From E&P: Statement From Judith Miller After Testifying

[DemsUnited]

Published: September 30, 2005 2:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Statement From Judith Miller After Testifying on September 30, 2005:

I'm so happy to be free and finally able to talk to you all. 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
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. They were given after the Special Counsel
assured us that such communication would not be regarded as obstructing justice.

Once I got a personal voluntary waiver, my lawyer, Mr. Bennett, approached the Special Counsel to see if my Grand Jury testimony could be limited to my communications with the source from whom I had received the personal and specific waiver. The Special Counsel agreed to this. This was very important to me. I served 85 days in jail because of my belief in the
importance of upholding the confidential relationship journalists have with their sources. Believe me, I did not want to be in jail. But I would have stayed even longer if I had not received these two things: the personal waiver and narrow testimony.

I could not have testified without those things. I said to the court before I was jailed that I did not believe I was above the law, and that I would have to go to jail because of my principles. But once I satisfied those principles I was prepared to fulfill my civic duty and testify. I am hopeful that my long stay in jail will serve to strengthen the bond between reporters and their sources. I hope that blanket waivers are a thing of the past. They do not count. They are not voluntary and should not be accepted by journalists. I am also hopeful that my time in jail will help pass a federal shield law so that the public's right to know will be protected.

I want to thank everyone, my lawyers, and particularly, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and The New York Times, my husband and family, my friends, colleagues and citizens of this country and people from all over the world who wrote to me and supported my position of principle through this very difficult time. I will take a few questions but please bear with me, I am very tired. I have a husband who is cooking a meal I want to eat, a dog I want to hug and I want to go home to Sag Harbor.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219730

[LibertyLou]

1. Narrow Testimony = Hiding Other Crimes

[SteppingRazor]

2. Whatever.

That's pretty much all I have to say about that. The woman is still damaged goods from her Iraq War coverage, and she always will be. Her little self-crucifixcion over this doesn't change anything. And, as it's obvious the Times won't fire her, it should do the next best thing -- stick Miller on the gardening beat or something equally demeaning for a so-callked "investigative" reporter.

[guntherconcept]

3. "I have a husband who is cooking a meal I want to eat"

Is that the same husband who went on the cruise alone while you were locked up?

[Birthmark]

4. Judith Miller before the Iraq War:

"Saddam has WMD! Saddam has WMD! Saddam has WMD!"

Why should anyone believe a word out of her piehole?

[SillyGoose]

5. I wonder who her other source(s) might be. She was very emphatic

about the "narrow testimony" she was permitted to give.

[mmonk]

6. Why it's St. Judith!

:puke:

[lovuian]

7. Narrow is subjective Judith and I think she is still setting the

smokescreen out!!! Looking at 2 more years in prison was getting to her!!!

[Garbo 2004]

8. Gad, sounds like she's accepting an Oscar for "best impersonation of a

principled journalist."

[janx]

9. Awww, she wants to go home to Sag Harbor!

I feel terrible for her.

[me b zola]

10. Help me interpret this:

"They were given after the Special Counsel
assured us that such communication would not be regarded as obstructing justice."

This has been bothering me since I watched her performance on CNN. Does this mean that she has received immunity?