Letter shows Cheney aide was prodded in leak probe

[janx]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney got a push from a prosecutor before telling New York Times reporter Judith Miller that he wanted her to testify in a probe into the outing of a CIA operative whose diplomat husband was an Iraq-war critic.

The prosecutor's encouragement, in a letter obtained by Reuters, has prompted some lawyers in the case to question whether Cheney's aide was acting completely voluntarily when he gave Miller the confidentiality waiver she had insisted on.

The investigation has spotlighted free-press issues and the Bush administration's aggressive efforts to defend its Iraq policy against critics.

Miller maintains she only agreed to testify -- after spending 85 days in jail -- because she received what she describes as a personal and voluntary waiver of confidentiality from her source. She dismissed an earlier waiver by Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, as coerced.

More at link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051008/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc

[HereSince1628]

1. We knew this, the only thing new in this article is commentary

and it is quite predictable...

[dave29]

2. awwww

poor Wibby got Pwodded

[janx]

3. Yes, he did. Fitz seemed very polite about it though.

;-)

[Doremus]

5. LOL!

They're such meanies.

:nopity:

[MADem]

4. If Libby testified, under oath, that he gave Judy a full waiver

...but Judy's lawyer was telling Fitz that she did NOT have a waiver from him, then the prodding was entirely justified. Ya can't have it both ways, Scooter!

This bit from the article amused:
"If you think you might be a target of an investigation, being cooperative could be viewed as a desirable thing to be," Kirtley said.

Marvin Kalb of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government said, "Libby took the hint."

[Kagemusha]

6. By St. Judy's standards, this is still coerced.

And she took it.

So where does that leave her?

[rodeodance]

7. Who benefits from the issue of coersion?

.....Some lawyers in the case called the letter a thinly veiled threat seeking Libby's cooperation, and said it raised questions about whether Libby's waiver was as voluntary as Miller and her lawyers had described.

Others said it was not coercive.

"Is that pressure? Absolutely," said Richard Sauber, a Washington lawyer who represents Time magazine's Matt Cooper, who has also testified to the grand jury. But he added, "It is not unfair and it is not unduly coercive."

[Demoiselle]

8. Prosecutors apply pressure. It's part of the job. (Snicker.) eom

[DemsUnited]

9. Team Libby is WAY desperate & trying to smear Fitzgerald!

Their first response to Fitzgerald's letter was shock, shock I say:

"To say I am surprised at its content is an understatement," Mr. Tate wrote in his September 16 letter, made public by the Times last week. He insisted that he unequivocally reaffirmed the waiver to a lawyer for Ms. Miller more than a year earlier. "Neither my client nor I imagined that her decision to go to jail could be affected by anything that we could do," Mr. Tate said. (http://www.nysun.com/article/20936)

This, of course, was when they thought Judy would keep her testimony limited to the two July conversations. In fact, Libby made sure Judy understood that's what she was supposed to do in his letter to her. No, it wasn't the bit about the Aspens, that was just distraction. The part where he's trying to tell her what to say is very straight forward: "The Special Councel identified every reporter with whom I had spoken about anything in July, including you." (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/nat_MILLER_051001.pdf)

But the minute she goes off script and "discovers" notes about a JUNE discussion with Libby, Libby's lawyers are leaking about how the whole thing was coerced by Fitzgerald and maybe Libby really didn't want Miller talking in the first place.

Make up your mind Team Libby!! Either you gave the woman a waiver for a year and she was sitting in jail for her own weird reasons, or you didn't give her a waiver 'cause you really didn't want her talking (especially about that June meeting). Can't have it both ways!!