miller and an Administration official was reported on July 16, 2005, three weeks ago.
  • The details of Miller's subpoena - that it specifically named a single official and asked for documents received from that official, has been widely reported - as has the identity of the official, Lewis Libby.
  • Judith Miller's lawyers have said Fitzgerald learned about Miller's pertinent conversations from someone who testified to the grand jury. Witnesses before the grand jury were extensively questioned about notes made by Libby. It's been reported before that Libby told Fitzgerald he talked to Miller.
  • Miller has said that her refusal to comply with the subpoena is based on two things. The first is the waiver, and I am convinced that's a smokescreen. That waiver was good enough for every other reporter who disclosed his or her conversations with Libby. Joseph Tate, Libby's lawyer, told the New York Times that Libby's initial waiver was valid for all reporters. Miller's second reason is the real one: she believes Fitzgerald will ask her about other sources after she talks about Libby,like he did with Matt Cooper, and she is not willing to go down that road.

Here is some of what I've posted previously from mainstream media sources.

Miller was in Washington, DC on July 8, the same day Rove spoke with Cooper, meeting with an unidentified Administration official widely believed to be Libby.

"The disclosures [regarding Rove being a source for Cooper]also highlight the special prosecutor's interest in jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller and her meeting in Washington with an unnamed government official on July 8, 2003, the same day, according to the disclosures, that Rove spoke with Novak." Source: Newsday, July 16, 2004.

[Also see Washington Post, July 16, 2004.]

"While media coverage in recent days has focused on conversations White House senior adviser Karl Rove had with reporters, two sources say Miller spoke with Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, during the key period in July 2003 that is the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation. The two sources, one who is familiar with Libby's version of events and the other with Miller's, said the previously undisclosed conversation occurred a few days before Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's syndicated column on July 14, 2003. Miller and Libby discussed former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, who had recently alleged that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, according to the source familiar with Libby's version. But, according to the source, the subject of Wilson's wife did not come up.

.... on August 12 and August 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.” {Source: Court Order]

Asked why prosecutors sought Miller's testimony when she never wrote a story about Plame, Times attorney Floyd Abrams said, "We don't know, but most likely somebody testified to the grand jury that he or she had spoken to Judy." Associated Press, July 6, 2005.

"I felt that I didn't want to start to go down the road of testifying about someone who may or may not be a source, because, at this point, the focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry has been on one person. But, as we've seen from Matt Cooper, if you make a deal to discuss that one person who may or may not have given a voluntary waiver, what about what happens when Mr. Fitzgerald's target of interest or person of interest shifts?"

"And then there's another person and another person who comes under suspicion. And, eventually, somebody might actually get to one of your sources, if they haven't already. I just decided that the position has got to be, if I promised someone confidentiality, whether or not he was a source on a particular story, I'm not going to go in and testify about what that person told me. Otherwise, I can't do my job. "[Source: Transcript of Miller and Aaron Brown, CNN, Newsnight]

"Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, has said for months that his investigation has concluded except for the testimony of Miller and Cooper. On Wednesday, he told the court that with Miller's refusal to testify, "we are having this whole thing derailed by one person." [Source, Chicago Tribune, July 7, 2005]

"If Miller persists in unlawfully depriving the grand jury of her prospective testimony and documents, which the Court of Appeals found to be “both critical and unobtainable from any other source” and necessary to an effort 'to remedy a serious breach of the public trust,' she will frustrate the purpose of this national security investigation where the Court of Appeals noted the 'gravity of the suspected crime.'” [Source, Court Filing]

The Washington Post today says her source is Lewis Libby.

"...two sources say Miller spoke with Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, during the key period in July 2003 that is the focus of Fitzgerald's investigation....The two sources, one who is familiar with Libby's version of events and the other with Miller's, said the previously undisclosed conversation occurred a few days before Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's syndicated column on July 14, 2003. Miller and Libby discussed former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, who had recently alleged that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, according to the source familiar with Libby's version."

It's not that Libby didn't give Miller a waiver, he gave all the reporters he spoke to a waiver. Miller isn't sure the waiver isn't coerced.

"Judy's view is that any purported waiver she got from anyone was not on the face of it sufficiently broad, clear and uncoerced," [laywer Floyd] Abrams said."

On November 28, 2004, the Washington Post reported:

"Fitzgerald wants Miller to testify about her talks with Libby, even though she never wrote a story about Plame. Libby has signed a letter saying he waives his anonymity, but Miller still refuses to talk. Her position is that no such waiver under pressure from a prosecutor can ever be voluntary."

"Miller and the Times have said the reporter has chosen jail to keep promises she made to protect the identity of confidential sources. But Libby's attorney, Joseph A. Tate, has told the New York Times that he provided reporters with assurances that they could rely on the waivers releasing them to talk to Fitzgerald. Tate did not return phone calls placed for this story on Thursday and Friday. [Source, Washington Post, July 16, 2005.]

  • The Judge on the Waiver

"Hogan has publicly chided Miller for "alleging" that she was protecting the identity of a source who Hogan said had freed her to speak about their conversations."[Source, Washington Post, July 16, 2005.]

"Yesterday, Hogan questioned the reporters' assertions that they are keeping a promise not to identify a confidential source. In appellate court filings, Fitzgerald has indicated that he knows the identity of Miller's source and that the official has voluntarily come forward. "The sources have waived their confidentiality," Hogan said. "They're not relying on the promises of the reporters. . . . It's getting curiouser and curiouser." [Washington Post, June 30, 2005]

According to the New York Times, the set of documents that prosecutors repeatedly referred to in their meetings with White House aides are extensive notes compiled by I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser. [Newsday, Nov. 11, 2004]

[And, as to what Fitzgerald is after:]

"Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered in the case and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation conducted last fall by the FBI and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to FBI agents with their lawyers present; others met informally with agents in their offices and even at bars near the White House.....The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements made by various witnesses in FBI interviews, the lawyers and officials said. The conflicts are said to be buttressed by documents, including memos, e-mail messages and phone records turned over by the White House. [Source, International Herald Tribune, April 3, 2004.]

"Federal law enforcement officials told UPI that Libby was a suspect in the FBI investigation attempting to determine who leaked the name of a serving CIA agent, Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to the Washington press corps." [UPI, July 29, 2004]

"...At the same time, Fitzgerald is said to be investigating whether the disclosure of Plame's identity came after someone discovered her name among classified documents circulating at the upper echelons of the White House." [Source, International Herald Tribune, April 3, 2004.]

"....In the grand jury sessions, press aides were confronted with internal White Hou