Much more credible to me are her statements that a year ago, Fitzgerald wouldn't agree to limit the questions to Libby and the topic of the Valerie Plame leak. The subpoenas directed to her, upheld by the Court, bear her out on this. The Court of Appeals decision (pdf) described them as:
.... 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.” Miller refused to comply with the subpoenas and moved to quash them.
They asked not just for her conversations with Libby about Valerie Plame, but about Iraq trying to acquire uranium. By agreeing to limit the questioning to Libby and Plame, and not asking about other sources, she didn't have to tell who else, if anyone, she heard about Plame from. More importantly, she didn't have to answer questions about what she knew about the infamous false 16 words in the State of the Union address referring to Iraq trying to get uranium - and where she got the information.
Miller tells Dobbs she began asking Fitzgerald to limit the scope again in September:
The fact that you were able to constrain, your attorneys and you were able to constrain your testimony before the grand jury narrowly. Was that worth it?
MILLER: It was definitely worth it. I had to have both of those elements before I could, in good conscience, testify. You know, I didn't want to participate in a fishing expedition. And we had asked the special counsel over a year ago, would he narrow his investigation to the source of his interest and the subject of interest? And he wouldn't do it then. When he agreed to do it, when I asked in August, that was it. I knew I'd be able to -- sorry, in September, I knew I'd be able to get out of jail.
Miller then tells Dobbs no one knows what Fitzgerald is working on.
It's interesting to me, nobody has been able to crack the case yet. Nobody knows what he's working on.
I find that a little hard to believe. I would bet Libby and Rove's lawyers know. And how can she not know when she was questioned for four hours? What took four hours if all she was asked about were her two conversations with Libby about Plame?
Some possibilities: Was the June, 2003 state department memo produced by either of them at their July 8 meeting at the St. Regis? If so, that could take up some time. How copious were the notes she provided about her conversations with Libby? That could take some time to go over. A more plausible scenario is that there was lots of leaving the room going on. How many times did she ask to go out in the hall and talk to her lawyer before answering a question? Did that result in conference time between Fitzgerald and her lawyer as to whether a question was within the scope of her agreement? Still, four hours is a long time with such a limited topic range.
It sounds like Miller is rooting for an Indictment of someone:
If he brings indictments, if he has a very serious case, then I might have to say that perhaps his zealousness with respect to this mission was justified. I don't know what Mr. Fitzgerald has. I'm waiting to see like everybody else what he produces. But if he doesn't have anything, I will wonder about why I had to spend 85 days in jail, and why I may be the only one to spend time in jail. But we don't know yet, Lou.
Finally, here's Judy on jail:
It was the most soulless place I've ever been. I think we don't realize how much we take things for granted like color, silence, the right to take two aspirin when you feel you have a headache. It was demeaning. It was degrading. It was very lonely. But it has to be put in perspective. It's not a deadly illness.
It looks like we'll just have to stay on pins and needles till Fitzgerald shows his hand. Reminds me of Tom Petty - the waiting is the hardest part.
