Guest blogged by David Edwards
Arianna Huffington supplements her Huffington Post analysis of Judy Miller’s and The New York Times’ latest account of Miller’s role in Traitorgate by appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources this morning.
In her article and later on CNN, Huffington identifies the biggest fault in Miller’s account:
And the answer? She can’t remember.
Given the “gee-whiz, it all just sort of, like, happened, and I don’t know when or why or where or who…” tone of her mea no culpa , maybe Judy is vying for a role on MTV’s “Laguna Beach.”
Which is just as well, because if these two articles have revealed anything at all, it’s that Judy Miller is no journalist.
CNN Reliable Sources:
Video in Windows Media format…
Streaming Video in Real Media format…
Talk Left focuses on a statement by Miller’s lawyer, Bob Bennett, made this morning on ABC’s this week that further implicates Libby in attempting to influence Miller’s testimony. Hunter at Daily Kos concludes that “Libby is in deep, deep trouble here.”
AP quotes Bennett from his appearance on ABC:
“I wouldn’t say the answer to that is yes, but it was very troubling,” Bennett said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“Our reaction when we got that letter, both Judy’s and mine, is that was a very stupid thing to put in a letter because it just complicated the situation,” Bennett said.
“It was a very foolish thing to put in a letter, as evidenced by the fact that you’re highlighting it here,” Bennett said. “It was a close call and she was troubled by it; no question about it.”
ABC This Week:
Video in Windows Media format…
Streaming Video in Real Media format…
The Times piece raises more questions than answers for ReddHedd at firedolake. Jane Hamsher also speculates that Miller may have cut another deal with Fitzgerald as the first one had become inoperative.
The Booman Tribune concludes: “Neither the Times nor Judith Miller emerge from this article looking at all favorable” and agrees that the Times articles provide more questions than answers. David Corn makes a solid case that the Times coverage is still seriously lacking, “They leave the impression that we’re still not getting all the news that ought to be fit to print.”
It occurs to Digby that Fitzgerald would have needed to consider the bogus WMD claims by Libby and others. Think Progress notices that Secretary Rice admits cooperating with the investigation on this morning’s Fox News Sunday.
Atrios levels a flurry of criticism at Judy and the Times. Jay Rosen provides an excellent report of key moments and related links.
I’d love to say it’s "getting curiouser and curiouser", but really I’m as much in the dark now as before. If only we had a fly on the wall of that grand jury room.
Still, for Miller to spend time in jail to avoid telling what she still hasn’t told is curious.
Once I served on a criminal trial jury and when we’d decided the verdict and came into the court room the Judge said loudly for everyone to hear (paraphrasing), "It’s obvious somebody’s lying here."
Hi, Mark — Since it’s specific members of the Bush administration under scrutiny, and Miller can’t or won’t say, but seems unable to clear them, then we can reasonably conclude she is likely protecting them. She was after all their MSM newspaper Iraqi war propaganda plant, and has expressed no regrets about the false information about WMD which she spread at their behest…she’s obviously with them…and it seems she’d rather sell out America than sell out Bush. Bush probably pays better…he "rewards loyalty". She knows which side of the bread has the butter on it. So much for "American" values.
Judith Miller and the NYTimes betrayed (and still are betraying) America.
There are several blogs which have been analyzing the Miller tale in great detail, all worth looking at if you are interested in more nitty gritty:
PressThink
firedoglake
Needlenose
Miller’s protecting her accomplice Bolton, who was force-feeding information to Chalabi. Mark my words.
Libby was only the confirmation for Miller of Plame’s work and involvement. Miller knew what it was before that, and Rove did as well because of Libby.
Doug E.
Indict them ALL including Judy! And WHY isn’t Fitzgerald asking any questions of Bush himself? That in itself is BS! They ALL need to be not only questioned but indicted and hanged for TREASON IN MORE WAYS THEN ONE! 1. Outing a CIA agent 2. Murdering 3000 citizens in involvement in 9-11, which they were folks! 3. Lying to Congress and America people to take us to illegal, immoral wars, which I believe GUTLESS R’S AND D’S ALIKE who voted to take us to war, KNEW THAT HE WAS LYING, and just use that as cover-up to cover their behinds! As they knew Big Business wanted this wars, and as such, they are corporate whores! 4. Purposedly letting those people in Gulf die to further their damn sick, evil agenda, i.e. Bush desperately wants authority to call out Guard on his own people so he can murder some more of us, especially us protesters! GET A CLUE, FOLKS! WE HAVE A 2ND HITLER AND NAZI FASCISTS ON OUR HANDS! GET RID OF PNAC GROUP AND IMPRISON THEM AND NOW AND ALL THE EVIL, NEO-CONS TOO! TO JAIL WITH ALL OF THEM ANDNOW!
Just an observation…Judy Miller is being held aloft by her newspaper as a martyr to the cause of protecting confidential sources. Funny, but I’ve never seen a martyr before who could afford a high-profile lawyer like Bob Bennett.
Don’t think Karen Silkwood and Erin Brokovitch used him.
The MSM in general, as we have indicated all along, has been in bed ("embedded") with this fascist administration for a long time.
Miller is one of the traitors to the sacred duty of the press.
I noted another traitorous thread running in this story:
"Fitzgerald’s status differs in one potentially important respect from the independent counsels who investigated alleged wrongdoing during earlier administrations. They reported to a panel of appellate judges, while Fitzgerald reports to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at least theoretically must approve any indictment." (link here).
Under our system of law, prosecutors – including the Attorney General, can only present evidence (documents, witnesses) and argument to a grand jury.
They can not tell the grand jury who to indict or for what. The jury is the boss.
If this is a situation where "Torture Man" Gonzales can overrule a grand jury indictiment, which I doubt seriously, then we are doomed.
I think it awfully funny Bolton visited her in jail cell!? Why did he visit her? To tell her to keep quiet? Or pass on a message from Bush to her or from Cheney, WHY? Bolton is another member of PNAC group, who are ALL EVIL, MURDERERS! AND MUST BE STOPPED AND DISBANDED! AND NOW! FASCIST MURDERING AHOLES ALL OF THEM! INDICT AND CONVICT THEM ALL AND NOW, BEFORE THEY MURDER MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE AT HOME OR ABROAD!
Lawyers, please weigh in. If Libby coached Miller about her testimony, does that constitute jury tampering?
If Libby’s defense were, "I wanted to review with her our previous conversations, that’s all," would it hold legal water?
RLM #10
I am not a lawyer, but I read some cases, and they tend to be boring in some ways.
I am supplying a link to a case that covers grand jury concepts (link here).
Basically it shows that what I have said about grand juries is true. It is a case where the defendants were convicted, however, the trial court had poo pooed the defense motions to quash the indictment due to the prosecutor’s mis-behaviour before the grand jury.
The case discusses how independent a grand jury must be. It must be hands off by the prosecutor and by the courts.
Grand juries are the boss. There are some cases where the grand jury locked the prosecutor out and brought an indictment against the prosecutor! These are called "run away" grand juries. They are rare, and by and large grand juries today do what the prosecutor asks.
And to your point, when non-prosecutors associated with the defense try to interfere with a grand jury, yes, they too can get into trouble.
The term "jury tampering" can apply to a whole host of behaviours that, boiled down, simply mean if you do not let the grand jury do its thing naturally, and you try in any improper way to sway that jury, then you can get into trouble.
I have written a little essay, a year or so back, about juries (link here). It gives some of the reasons for juries, and shows that it stems from our forefathers and their mistrust of government power.
Anyway, the administration became drunk on the toxins in power, which corrupt and intoxicate, and being elitist began to think they are invincible. In this context it means "above the law" – they feel they are the law, etc., which leads to just exactly what has happened to them.
They are shocked to find out that is not the case (they are not above the law), but they will maintain their positions to the grave. After all, they don’t make mistakes.
RLM #11
Perhaps I provided too much to read. So here is an exerpt from the case which gives the gist of it:
If the Fifth Amendment’s promise that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury," U.S. Const. amend. V, means anything, it means that a criminal indictment must actually issue from a grand jury, and not some other source.The fundamental concept underlying the Fifth Amendment guarantee is that in order for an indictment to be recognized as actually issuing from a grand jury, it must be the product of an investigative deliberation that is independent of both the prosecuting attorney and the court. See United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 49, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 1743, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) ("Recognizing [the] tradition of independence [of the grand jury], we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge.") (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 18, 93 S.Ct. 764, 773, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973) (finding that a grand jury "must be free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence"); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 1373, 8 L.Ed.2d 569 (1962) (recognizing "[t]he necessity to society of an independent and informed grand jury"); John Roe, Inc. v. United States (In re: Grand Jury Proceedings), 142 F.3d 1416, 1425 (11th Cir.1998) (explaining that although a grand jury relies on the judiciary when it seeks subpoenas or contempt sanctions, it "performs its investigative and deliberative functions independently"). Without a guarantee of independence, the indictment would not be the genuine issue of a grand jury within the meaning of the Constitution.It is clear, for example, that if a prosecutor simply drew up an "indictment," had a grand jury foreperson sign it, and then used it to charge the defendant with a criminal offense, we would dismiss the "indictment" out of hand as violative of the Fifth Amendment.
(page 31 of the pdf linked here).
OK. But respecting the CONDUCT of the grand jury’s inquiry, if a witness has been coached (consulted with?) by a person in legal jeopardy of being indicted, such as Libby, does that constitute tampering with the grand jury’s FUNCTION?
Libby (or Cheney) might defend himself by saying something like, "They’re trying to get me; all I’m doing is making sure their witness (Miller) tells the truth about our conversation of (MM/DD/YY)." That’s a plausible defense against an accusation of conspiracy, once the accusation is made; but in the case of a grand jury, no such accusation has yet been made. That’s my confusion, Dredd.
Grand juries are secret for a reason. If someone like Miller is forced to testify, thinks she knows what’s coming, and before testifying is summoned back by Libby to discuss her upcoming testimony, that strikes me as a violation of the secret grand jury PROCESS, at the very least. He’s not supposed to know what questions Miller will be asked, right? But is it jury tampering?
It’s just absurd that the Times would elevate Miller to martyrdom. She isn’t protecting a source and safeguarding the public’s right to know; she’s doing the exact opposite…protecting a source at the expense of the public’s right to know.
When this is all over I hope Fitzgerald will address this issue in a speech. I’ll volunteer to write it for him. It will begin "A shield law may never be used to protect government misdeeds. A reporter who hides behind a shield law in order to assist in the coverup of criminal acts is herself abusing the law."
First, the criminality has to be established.
Get the traitors of Traitorgate
The Quest
Back in time we wander,
over black, primordial roots
that jut from the ground,
trying to trip our passing boots.
Thorny, grasping foliage seems malevolent,
leafy vines canopy in trees above our heads,
blocking the sun,
soaking in its heat.
Social mores don’t exist.
Only jungle law remains,
with the smell of decay,
and the flight of the dragonflies,
while mosquitoes flirt
and predatory animals hide.
We are the hunters
and we won’t be satisfied;
‘til we hear the screams of the butterflies.