Why Won't Scooter Libby Grant Judith Miller a Personal Waiver?

[paineinthearse]

http://www.conyersblog.us/

Why Won't Scooter Libby Grant Judith Miller a Personal Waiver?

I just posted this on Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/john-conyers/why-wont-scooter-libby-g_5329.html

August is typically a month of no news. Congress goes on its summer recess. The President takes a long vacation. A very long one. For those in the White House press corps who are not so fortunate to be assigned to bake in the Crawford, Texas sun, they too take vacations (though not as long as the President's).

This August is different. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the slow drip of scandal turning into a waterfall of corruption and coverups in the Bush White House. On the internet, new pieces of the puzzle are coming together. My friend and the proprietor of this blog, Arianna Huffington seems to have the best sources inside the New York Times newsroom and has led many of us to begin asking whether Judith Miller's refusal to testify is not what it seems.

Picking up this thread over the weekend is an overlooked investigative piece in the American Prospect Magaine's online edition. In case you missed it, in a piece entitled "The Meeting," investigative reporter Murray Waas uncovers some new information about Treason-gate, Miller's refusal to testify and Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby's possible complicity in a coverup. (See DU http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=145717&mesg_id=145717)


The article should be read in its entirety, but here are a few highlights:

-- Libby met with Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame. This meeting, six days before the publication of Robert Novak's infamous column outing Mrs. Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame), is a "central focus" of the Fitzgerald investigation.

-- The kicker: "Sources close to the investigation, and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal probe, said that Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may have played a significant role in Miller’s decision not to testify about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8, 2003."

The President has, of course, directed his staff to "fully cooperate" with the probe. Make no mistake about it, if Waas's sources are right, Libby is not cooperating. In fact, while right wing pundits continually claim that the White House has not obstructed the Fitzgerald investigation, these new disclosures indicate that a top White House staffer is essentially directing a reporter to invoke a privilege on his behalf to keep the Special Prosecutor from learning the truth. Remember the hue and cry from conservatives when it was the Clinton Administration invoking privileges on what was not a matter of national security, but a private sexual affair? Where are they now?

The course for Libby is clear. He should obey the President's directive and immediately give Miller his personal waiver to testify about any conversations he may have had with her that are within the purview of the Grand Jury. Today, I and along with my colleagues Louise Slaughter, Maurice Hinchey and Rush Holt, wrote to Libby asking him to do just that. Waas has the letter on his blog.

If he refuses, the President faces a choice. He can show he means what he says and fire an employee who is so obviously obstructing the search for the truth. Or he can continue to tolerate such behavior and thereby make clear what many suspect -- when it comes to getting to the bottom of who did this vile act, he is all talk.


Blogged by JC on 08.08.05 @ 07:34 PM ET

[Imagevision]

1. it opens a HUGE can of worms in questioning.

[Booster]

2. I think Judy knows no waiver is going to save her ass and it's

much safer in jail than in her penthouse. Remember the reporter who "jumped" to his death?

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Why Would "Scooter" Libby Be Upset At Joe Wilson?

Just because he had waited 10 long years to get another crack at Iraq and everything was running smoothly until the media started paying attention to the "16 words?"

If anything, he should have been upset with Chalabi for making up such lousy evidence.

[paineinthearse]

4. Waas: House Democrats ask that Libby grant Judith Miller a specific waiver

http://www.whateveralready.blogspot.com/

House Democrats ask that Libby grant Judith Miller a specific waiver to testify.

The ranking Democrats on the House Judiciary and the House Rules Committee, Reps. John Conyers of Ohio and Louise Slaughter of New York, wrote to I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier today telling him that his "conduct may have fallen short of the President's pledge to full cooperation" with the investigation of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The letter was apparently written in reaction to this story - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/08/opinion/main765075.shtml - I wrote, and which was posted on TAP Online over the weekend, in which I disclosed a meeting between Libby and jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003. The meeting took place prior to the now infamous column by Robert Novak unmasking Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative."

Although Libby has granted a general waiver for journalists to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury regarding their conversations about Plame, Miller has said she considers such waivers to be inherently coercive. As a result, she refused to testify regarding any conversations with Libby or other Bush administration officials, and has been jailed for more than a month now for civil contempt. As I reported in my story, Libby has not offered a more specific, personal waiver to Miller, so that she might possibly testify. The letter to Libby also signed by two other Democrats, Rep. Rush Holt, of New Jersey, and Maurice Hinchey of New York, the congresspersons wrote. Below is most of the text of the letter:

As you are aware, in the matter of the ongoing investigation of the leaking of the covert status of a Central Intelligence Agency operative (Valerie Wilson), the President has promised that his Administration will "fully cooperate" with the investigation. We are concerned that your conduct may have fallen far short of the President's pledge of full cooperation. This is particularly important because the President has said he would only fire someone who actually committed a crime; your refusal to waive Ms. Miller's pledge of confidentiality is impeding the full cooperation that could lead to such an administrative sanction. We ask you to rectify this by immediately issuing a personal waiver to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and any other reporter with whom you discussed Mrs. Wilson.

New information has come to light that indicates that you met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed Mrs. Wilson.... Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reportedly determined that it may well be relevant to the ongoing probe. However, according to the same report, his investigation has been impeded by your lack of cooperation, specifically your failure to produce a personal waiver to Ms. Miller Indeed, in a March 2005 filing with the court hearing the case, Mr. Fitzgerald stated he could not close the matter because of Ms. Miller's inability to testify about conversations with senior government officials. In response to similar concerns expressed by Mr. Fitzgerald about Time reporter Matthew Cooper, Karl Rove, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, granted a personal waiver to Mr. Cooper. Your failure to grant such a waiver to Ms. Miller has apparently led her to refuse to testify about her conversation(s) with you and, in turn, led to her recent incarceration for civil contempt.

Only your willingness to step forward and permit Ms. Miller to testify about your July 8 meeting and any other communications with her will allow the whole truth to be known. We urge you to immediately and publicly rectify this by issuing a personal waiver to Ms. Miller.

Some comments of my own: As I pointed out in my story - http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10077 -, it is still unclear that even if Libby were to grant a more personalized waiver for Miller whether she would testify. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams, told me: "Judith Miller is in jail and at continued jeopardy... I have no comment about what she might do in circumstances that do not now exist."

Tom Maguire has a much more detailed and thoughtful analysis - http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/08/waas_on_plame_a.html - of all of this than I do, for those seeking additional info. Mickey Kaus also has these comments - http://slate.msn.com/id/2124152/&#waas -.

[paineinthearse]

5. Waas (in American Prospect): The Meeting

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10077

[paineinthearse]

6. Mickey Kaus (Slate): Just let it go?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2124152/&#waas


Waas/NotWaas: Murray Waas reports in The American Prospect that "Scooter" Libby and NYT reporter Judith Miller did meet "and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame" prior to her outing by Robert Novak. If true, Waas story moves the ball several yards downfield, although it appears to be consistent with both the Judy-as-source and Judy-as-leak-recipient theories. But Waas has three odd paragraphs lower down in the piece that seem to suggest that President Bush should order Libby to waive whatever promise of confidentiality he received from Miller:

At least two attorneys representing private clients who are embroiled in the Plame probe also privately questioned whether or not President Bush had encouraged Libby to provide a personalized waiver for Miller in an effort to obtain her cooperation.

In a memorandum distributed to White House staff members shortly after the investigation became known, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who at the time was White House counsel, wrote, "The president has directed full cooperation with this investigation." Bush himself said: "f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Congressman Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, while sidestepping the specifics as to whether Bush should order Libby to provide a personalized waiver for Miller, said in an interview Friday evening: "I would say the president has the power to help us get to the bottom of this matter. And we in Congress want to do this not so much for what has happened but to prevent such a thing from happening again."

I don't understand. If President Bush ordered or even "encouraged" Libby to provide a "personal" waiver to Miller, wouldn't that waiver be just as "coerced" as the "general" waivers that Miller has rejected as insufficiently voluntary? (The implicit threat: "Give her a waiver or lose your administration job.") In fact, wouldn't a Bush order taint as "coerced" even a private, unsolicited, sotto voce release given personally by Libby to Miller? This seems like a bogus basis for sniping at Bush. ...Maguire makes a similar point - http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/08/waas_on_plame_a.html

Meanwhile: Arianna reports that the NYT's Doug Jehl has been assigned to actually find out the truth about Miller. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/the-expanding-judy-file_5248.html - Yikes! ... Is she a source--or a target? ... 2:00 A.M.

[H2O Man]

12. Judith is on record

as saying that waivers under pressure do not count, at least in her world. It is worth remembering that when he sent her to jail, the judge said he did not believe Judith's actions were based on a sense of loyalty to "freedom of the press" or protecting sources.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Because then there wouldn't be an excuse for her to not testify

Don't think for a second that the Plame questions are what she's afraid of; she's scared to death of the numerous questions about her propagandizing for the administration in its stampeding to conquest.

The White House REALLY doesn't want her to testify, and were Libby to give her this out, it would be disastrous.

This woman was a respected Pulitzer Prize winner, yet she purposefully used known lies over and over again to help in her true job, that of facilitating the PNAC. Her loyalties are more to the PNAC and Israel than they are to the United States, and the extreme disgrace she faces should the truth be known is too much for such a narcissist. Even with all this, though, her true concern is the retribution from the Junta should she tell the truth, and she knows that if she doesn't, there's so much testimony from others that she'd be convicted of perjury in a blink of the eye.

Her only hope is that the administration can stall, litigate, kill or whatever their way to the point where the investigation can be quashed. Then, she can quietly walk and live as some modest elder statesperson. If the big meanies can't contain or crush it, there's no version of an outcome that won't be absolutely ruinous for her.

[autorank]

8. Answer: He thought that meant she could date other guys.

Well, that's what the Star said while I read it waiting to buy my groceries.

Could it be...he's GUILTY!

[burrowowl]

9. Yes why!

KICK!

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. I also believe that Judith Miller may be afraid of serious WH reprisals

if she agrees to testify. Considering her history, she must know some very embarrassing things about the Bush Administration. For example, her published pieces played a significant role in dragging the country into the Iraq War, and she surely was aware that they were lies. But she also knows that outing the crimes of the Bush Administration is not good for one's career or even one's health. Just imagine what she might be asked to testify on once she was under oath - no wonder she loudly proclaims that her lips are sealed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Because they are both protecting Bush

who is probably the one who okay'd going after the Wilsons.

This whole thing started on Bush's trip to Africa. Libby, Rove and Miller were not on that trip, so they are not the original leakers. Someone in this picture is the original leaker and it's not the black guy waving goodbye.

[symbolman]

13. One simple word

that scares the shit out of the Bush co - CONSPIRACY..

THis is why they've taken great pains to make anyone that disagrees with them (and has been inculcated in the mind of the public by the media) a "tin foil mad hatter"..

NOW we have a REAL CONSPIRACY, with PROOF either on the way or perhaps already verified.

Bush is hiding behind the toilet in Crawford flooding his Depends.

Good work Paininthehearse.. when this news hit the web I Immediately wrote to my pal who works for Conyers and told him that Conyers and pals need to be on this like ugly on a gorilla, hopefully everyone else did as well..

this is the KEY to the new kingdom.

[paineinthearse]

14. Conyers and pals need to be on this like ugly on a gorilla

Conyers appears to be on it as you describe. Every day he blogs another gem, some are more precious than others.

You nailed it, CONSPIRACY is the crack that will bring down the house of Cards (and Rove and Cheney and Bush).

[faithnotgreed]

15. again thank you mr conyers

for serving your country

[MADem]

16. I think it goes higher than ole Scooter, myself

For all we know, he dialed up George and handed the phone to Judy at their little meeting...

The guy they WANT taking the big hits on this, if the GOP can successfully stonewall it, is a guy who is not the BIGGEST fish, who has a low public profile (not everyone knows ole Scooter like they do Karl Rove), who can delay, deflect, deny, and if convicted, BE PARDONED rather than impeached. Scootie fits the bill as a fake target...but who knows, yet, anyway.

[lojasmo]

17. Cheney. EOM

[Samantha]

18. I was headed to the bottom of this thread to post the same answer

Libby is shielding Cheney.

I recently started a thread to discuss whether Miller is a part of Operation Mockingbird. Perhaps she won't talk because she can't.

[paineinthearse]

19. Link to your thread?

I'd like to read it.