http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1815988Thread title:
NY Times reporter Judith Miller released from jailBut that OP does not have a link to the NY Times article. Here it is, with an excerpt:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30COURT.html?hp&ex=1128139200&en=2ad1e58f95f5ea69&ei=5094&partner=homepageTimes Reporter Free From Jail; She Will Testify
By DAVID JOHNSTON and DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: September 30, 2005
(snip)
Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the inquiry. Her decision to testify was made after she had obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. Ms. Miller said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.
That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, they said.
(snip)
As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett gave Mr. Fitzgerald edited versions of notes taken by Ms. Miller about her conversations with Mr. Libby.
In statements on Thursday, Ms. Miller and executives of The Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."
(snip)
The text said that the deal made with Miller's lawyers was based on not asking anything about other sources. This, and Libby's willingness for Miller to testify, tells me that the dirt she knows doesn't come from Libby, or else she is sure she and the Bush Administration are sure she can get away with perjury because her notes do not record the illegal parts of what was said.
There are also various statements on this development, linked to in the NY Times heading on the article.
{Mods: the statements by individuals are not under copyright rules and thus the 4-paragraph rule, they are official disclosures.}http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219289Statements by Sulzberger, Keller, and Miller on Her Release
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
By E&P Staff
Published: September 29, 2005 9:30 PM ET
NEW YORK The New York Times' publisher, editor, and formerly jailed reporter Judith Miller all issued statements Thursday night after her release, with Miller's grand jury testimony in the Plame probe now set for Friday, they confirmed.
A Times story late on Thursday revealed that as part of Miller's agreement, one of her attorneys, Robert Bennett, gave Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, edited versions of notes taken by Miller about her conversations with I. Lewis Libby.
According to the Times, Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, "had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify," and gave her an uncoerced waiver on their confidential conversations.
The Times story also revealed that Libby and his lawyers say he offered the waiver a year ago -- and then again ten days ago -- but Miller did not accept it. She was released today after she and her lawyers met at the jail with Fitzgerald to discuss her testimony, which will be severely limited, the Times revealed. A full E&P report can be found here (
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219261).
(snip - says any indictments in the Plame case may come "as early as next week.")
STATEMENTS FOLLOW:***
Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., Publisher: As we have throughout this ordeal, we continue to support Judy Miller in the decision she has made. Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source. We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify. We continue to believe that a strong Federal Shield Law must be passed by Congress, so that similar injustices, which the laws of both New York and Washington, D.C. already prevent, are not suffered by other journalists.
***
Judith Miller: It's good to be free.
I went to jail to preserve the time-honored principle that a journalist must respect a promise not to reveal the identity of a confidential source. I chose to take the consequences -- 85 days in prison -- rather than violate that promise. The principle was more important to uphold than my personal freedom.
I am leaving jail today because my source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter. My attorneys have also reached agreement with the Office of Special Counsel regarding the nature and scope of my testimony, which satisfies my obligation as a reporter to keep faith with my sources.
This enables me to appear before the Grand Jury tomorrow. I'll say nothing more until after my testimony. I do, however, want to thank The New York Times, and my husband, family and friends, for their unwavering support. I am also grateful to the many fellow journalists and citizens from the United States and around the world, who stood with me in fighting for the cause of the free flow of information. It was a source of strength through a difficult three months to know they understood what I did was to affirm one of my profession's highest principles.
***
Bill Keller, Executive Editor: It's an enormous relief that Judy's ordeal is over. Her steadfastness in defense of principle has won her admiration from around the world, wherever people value a free, aggressive press.
Judy refused to testify in this case because she gave her professional word that she would keep her interview with her source confidential. At the outset, she had only a generic waiver of this obligation, and she believed she had ample reason to doubt it had been freely given. In recent days, several important things have changed that convinced Judy that she was released from her obligation.
Her friends and colleagues are delighted she's free, and -- if there is satisfaction in what she has endured -- I am satisfied that she has held fast to a principle that matters deeply.
The idea that Judith Miller is being allowed to set her lying self up as any kind of defender of freedom is beyond sickening. The blood of thousands of soldiers and civilians, dead in the Iraqi War that she played such a willing and ambitious role in promoting, are on her hands forever. She does not care, but we will never forget.
We need to LTTE the NYT to object to this hypocritical pose, blatantly supported by the paper. There is no hint that they regret the thousands of deaths due in part to Miller's publications in their paper. And she STILL has her job. This is unnacceptable. Re Miller testifying, if the Bush Administration thought she would spill the dirt, she would not be speaking. I don't see any way her testimony can be proven to be truthful - and we know from her Iraq stories that she's very comfortable with truly murderous lies if they advance her career. Plus, by the terms of her deal, no questions can be asked about her OTHER sources - if the traitorous leak came from one of them instead of Libby, she doesn't have to tell.
I'm betting it was Bolton. By the terms of her deal, she doesn't have to tell.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
