Judith Miller avoids obstruction of justice charge for her testimony

The other shoe drops: Finally, I find something to explain the change in Miller's silence on Editor and Publisher: She bargained for a release from an obstruction of justice charge. It's in the last line:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219261

Miller Out of Jail, Surrenders Notes on Talks with Libby

By E&P Staff Published: September 29, 2005 8:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Judith Miller, The New York Times reporter who had been jailed since July 6 for refusing to identify a source, was released Thursday afternoon. According to the The New York Times, Miller and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor to testify before a grand jury investigating the matter. She also agreed to turn over certain notes.


In a written statement today, Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said that Fitzgerald had assured Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers." He said that Fitzgerald had cleared the way to an agreement by assuring Miller and her source that he would not regard a conversation between the two about a possible waiver as an obstruction of justice.

He is giving up on the obstruction of justice charge. That means he's after something bigger. That's my take at least.

I just hope Fitzgerald casts a wide net and takes down as many of those bastards as possible.

Gives a whole new meaning to "jailbait," doesn't it?

You're all correct, I think. After 2 days of sifting through everything in the news and blogs and boards, this is the only piece of evidence I was able to find that explains her change of heart (apologies to tin men, everywhere).

The fun part is, if she was so afraid of an obstruction of justice wrap, then what are the members of the administration afraid of???

After all, she's not part of the administration, at least on paper. So they're up for bigger and better charges, and he was willing to let her off the hook to get the bigger fish, and then very very quietly go home.

The sunday pundits will no doubt waste their air time pontificating about her bogus source-protection smokescreen, but will any of them have the nads to go with this?

Me thinks not.

:hug: :kick:

This per Newsweek:

Oct. 10, 2005 issue - New York Times reporter Judy Miller broke her silence and agreed to testify before a federal grand jury last week. This followed tense, often acrimonious negotiations that began after special Justice Department prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald signaled he intended to reimpanel a new grand jury—a move that could have kept Miller in jail for another year and a half, say two lawyers close to the case who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the talks...Fitzgerald indicated he would not let the matter drop when the grand jury, investigating the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, expires in late October. Instead, he would keep his long-running probe open with a new grand jury. The sobering prospect spurred fevered negotiations among lawyers to find conditions that would satisfy both Miller and Fitzgerald. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9558011/site/newsweek/

My recollection is that Cooper and his team also were concerned about approaching Rove to discuss super duper special waiver of confidentiality also because that might leave Cooper open to obstruction of justice charges. They also negotiated with Fitz on this if recollection serves. So I don't think there's anything particularly significant in Miller avoiding that charge if she had interaction with Libby to discuss a specific waiver. (Although I still think the waiver issue was bogus. The element of coercion is there once Libby was directed to sign the blanket waiver, reiterating the waiver in specific regard to Judy doesn't change that really. Especially if, as Libby's lawyer claims, they addressed that specific issue a year ago.)

What is more significant is that the basis of her testimony was limited (as with other reporters, but Judy is unlike other reporters in her interaction with and promotion of the administration's specific WMD claims).

But the compelling reason for talking is that Judy reportedly was threatened with the prospect of doing considerably more time in jail, since Fitz played hardball with her. A few months in jail is one thing. Adds a bit of sheen to her new image as a first amendment "martyr." A year or more in jail is another natter. Fitz wanted her to talk, not just keep her in prison. Otherwise the threat would have been criminal contempt charges.

Thank god for DU. I would have gone insane without it. Now, when the gamers try to spew these pathetic excuses, we can find out the truth.

Thanks.

I doubt the pundits can't figure it out so much as they just won't say it.

:grouphug:

Miller had a private conversation with Libby before she made her deal. Fitz was oking her to have a conversation with Libby without fear of an obstruction charge. That was my take anyway.

I guess we can see why now. She was worried about incriminating herself and held out until she realized she was about to get some hard time whether she talked or not. So she sang like a canary.

Don

It goes to show that we're always ahead of the pros. Trust DU to get you the truth.

the light of day as many do...thank you DU.

:grouphug: