home

Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement

Note: This is long, and primarily for the terminally-addicted PlameGate followers among you.

There are two components to Judith Miller's explanation for her decision to testify before the grand jury. One is her claim that by speaking to Libby on the phone the other day, she satisfied herself the waiver was genuine. The other is that she got a promise from Fitzgerald that he would not question her about sources other than Libby or matters other than her conversations with Libby. These were enough for her to change her mind and both testify and turn over heavily redacted notes (link to article fixed)of her conversations with Libby about Valerie Plame.

We all know the waiver issue is a red herring. Another red herring is the speculation that she got a new lawyer, Bob Bennett, who gave her different advice than her old lawyer, Floyd Abrams. It was Bennett, not Abrams, who appeared in court with her and argued on her behalf in July when she was sent to jail. He could have asked Fitzgerald before that hearing whether she could talk to Libby about the waiver without it being considered obstruction of justice, if that was the concern.

That leaves us with her and Fitzgerald's agreement. By making it, did Fitzgerald give away the store and his chance of Indictments against anyone, except perhaps Libby? Or, is he now focused only on such a narrow issue that her other sources don't matter to him?

Tom Maguire of Just One Minute thinks that there isn't much to the agreement because the wording of Miller's subpoena referred only to Libby and her conversations with him. I view it differently. Questioning before the grand jury is not limited to documents specified in a subpoena.

For the non-lawyers among you, there are two kinds of subpoenas. One is called a subpoena and the other is called a subpoena duces tecum. A subpoena is for testimony and does not need to specify the topic, only the case in which the testimony is sought. A subpoena duces tecum is for the production of documents. In grand jury situations, a prosecutor will often forego the personal appearance and testimony of a witness if he or she complies with the production of documents in advance of the appearance date. For example, if the prosecutor is seeking cell phone records, the subpoena duces tecum will be issued to the custodian of records for the phone company. The phone company likely will be able avoid a personal appearance by sending the records to the prosecutor with an appropriate affidavit that these are the documents requested by the subpoena.

In other instances, like with the reporters in PlameGate, the prosecutor will want both the live testimony of the witness as well as the records. The documents are only part of what he is after from the witness.

With a subpoena duces tecum, there is no requirement that the prosecutor or grand jurors limit their questions to the subpoenaed documents. There are hurdles the prosecutor has to overcome before issuing subpoenas to reporters in the first place, as contained in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, but once the subpoena has issued, and in Miller's case, upheld by a Court, all germane topics are fair game.

This grand jury is investigating the leak of the identification of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative and actions by White House officials in connection with it. Once subpoenaed, Fitzgerald (or the grand jurors)could ask Miller anything remotely connected to the investigation.

So, I think Fitzgerald's agreement to limit Miller's questioning to Libby is a big deal. It probably was far more a factor in her decision to testify than the release from Libby. No one ever bought her waiver argument - and she always was up front about not wanting to talk about her other sources.

As I wrote Friday night, there are some puzzling aspects to Libby's letter to her saying that he thought her testimony would help him. I'm not concerned, as are many commenters to Arianna's post at HuffPo that his statement about the Aspen trees turning is code between them. The last weekend of September is known in Colorado as being the aspen-turning weekend and they do turn in beautiful clusters. It's a big deal in the mountain states. Also, his comment about her liking to visit the mountains is probably true - she's a member of the Aspen Institute's Aspen Strategy Group.

I think Libby really did want Miller to talk...because he believed she would substantiate his claim that he did not reveal Valerie Plame's identity to her - or information about any concerted effort by the White House to do so - and that he did not disclose the contents of the June, 2003 State Department memo to her. Miller and Libby also had a 15 minute conversation the day she made up her mind to testify. Miller is no dummy. Wouldn't she have demanded an unmonitored phone for the call since jail conversations are recorded, except between clients and lawyers? Did Fitzgerald agree to this? If he did, then it seems like he wasn't afraid of collusion between them. Why not?

Back to the agreement between Fitzgerald and Miller. If Miller were to say she knew about Plame from another source, how could Fitzgerald agree not to question her about those sources? Wasn't his goal to find the leakers? Isn't he giving up that chance by agreeing to limit the questions to Libby? What if she talked to Cheney, Rove, Bolton, Hannah or Hadley about it, or to anyone in the White House Iraq Group? He'll never know. But maybe he doesn't care, because he is no longer investigating who leaked, only who lied.

If Miller, like Matthew Cooper and others, says she discussed Joseph Wilson's wife with Libby and her role in sending Wilson on the uranium mission, but that Libby never told her the wife's name or position with the CIA, does that put Libby in the clear? Maybe, if that's also what he consistently told investigators and the grand jury -- and if his and Miller's notes and his emails back that up.

Fitzgerald told the Court that Judith Miller was the last link to his investigation. His lack of interest in her other sources may indicate that he's concluded the leaking of Plame's identity as "Joseph Wilson's wife" but not by name or CIA function, is not a crime. I would agree with that. For a long time now, the issue to me has seemed more to be about a cover-up, perjury and obstruction of justice.

The fact that Fitzgerald told the Judge early this month that Judith Miller's testimony was essential to the successful conclusion of the investigation indicates that this investigation has moved far past the stage of who outed Valerie Plame and whether she was or was not a covert operative and on to whether White House officials and/or reporters lied in their initial interviews with grand jury investigators or during their grand jury testimony - and whether there was an attempted cover-up that would amount to a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

...On November 18, 2004, the AP reported that Fitzgerald told the Judge Matthew Cooper's second subpoena (after the first about Lewis Libby with which he complied) was necessary because he needed more information from Cooper "due to an "unanticipated shift" in the grand jury's investigation." (available on lexis.com)

The "shift" can only be away from the identity of who leaked Valerie Plame's identity into a broader investigation into perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit both.

I still think all roads lead back to the White House Iraq Group and the concerted effort to discredit Joseph Wilson. As the UPI reported on Feb. 5, 2004:

On June 12, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus revealed that an unnamed diplomat had "given a negative report" on the claim and then, on July 6, as the Bush administration was widely accused of manipulating intelligence to get American public opinion behind a war with Iraq, Wilson published an op-ed piece in the Post in which he accused the Bush administration of "misrepresenting the facts." His piece also asked, "What else are they lying about?"

According to one administration official, "The White House was really pissed, and began to contact six journalists in order to plant stories to discredit Wilson," according to the New York Times and other accounts.

One of the planted stories was that Joseph Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, was responsible for sending him to Africa to check on the uranium claim. New York Times reporters David Johnston and Richard Stevenson wrote on April 3, 2004:

Mr. Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation last fall by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to F.B.I. 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 by various witnesses in F.B.I. 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.

At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald is said to be investigating whether the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity came after someone discovered her name among classified documents circulating at the upper echelons of the White House. It could be a crime to disclose information from such a document, although such violations are rarely prosecuted.

Maybe Fitzgerald just wanted assurances from Judith Miller that when she and Libby met on July 8, Libby never showed her or disclosed information contained in the classified document that identified Plame by name, the one that made its way on July 7 onto Air Force One.

It's possible there will be no indictments in this case. But, my instincts tell me there will be, and they will relate to perjury and making a false statement to a federal official, or a conspiracy of some sort, rather than to the actual leak of Valerie Plame's identity. Maybe Cheney will be one of those caught in a false statements or conspiracy charge. Since he's considered the most powerful man in Washington, it's unlikely. His staff, and the White House Iraq Group, however, may not fare so well. And Rove's biggest liability may be his story that he first heard of Plame from a reporter, but he can't remember which one, and that his call to Matt Cooper was initially about welfare reform. That's about as convincing as a drug dealer who agrees to cooperate and then says he can't remember who sold him the kilo of coke.

Update: Pincus and VandeHei of The Washington Post today reports on new support for the criminal conspiracy theory, coming from lawyers for witnesses who have talked to Fitzgerald:

But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

Update: There seems to be some confusion about Ms. Miller's agreement. Adam Liptak reported in the Times:

The second factor in Ms. Miller's decision to go before the grand jury was a change in the position of the special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, concerning the scope of the questions she would be asked, according to Mr. Abrams. Mr. Fitzgerald only recently agreed to confine his questions to Ms. Miller's conversations with Mr. Libby concerning the identification of Ms. Wilson, Mr. Abrams said.

Also, Abrams said the notes she turned over "were redacted to omit everything but the notes taken concerning discussions with Libby about Plame."

Johnston and Stevenson report in the Times:

Ms. Miller and her lawyers said she had agreed to testify because her source had released her from any pledge of confidentiality and because she had received a guarantee from the prosecutor in the case that he would restrict his questions to that one source.

And Judith Miller said outside court:

Once I got a personal, voluntary waiver my lawyer, Mr. Bennett, approached the special counsel to see if my grand jury testimony could be limited to the communications with the source from whom I had received that personal and voluntary waiver. The special counsel agreed to this and that was very important to me.

< Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strategic Disaster Ever | People are More Than the Sum of Their Crimes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    from sara
    Judy is not the main course at all. What I suspect Fitzgerald had to do was eliminate the defense, namely that Miller and Cooper and other reporters were the source of the identity of "Wilson's Wife" as CIA NOC.
    link via digby

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    But, if Miller says she told Libby Plame's identity, then the defense might be good. If Miller says they never discussed Plame by name, the defense is not discredited. Since Libby and Miller talked on the phone before her appearance, the odds are they were on the same page as to what she was going to tell Fitzgerald, and it wasn't going to hurt that defense.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned Judith Miller was Republican plant at the New York Times. If our government is transparent, and by law it is supposed to be, secret sources and secret leaks from the Vice President's office are not okay. Judith Miller was the voice that many respected regarding the truth of WMD and the decision of the United States to move into Iraq. But from what I know now, Judith Miller was Dick Cheney's puppet. Where I grew up, it's called yellow journalism. For those who aren't familiar with the term: "Yellow journalism is a term given to any widespread tendencies or practices within media organizations which are detrimental to, or substandard from the point of view of, journalistic integrity." This woman, Judith Miller, claims to be upholding the First Amendment. Her right to protect her sources. My questions are: Why did she only serve as an conduit for Republican opinions? Why didn't she go after some different points of view before allowing her lies to go into print? Why does any citizen of the United States still respect the New York Times as a source of truth?

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#4)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    *Sigh* Scooter must really care about Judy! Oy. If they just cared about getting their mutual facts right before the war, where would we be now? Linked you on this plus more on Judy and Rove to at RAT STEW. Oh, and a side note on aspen. Currently a raging battle is on between Rocky Mountain and Minnesota botanists over what is the largest living thing in terms of biomass. The Minnesota contingent contends it is one of their indigenous mold fungi spread over acres. The Rocky Mountain rebels contend it is one Aspen stand. The trees you see above ground typically are upshoots of one great population of one clone. There could be more than a thousand seeming "individual" trees. All the trees from one clonal parent will have the same color tone when the leaves change. Some clones are more orange than others. Some turn a little earlier than others. Where I live, at eight thousand feet, thw aspen have all started to turn ten days earlier than in Colorado. Now back to regular programming.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    The author of this blog suggests that Patrick Fitzgerald has
    concluded the leaking of Plame's identity as "Joseph Wilson's wife" but not by name or CIA function, is not a crime.
    This view may apply to the IIPA, but disclosing classified information relating to national security is a criminal offense under espionage laws, including Title 18 USC 793 .. And Title 18 USC 794 .. Clearly, Patrick Fitzgerald has a number of applicable statutes to choose from. I would not discount the possibility of indictments under the espionage act.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Judith Miller is protecting BOLTON. Libby is Dick Cheney, and everybody knows it. But Bolton had to be protected, so she went to jail. He goes and visits her in prison, and tells her that he is immune to Fitzgerald now, as the (recess appointed) UN ambassador -- to high to be reached. THAT is her waiver. She doesn't leave prison right after he gives her his waiver -- she waits, to take the heat off his visit. She's right in there with them -- with 150,000 dead in Iraq, she should HANG with her fellow conspirators.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Judith Miller thinks SHE'S CIA (Cheney Intelligence Agency). Under her NYT's 'Mata Hari' byline, tens of thousands of families were bombed into bloody bits. Protecting one's source? Treason to the truth, from the start.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patriot Daily on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    The dots still don’t connect for me: (1) Miller says she got Fitzgerald to agree to limit her testimony to one source, Libby. But, Digby posted that Miller's agreement with Fitzgerald was limited to the Plame case, not just Libby. Therefore, had there been more than one Plame source, Fitzgerald was not limited by any agreement to not pursue those other sources. However, Washington Post reported that Libby was Miller’s only source in the Plame probe. So, if Libby was Miller’s only source in the Plame case, why would she need an agreement to limit her testimony to Libby? (2) Digby also posted that Miller‘s lawyer indicated that Miller was worried that Fitzgerald wanted her WMD sources. If this is true, it makes sense that Miller would not want to testify until her WMD sources were off the table, given all the false reporting she did on WMD issues. Prior reports had indicated or suggested that Fitzgerald’s probe may have included other issues, such as how the forged Niger documents may be connected to the Plame probe, in terms of providing motive for attacking Wilson, etc. That would seem important, particularly for a criminal conspiracy. So, if Miller’s WMD sources are truly off the table, perhaps Fitzgerald simply does not need those sources, or perhaps stories about this aspect of his probe were simply not true. (3) The Washington Post reported that Miller’s testimony confirmed Libby’s account that he did not intentionally or knowingly identify Plame. It is not surprising that Miller’s testimony confirmed Libby’s testimony because more than 2 weeks prior to her testimony Libby telegraphed rather clearly what her testimony should be. In Libby’s Sept. 15th letter to Miller, Libby wrote: "As I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call." Thus, Miller had more than 2 weeks to check public reports of prior testimonies to know what the outline of her testimony should be at the grand jury. But, it is curious wording that Miller‘s “testimony does not implicate Libby as intentionally and knowingly identifying Plame.” Does that mean that Libby may have accidentally identified Plame or was this language used because most people are focused on the particular statute that uses this language as an element of leaking a CIA operative’s identity?

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    If Miller, like Matthew Cooper and others, says she discussed Joseph Wilson's wife with Libby and her role in sending Wilson on the uranium mission, but that Libby never told her the wife's name or position with the CIA, does that put Libby in the clear? No. Its substantially the same story that Rove peddled. Does anyone actually think that Rove, independently of Libby, tried to discredit Wilson with tales of Nepotism and boondoggle to novak and Cooper, while Libby, independently of Rove, tried to discredit Wilson with tales of nepotism and boondoggle to Miller? A jury might infer an agreement between 2 or more persons to intentionally engage in conduct in violation of the IIPA. Plus the phone calls peddling nepotism and boondoggle tales are overt acts in furtherance of the agreement. I withhold judgment until I see all of Fitzgerald's evidence, but Fitzgerald already knew what Miller could testify to and he got a 3 judge panel to issue the subpoenas anyway and does anyone recall the judge's conclusions in that ruling having seen some of the evidence? As for the IIPA, I will defer to former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega on the ease or difficulty of prosecuting under the Intelligence Identities Act

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Patriot Daily - There are mulitple articles saying that the agreement was limited to her conversations with Libby about Plame. Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote:
    The second factor in Ms. Miller's decision to go before the grand jury was a change in the position of the special prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, concerning the scope of the questions she would be asked, according to Mr. Abrams. Mr. Fitzgerald only recently agreed to confine his questions to Ms. Miller's conversations with Mr. Libby concerning the identification of Ms. Wilson, Mr. Abrams said.
    Other Times reporters wrote:
    "Ms. Miller and her lawyers said she had agreed to testify because her source had released her from any pledge of confidentiality and because she had received a guarantee from the prosecutor in the case that he would restrict his questions to that one source."
    Back to Liptak:
    Mr. Abrams said that she provided the grand jury with an edited version of her notes. "The notes were redacted to omit everything but the notes taken concerning discussions with Libby about Plame," Mr. Abrams said.
    Also, Judith Miller said after her release from court:
    Once I got a personal, voluntary waiver my lawyer, Mr. Bennett, approached the special counsel to see if my grand jury testimony could be limited to the communications with the source from whom I had received that personal and voluntary waiver. The special counsel agreed to this and that was very important to me.


    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#11)
    by Tom Maguire on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Thanks for the links, and I hesitate to rehash my argument that Fitzgerald is limited by DoJ guidelines and the terms of his subpoena, but... I haven't seen anything to change my mind. The DoJ guidelines are quite clear tthat a reporter can not be subpoenaed for a fishing trip. Now, the judges also noted that those guidelines do not carry the weight of law, and do not confer a legal right on (in this case) Ms. Miller, so I can see why her attorneys would want to negotiate a specific deal. However, with Matt Cooper of TIME, Fitzgerald subpoaenaed him once for Libby, fought in court for a while, worked a deal, then repeated the whole process with a subpoena for testimony about Rove. Why did Fitzgerald do that, if he could have asked all his questions under one subpoena? And why couldn't he have worked a deal with Miller a year ago on her Libby testimony, then hit her with a second subpoena to get everything else? I think we are seeing spin and rationalizations from Miller and Abrams when they say the waiver and the deal with Fitzgerald were the keys to her release. That said, I do agree that Miller wants to avoid talking about other sources. I also think that is why she waited a year to come to a deal on the first subpoeana, with the hope that Fiztgerald would lose support for an endless, open-ended investigation.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Isn't is strange that everyone is naming Libby as Miller's source except Miller? Is she trying to create a McGuffin or does she have more than one source? If she had more than one source it would be convenient for her to just use the word source rather than mention the source by name. I am still not convinced that Fitzgerald only asked her about Libby, even though Miller's statements would imply that. The redacted noted may have contained material outside of the Plame case, and does not in itself prove that Fitzgerald only asked her about Libby. TL-I have to admit that your argument to the contrary is very strong, but as Hank Quinlan says "It is those twinges in my game leg acting up again". Well I am getting those twinges now. As much as I want to see Miller fry it seems more plausible that Fitzgerald is on to bigger things. The big surprise would be that Miller is an NOC and is about to get nailed with a IIPA inditement, but that sort of thing only happens in movies.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Ms. Merritt, I agree entirely with your lucid and eloquent explanation about how, in general, a prosecutor is not limited in his questioning of a grand jury witness to the scope of documents he's subpoenaed along with the witness. (And like you, I was also struck by the aspen metaphor in Mr. Libby's letter to Ms. Miller.) I think you may not have taken into account, however, just how pervasively and emphatically the DoJ guidelines restrict all of Mr. Fitzgerald's potential questioning of Ms. Miller, and how much that changes all of the normal dynamics between grand jury witness and prosecutor. The guidelines sharply limit not merely his ability to compel her appearance and her production of documents and things, but also his ability to question her once she takes the witness chair in the grand jury room. That in turn ought to, and presumably does, create similarly extraordinary dynamics with respect to requests by witnesses (or their counsel) for assurances regarding the limited scope of their grand jury testimony. Mr. Fitzgerald is already bound by the DoJ guidelines, even though they create no formal privilege or right that may be directly asserted and enforced by Ms. Miller. He must, for example, separately satisfy those guidelines with respect to each confidential source about whom he wishes to question Ms. Miller (or compel her to produce documents). It therefore costs him nothing -- it amounts only to confirmation that he's doing his job within the rules -- to assure Ms. Miller and her counsel that in questioning her, he'll stick to the confidential source as to whom he's already satisifed the regulations. That's true now, but it was also true a year ago. Which in turn makes it seem doubtful that Mr. Fitzgerald suddenly produced some new assurance now that he was unwilling to give, if asked for it, then. I've left a comment to basically this same effect on Tom Maguire's blog, and reposted it (slightly edited and expanded) on my own, but I thank you for the opportunity to make these suggestions here as well. And you're always welcome, of course, to reply via email or in the comments on my humble blog.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    A bit off topic but for the sake of lightness and putting libby's Aspens into perspective. Here is a bit from first chapter, so you can see for yourself: ...The apprentice, who came from a village farther north, had arrived only that fall, before the deep winter snows had buried the inn halfway to its eaves... Turning from the sink, the youth saw the woman Matsuko just leaving the kitchen with a tray of sake for guests. As she closed the door behind her, he caught a glimpse of the dim glow from the firepit... "The lacquer has cracked," she said. The crack and its shadow ran along the edge of the tray... Libby's poetic letter to Miller is the way he writes. if he gets canned he can get a good job with Hallmark. I wonder if he wrote similar letters to Mark Rich.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Beldar, thank you for your polite and well written article. I agree with you about the U.S. Attorney's Manual and the Code of Federal Regulations, which I reprinted here, spells it out even further. I just think that absent an agreement with Fitzgerald, asking Miller where else she heard information about Plame could be considered part and parcel of his inquiry about her discussions with Libby on the topic, if only to test her credibility on what she said about Libby. The Court of Appeals decision states that subpoena directed to her asked for (I reprinted it here for those that don't want to read the opinion):
    In the meantime, 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.”
    Another interesting item I just noticed: Cooper's subpoenas were not limited to a specific administration official while Miller's was. Maybe that's why Fitzgerald subpoenaed him twice, the second time to ask him about another source. Bottom Line: Miller made all these arguments to the Court of Appeals and lost. I think Fitzgerald could question her within the parameters of the decision.

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Bennet indicates that the narrow scope of Miller's testimony is not that narrow after all. Here is the relevant part from Bennet's Sept. 30 interview with Blitzer:
    BLITZER: Was the conversations you had with Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor -- was her testimony limited only to Scooter Libby's involvement in the Valerie Plame case, assuming that's her source as we all do? Or was it -- could he ask questions before the grand jury on other individuals? R. BENNETT: I'm not going to go into her testimony before a secret grand jury, but I will say that the subject matter that we agreed to dealt with the Valerie Plame matter. BLITZER: So in other words, it focused on that, but talk about other individuals as well? R. BENNETT: It focused on the Valerie Plame matter. BLITZER: That's all you want to say about that? R. BENNETT: That's all I can say to you. .... BLITZER: Does she -- did she get a guarantee she doesn't have to come back before the grand jury? R. BENNETT: Prosecutors will never give you that guarantee. If something developed in the investigation, where her information would be relevant and if she were free to give it, she would give it. But I have no reason to believe that that's the case.
    And what follows is Blitzer's question about Bennet's brother who is famous here for his racist remarks about crime and abortion. I has no idea that they were related, the Bennets that is. link

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Umm, since much of this Miller noise seems highly speculative, what if fitz no longer needs her? What if Miller's testimony only will confirm or deny perjury? If this is the gambit, Miller could yet end up the fall girl in this mess. But the news that Bush and cheney are involved in some way is going to keep this mess going and I doubt that Rove or anyone else will be able to control what will be a completely unmanageable scandal

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    And her agreement with Simon and Shuster? Looks like the book deal has gone through. $1.2 Million. I wonder how much the movie rights will go for and whether the soon to be out of work pardoned ex-cons who will be indicted will play themselves. It could turn into a major TV serial. huffpo

    Re: Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    Miller's $1.2 mil deal is a pipe dream at this point. Evidently Judy just told folks the deal was done to make it happen (repeat, repeat repeat and repeat and even the publisher will believe it's true); Simon & Shuster has not signed yet. Arianna has just updated and advised Simon & Shuster that they would be throwing their money away, as Judy is all washed up and the book will surely fail. huffpo