Judith Miller's Secret Meeting - send far and wide
Fri Aug 12, 2005 21:33
64.140.158.41
Please send as far and wide as possible.
Thanks,
Robert Sterling
Editor, The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com
Judith Miller's Secret Meeting
By Murray Waas, The American Prospect
Posted on August 10, 2005
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick
Cheney, has told federal investigators that he met with New York
Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed CIA
operative Valerie Plame, according to legal sources familiar with
Libby's account.
The meeting between Libby and Miller has been a central focus of the
investigation by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald as to
whether any Bush administration official broke the law by unmasking
Plame's identity, or relied on classified information to discredit
former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, according to sources close to
the case as well as documents filed in federal court by Fitzgerald.
The meeting took place in Washington, D.C., six days before
columnist Robert Novak wrote his now-infamous column unmasking Plame
as a "CIA operative." Although little noticed at the time, Novak's
column would cause the appointment of a special prosecutor,
ultimately place in potential legal jeopardy senior advisers to the
president of the United States, and lead to the jailing of a New
York Times reporter.
The meeting between Libby and Miller also occurred during a week of
intense activity by Libby and White House deputy chief of staff Karl
Rove aimed at discrediting Plame's husband, Wilson, who on July 6,
2003, had gone public in a New York Times opinion piece with
allegations that the Bush administration was misrepresenting
intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.
Miller was jailed in July -- two years to the day after Wilson's
Times op-ed appeared -- for civil contempt of court after she
refused to answer questions posed to her by Fitzgerald's grand jury
regarding her contacts discussing Plame with Libby and other Bush
administration officials. Ironically, even though she never wrote a
story about Plame, she has so far been the only person jailed in the
case.
Miller's Fate Hinges on a Waiver
The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises
questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in
his administration have done everything possible to assist
Fitzgerald's grand-jury probe. Sources close to the investigation,
and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal
probe, said that Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may
have played a significant role in Miller's decision not to testify
about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8,
2003.
Libby signed a more generalized waiver during the early course of
the investigation granting journalists the right to testify about
their conversations with him if they wished to do so. At least two
reporters -- Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of
NBC -- have testified about their conversations with Libby.
But Miller has said she would not consider providing any information
to investigators about conversations with Libby or anyone else
without a more specific, or personal, waiver. She said she considers
general waivers to be inherently coercive. Bill Keller, the
executive editor of The New York Times, has previously said Miller
had not been granted "any kind of a waiver... that she finds
persuasive or believes was freely given."
Libby has never offered to provide such a personalized waiver for
Miller, according to three legal sources with first-hand knowledge
of the matter. Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for Libby, declined to
comment for this story.
In response to questions for this article, Catherine J. Mathis, a
spokesperson for the Times, said, "We don't have any comment
regarding Ms. Miller's whereabouts on July 8, 2003." She also
added, "Ms. Miller has not received a waiver that she believes to be
freely given."
It is also unclear whether Miller would testify to Fitzgerald's
grand jury even if she were to receive such a personalized waiver
from Libby. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams, said in an
interview: "Judith Miller is in jail and at continued jeopardy ... I
have no comment about what she might do in circumstances that do not
now exist."
But numerous people involved in the case said in interviews for this
story that a personalized waiver for Miller by Libby could
potentially pave the way for Miller's release. Miller's testimony,
in turn, might be crucial to a determination as to whether anyone
might be criminally charged, and even to a potential end to the
criminal investigation.
At least two attorneys representing private clients who are
embroiled in the Plame probe also privately questioned whether or
not President Bush had encouraged Libby to provide a personalized
waiver for Miller in an effort to obtain her cooperation.
In a memorandum distributed to White House staff members shortly
after the investigation became known, Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez, who at the time was White House counsel, wrote, "The
president has directed full cooperation with this investigation."
Bush himself said: "[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I
want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the
person will be taken care of."
Congressman Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey and a member of the
House Intelligence Committee, while sidestepping the specifics as to
whether Bush should order Libby to provide a personalized waiver for
Miller, said in an interview Friday evening: "I would say the
president has the power to help us get to the bottom of this matter.
And we in Congress want to do this not so much for what has happened
but to prevent such a thing from happening again."
The Crux of Fitzgerald's Investigation
Just how crucial Miller's testimony -- most notably her meeting with
Libby -- might be to concluding Fitzgerald's investigation is best
underscored in part by a filing in federal court last March that his
investigation had been "for all practical purposes complete" as long
as six months earlier, except for the potential testimony of Miller
and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper.
The investigation had become "stalled," Fitzgerald asserted, almost
entirely by the refusal of Miller and Cooper to testify. Declaring
that "[t]he public's right to have this investigation concluded
diligently should be delayed no further," Fitzgerald sought the
jailing on civil contempt of court charges of both Miller and Cooper.
Facing civil penalties, Time magazine abruptly reversed course and
turned over its confidential notes to Fitzgerald, while Cooper
testified to the federal grand jury about his conversations with
Rove, Libby, and others regarding Plame and Wilson. In contrast,
Miller refused to cooperate with prosecutors and was ordered to jail.
More specifically, the importance prosecutors attach to learning
what occurred during Miller's meeting with Libby is illustrated by a
subpoena by Fitzgerald's grand jury of Miller on August 20, 2004,
for "any and all documents (including notes, e-mails, or other
documents) relating to any conversations, occurring on or about July
6, 2003 to on or about July 13, 2003, between Judith Miller and a
government official whom she met in Washington D.C. on July 8, 2003,
concerning Valerie Plame Wilson."
Miller was also ordered to bring to the grand jury "documents
provided to Judith Miller by such government official on July 8,
2003."
Details of the subpoena to Miller were first disclosed in a story in
Newsday by reporter Tom Brune.
In an affidavit prepared by Miller to respond to the request, Miller
said she "did not receive any documents" from the person she met,
but declined to say who the person was that she met on July 8.
In subsequent court papers filed in federal court by attorneys for
Miller and The New York Times, the newspaper said that Miller "had
no documents responsive" to Fitzgerald's request of any documents
given to her on July 8, 2003.
But Miller's affidavit and other court filings by the Times -- and
the narrow language contained therein -- did not say whether Miller
might have read or reviewed any documents that might have brought to
the July 8, 2003, meeting.
And an attorney in private practice who once worked closely with
Fitzgerald while both men were federal prosecutors said that the
specific nature of Fitzgerald's request was a "good indication that
[Fitzgerald] has specific information ... or perhaps even a witness
who saw, or had other information" that Libby "might have brought
documents to the meeting with Miller."
In her affidavit, Miller also asserted: "I have never written an
article about Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson. I did however contemplate
writing one or more articles in July 2003, about issues related to
Ambassador Wilson's op-ed piece. In preparation for those articles,
I spoke and/or met with several potential sources. One or more of
those potential sources insisted as a precondition to providing
information to me, that I agree to maintain the confidentiality of
their identity."
Timeline of a Smear
The Libby-Miller meeting and the publication of Novak's column
unmasking Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" came during an
intensive period of time while senior White House officials were
scrambling to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Wilson, who
was then asserting that the Bush administration had relied on faulty
intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq.
Wilson had only recently led a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to
investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was covertly attempting to
buy enriched uranium from the African nation to build a nuclear
weapon. Wilson reported back that the allegations were most likely
the result of a hoax.
But President Bush had still cited the Niger allegations during his
2003 State of the Union address as evidence that Hussein had an
aggressive program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
When Wilson sought out White House officials believing they did not
know all the facts, he was rebuffed. He then went public with his
criticism of the Bush administration. It was then that senior
administration officials began their campaign to discredit Wilson to
counter his criticisms of them.
Rove and Libby, and to a lesser extent then-deputy National Security
Council (NSC) adviser Stephen J. Hadley (who is currently Bush's NSC
adviser), directed these efforts. Both Rove and Libby discussed with
Novak, Cooper, and other journalists the fact that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, and that she was responsible for sending him to
Niger, in an effort to discredit him.
The manner by which Rove and Libby learned of Plame's employment as
a CIA employee before they shared that information with journalists
is central to whether any federal criminal laws regarding classified
information were violated. Rove and Libby have reportedly claimed
that they learned of the information from journalists.
But investigators have focused on whether Rove or Libby rather first
learned about Plame's CIA employment and her possible role in
recommending that her husband be sent to Niger from a classified
State Department memo circulated to senior Bush administration
officials in the days just prior to their conversations with
journalists.
Dated June 10, 2003, the memo was written for Marc Grossman, then
the undersecretary of state for political affairs. It mentioned
Plame, her employment with the CIA, and her possible role in
recommending her husband for the Niger mission because he had
previously served in the region. The mention of Plame's CIA
employment was classified "Secret" and was contained in the second
paragraph of the three-page classified paper.
On July 6, 2003, Wilson published his New York Times op-ed and
appeared on "Meet the Press." The following day, on July 7, the memo
was sent to then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell and other senior
Bush administration officials, who were scrambling to respond to the
public criticism. At the time, Powell and other senior
administration officials were on their way to Africa aboard Air
Force One as members of the presidential entourage for a state visit
to Africa.
Rove and Libby apparently were not on that trip, according to press
accounts. But a subpoena during the earliest days of the Plame
investigation demanded records related to any telephone phone calls
to and from Air Force One from July 7 to July 12, during Bush's
African visit.
On July 8, Novak and Rove first spoke about Plame, according to
numerous press accounts. That was also the day that Libby and Miller
met in Washington, D.C., to discuss Plame.
On July 9, then-CIA director George Tenet ordered aides to draft a
statement that the Niger information that the President relied
on "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required
for the presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that
it was removed." Rove and Libby were reportedly involved in the
drafting of that statement's language.
Three days later, on July 11, Rove spoke about Plame to Cooper.
On the following day, July 12, an administration official --
apparently not Rove or Libby -- told Washington Post reporter Walter
Pincus that Wilson was sent to Niger on the recommendation of his
wife. But Pincus has said that he did not publish a story because
he "did not believe it true."
Two days later, on July 14, Novak published his column disclosing
Plame's employment with the CIA, describing her as an "agency
operative" and alleging that she suggested her husband for the Niger
mission.
According to Novak's account, it was he, not Rove, who first
broached the issue of Plame's employment with the CIA; Rove at most
simply said that he, too, had heard much the same information. Rove
had provided a similar account to investigators.
On July 17, Time magazine posted its own story online, which
said: "[S]ome government officials have noted to Time in
interviews ... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official
who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These
officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's
being dispatched to Niger."
Because the information in the classified State Department memo and
what was reported in Novak's column and the Time story were so
strikingly similar, investigators have vigorously pursued whether
Rove, Libby, and others learned of her CIA employment either from
the memo, someone else in the administration, or other classified
references to Plame circulating within the White House.
Fitzgerald's staff and grand jury have queried a slew of Bush
administration officials as to who received and read the classified
State memorandum; whether Rove or Libby learned that Plame was
employed with the CIA either directly from the memorandum or from
others who had read it; and whether any reporters had conversations
regarding the matter with Rove and Libby.
Libby has reportedly told Fitzgerald that he first learned of
Plame's identity from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert. But
Russert has told investigators that he never told Libby about Plame.
Rove said that he first learned the information from his
conversation with Robert Novak.
By saying that they learned the information from reporters, the
stakes are dramatically raised for the two White House aides: If it
turns out that it can be shown that they learned the information
from a classified source, such as the State Department memo, they
could be in legal jeopardy for disclosing classified information.
And if they misled investigators or the federal grand jury on that
question, that trouble could be compounded.
The one person with some of the answers as to whether Libby is
telling the truth very well may be Judith Miller. But she currently
is incarcerated in an Alexandria jail. Lewis Libby may possibly have
the ability to ascertain Miller's release by sim
Thanks,
Robert Sterling
Editor, The Konformist
http://www.konformist.com
Judith Miller's Secret Meeting
By Murray Waas, The American Prospect
Posted on August 10, 2005
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick
Cheney, has told federal investigators that he met with New York
Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed CIA
operative Valerie Plame, according to legal sources familiar with
Libby's account.
The meeting between Libby and Miller has been a central focus of the
investigation by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald as to
whether any Bush administration official broke the law by unmasking
Plame's identity, or relied on classified information to discredit
former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, according to sources close to
the case as well as documents filed in federal court by Fitzgerald.
The meeting took place in Washington, D.C., six days before
columnist Robert Novak wrote his now-infamous column unmasking Plame
as a "CIA operative." Although little noticed at the time, Novak's
column would cause the appointment of a special prosecutor,
ultimately place in potential legal jeopardy senior advisers to the
president of the United States, and lead to the jailing of a New
York Times reporter.
The meeting between Libby and Miller also occurred during a week of
intense activity by Libby and White House deputy chief of staff Karl
Rove aimed at discrediting Plame's husband, Wilson, who on July 6,
2003, had gone public in a New York Times opinion piece with
allegations that the Bush administration was misrepresenting
intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.
Miller was jailed in July -- two years to the day after Wilson's
Times op-ed appeared -- for civil contempt of court after she
refused to answer questions posed to her by Fitzgerald's grand jury
regarding her contacts discussing Plame with Libby and other Bush
administration officials. Ironically, even though she never wrote a
story about Plame, she has so far been the only person jailed in the
case.
Miller's Fate Hinges on a Waiver
The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises
questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in
his administration have done everything possible to assist
Fitzgerald's grand-jury probe. Sources close to the investigation,
and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal
probe, said that Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may
have played a significant role in Miller's decision not to testify
about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8,
2003.
Libby signed a more generalized waiver during the early course of
the investigation granting journalists the right to testify about
their conversations with him if they wished to do so. At least two
reporters -- Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of
NBC -- have testified about their conversations with Libby.
But Miller has said she would not consider providing any information
to investigators about conversations with Libby or anyone else
without a more specific, or personal, waiver. She said she considers
general waivers to be inherently coercive. Bill Keller, the
executive editor of The New York Times, has previously said Miller
had not been granted "any kind of a waiver... that she finds
persuasive or believes was freely given."
Libby has never offered to provide such a personalized waiver for
Miller, according to three legal sources with first-hand knowledge
of the matter. Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for Libby, declined to
comment for this story.
In response to questions for this article, Catherine J. Mathis, a
spokesperson for the Times, said, "We don't have any comment
regarding Ms. Miller's whereabouts on July 8, 2003." She also
added, "Ms. Miller has not received a waiver that she believes to be
freely given."
It is also unclear whether Miller would testify to Fitzgerald's
grand jury even if she were to receive such a personalized waiver
from Libby. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams, said in an
interview: "Judith Miller is in jail and at continued jeopardy ... I
have no comment about what she might do in circumstances that do not
now exist."
But numerous people involved in the case said in interviews for this
story that a personalized waiver for Miller by Libby could
potentially pave the way for Miller's release. Miller's testimony,
in turn, might be crucial to a determination as to whether anyone
might be criminally charged, and even to a potential end to the
criminal investigation.
At least two attorneys representing private clients who are
embroiled in the Plame probe also privately questioned whether or
not President Bush had encouraged Libby to provide a personalized
waiver for Miller in an effort to obtain her cooperation.
In a memorandum distributed to White House staff members shortly
after the investigation became known, Attorney General Alberto
Gonzalez, who at the time was White House counsel, wrote, "The
president has directed full cooperation with this investigation."
Bush himself said: "[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I
want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the
person will be taken care of."
Congressman Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey and a member of the
House Intelligence Committee, while sidestepping the specifics as to
whether Bush should order Libby to provide a personalized waiver for
Miller, said in an interview Friday evening: "I would say the
president has the power to help us get to the bottom of this matter.
And we in Congress want to do this not so much for what has happened
but to prevent such a thing from happening again."
The Crux of Fitzgerald's Investigation
Just how crucial Miller's testimony -- most notably her meeting with
Libby -- might be to concluding Fitzgerald's investigation is best
underscored in part by a filing in federal court last March that his
investigation had been "for all practical purposes complete" as long
as six months earlier, except for the potential testimony of Miller
and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper.
The investigation had become "stalled," Fitzgerald asserted, almost
entirely by the refusal of Miller and Cooper to testify. Declaring
that "[t]he public's right to have this investigation concluded
diligently should be delayed no further," Fitzgerald sought the
jailing on civil contempt of court charges of both Miller and Cooper.
Facing civil penalties, Time magazine abruptly reversed course and
turned over its confidential notes to Fitzgerald, while Cooper
testified to the federal grand jury about his conversations with
Rove, Libby, and others regarding Plame and Wilson. In contrast,
Miller refused to cooperate with prosecutors and was ordered to jail.
More specifically, the importance prosecutors attach to learning
what occurred during Miller's meeting with Libby is illustrated by a
subpoena by Fitzgerald's grand jury of Miller on August 20, 2004,
for "any and all documents (including notes, e-mails, or other
documents) relating to any conversations, occurring on or about July
6, 2003 to on or about July 13, 2003, between Judith Miller and a
government official whom she met in Washington D.C. on July 8, 2003,
concerning Valerie Plame Wilson."
Miller was also ordered to bring to the grand jury "documents
provided to Judith Miller by such government official on July 8,
2003."
Details of the subpoena to Miller were first disclosed in a story in
Newsday by reporter Tom Brune.
In an affidavit prepared by Miller to respond to the request, Miller
said she "did not receive any documents" from the person she met,
but declined to say who the person was that she met on July 8.
In subsequent court papers filed in federal court by attorneys for
Miller and The New York Times, the newspaper said that Miller "had
no documents responsive" to Fitzgerald's request of any documents
given to her on July 8, 2003.
But Miller's affidavit and other court filings by the Times -- and
the narrow language contained therein -- did not say whether Miller
might have read or reviewed any documents that might have brought to
the July 8, 2003, meeting.
And an attorney in private practice who once worked closely with
Fitzgerald while both men were federal prosecutors said that the
specific nature of Fitzgerald's request was a "good indication that
[Fitzgerald] has specific information ... or perhaps even a witness
who saw, or had other information" that Libby "might have brought
documents to the meeting with Miller."
In her affidavit, Miller also asserted: "I have never written an
article about Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson. I did however contemplate
writing one or more articles in July 2003, about issues related to
Ambassador Wilson's op-ed piece. In preparation for those articles,
I spoke and/or met with several potential sources. One or more of
those potential sources insisted as a precondition to providing
information to me, that I agree to maintain the confidentiality of
their identity."
Timeline of a Smear
The Libby-Miller meeting and the publication of Novak's column
unmasking Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" came during an
intensive period of time while senior White House officials were
scrambling to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Wilson, who
was then asserting that the Bush administration had relied on faulty
intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq.
Wilson had only recently led a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to
investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was covertly attempting to
buy enriched uranium from the African nation to build a nuclear
weapon. Wilson reported back that the allegations were most likely
the result of a hoax.
But President Bush had still cited the Niger allegations during his
2003 State of the Union address as evidence that Hussein had an
aggressive program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
When Wilson sought out White House officials believing they did not
know all the facts, he was rebuffed. He then went public with his
criticism of the Bush administration. It was then that senior
administration officials began their campaign to discredit Wilson to
counter his criticisms of them.
Rove and Libby, and to a lesser extent then-deputy National Security
Council (NSC) adviser Stephen J. Hadley (who is currently Bush's NSC
adviser), directed these efforts. Both Rove and Libby discussed with
Novak, Cooper, and other journalists the fact that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, and that she was responsible for sending him to
Niger, in an effort to discredit him.
The manner by which Rove and Libby learned of Plame's employment as
a CIA employee before they shared that information with journalists
is central to whether any federal criminal laws regarding classified
information were violated. Rove and Libby have reportedly claimed
that they learned of the information from journalists.
But investigators have focused on whether Rove or Libby rather first
learned about Plame's CIA employment and her possible role in
recommending that her husband be sent to Niger from a classified
State Department memo circulated to senior Bush administration
officials in the days just prior to their conversations with
journalists.
Dated June 10, 2003, the memo was written for Marc Grossman, then
the undersecretary of state for political affairs. It mentioned
Plame, her employment with the CIA, and her possible role in
recommending her husband for the Niger mission because he had
previously served in the region. The mention of Plame's CIA
employment was classified "Secret" and was contained in the second
paragraph of the three-page classified paper.
On July 6, 2003, Wilson published his New York Times op-ed and
appeared on "Meet the Press." The following day, on July 7, the memo
was sent to then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell and other senior
Bush administration officials, who were scrambling to respond to the
public criticism. At the time, Powell and other senior
administration officials were on their way to Africa aboard Air
Force One as members of the presidential entourage for a state visit
to Africa.
Rove and Libby apparently were not on that trip, according to press
accounts. But a subpoena during the earliest days of the Plame
investigation demanded records related to any telephone phone calls
to and from Air Force One from July 7 to July 12, during Bush's
African visit.
On July 8, Novak and Rove first spoke about Plame, according to
numerous press accounts. That was also the day that Libby and Miller
met in Washington, D.C., to discuss Plame.
On July 9, then-CIA director George Tenet ordered aides to draft a
statement that the Niger information that the President relied
on "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required
for the presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that
it was removed." Rove and Libby were reportedly involved in the
drafting of that statement's language.
Three days later, on July 11, Rove spoke about Plame to Cooper.
On the following day, July 12, an administration official --
apparently not Rove or Libby -- told Washington Post reporter Walter
Pincus that Wilson was sent to Niger on the recommendation of his
wife. But Pincus has said that he did not publish a story because
he "did not believe it true."
Two days later, on July 14, Novak published his column disclosing
Plame's employment with the CIA, describing her as an "agency
operative" and alleging that she suggested her husband for the Niger
mission.
According to Novak's account, it was he, not Rove, who first
broached the issue of Plame's employment with the CIA; Rove at most
simply said that he, too, had heard much the same information. Rove
had provided a similar account to investigators.
On July 17, Time magazine posted its own story online, which
said: "[S]ome government officials have noted to Time in
interviews ... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official
who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These
officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's
being dispatched to Niger."
Because the information in the classified State Department memo and
what was reported in Novak's column and the Time story were so
strikingly similar, investigators have vigorously pursued whether
Rove, Libby, and others learned of her CIA employment either from
the memo, someone else in the administration, or other classified
references to Plame circulating within the White House.
Fitzgerald's staff and grand jury have queried a slew of Bush
administration officials as to who received and read the classified
State memorandum; whether Rove or Libby learned that Plame was
employed with the CIA either directly from the memorandum or from
others who had read it; and whether any reporters had conversations
regarding the matter with Rove and Libby.
Libby has reportedly told Fitzgerald that he first learned of
Plame's identity from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert. But
Russert has told investigators that he never told Libby about Plame.
Rove said that he first learned the information from his
conversation with Robert Novak.
By saying that they learned the information from reporters, the
stakes are dramatically raised for the two White House aides: If it
turns out that it can be shown that they learned the information
from a classified source, such as the State Department memo, they
could be in legal jeopardy for disclosing classified information.
And if they misled investigators or the federal grand jury on that
question, that trouble could be compounded.
The one person with some of the answers as to whether Libby is
telling the truth very well may be Judith Miller. But she currently
is incarcerated in an Alexandria jail. Lewis Libby may possibly have
the ability to ascertain Miller's release by sim
- Cont'd - Judith Miller's Secret Meeting - send far and wid —Robert Sterling, Fri Aug 12 21:37
- Media "Lined Up for White House Lies" in Plame Scandal —TRUTHOUT, Fri Aug 12 22:15
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
