Why did the New York Times get SCOOPED on Miller release?

[seemslikeadream]

Questions Swirl Around Latest Twist in Judith Miller Saga
Who blinked first? Why did the Times get scooped last night? How come no one seems to know that Miller also turned over notes? Why didn't she accept Scooter's waiver months ago? And more.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK (September 30, 2005) -- So who blinked first in the Pat and Judy Show -- the federal prosecutor or the jailed journalist? This is among a host of questions raised by Judith Miller's sudden prison release after cutting a deal with prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Did Miller cave, close to the end of the Plame grand jury's current term, because she feared that Fitzgerald would extend the term for many months? Or did the prosecutor cave (agreeing to limit Miller's testimony) because he was already being criticized for taking so long to produce indictments and needed to at least nail one bad guy?

Other bits of intrigue:

-- First, The Washington Post got scooped on naming Deep Throat. Now The New York Times is just about last to report on its own star reporter (who it has championed in numerous editorials) getting sprung from jail. Even E&P, following The Philadelphia Inquirer's scoop, beat the Times on it last night. What's up with that?

-- Buried in all the accounts of Miller's agreeing to testify is the little matter of also deciding to turn over her written "edited" notes (apparently jotted down after the fact) on her chats with "Scooter" Libby. What does "edited" mean? While not quite parallel to Time Inc. yielding Matt Cooper's electronic notes, which were in his magazine's system, why is so little being made of this? The Times has long said it had no notes, but that may be because they never got beyond Miller's notepad.

-- Why wasn't Libby's personal waiver allowing her to testify (granted a year ago, he says) not good enough for Miller when it was good enough for numerous other embattled journos in this case? Why the sudden change of heart on her part?

-- What exactly is going on with the Miller legal team? Is Floyd Abrams really the fall guy for letting this drag on so long? Or has Miller changed her own tune under the influence of Bob Bennett, one of her other lawyers?

-- What does it mean that Libby claims to be shocked that Miller was protecting him and that he presumed she was shielding others?

-- Will we ever know who, in the words of the Times' Executive Editor Bill Keller last night, Miller feared she might "implicate" if questioned freely by Fitzgerald?


http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219537

[tularetom]

1. There's another school of thought

I believe its in another thread speculating that Miller cooked up this whole contempt thingy as a cheap stunt to gain back some the credibility she'd lost among other journalists by being a stenographer for the admin in the pre Iraq days. And that Fitzgerald intentionally or unintentionally called her bluff by threatening her with criminal contempt and many more months in jail. I'm not sure I buy it but it would expain why Libby claims he gave her permission to testify months ago while she denies it.

[Gloria]

2. The first thing I noticed last night was that bit about limiting the

questioning with something about some protection for "sources." This confuses me...

[melissinha]

3. Am I wrong or naive, but

isn't it possible that she is staying silent out of self interest, because the actual information that Joseph Wilson was being punished for disputing was promoted incessantly by Miller herself? I would think that in the course of the investigation, information regarding who talked to who would reveal the specical relationship between Miller and the Administration. What a shill.

[Moderator]

4. seemslikeadream

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator