Because of Miller's known "reportorial style" (see below) -- or perhaps even by
explicit agreement -- Washington insiders with "high security clearances" might know that -- when dealing as a source for Judith Miller -- any waiver less than a "specific privilege waiver" would not suffice for Miller
releasing herself from confidentiality promises.
So, while Libby apparently might have provided a
general waiver (to all reporters) for satisfying appearances of "cooperation" with Fitzgerald's investigation, nevertheless Libby
would have known such a waiver to be inadequate for gaining Miller's
self-compliance with release from confidentiality obligations. Indeed, in the context of Miller's style (or by agreement), the very
absence of a necessary
"specific privilege" waiver could be a "coded request" (or "order"?) for Miller NOT to disclose...at least not immediately...And, implicitly, this could be in exchange for political favors later, e.g. a Presidential pardon. But the latter consideration would only make sense for Miller *if* she were (or could become) at risk for charges more serious than just failure to obey a court order to disclose, something worse than obstruction of justice (e.g. how about conspiracy?...to commit treason??)
It will be interesting to see what results from Conyers' stated intent "to pursue this matter further in the coming days."
The question becomes: Can Libby be compelled to extend a "specific privilege waiver" to Judith Miller (to force the issue), as "full cooperation" would dictate of any high-security-clearance source dealing with her? Or has Libby satisified all his legal obligation by extending the "general waiver" (perhaps as negotiated with Fitzgerald)?
From
The Source of the TroubleThere’s an important difference in reportorial style between Miller and her colleagues. Risen and Bergman are diggers, excavating documents and sources hidden deep in the bureaucracy. Miller, on the other hand, relies on her well-placed, carefully tended-to connections to nab her stories. In February, on the public-radio show “The Connection,” she said, “My job was not to collect information and analyze it independently as an intelligence agency; my job was to tell readers of the New York Times, as best as I could figure out, what people inside the governments, who had very high security clearances, who were not supposed to talk to me, were saying to one another about what they thought Iraq had and did not have in the area of weapons of mass destruction.”