Reply #75: It looks like even the NY Times is backing away from supporting her

[Marie26]

In latest article, NY Times disputes Miller's claim that she was in jail to protect Libby as a confidential source. The article cites three letters showing that Libby actually waived any confidentiality a year ago: one from Libby waiving confidentiality, one from Libby's lawyer repeating the same thing, & one from Miller's lawyer that acknowledges that Libby's lawyer had said he had no objection to her testifying. My favorite part is the last sentence:

"Tate (Libby's lawyer) added that he understood from his conversations with Mr. Abrams that Ms. Miller's "position was not based on a reluctance to testify about her communications with Mr. Libby" but on journalistic principle and an effort to protect "others with whom she may have spoken."

Like, say, Bolton?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01waiver.html?hp&ex=1128225600&en=8bbd3c9e2c520c64&ei=5094&partner=homepage