Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Judith Miller in jail because there are Bigger Shoes to Drop?

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
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:12 PM
Original message
Is Judith Miller in jail because there are Bigger Shoes to Drop?
I'm confused by the situation with Rove. I guess it's like one of those onions, where you keep peeling away layers to find a new layer.

Okay, Matt Cooper has been granted a waiver to testify, and it's already clear he had a conversation with Rove before it became public that Palme was CIA. So that has stripped away a big layer.

So what is left for Judith Miller to protect? If this is all about Rove, then she's not hiding anything that is not now common knowledge or that could advance the case. So, unless she loves sitting in jail, why is she not agreeing to testify, since all it would be is one more incident?

I've seen the speculation that she actually was the one who told administration officials about Palme. But that's silly. I can't imagine she'd be in jeopardy of revealing secrets, if what she did was tell something classified to an an official with top clearance.

This makes me wonder what other aspect she is keeping to herself, or is afraid to reveal. Did she talk to some otehr high administration official, and therefore protecting someone else from the stink list? Or is she just standing on journalistic principle in the most technical sense?

Anyone know or have educated (non tin-hat) guesses about whether there are other shoes to drop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. If Judith didn't hear it from Rove then it makes the case for
a conspiracy involving the whole lot of them. I hope Judith doesn't hang herself with her shoelaces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dora Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Word.
Hear that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Yup
Shady Cheney, skulking in the undisclosed shadows, shifty-eyed, spouting dirty lies out of the side of his mouth...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrainRants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Ding Ding! Winner! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. She may think she'll be a hero but history will not be kind to her
she is not protecting a whistle blower, she is protecting the person who tried to destroy the whistle blower.

More and more leagal scholars and columnists are writing about this. She should be completely smeared and destroyed by this. If there is any justice I mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. she is involved in the leak but i think more imporantly
is the she works "directly" with the inner circle of the whitehouse. her reporting of run up to the war and during the war were nothing more than whitehouse pr. she is also linked to the guy in england-kaye(?)- who decided to suicide himself. also what is the times hiding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pathwalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. All Roves lead to Cheney.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Oniongate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Life is One Big Oniongate I guess
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Sure is Armstead, it sure is! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. YES
WAY YES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. Very possible, but there is another possibility
Under the law, it takes two witnesses to convict Rove. So it's possible he let Cooper off the hook but left Judy on so there would only be one witness and he skates on a technicality. Or he might have mentioned Plame by name to Judy, and doesn't want that to come out.

My feeling is, though, that Fitzgerald already knows what happened and who did what, but is nailing down the details. Those redacted pages must have something dynamite in them for two judges to change their minds so abruptly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Yep, Two witnesses for Treason.
One witness needed for other felonies; like obstuction of justice, conspiracy and lying to a Grand Jury and/or federal agent. All of which carry penalties that upon conviction may allow him to negotiate or give up evidence involving other crimes.

Bells going off...
"Those redacted pages must have something dynamite in them for two judges to change their minds so abruptly." Would it be possible since the GJ is coming up to its end that this is also material to widen scope and impanel other GJ's? :think: This could be huge!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsUnderstood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. My opinion is that she is set up to distract the media
Why not allow her to go to jail so the story becomes "Freedom of Press under attack" and somehow we forget that she is going to jail to prevent naming the president's men.

It worked for local paper. They didn't want to talk about who she WASN'T naming, they wanted to talk about the freedom of press amendment that she is violating (ignoring the fact that she DIDNT report anything).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
13. She is desperate to regain some credibility
to be considered a credible journalist. It is as much illusion as Chalabi's WMD. she is still the handmaiden to the good ol' boys and the old grey whore is willing to pimp her to maintain insider status and connections to the johns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Maybe. But I'd think there are easier ways to do it.
Maybe a night or two in jail -- and she could get a book out of it.

But it's looking like she's just sitting there indefinetly. Seems like unless there's more to it, she wouldn't be willing to do it unless there were a bigger reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You give her too much credit
but it does smack of the sinister scheme of dead-eyed Cheney...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
19. You're Following The Right Ball!
The corporate media is still playing with the crime of outing Plame and the very high burden of proof it would be to bring even an indictment, yet a conviction. This was the gamble this regime took on bringing Fitzgerald in. Something happened on the way to the vindication...someone lied to Fitzgerald and now we are starting to see the same onion Fitzgerald is. Only he's been peeling a bit longer.

The Clennis analogy here is the crime won't be the blowjob, it'll be lying about the blowjob. It's not the outing of Plame, but who covered up the source of the leak. It's almost instictive...like throwing blood into a shark-pool...lie to a federal prosecutor and you're playing with a lot of fire.

IMHO, Fitzgerald has some strong indications of perjury and/or conspiracy brewing here. Our view of the onion shows Rove as the leak...but the real question the next layer is "who gave that info to Rove". That's where the many other posters here smell the same Crashcart that I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
20. Novak said he had TWO sources... it's clear now Rove was one of them...
who was the other? that's who Miller is protecting.

I don't find the idea that she is afraid of retribution to be credible, since she seems more like a co-conspirator than anything else.

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 Fri Dec 27th 2024, 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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