NYT: The Miller Case: From a Name on a Pad to Jail

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

The Times has published the Sunday Miller story:

In a notebook belonging to Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, amid notations about Iraq and nuclear weapons, appear two small words: "Valerie Flame."

Ms. Miller should have written Valerie Plame. That name is at the core of a federal grand jury investigation that has reached deep into the White House. At issue is whether Bush administration officials leaked the identity of Ms. Plame, an undercover C.I.A. operative, to reporters as part of an effort to blunt criticism of the president's justification for the war in Iraq.

Related Documents Ms. Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify and reveal her confidential source, then relented. On Sept. 30, she told the grand jury that her source was I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. But she said he did not reveal Ms. Plame's name.

And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html?hp&ex=1129435200&en=ae9961705f60a5d9&ei=5094&partner=homepage>

[mike_c]

1. bullshit-- let me be among the first to call it....

"Valerie Flame" was in her NOTEBOOK. I cannot believe that she would take down the name of a covert CIA operative into her notes and either not record the name of her source or simply "not recall" who revealed that nugget of information. That would be equivalent to Woodward and Bernstein not recalling who told them that Liddy was involved in the Watergate break in. Miller is a whore for the neocons, and a hack, but she's not so bad a journalist as to just write some piece of very privileged information in her notebook without context or attribution. If the notation is in a section otherwise recording her conversation with Libby, then Libby probably gave it to her, BY NAME. If she got it from someone else she would have either noted the source, or it would be a source she would not likely forget.

I call bullshit. Miller has been a liar from the start, and she's still lying.

[thinkingwoman]

7. as a former journalist

I echo your call of bs.

She's lying.

Never, in all my years on the job, did I EVER have a name in my notebook without knowing where it came from.

Never.

[mike_c]

22. and you'll certainly recall that anything you wanted to use...

...had to pass potential editorial review. You'd have looked like a fool if an editor asked for your sources and you had to say "uh, well, I guess I don't recall...." No way did Miller set herself up for that kind of professional humiliation. I just don't believe it. And how convenient that if she did make that mistake, it was with this particular piece of information. :rofl:

So that leaves me wondering-- WHY IS THE NYT PRINTING THIS TRIPE? This is not an explanation for anything. It's a rather transparent lie. The Times can cover themselves, of course, by pointing out that they were simply reporting Miller's position, not endorsing it, but their publishing it is in fact tacit acknowledgement of their own editorial irresponsibility, or at least the shoddy habits of one of their top reporters. And now it seems that Judy is going to take an "indefinite leave of absence" from the paper.

This smells like damage control wrapped around lies wrapped around propaganda and outright criminal conspiracy.

[thinkingwoman]

44. the NYT needs to remember

that once you're in a deep hole it's wise to stop digging!

I was a reporter, an editor, and a publisher over a 25 year period. Not only did I not have anything in my notebook that I couldn't "remember" and explain and source, neither did anyone I ever worked with or supervised.

Sadly, there are people who will believe this nonsense. :eyes:

[calimary]

30. I echo that, myself.

You HAVE to have the attribution. Even if you don't give the name in print or on the air. You HAVE to be able to defend the quote, at least to your editor or news manager or supervisor, whose decision it might be (and whose neck will be on the block alongside your own) if a dispute arises that sends the matter to court. And this woman is/was a top dog at the NEW YORK TIMES?

Besides that, reading mike c's post, it suddenly made me think this is probably another reason why her colleagues in the newsroom are so revolted by her and the morale is so bad. Maybe they know the corners she cuts and the rules she breaks - and has been allowed to get away with - that they could NEVER do, themselves. Maybe one of the reasons they hate her is that they know that there are two sets of rules by which you perform your duties as a New York Times reporter: one set for Princess Judy and a different, more stringent, and more respectable set for everyone else.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. I've seen that kind of favoritism in other newsrooms. Certain people of perceived "marquee value" are given an obscenely long leash and lots of winks and nods, and others aren't.

[thinkingwoman]

48. my notebook

always had date, time, and interviewee at the top of every page. If a note was a direct quote it was in quotes. If a note was a paraphrase it was circled and labeled as such. Same with background info. If something was off the record, it wasn't written down AT ALL.

Notebooks are simple things. There are different styles for different reporters but they're meant to be a Bible and they certainly don't contained things that can't be explained.

It stands to reason, therefore, that if Judy wrote Valerie FLAME instead of PLAME there was a reason behind that as well. It's an inside joke. She knows what it means.

[The Doctor.]

81. Is she canny enough to pass a polygraph?

I'd suggest SP Fitzgerald hold that over everyone's head if necessary.

[pacalo]

32. What do you think about the fact that the name "Valerie Flame" stood alone

without accompanying notations? Too hot to record?

And don't you think there's a little contempt in the use of "Flame" rather than the correct name?

[ebayfool]

42. Reverse it ... Flame Valerie - her instructions from the WH.

As in: burn her, torch her, destroy her?

[thinkingwoman]

I'd say

you're in the right neighborhood.

I'd say it was something along the lines of burn her.

[thinkingwoman]

50. see my post above (#48) nt

[mike_c]

53. I think she just misheard it the first time....

I remember misreading it as "Flame" when the story first started.

[thinkingwoman]

55. nope, journalists always ask for spelling

of names they're hearing for the first time. That's freshman journalism 101 stuff.

[pacalo]

72. Plus, they are expert linguists. What they write is what they mean.

[thinkingwoman]

74. also true. good point. nt

[JoFerret]

111. All jounalists are expert linguists

...with perfect hearing?
LOL

[janx]

41. She is still afraid of Libby.

She finally came out and named him and told the GJ that he's her source.

She was convinced, when she received that cryptic and melodramatic letter, that he wanted her to testify a certain way.

She didn't do that--she didn't have a choice by then.

[thinkingwoman]

57. she should be afraid

those dogs she's been lying with (pun intended) are known for more than a bad case of fleas.

[aquart]

73. Afraid? She had email from Kelly.

He damn well told her he expected to be alive the following week.

[ahimsa]

100. Is this Kelly?

From her own story in NYT:

"Early in my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to describe my history with Mr. Libby and explain how I came to interview him in 2003.

I said I had known Mr. Libby indirectly through my work as a co-author of "Germs," a book on biological weapons published in September 2001. Mr. Libby had assisted one of my co-authors, and the first time I met Mr. Libby he asked for an inscribed copy of "Germs."

[ahimsa]

102. Never mind

I thought Kelly was one of her co-authors.

[aquart]

104. Kelly is the so-called suicide in Blair's bit of treason.

[EuroObserver]

107. ...and that he wanted to get back to

the "real work".

Seems Kelly was her major source for her part of "Germs".

[Hissyspit]

47. As a former journalist, me neither. And I usually made sure I spelled

people's names correctly. And I was working for a small-town weekly, not the frigging New York Times. I ALWAYS got my facts write and I ALWAYS quoted people correctly.

She's lying. She arrogant, in bed with the liars. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. (And that's an insult to dogs.)

[thinkingwoman]

54. I didn't know you were a journalist too

and a fellow weekly reporter as well! That's great.

We both know that the misspelling was purposely done. The only question is what exactly did it mean.

[Marie26]

88. What's weird

And why does Miller then misspell the name again in a totally different way? (Victoria Wilson) It's almost like she thought this agent's name was too secret to even write down correctly. It's all very weird. These were not notes she was planning on showing an editor, or using for a story - she couldn't, the information was wrong. These are notes to herself - to remind herself about this agent, yet give her plausible deniability if the notes were discovered. I think Miller purposely wrote the name wrong - so the leak of the correct name could not be traced to her. This makes sense if she was planning not to write a story, but to disseminate Plame's name to all her neocon friends.

[Straight Shooter]

106. Nothing weird about it.

A reporter's notes are a paper trail. All that Judas Miller was doing by altering Valerie Plame's name was a shoddy form of CYA (cover your ass).

She really believed that just in case --- just in case! --- this treasonous matter ever came to light, that the misspelling and misnaming of Valerie Plame would exonerate her. This is so unbelievably stupid and juvenile, I'm sitting here wondering if the Grand Jury's collective jaw didn't drop at this bit of information.

So help us God, there are actually people gullible enough to believe her. :banghead:

[aquart]

76. Yes, She could have given the jury the name.

There is no way ANYONE knows what happened in that room unless she tells. She can SAY she didn't tell them. But we don't know.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. "W.M.D. - I got it totally wrong," she said.

"The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them - we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could."


I bet there's a lot more then that, that she got wrong. Too bad over 100,000 Iraqis have died has a result.

[janx]

21. Even if we could believe that she is sincere in her comments--

How could she be so STUPID?!

Every undergraduate English student, for pete's sake, knows about checking sources.

Lock them all up.

[punpirate]

29. Not everyone was wrong...

... Scott Ritter, for example, was screaming his head off that it was a put-up job. I don't recall Miller interviewing him--and he'd spent a whole hell of a lot more time in Iraq looking for WMDs than she had.

I heard an interview of Ritter last night in which he described Miller as a propagandist for the Bush administration, and that Chalabi and crew were doing the same thing in the `90s as they did with the Bushies; Ritter kept asking the CIA why they continued to pay the INC for intelligence which always turned out to be wrong when it was given to UNSCOM to investigate.

If she had been intent on doing her job, she would have been asking Ritter and anyone else in a position to know if they could corroborate Chalabi's veracity. But, as far as I know, she never did.

[otohara]

31. Got It Wrong With Pleasure

she was way too eager to please the "men" in the White House.

She's been punked before by powerful men who got her do do what they wanted. This time she got caught!

[Garbo 2004]

34. Judy's full of shit again. Those who took dictation from the folks

pushing the war, while dismissing the experts and analysts who didn't agree and tried to get the truth out, got it wrong. Which is why Knight-Ridder, that did real investigative reporting, was later cited as the best reporting during the WHIG's PR campaign for war.

Which is why Judy was mighty po'ed after the publication of "Now They Tell Us" by Michael Massing in the NY Review of Books since her reporting is held up to scrutiny. A brief excerpt from a long article that puts the lie to Judy's claims:

On October 8, 2002, Landay and Strobel, joined by bureau chief Walcott, filed a sharp account of the rising discontent among national security officers. "While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq," the article began, "a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war." These officials, it continued,

charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses—including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network.... They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

As these reports show, there were many sources available to journalists interested in scrutinizing the administration's statements about Iraq. Unfortunately, however, Knight Ridder has no newspaper in Washington, D.C., or New York, and its stories did not get the national attention they deserved. But in mid-October, other news organizations began to pick up on some of the same discontent Knight Ridder had documented. The Washington Post, the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the Guardian of London all ran articles raising questions about the administration's case for war. On October 10, The New York Times ran a front-page account by Michael Gordon of the divisions within the administration "over what intelligence shows about Iraq's intentions and its willingness to ally itself with al-Qaeda." And on October 24, the Times, again on its front page, reported that top Pentagon officials had set up a special intelligence unit to search for data to support the case for war. Written by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, the article cited the concerns of some intelligence analysts that civilian policymakers were politicizing the intelligence to fit their hawkish position. The view "among even some senior intelligence analysts" at the CIA, they wrote, "is that Mr. Hussein is contained and is unlikely to unleash weapons of mass destruction unless he is attacked." http://www.williambowles.info/media/massing_media.html

[Tennessee Gal]

109. Excellent article.....

Thanks for posting it!

[TexasLawyer]

82. I'm sitting here in Houston, Texas with no

inside contacts in the Administration and I (and the many other members of the anti-war "focus group") got it totally RIGHT!

My sources were people like Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, Geo. Bush Senior (who quite rightly predicted civil war and quagmire if Saddam was removed from power) and plain common sense.

Sorry, Judy-- your explanation doesn't wash.

[truthisfreedom]

3. heh. Valerie Flame. ms. miller is covering up for libby and the evidence

is right there in the notebook, and "i could not recall" is her best explanation. nice. i don't think she'd last in any prime-time cop show episode.

[IndianaGreen]

71. No, Miller is covering up for Cheney

Why would she go to Jackson Hole, WY, if not to see Cheney at his home? Cheney was the one that arranged for Judy to go to Iraq with the WMD team. It is Cheney who had access to CIA information that would have disclosed Valerie Plame's identity. It was probably Cheney that referred to Ms Plame as "Flame," because of her attractive looks.

[Blasphemer]

89. Exactly

Libby is already cooked. There would be no point in protecting him. No one really knows how much Fitzgerald has on Cheney so it's worth it for her to continue to protect him.

[Talismom]

4. Flame is right! She's a flamig liar! n/t

[stepnw1f]

5. They Were Trying to Plant WMD's and Got Busted!

That's what happened. Valerie Plame was investigating nuclear proliferation, and her husband sent on a wild goose chase. Both were in the Cabal's way.

JUDITH MILLER is a TRAITOR to her own country. And so are the right wingers who support all these sickos.

[peacetalksforall]

6. B.S. She is supposed to be a professional. Professionals make

notes and remember sources for flashing-light data such as this.

[Athame]

108. They also remember that notebooks exist!!

The whole thing is such an obvious sham that it makes me furious to know that Miller and the NYT think they can get away with this.

SHAME on them! :grr: :grr: :grr:

[texpatriot2004]

8. Judy Miller is a liar and a traitor and the NYT is complicit. nm

[worldgonekrazy]

77. I disagree about the Times

They were doing what they thought was right by backing up their journalists. Hell, they've even said so themselves "we just wish it wasn't Judith Miller," but they still had to do it no matter who the particular reporter was.

[texpatriot2004]

78. Have you researched the connection. I have. n.t

[JoFerret]

112. Agreed not complicit but negligent

Ms Run Amok did exactly that and who knows to whom she owed loyalty. She needed editors and managers and supervision. But as the article states - few would work with her.

[OKNancy]

9. Toward the end of the article this tidbit

On Tuesday, Ms. Miller is to receive a First Amendment award from the Society of Professional Journalists. She said she thought she would write a book about her experiences in the leak case, although she added that she did not yet have a book deal. She also plans on taking some time off but says she hopes to return to the newsroom.

[Mojorabbit]

Ah, the old "time off"

perhaps to spend more time with the family.

[IndianaGreen]

28. We should protest the bestowing of this award to a scum like Miller

Miller has harmed this country and the journalist profession as no one has in history. She should be scourged and crucified for her crimes, and her body should be dumped at a toxic site.

[Ellen Forradalom]

92. whoa, brother

let's not part body and soul here, but yes, she should never set pen to paper again.

[chat_noir]

58. Society of Professional Journalists

http://www.spj.org/

Eugene S. Pulliam
National Journalism Center
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 Fax: [phone]


Awards and Honors Committee Chair:

Guy Baehr
Assistant Director
Journalism Resources Institute
Rutgers University of New Jersey
4 Huntington St.
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071
[email protected]

Ethics Committee:

Gary Hill, chair
Director of Investigations
KSTP-TV
3415 University Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Work: 651/642-4437
[email protected]

Fred Brown, co-chair
The Denver Post
1560 Broadway
Denver, Colo. 80202
Work: 303/820-1663
Fax: [phone]
[email protected]

Casey Bukro, co-chair
Chicago Tribune
Work: 312/222-5743
Fax: [phone]
[email protected]


Other contacts: http://www.spj.org/spj_programs_headquarter.asp

[IndianaGreen]

10. Is Sulzberger banging Judith Miller?

I cannot fathom any other reason for the NY Times publisher's fanatical support for this neocon bitch.

This is a long and fascinating reporting by three NY Times reporters, with contribution by Janni Scott, that appear to belong to the Judy Fan Club. They do not provide much detail about Judy's adventures in Iraq, when she actually took de-facto command of a military unit searching for WMDs. This is all we get from the NY Times on that fiasco that was widely reported in the US, including her sexual relationship with an NCO:

In the spring of 2003, Ms. Miller returned from covering the war in Iraq, where she had been embedded with an American military team searching unsuccessfully for evidence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Back in the States, another battle was brewing.

The NY Times also whitewashes the nature of the articles about WMD that Judy wrote, articles in which her only source was Chalabi:

Ms. Miller had written a string of articles before the war - often based on the accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors - strongly suggesting that Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction.

Remember this is the same newspaper that had a reporter named Jason Blair that manufactured his stories much as Judy did on WMD. The Times eventually was forced to disavow 6 articles on WMD in Iraq, 5 of which were written by Miller.

Judy Miller is not the only journalist villain in the Plame case, the NY Times played a key role in the cover-up of criminal activity by the Bush regime. Often the cover-up involved suppressing their own reporters when they did their job of informing the public:

Some reporters said editors seemed reluctant to publish articles about other aspects of the case as well, like how it was being investigated by Mr. Fitzgerald. In July, Richard W. Stevenson and other reporters in the Washington bureau wrote an article about the role of Mr. Cheney's senior aides, including Mr. Libby, in the leak case. The article, which did not disclose that Mr. Libby was Ms. Miller's source, was not published.

If the NY Times has any hope of recovering its shattered credibility, it must begin by firing Miller and Sulzberger!

[mod mom]

91. I agree, Mr Sulzberger allowed uncontested oversight that brought great

dishonor to the Times. If they want to regain some credibility, the NYT must fire both Miller and Sulzberger. How could they ignore the dissenting voices of critics? Wouldn't they have at least researched those opposed with so much at stake?

I have read something hear at DU about the NYT ties to the AIPAC spy scandal. (I recall the Times being called Bebe's boys) Is this connected to the push for war? Would someone please elaborate or debunk this issue?

[Marie26]

94. Possible AIPAC - Miller connection?

Apparantly, a Pentagon Iran analyst named Franklin was recently convicted of sharing classified information with AIPAC employees who later shared it with the Israeli government. These APIAC employees gave info to Isreal & also to "favored members of the media." AIPAC was also involved in hyping the case for war w/Iraq. I think it could be reasonable to think that these employees shared "Valerie Plame's" name with Judith Miller. Maybe this is why she's STILL covering up - if she's dealing w/foreign agents, she's got a lot more trouble than perjury. It's also suspicious that she decided to testify on the same day that Franklin pled guilty. I guess you could also argue the Times itself was involved, but that's still hard for me to believe (or maybe I just don't want to). There's a blog article that ties it together: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7490

[mod mom]

98. WOW that was quite a bit to digest. Why would AIPAC have ties w Chalabi +

Iran? Also, the only ties to the NYT (with the obvious exception of Judith Miller ) appears to be that May 2005 notation:

"May 14 – The New York Times reports that journalists are being questioned about their contacts with Franklin."

Are there connections to NYT + AIPAC Scandal?

[JoFerret]

113. Fire Sultzberger?

LOL

[rawstory]

11. Reporter in leak case to take leave of absence effective immediately

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reporter_in_leak_case_to_take_1015.html

John Byrne and Jason Leopold

RAW STORY has confirmed that New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail protecting her source in the recent CIA leak investigation, will take an indefinite leave of absence effective immediately.

"Judy is going to take some time off until we decide what she is doing next," said Catherine Matthis, the Times' spokesperson.

RAW STORY spoke with Miller by telephone at the New York Times newsroom in Washington Friday evening. She said that she had not previously been questioned about her plans going forward, and deferred extended comment to her publicist.

The Times' Sunday story asserts that Miller has not signed a book deal as previously reported.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reporter_in_leak_case_to_take_1015.html

[file83]

12. Trouble in the Miller camp, perhaps?

[mike_c]

13. NOW it's getting interesting....

Maybe the grey lady is going to try to save some credibility after all. On the other hand, maybe Miller knows it's time to disappear for a while. Karma is a bitch.

[proud patriot]

14. buh-bye Judy

:hi:

[Mika]

15. To cluster with the Aspens? n/t

[Kolesar]

17. Judy Miller and Robert Novak can make a date for bridge.

Since they will have so much time on their hands.
P.S. Can I borrow your stump grinder?

[katinmn]

16. She's baggage to the NYT now.

Unfortunately, NYT editors and executives were complicit in the banging of the drums and helping cover up Miller's role in the leaks so they can't just "fire" her. She might say too much.

I bet they are negotiating a nice settlement for her.

[SoDesuKa]

25. Scram Gravy Ain't Wavy

I bet they are negotiating a nice settlement for her.

Maybe not. There's a stain all over the New York Times now, and quite possibly the need for a scapegoat. It could be a choice between Miller and Sulzberger - which one do you keep?

[IndianaGreen]

37. Miller and Sulzberger should both be fired!

If not, the Times should hire back Jason Blair and change their format to a tabloid.

[janx]

35. Doubtful.

She may have to day goodbye to the aspens and Sag Harbor after all.

[OKNancy]

18. Nothing new here, this is reported in the New York Times

article already posted

On Tuesday, Ms. Miller is to receive a First Amendment award from the Society of Professional Journalists. She said she thought she would write a book about her experiences in the leak case, although she added that she did not yet have a book deal. She also plans on taking some time off but says she hopes to return to the newsroom.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1852251

[katinmn]

26. If I belonged to SPJ I would resign in protest

I belong to the Association of Health Care Journalists and when some members suggested honoring Miller when she went to jail, there was such an uproar that the board decided they would not support Miller.

I just don't understand SPJ.

[leveymg]

19. Makes tomorrow's NYT mea culpa a notch more interesting.

Maybe it won't be the purest of white-washes, after all. Perhaps, I'm still too much of an optimist.

[mr_hat]

23. It's already online, as is Miller's article. >

She doesn't recall, can't recall, etc. Oh, except that Plame's name did NOT come from Scooter. Of that, she's certain.

She didn't flip -- she lied. Fitz got nothing.

[janx]

36. I wouldn't bet on that. n/t

[leveymg]

49. Not true. Fitz got Scooter for perjury.

Her "found" reporter notes were from a June 23, 2003 meeting that Scooter omitted to mention before in his testimony to the GJ. That, is perjury - game over for Libby. Next customer!

The main NYT story also doesn't point out Scooter's perjury here.

[Garbo 2004]

66. Her belatedly discovered notes were from June 23 meeting with Libby. n/t

[leveymg]

68. That's correct. Point still applies.

I edited my comment, above.

[Spazito]

61. LOL, please don't tell me you are taking this article as truth!

Miller hasn't told the truth in years and she sure as hell isn't going to do so in this case most of all.

[shance]

20. There "she" goes...

She's walkin away

and each step she takes

brings heartache my way.

[Orsino]

56. But is it a sign of things to come?

Is it a sign that all the senior officials questioned will suffer similar memory lapses? Is this how the investigation will die--of the usual Republican omerta?

[aquart]

75. "Until WE decide"???? Not till SHE decides?

Judy's credibility would have to improve a lot to reach zero.

[jasmeel]

97. Good riddance!

[OKNancy]

24. Here is the direct link

to Miller's piece about the grand jury

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html

[Spazito]

38. ROFLMAO! Ya just gotta love this little tidbit at the very end of

the article:

Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter's closing lines. "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

How did I interpret that? Mr. Fitzgerald asked.

In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

Now, I just bet the GJ believed this, given the lady had met with him multiple times previously as well as talking to him on the phone yet she 'had NO idea who he was' and that is the reason for the 'aspen' reference in Libby's letter.

Again, :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[thinkingwoman]

60. That's precious

No really, precious.

I mean it's just so adorable.

Oh help, I've fallen down laughing and I can't get up.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[pacalo]

39. Libby's letter to her is still open to interpretation.

According to her account here, the "aspens" seems to be in reference to an actual Aspen trip where she had attended a conference, but she didn't give Fitzgerald the meaning of "they turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me," Mr. Libby wrote.

The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words. I replied that this portion of the letter had surprised me because it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job.

Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter's closing lines. "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

How did I interpret that? Mr. Fitzgerald asked.

In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

[janx]

45. The letter did its job. It was clear to Judy that Libby expected

her to testify in a certain way. See my other post about Judy and the aspens elsewhere in this thread--post #33.

[Spazito]

59. I read her response regarding her agreeing that Libby might have been

trying to lead her testimony were in reference to this specific sentence:

"The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me,"

"The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words."

It was after her response to the above sentence that Fitzgerald went on to the specific 'aspen' reference followed by her totally ludicrous explanation:

"Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter's closing lines. "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

How did I interpret that? Mr. Fitzgerald asked.

In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."

In asking the two, separate questions about the end portion of Libby's letter says to me he is seeing two different messages being imparted by Libby: The first being to lead her regarding her testimony on the outing of Plame and: The second being the very odd 'aspen' reference.

[worldgonekrazy]

80. Possible meanings of Aspen reference

You know, that letter Libby sent Miller is so bizarre that I almost don't even believe it to be real. Were it not reported in the New York Times and other reputable sources, I would think it was a total fabrication. Thats just how weird that letter is.

Anyhow, a possible meaning of the Aspen reference could be as a reference to a meeting in Aspen around the time the letter was written in which prominent Republican supporters turned on Bush. You can read about it from Robert Novak, of all people, in his column titled "Bashing Bush in Aspen" (9/22/05) at http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/09/22/155676.html

Perhaps Libby is alerting Miller that people are turning on Bush and (maybe) setting him up as a fall guy (or Rove as Bush's surrogate). In effect, perhaps Libby is telling Miller to testify that Bush's people, and not Cheney's, are the guilty group.

Other than that, it seems to me that the reference could obviously be a threat, or Libby is just off his damn rocker.

[Spazito]

87. LOL at 'off his damn rocker', if he isn't, he is well on his way

On the bizarre 'aspen' reference, I really don't have a clue what it means only that it has a very important meaning to Miller and Libby. It could well be as you posted above that it is a reference to the conference in Aspen, it certainly is interesting for sure!

[pacalo]

69. I agree. Thanks, janx.

Her explanation was pretty lame. I'm sure Fitzgerald thought so, too. I can almost see a gleam in his eyes in these pictures of him leaving the courthouse on Wednesday...



Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald departs the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C., October 12, 2005. The New York Times reporter Judith Miller, under pressure to explain a previously undisclosed conversation with a top aide to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, made a second appearance on Wednesday before the federal grant jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity. REUTERS/Mannie Garcia



U.S. Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald gestures to reporters as he leaves federal court Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2005, in Washington. New York Times reporter Judith Miller is giving prosecutors details of a previously undisclosed conversation she had with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, adding a new dimension to the criminal investigation into the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

[janx]

118. Ha! That first one is a keeper.

Cute! ;-)

[mod mom]

103. What we are to believe she just happened to be in Wyoming and ran into

Libby? I wonder if Fitz questioned her whether Cheney was there as well. What a strange coincidence that would be after the Aspen-turning conference.

[Seansky]

27. She failed her duty and the entire country. NYT might have best sale of

year...

[janx]

33. Ah, so the ASPENS were not lost on Ms. Judy:

When Ms. Miller testified before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked her about the letter. She said she responded that it could be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby "to suggest that I, too, would say that we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity." But she added that "my notes suggested that we had discussed her job."

[Kablooie]

40. Ya know, there might be other reasons she's protecting Libby ...

Has anyone followed up on their personal lives?
There could be something about herself she doesn't want out.
Getting too close to your subject is not exactly admired in journalism.

[leveymg]

43. The "found" notes from Libby-Miller meeting 6/23/03 is barely mentioned.

The Times article doesn't even mention how Judy "found" her reporters notes that led to Libby being recalled last week before the Grand Jury. Libby had previously testified that he first talked to Judy in July. The notes from the June meeting are very significant, because they seal the case against Libby for perjury.

What gives?

This part is interesting, though. Judy now claims that she learned "Valerie Flame" name from a second source. Fitz agreed to stay away from who that source might be in exchange for her testimony about Libby.

Assuming she's telling the truth, that raises some very intriguing questions. Is that second source someone outside the US Government, but one which has in-depth knowledge about CIA WMD counterproliferation operations in the Mid-east?

[Spazito]

46. One can only assume Miller is NOT telling the truth and go from

there, imo. What is not talked about in her article is much more interesting than what is. She knows Fitzgerald and his team will not publicly refute any lies in her article so she is free to prevaricate at will and she certainly did!

[janx]

52. Could this be the mention?

She testified before the grand jury for a second time on Wednesday about notes from her first meeting with Mr. Libby.

It's on the last page, and that's all there is. I wonder how many lawyers were consulted before this article appears.

In any case, I suspect this isn't the last we'll hear of Judy Miller and her sources.

[shockingelk]

83. Someone here predicted exactly this about the notebook

In order to set up "The name first came from Miller, who can't recall who told her."

[worldgonekrazy]

85. I suspect she's lying about what she told Fitz

I have no real basis for this, but my gut feeling is that she told Fitz that she DID get the name from Libby. However, her testimony in front of the grand jury is not public, so if she publicly claims the opposite, well then certainly people (such as Libby) will be none the wiser. For a little while, anyway, until indictments are handed down. But it gives Miller time to secure herself from suddenly "committing suicide".

[Halliburton]

93. of course not

Judy doesn't want anyone to know how these circumstances came about.

[Marie26]

95. She wouldn't tell them

The article says: "In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes." If she won't show the new notes, or talk about what the notes say, what are they going to do? They can't subpoena her. Miller wasn't cooperating with her own paper to tell the story.

[stillcool]

51. eight-pages of hot air...

sort of like a republican's speech....When it's over you have no idea what you'd just heard. Dance Judy, Dance...

[Disturbed]

65. Time off means that...

the NYT asked for her resignation and the negotiations began. The NYT knows that she pimped for Busco and they went along with it. They are praying that by the time she is cut lose from them that their complicity will have swooped down the public's memory hole.

[noamnety]

62. This part is interesting

"Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully."

She knows he treated classified stuff very carefully ... and she isn't sure if she ever received classified information from him?

Here's a thought: If he didn't clearly identify information he gave her as classified, if they might have been discussing classified information over a regular (unsecure) phone line or in a hotel restaurant, or he might have read her some classified information from a sheet of paper "he pulled from his pocket" he wasn't handling it "very carefully."

If she believes she discussed classified information with him, yet there's no record of a visit request with verification of her security clearance at a secure facility where she and Libby met, that's not handling classified information "very carefully."

[savemefromdumbya]

70. couldn't handle carefully when a certain person who got a free pass

If they give people free passes to the White House goodgannoness knows who really spilt the beans.

[Patsy Stone]

63. "Judy, it's Scooter Libby."

"Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred."

"I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation."

"I believe I spoke to Mr. Libby by telephone from my home in Sag Harbor, N.Y."

How can she be sure she doesn't accidentally reveal the names of confidential sources during these frequent memory lapses?

So, let me get this straight. Libby says that the CIA was trying to shift the blame to the WH in case the Agency provided faulty information and the WH ran with it?

Otay... If Judy didn't have clearance, I presume Scooter will get in some trouble for this?

"I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq. At the same time, I told the grand jury I thought that at our July 8 meeting I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know."

BTW: Valerie Flame? Victoria Wilson? Judy, what's with you?

[Bumblebee]

64. She is a liar but Libby, I think, is cooked, to the point that Fitz does

not need to talk to him any more since there is much certainty about that -- unless Libby volunteers to deliver Cheney. Hope Rove is equally cooked!

[snippy]

84. I agree completely. Her article makes it pretty clear. n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

67. CAN"T RECALL WHO?

Funny how that slipped her mind? Perhaps a few days in the old Abu Ghraib might have released the name? :sarcasm:

[Maggie_May]

79. So she went to jail for 85 days for what?

Because she couldn't remember where she got Valerie Plames name from. Does she think we are that stupid?

[confludemocrat]

86. Does this not constitute a thinly veiled allusion to a coming firing?:

About the "internal inquiry" at the NYT: "In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes," the Times reporters wrote, says RAW story.

Someone who despite being stood by by her employer, nonethless basically told them to go fuck themselves.

[Bumblebee]

90. Here's my favorite part from the Daily Kos discussion

How to stifle the guffaws about this one?

"Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." "

by this logic, please attribute all my posts to a "former little leaguer."

[Princess Turandot]

96. The investigation started 2 years ago not last month..

she's acting as if the first time she thought abt the source of the name in the notebook was when she recently 're-found' her notes. The Novak article came out just a few weeks after her conversations & notes on the matter. She had already forgetten who she heard the name 'Valerie Flame' from by then? Or did she spend so little time thinking abt the topic - while fighting to stay out of jail because of it - that she forgot the details. (Sure. Right.) If she is going to lie, she ought to be less insulting about it.

[demgrrrll]

99. We still don't know what Fitz knows. I think he has them. I hope I

am right.

[lovuian]

101. "Valerie Flame" "Valerie Wilson" "Valerie Plame"

if her whole defense is that she HAS NO RECOLLECTION thats like taking the 5th... But even though its not incriminating herself ... its not DEFENDING herself either...And the notes from the notebook is damning...

This woman is lying and its pretty obvious to the court she is lying!!! Not only lying but definitely being obstructed to Justice.

This is the same woman that Kelly called before he died!!!

Whats really obvious to me from this note is that this has ALWAYS been about VALERIE & BREWSTER JENNINGS more than Wilson!!!

People are trying to hide Operation Mickingbird and its been
blown!!!

[Marie26]

116. What is Operation Mockingbird?

I've heard the term here a couple times but have no idea what it means.

[uhhuh]

117. Operation Mockingbird

Is a covert propaganda dissemination campaign that was started by the CIA just after WWII. Its intention is to establish and maintain links to major media outlets, and spread propaganda and quash relevant stories that may be unfavorable to the CIA's covert interests.

Here is a google result for Operation Mockingbird:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=operation+mockingbird&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

it is very alarming... I even wrote a song about it:

www.myspace.com/avenueinoceania

[Marie26]

120. Thanks

I followed up some of those links. Carl Bernstein did a story about this & listed some of the journalists who participated in working for the CIA. Among them is Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the NY Times. (father of the current publisher). Hmmm... But Operation Mockingbird was to help the CIA; and if anything, this bunch seemed aimed at discrediting the CIA. It's almost like a new neocon "Operation" was set up to advance their own interests & agenda - and it looks like they were really trying to hurt the CIA, more than Joe Wilson.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoFerret]

110. Ms Run Amok (aka Judith Miller)

- this is a good story by the NYT.

[entanglement]

114. No way in hell can I post what I want in reply

and not get banned, so I'm going to shut up and swallow my rage.

:mad: :mad: :argh: :argh: :grr: :grr: :nuke: :nuke:

[are_we_united_yet]

115. Sure Judith

you are journalistic hero.


NOT

[Patsy Stone]

119. Judy, maybe he's just not that into you?

Ms. Miller said in an interview that she was waiting for Mr. Libby to call her, but he never did. "I interpreted the silence as, 'Don't testify,' " Ms. Miller said.