Why are people complaining about the timing of Miller's testimony?

[nonconformist]

If you ask me, the timing is PHENOMENAL. The other stories aren't going anywhere, they're big. This just adds to the whole mess. Pretty interesting stuff for Joe Sixpack catching the evening news and seeing a handful of the top stories dealing with investigations and indictments of top Republicans.

Let's enjoy it. Bonus, if she fingers Rove he'll be distracted and preoccupied, like right after Katrina. Rove was in the hospital and wasn't able to get the spin and talking points out for days ("blame game", local government's fault, evacuees are scum, etc)... by then, the damage had been done.

The republicans would have to be masochists to want something like THIS as a distraction for anything.

[Seansky]

1. wouldn't her talking be actually great news since Fitz has to wrap up

the investigation soon?
wouldn't this mean indictments are closer, and closer and closer...

[nonconformist]

2. Yep! nt

[lcordero2]

3. I'm going to pay attention to this because I get the feeling that

she might be "Wellstoned" if you know what I mean.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Where is That Photoshop of Karl Rove Being Frog-Marched?

[babylonsister]

5. Scooter "released" her; what does that mean?

I honestly don't have a clue...

[texpatriot2004]

6. Look, that whole Scooter released her bit is just NOISE it means

nothing; it's like the "look Elvis" thing to distract people from the real issue. I will tell you this, the real issue is not a reporter going to jail to "protect" her source. Yeah, Scooter "released" her but he did it almost a year ago on paper. That is not the issue. Judy Miller has to testify or face serious jail time, for criminal not civil charges. I think it is a convenient and positive thing that she got to look like a heroine protecting her source(s) - too bad that is not the case here rather it is a convenient cover for her. I think that she is part of the crime,the conspiracy, the whatever you want to call it and it involves many people not just one source. So, don't think about the narrow issue of the "release" think of the broader issue of what is going on.

[Garbo 2004]

8. I suspect the prospect of criminal contempt charges focuses the mind

powerfully (to borrow a phrase).

Murray Waas' comment:

"After having spent more than 12 weeks in jail, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was freed today. The news of her release aside, she will soon be debriefed by federal investigators, and then testify before a federal grand jury, perhaps as early as tomorrow morning. What is perhaps left out of news accounts tonight is that Miller's testimony is central to whether special Fitzgerald brings criminal charges against I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Cheney was unwavering in telling prosecutors and the FBI that he knew nothing of Plame's covert work for the CIA, and Miller's testimony on that issue will be central to any final disposition of the criminal probe, sources close to the investigation have told me for some time now." http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/

[Garbo 2004]

7. Fitz has been trying to get her to testify about her conversation with

Libby. Although Libby has testified and signed a blanket waiver of confidentiality Miller refused to testify regarding their conversation. Claiming the general waiver Libby signed, as did other Administration officials, may not have been voluntary.

Apparently, during the recent course of negotiations with Fitz, Miller had occasion to get a specific personal waiver from Libby, thus "freeing" her to testify. According to NYT Libby claims he thought it was clear he had given her a waiver some time ago. Whatever.

Considering that Miller previously in one of her articles burned one of her sources who gave her info on a story on the basis of confidentiality, her posing as a martyr to the first amendment is a bunch of crap IMO. But she and the NYT have been milking it.

[texpatriot2004]

9. I think you're right they are milking it and it's not who she really is.

[mrdmk]

10. There is an agreement on confidentiality when a reporter is

speaking to a unidentified source. The reporter does not have to revel their source in an open forum such as a court of law. This is so a reporter can get information pass that information to the public (so the story goes).

Now some of the rules of reporting are as follows: 1) When using a confidential source one needs to confirm that source with another source that has no contact with your first source. 2) If a confidential source gives bad or misleading information, then the reporter can give the persons name in the report and also the misleading information and what is wrong with that information and why. 3) The original source of a reporters information can release the reporter from their confidentiality clause, thus the reporter can release this persons name in a public forum for all to see and listen.

Judith Miller choose in her career as of lately to for go these basic rules of Journalism. The reason she did not follow the basic rules is because she felt she did not have to (imho). For this she tried playing with the Big Boys and wound up in the Big House.

[texpatriot2004]

11. I think you are right about the Big boys and the Big house.n/t

[cassiepriam]

12. The timing is perfect.....

Cranks up the heat on the repugs.... the same treatment they gave Clinton... hounds of hell on their feet day and night. Begins to get very wearing and stressful. And even the sheeple begin to wonder if something is not quite right with their leadership.