Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Judith Miller’s Secret Meeting

By Murray Waas, The American Prospect. Posted August 10, 2005.


Scooter Libby and jailed reporter Judy Miller met just two days after Joe Wilson published his column -- and Patrick Fitzgerald is very interested.
Advertisement

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has told federal investigators that he met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to legal sources familiar with Libby's account.

The meeting between Libby and Miller has been a central focus of the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald as to whether any Bush administration official broke the law by unmasking Plame's identity, or relied on classified information to discredit former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, according to sources close to the case as well as documents filed in federal court by Fitzgerald.

The meeting took place in Washington, D.C., six days before columnist Robert Novak wrote his now-infamous column unmasking Plame as a "CIA operative." Although little noticed at the time, Novak's column would cause the appointment of a special prosecutor, ultimately place in potential legal jeopardy senior advisers to the president of the United States, and lead to the jailing of a New York Times reporter.

The meeting between Libby and Miller also occurred during a week of intense activity by Libby and White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove aimed at discrediting Plame's husband, Wilson, who on July 6, 2003, had gone public in a New York Times opinion piece with allegations that the Bush administration was misrepresenting intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.

Miller was jailed in July -- two years to the day after Wilson's Times op-ed appeared -- for civil contempt of court after she refused to answer questions posed to her by Fitzgerald's grand jury regarding her contacts discussing Plame with Libby and other Bush administration officials. Ironically, even though she never wrote a story about Plame, she has so far been the only person jailed in the case.

Miller's Fate Hinges on a Waiver

The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in his administration have done everything possible to assist Fitzgerald's grand-jury probe. 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.

Libby signed a more generalized waiver during the early course of the investigation granting journalists the right to testify about their conversations with him if they wished to do so. At least two reporters -- Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC -- have testified about their conversations with Libby.

But Miller has said she would not consider providing any information to investigators about conversations with Libby or anyone else without a more specific, or personal, waiver. She said she considers general waivers to be inherently coercive. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, has previously said Miller had not been granted "any kind of a waiver... that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given."

Libby has never offered to provide such a personalized waiver for Miller, according to three legal sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter. Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for Libby, declined to comment for this story.

In response to questions for this article, Catherine J. Mathis, a spokesperson for the Times, said, "We don't have any comment regarding Ms. Miller's whereabouts on July 8, 2003." She also added, "Ms. Miller has not received a waiver that she believes to be freely given."

It is also unclear whether Miller would testify to Fitzgerald's grand jury even if she were to receive such a personalized waiver from Libby. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams, said in an interview: "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."

But numerous people involved in the case said in interviews for this story that a personalized waiver for Miller by Libby could potentially pave the way for Miller's release. Miller's testimony, in turn, might be crucial to a determination as to whether anyone might be criminally charged, and even to a potential end to the criminal investigation.

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: "[I]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."


Digg!

Murray Waas is an investigative reporter. He will be reporting further about the Plame grand jury on his blog, Whatever Already. Copyright © 2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Limerick for Karl
Posted by: ekinney on Aug 10, 2005 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who outed Ms. Valerie Plame?
Her husband was only to frame.
The man is just awesome,
He goes by “Turd Blossom.”
Why Rove is the man we should blame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Limerick for Karl Posted by: iamsenstiveyellow
» Turd Blossoms the one Posted by: pjrsullivan
» RE: A Limerick for Karl Posted by: rococohobo
Bush never lies - Not!
Posted by: rkewen on Aug 10, 2005 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" Bush himself said: "[I]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."

What the head chimp probably meant when he said "the person will be taken care of," is that whoever helped discredit his critic Ambassador Wilson would receive rewards like perhaps a job with Uncle Dick's company (Halliburton) and a Medal of Freedom like "slam dunk" Tenet received.

In this administration loyalty to Bush/Cheney and their cartel of crooks milking America and the world trumps loyalty to the United States and its Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It WILL Happen
Posted by: cyclone on Aug 10, 2005 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The house of cards is going to come tumbling down. Boosh picked the wrong guy in Fitzgerald. Little did he know, Fitzgerald has more "investigator blood" in him than "lawyer blood." Another example of failing to have an exit strategy. And, I might add, it will go higher than Rove. Maybe the 2nd Prez in history to resign? Of course, all his underlings, ala Cheaney, Rummy, et. al. will have to go with him. I'll tell you all again, Boosh will not finish his second term. He will go down. The only question is, whether he goes quietly by forced choice or by pure force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It WILL Happen Posted by: berrygoldwater2004
» RE: It WILL Happen Posted by: cyclone
» RE: It WILL Happen Posted by: watchdog
» RE: It WILL Happen Posted by: HeidiLockwood
» RE: It WILL Happen Posted by: Pepper
» RE: It WILL Happen Posted by: cyclone
"Plame It On Rio!" Comes to Broadway
Posted by: Stonecutter on Aug 10, 2005 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, this is all unmitigated show business. Miller is full of it...she won't accept a "general waiver" that was good enough for Tim Russert or Walter Pincus, because "she doesn't believe it was freely given"?? Gimme a break! The likelihood is she is either criminally liable herself for some as yet undisclosed hanky panky, or she's in a lot deeper than anyone realizes or has revealed to this point in the potboiler...got to keep this controversy goin'...keep those ratings up, up, up. So far, she's being spun by the Times and others as simply a martyred reporter...how about she's gone over the line? Maybe she's a "bagperson" for the WH neocons---Libby, Cheney, etc.--which would explain her royal treatment in Iraq during the war, and her disgusting propogandizing for the WMD rationale?

Truth is, I don't know squat about the extent of her true collusion with these lowlifes, but going to jail was a good way for her to put on some sackcloth and ashes, nes't pas? BTW, her husband decided to go off on a Med cruise with a bunch of hollywood types while she serves her time...what a devoted guy. Being in the public eye, they didn't have a clue how this would play in the media (Jason "Nero" Epstein cruises while Judith rots)?

Miller has a dedicated phone line into the Times Washington bureau, but the Times whines on as if she's been shipped to Gitmo, when all she has to do to be back cruising with Jason is what reporters are supposed to do if they're "clean"...tell the truth warts and all. She's got a waiver good enough for Russert....stop insulting our collective intelligence and do the nasty. Jail is no fun, but having your questionable career destroyed, or being charged with federal crimes if you talk (or lie under oath), may be even more daunting than a a few months in stir. Look out, NY Times, it's "Blair on 'Roids" comin' at ya!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Plame It On Rio!" Comes to Broadway Posted by: berrygoldwater2004
All Very Good
Posted by: nakis on Aug 10, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this fact finding and work to determine the treasonous acts of the Bush administration is all very good. Dogging down the criminals is a worthy cause.
But I'm just struck at how much time, money and energy has to be spent fencing and parrying to get justice.
These people who claim moral superiority. To claim God speaks to them. To claim that they work for justice, democracy and freedom. I don't think one of them even had a morality to leave behind at some time in their lives. The putrid stench of deceipt, coverups and lies under the guise of supposedly trying to do something good would make me ill if I let it.
If they were good at any point, aspect or even in some thought sometime, they would have to come clean at some point. These people are so embroiled and impregnated with deception I don't think they even have a clue what it is to be honest. And these are the people who are running our country. These are the people who are the estate that is supposed to unearth truth and bring it to the people.

When Islamic fundamentalists (first ignoring their own lack of clarity) call America the great Satan you've got to stop for a moment and say that they've got something there. Some of this anger is attributed to the supposed immorality of the people but when you look at our foriegn policies and those in charge (we elect) they definitely have something there. These people in our top offices are great deceivers with a greatly disturbed sense of morality.
What I find very astounding is the fundamentalist Christian support for the people who engage in and stand for anti-Christian morals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Very Good Posted by: Pepper
» RE: All Very Good Posted by: cyclone
So what if she sent him?
Posted by: jiverson on Aug 10, 2005 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I don't understand is how does his wife's role in sending him to Niger discredit his findings or op-ed criticism? If it's true that Joseph Wilson served as ambassador in that region of the world and it's true that the secret CIA agent whose job it is to monitor sales of WMD's around the world sent him to check it out ALSO happens to be his wife...so what?! How is that a criticism? "He's obviously lying! His WIFE sent him!" How does that make sense? If that's the Neo-Cons attack response (which I believe it is) it's a pretty shitty one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what if she sent him? Posted by: cyclone
» RE: So what if she sent him? Posted by: watchdog
"Just Following Orders?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 10, 2005 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote from Rush Holt: "...And we in Congress want to do this not so much for what has happened but to prevent such a thing from happening again."

Boy, these guys sure are predictable: "Oh, well, the damage is done, so let's 'learn our lessons' and just move on." They said the same about the 9/11 tragedy.

NO!!!

We want to know what happened, SO THE CRIMINALS BEHIND THIS BREECH OF NATIONAL SECURITY CAN BE PUNISHED!!!

Are some members of our Congress just pussies, or are they nervous as well about what (and whom) might be found?

Here's to the hope that Patrick Fitzgerald ignores the pressure and gets to the bottom of this – with a treason indictment for anyone involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Just Following Orders?" Posted by: berrygoldwater2004