Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Why did the New York Times get SCOOPED on Miller release?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:47 AM
Original message
Why did the New York Times get SCOOPED on Miller release?
Questions Swirl Around Latest Twist in Judith Miller Saga
Who blinked first? Why did the Times get scooped last night? How come no one seems to know that Miller also turned over notes? Why didn't she accept Scooter's waiver months ago? And more.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK (September 30, 2005) -- So who blinked first in the Pat and Judy Show -- the federal prosecutor or the jailed journalist? This is among a host of questions raised by Judith Miller's sudden prison release after cutting a deal with prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Did Miller cave, close to the end of the Plame grand jury's current term, because she feared that Fitzgerald would extend the term for many months? Or did the prosecutor cave (agreeing to limit Miller's testimony) because he was already being criticized for taking so long to produce indictments and needed to at least nail one bad guy?

Other bits of intrigue:

-- First, The Washington Post got scooped on naming Deep Throat. Now The New York Times is just about last to report on its own star reporter (who it has championed in numerous editorials) getting sprung from jail. Even E&P, following The Philadelphia Inquirer's scoop, beat the Times on it last night. What's up with that?

-- Buried in all the accounts of Miller's agreeing to testify is the little matter of also deciding to turn over her written "edited" notes (apparently jotted down after the fact) on her chats with "Scooter" Libby. What does "edited" mean? While not quite parallel to Time Inc. yielding Matt Cooper's electronic notes, which were in his magazine's system, why is so little being made of this? The Times has long said it had no notes, but that may be because they never got beyond Miller's notepad.

-- Why wasn't Libby's personal waiver allowing her to testify (granted a year ago, he says) not good enough for Miller when it was good enough for numerous other embattled journos in this case? Why the sudden change of heart on her part?

-- What exactly is going on with the Miller legal team? Is Floyd Abrams really the fall guy for letting this drag on so long? Or has Miller changed her own tune under the influence of Bob Bennett, one of her other lawyers?

-- What does it mean that Libby claims to be shocked that Miller was protecting him and that he presumed she was shielding others?

-- Will we ever know who, in the words of the Times' Executive Editor Bill Keller last night, Miller feared she might "implicate" if questioned freely by Fitzgerald?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. There's another school of thought
I believe its in another thread speculating that Miller cooked up this whole contempt thingy as a cheap stunt to gain back some the credibility she'd lost among other journalists by being a stenographer for the admin in the pre Iraq days. And that Fitzgerald intentionally or unintentionally called her bluff by threatening her with criminal contempt and many more months in jail. I'm not sure I buy it but it would expain why Libby claims he gave her permission to testify months ago while she denies it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. The first thing I noticed last night was that bit about limiting the
questioning with something about some protection for "sources." This confuses me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
melissinha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Am I wrong or naive, but
isn't it possible that she is staying silent out of self interest, because the actual information that Joseph Wilson was being punished for disputing was promoted incessantly by Miller herself? I would think that in the course of the investigation, information regarding who talked to who would reveal the specical relationship between Miller and the Administration. What a shill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. seemslikeadream
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 19th 2017, 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC