OK I`ll give ya a lil hint

[ONEMANBANNED]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...eak/index.html

given permission ? oh? ok thank you.

Heres another story that i found a lil quirky

so why the almost yearlong delay in telling us?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by ONEMANBANNED

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...eak/index.html

given permission ? oh? ok thank you.

Heres another story that i found a lil quirky

so why the almost yearlong delay in telling us?

i don't know about squids but this Judy Miller thing makes no sense: she went to jail to protect her source, by all accounts Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby...but he says this:

'Why didn't someone call us?'
Tate said Libby signed a waiver of confidentiality more than a year ago, which Tate followed with a phone call to New York Times attorney Floyd Abrams assuring him that Libby's waiver was voluntary.

Over the Labor Day weekend, Miller's attorney, Robert Bennett, tracked Tate down in Martha's Vineyard to tell him she had not accepted the waiver as valid because "it came from lawyers."

"I assured Bennett that it was voluntary, and he asked, 'Would Scooter say that to Judy?' And I said, 'Scooter doesn't want to see Judy in jail,'" Tate said.

"My reaction was, why didn't someone call us 80 days ago?" he said of his conversation with Bennett.

After receiving assurance from Fitzgerald that a call between Libby and Miller would not be obstructing justice, the call was set up by Bennett and both attorneys listened in, Tate said.

"Scooter said to her, 'Judy, Joe Tate talked to Floyd Abrams more than a year ago and said it's voluntary. Joe assured me you understood,'" Tate recalled from the conversation. "'But we want you to know the waiver was voluntary.'"

Tate said Miller responded that she and Abrams had discussed it but that she was not willing to "rely on lawyers."

Libby said, "Well, why didn't someone call us?" Tate said. "There was no answer."

something is missing from this picture, but all should be known soon. the grand jury wraps up next week and then the other shoe will drop in this story.

[JackSpratts]

my guess? it simply wouldn't do for an aide to a stand up guy like big dick cheney to let some poor girl rot in prison to cover his ass, so they're now rewriting history by ludicrously claiming that was never their intent, "hell, she shouldn't have refused the court's order – we wanted her to testify all along." right. they had the last 3 months to out themselves but didn't. smarmy cya. gee boys - what took so long? the truth? they think the prosecutor's about to finger them now w/out miller's help, who i'll call the real "stand up guy" in this particlar political pas de duex, and i don't even like her. but i sure respect her on this one.

- js.

[tambourine-man]

^
I'd say that's a working theory.

[theknife]

Judy Miller's nobility has eluded me throughout this saga - i've never been clear on who she was standing up for...

unless he's completely lying (always a possibility), Libby's lawyer says he notified the NYT's legal counsel over a year ago that Libby was waiving source protection. so, one has to wonder what has prompted the NYT to grant her editorial martyrdom since her imprisonment. in fact, when she was ordered to jail, the judge "told her she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she 'alleges she is protecting' had released her from her promise of confidentiality."

at any rate, this is the question of the day around the media world. from the WaPo's political blog:

So what was Miller doing in jail? Was it all just a misunderstanding? The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly -- and privately -- saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.

the latter theory makes more sense than the former: Miller was the NYT's chief water carrier on the WMD stories, basically buying everything Ahmed Chalabi was selling prior to the war, and reporting it as news. she has obviously since proved to be guilty of some very poor journalism - perhaps she thinks martyrdom is the way to redemption?

edit: or perhaps there's a clue here:

As part of the deal, Fitzgerald agreed in advance that he would limit Miller's testimony to her communications with her source "and that was very important to me," Miller added.

very important because she knows things about this matter, outside of her conversations with Libby, that she did not want to testify about?

[JackSpratts]

it’s complicated, it’s true, and I’m sure motives are mixed, they usually are in situations like this, but it doesn’t mean miller’s disingenuous. it doesn’t even mean the onus is on her to prove her case, but do i think libby has a lot of explaining to do. it’s his exhortations that don’t add up (or rather his lawyer’s. nobody seems to ever hear from libby).

from today’s press conference:

Q. Your source's lawyer has said that had you asked, you wouldn't have had to spend any time in jail; he would have been more than willing to give you the explicit waiver you say you now accepted.

MILLER. No. Since I was not a party to those discussions, I'm going to let you refer those questions to my lawyer. I can only tell you that as soon as I received a personal assurance from the source that I was able to talk to him and talk to the source about my testimony, it was only then and as a result of the special prosecutor's agreement to narrow the focus of the inquiry to focus on the way - on that source, that I was able to testify. I testified as soon as I could. And I will ask you to please address the questions to which I was not a party to my lawyers.

Q. But Judy, a conversation you were party to: On the steps of this courthouse, when you and Matt faced contempt of court charges, you said out here, when Matt was asked the same question, your answer was different. You said no waiver would be acceptable.

MILLER. No. I said I had not received a personal, explicit, voluntary waiver from my source - what I considered that. That was my position and I said it many times. I said it before I went to jail. I said it when I was in jail.

in her prepared statement just before that q and a session, miller said this:

“Recently, I heard directly from my source that I should testify before the grand jury. This was in the form of a personal letter and most important, a telephone conversation, a telephone call to me at the jail. I concluded from this that my source genuinely wanted me to testify. These were not form waivers. They were not discussions among lawyers.”

and

“Believe me, I did not want to be in jail. But I would have stayed even longer if I had not achieved these two things: the personal waiver and the narrow testify - and the narrow testimony. I could not have testified without both of them. I said to the court before I was jailed that I did not believe I was above the law and that I would therefore have to go to jail because of my principles. But once I satisfied those principles, I was prepared to testify.”

miller also alludes to “reasons” she had about not accepting at face value the story she heard secondhand that her source [libby] was willing to release her from her promise. she didn't say what those reasons were, and this is one girl who won’t yak if she doesn’t want to, but that doesn't mean she's not being forthright.

then there’s this:

On Thursday, Mr. Abrams [Miller’s lawyer] wrote to Mr. Tate [Libby’s lawyer] disputing parts of Mr. Tate's account. His letter said although Mr. Tate had said the waiver was voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver sought as a condition of employment was inherently coercive.

so assuming miller didn’t want to spend time in jail, and that’s not as big a leap for me as it might be for someone else, since she never had the slightest garentee that doing time would launch her career (reporters have gone to jail for contempt, but how many can we name?), her story makes more sense in this complicated scenario than the other’s side’s protests that she was free to do what she wanted.

seriously, miller going to jail over protecting a white house source makes the source look so bad – like a coward in fact, you’d think he’d make a major effort to protect his reputation, even hold a press conference to say, “Yeah. I talked to her. So what? I didn’t spill any state secrets and she knows it. She's free to say so and she knows that too. Beats me why she won’t. As a matter of fact I called her up personally and told her she could talk a year ago.”

i’m not hearing anything like that from libby. or his lawyers.

- js.