Mr. Bolton said that visiting Ms. Miller...HUMM!!!

Mr. Bolton said that visiting Ms. Miller had nothing to do with his job.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/p09s02-cods.html

Commentary > Daniel Schorr
from the September 23, 2005 edition

Judy Miller's indefinite wait
By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON – Wearing a jumpsuit and working in the prison laundry, the most famous woman prisoner since Martha Stewart sticks to her principles and waits to see what comes next.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller has already served more than 12 weeks, cited for contempt for refusing to cooperate with the investigation of the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover officer.

For a half-hour a day, in 10-minute segments, Ms. Miller is allowed to receive visitors.

The Washington Post calculates that there have been 99 so far.

They form an eclectic group: names like Robert Dole, the former Republican senator from Kansas, and current Senators Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania and Chris Dodd (D) of Connecticut, who are promoting a federal shield law to protect reporters. New York Times executives, and William Safire, retired columnist. Former White House adviser Richard Clarke and, surprisingly, one member of the incumbent administration - UN Ambassador John Bolton. Through a spokesperson, Mr. Bolton said that visiting Ms. Miller had nothing to do with his job.

Miller had at times reported on Bolton's activities, including printing advance word of his testimony on Syria to a House committee in September 2003.

Presumably the visitors all bring messages of support and solace. What they cannot bring is any idea of how long Miller's confinement will last.

Normally a citation for civil contempt runs out with the grand jury, which in this case would be Oct. 28. But the prosecutor can ask to have the term extended, or he can charge criminal contempt, which would involve a sentencing procedure.

All along, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and district court Judge Thomas Hogan have indicated a willingness to get very, very tough with a woman who asserts a principle they do not recognize.

It is still hard to say when and how this will end.

• Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio.
===============

Judith Miller's Visitors List Revealed--Bolton's Name 'Raises ...
Editor & Publisher - Sep 17, 2005
... month or more, when the grand jury investigating the Plame/CIA leak will probably ... “Bolton's visit raised some eyebrows in Washington,” the Post said. ...
MORE:>>

The Washington Note Archives
SCOOP: John Bolton Was Regular Source for Judith Miller WMD and National Security
... Judith Miller bought their carefully fabricated stories of Iraq WMD ...
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000798.html

Politics for People with Dirty Minds
RELATED: BREAKING: JUDY MILLER VISITED BY JOHN BOLTON? ...

READ MORE: arianna
huffington , bob dole , john bolton , judith miller , plame investigation ...
http://www.wonkette.com/

« JOHN BOLTON TESTIFIED BEFORE GRAND JURY IN VALERIE PLAME INVESTIGATION | Main | Bolton and the Valerie Plame Scandal Grand Jury »

July 22, 2005
SCOOP: John Bolton Was Regular Source for Judith Miller WMD and National Security Reporting

TWN has just learned from a highly placed source -- and in the right place to know -- that John Bolton was a regular source for Judith Miller's New York Times WMD and national security reports.

The source did not have any knowledge on whether Bolton was one of Miller's sources on the Valerie Plame story she was preparing, but argues that he was a regular source otherwise.

It's all "thickening."

-- Steve Clemons
Posted by steve at July 22, 2005 03:45 PM
Comments

And we know how close the connection is between Bolton and Cheney.
Posted by: joe at July 22, 2005 04:01 PM

Have you seen this, Steve:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_democrats;_ylt=AmBmlu01O15uhDPm7VjRSIGWwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

It's an AP story about a hearing held by senate and hose Democrats, entitled "Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak"

"WASHINGTON - Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security."
Posted by: Jerome Gaskins at July 22, 2005 04:03 PM

Somehow this just doesn't surprise me. Go figure.
Posted by: ET at July 22, 2005 04:03 PM

If true...

How much of the information released was actually classified at the time?

How much of the information was erronious? (lots)

How much did Bolton KNOW was erronious when he leaked it?
Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at July 22, 2005 04:03 PM

So, is this Monica Lewinsky, or Watergate?
Posted by: Jerome Gaskins at July 22, 2005 04:04 PM

Jerome - I have seen the full statement on several sources but Larry Johnson contributes over at TMPCafe. There are some rather hard hitting comments that I am glad weren't directed at me.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/22/23342/2018
Posted by: ET at July 22, 2005 04:05 PM

Well, I, for one, am not ONE BIT surprised to learn this!
Posted by: susan at July 22, 2005 04:16 PM

Ahh, thanks! I thoght I recognied his name...
Posted by: Jerome Gaskins at July 22, 2005 04:19 PM

Did Judy Miller report on the Niger uranium / Iraq nuclear reconstitution before it became scandal?

What kind of special relationship did Bolton and Miller have, and since when?

Is Miller in jail protecting Bolton?
Posted by: gail at July 22, 2005 04:29 PM

Going to jail to protect Bolton.
Going to jail to protect Bolton.

Maybe, but I don't buy it.

Going to jail to protect Rice....
Maybe.
Posted by: Madhat at July 22, 2005 04:34 PM

If Bolton is seriously involved in this, this sucker is going to blow up.

I wonder what was in those NSA intercepts the Senate Dems are asking for...
Posted by: Fro at July 22, 2005 04:40 PM

I'm shocked! Shocked!

Next thing you know somebody will claim Judith Miller wasn't a traditional journalist seeking the truth and that she approach her job with some sort of partisan predisposition.

At the New York Times?
Posted by: Carl Nyberg at July 22, 2005 04:41 PM

And this highly placed source is who? Judith Miller?
Posted by: Romdinstler Jones at July 22, 2005 04:41 PM

Jerome, the Bush administration transgressions are bigger than Watergate, although Bush wasn't as hands-on as Tricky Dick.
Posted by: Carl Nyberg at July 22, 2005 04:43 PM

I see now why Bolton wanted to be UN Ambassador. As long as he was at the UN he would have had diplomatic immunity from Fitzgerald. It almost worked too.
Posted by: Everglades Angler at July 22, 2005 04:45 PM

"Going to jail to protect Rice...."

Nah, Her Royal Highness Queen Judith wouldn't park herself in a filthy jail for anything less than the creme de la creme...

Cheney/Bush
Posted by: susan at July 22, 2005 04:48 PM

Here's a post I pulled together outlining the reasons why Bolton would have been involved in the memo.

Of interest, the memo was supposed to lay out State's position on Niger. They were under a lot of heat for putting out a fact sheet to the UN including the Niger allegations. Well, it turns out that fact sheet came directly from Bolton--and he ignored the advice of INR analysts so he could include that little data point. Bolton was probably involved in the memo to hide his involvement in that fact sheet.
Posted by: emptywheel at July 22, 2005 04:51 PM

Is this why the White House won't turn over the seven intellgence intercepts the Democrats want so badly? Could it be they say something about the Plame investigation? I've had this bad feeling for months, ever sinse Bolton's nomination was announced.

Dubya wants Bolton at the UN he hates so much so he has diplomatic immunity, therefore making it impossible to charge him with anything?

Treason? Perjury? How about obstruction of justice? I know, I know, presumed innocent until proven guilty, but ...
Posted by: BlastFurnace at July 22, 2005 04:51 PM

I've thought this was possible for a while...it certainly explains why Bolton got the nod for the UN post (the more corrupt, the bigger the kick upstairs) and why the WH pushed so hard for him BEFORE this whole thing started to unravel...

As I said before...GW will hang Bolton out to dry in a Texas second before he does anything about Rove. That can be said about everyone else (Libby, Fleischer, et al), with the exception of the master puppeteer, Cheney...
Posted by: rpasley at July 22, 2005 04:52 PM

Did Bolton ever say "Juday, Juday, Juday" with a suave Cary Grant accent?
Posted by: gail at July 22, 2005 04:53 PM

Maybe we should all wear blue dresses and converge on the Senate and House.
Posted by: Judy at July 22, 2005 04:57 PM

"Maybe we should all wear blue dresses..."

The guys will have to shave their legs!
Posted by: susan at July 22, 2005 04:59 PM

but, but, but,

Just about everything Judith Miller reported about WMD (particularly Iraqi WMD) was wrong / disinformation / lies.

So Bolton fed lies to Miller???
Posted by: Jim Ramsey at July 22, 2005 04:59 PM

If Bolton was Judy's Plame source, and Bolton violated the IIPA and Espionage Act by leaking to Judy, then this thing is going to explode like a thermonuclear bomb. This will not just be on Miller's head, but on Keller and Sulberger's.
Posted by: pontificator at July 22, 2005 05:00 PM

They weren't lies in a strict sense. They were pieces of dubious, discounted intelligence that hyped the threat.

I know all these neo-cons fully expected at least a few warehouses of WMD's. None of this would have mattered if Iraq had stockpiles of WMD.
Posted by: Everglades Angler at July 22, 2005 05:01 PM

I ain't wearin' no blue dress, girls.
Posted by: conrad at July 22, 2005 05:02 PM

Pontificator, who's Judy Plame? ;)

At what point is the Times potentially liable for conspiracy to cover up a crime. Assuming Bolton told Miller classified information and outed Plame to her, this is still a crime even though she never wrote a story about it.
Posted by: Everglades Angler at July 22, 2005 05:03 PM

My blue dress has this huge cum stain on it that I cherish.
Posted by: gail at July 22, 2005 05:06 PM

Jim Ramsey

You should read the SSIC report. It's pretty clear Bolton's stuff was about as good as Judy's writing.
Posted by: emptywheel at July 22, 2005 05:08 PM

Maybe Mossad fabrictaed information and used a number of sources including Chalabi to disseminate the information. Suspected spies Michael Maloof and Larry Franklin working for Bill Luti and suspected spy Douglas J. Feith would then "stovepipe" the information to the White House.

The same information would be disseminated by Miller on the pages of the New York Times to make the disinformation look real. When you have Defense Department intelligence corroborated by the New York Times it looks very convincing especially when our ally Israel was confirming the stories.
Posted by: susan at July 22, 2005 05:11 PM

I've got a bunch of posts up on Bolton and Miller.

Check out this latest one for a roadmap.
Posted by: jonah gelbach at July 22, 2005 05:14 PM

Transcripts and Video of PlameGate Hearing - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=40
Posted by: Pamela at July 22, 2005 05:17 PM

"Maybe we should all wear blue dresses and converge on the Senate and House."

Afterward could we all go to Plato's Retreat?
Posted by: susan at July 22, 2005 05:19 PM

Can you find out if Bolton issued a general waiver of confidentiality?.
Posted by: Coldblue Steele at July 22, 2005 05:24 PM

Susan, now yer talkin' l'il lady, I got first dibs on you, you l'il honey dew melon you.
Posted by: conrad at July 22, 2005 05:24 PM

"Diplomatic immunity"?

That only applies in foreign countries.

US diplomats aren't immune from US law.
Posted by: Don at July 22, 2005 05:37 PM

Miller is no journalist, she's a propogandist, a shill, a disinformationist and she should rot in prison.

If Miller, Matt Cooper et al don't know the difference between investigative journalism and giving the lies of government hacks respectability by making the liars 'confidential sources,' these people should be dog catchers or dog food, not members of the press.

Durings hearings on the shield law Cooper whined about how senators and cabinet officials would not talk to him if they didn't have confidence in his ability to maintain their anonymity. That's some profile in courage - a US Senator afraid to talk unless granted anonymity. (Granted I can imagine situations where that could be warranted.)

For Cooper to use senators et al as examples of why he needs to protect sources shows how profoundly twisted his understanding of his job is.
Posted by: CurtisE at July 22, 2005 05:43 PM

Enough of this frivolity and loose banter!

We can't be celebrating anything yet, and you all best get that filth out of your minds.

We got serious matters to theorize about, and this is no time for frolicking about on these comments.

You womenfolk especially got to stop putting temptation before the men here.

They are serious about this matter and need clear heads to think these matters through.

Everybody take a time out; go off; do what you have to do; then come back so we can chew the fat again in a more proper and civil manner.

Thank You.
Posted by: anonymus at July 22, 2005 05:45 PM

this earns my second "oh my" comment of the day... nice one!
Posted by: travy at July 22, 2005 05:52 PM

Susan--
considering the security disaster the Iraq venture is turning out to be for Israel (owing to its effects on the situation in Iran), it seems unlikely to me that Mossad did as you suggest.
Posted by: Jake at July 22, 2005 05:58 PM

So anyone think we'll have to resort to "extraordinary rendition" to get Condi back in the USA should her name surface as a Bolton source at NSA?
Posted by: Al Swearengen at July 22, 2005 06:06 PM

This is another smokescreen. Remember" White is Black and Black is White" by the late famous Jim Garrison.Your dealing with spooks so don't go down that rathole. Judith Miller is saving Jeff Gannon's ass. Lets not forget ole Rove, Mehlman, McClellan's buddy. Think he might open a cans of worms? Better get him to a safe house his ass may get Vince Fostered.Oh the webs of lies.Mom always said lies beget lies.
Posted by: Bruce M at July 22, 2005 06:08 PM

The Washington Note readers,

Let's assume it is Bolton; and the goal was to
silence/retaliate as was done in the case of
the Brasilian chemical inspector assigned to the UN.

My thought is who else was smeared; how does
Scott Ritter fit in with
this; and who [still today] is under some
sort of threat if they dare speak the truth?

There must be many people in DoD, NSA, CIA, and
DoJ who can't sleep all that well. The war
crimes indictments are getting more likely.

Good luck with the Downing Street Memo
reviews this weekend.
Posted by: Constant at July 22, 2005 06:11 PM

As Russ Baker points out, the confendiality protects the source not the info:

"...[Judith] Miller could explain what the source told her, and if it was one or more sources, and whether she called the source or the source called her, without revealing the source's identity—which is the only issue involved in the confidentiality pledge."

Baker's full criticism of Miller and the Times. and commentary on the proper role of journalism at:

http://tinyurl.com/a97p9
Posted by: dreadscotty at July 22, 2005 06:13 PM

Is there film of Mrs Greenspan getting manhandled in Africa? I'll bet she would kill for the tapes to pass around to friends.
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr at July 22, 2005 06:15 PM

The infamous memo was issued to Powell by Carl Ford Jr.

Name ring a bell?

think back to the Bolton Committee hearings.
Posted by: pylon at July 22, 2005 06:17 PM

That be "confidentiality". Stoopid fingers!
Anyone else smell