The Judy Miller Theory Doesn't Make Sense
The latest theory being tossed about in the leakgate scandal is that Judith Miller told Rove and Libby about Plame, not vice versa. This theory actually isn't new; it's been out there for weeks, but it's gained new traction in the last day or so thanks to Arianna Huffington, who has claimed that it is "being floated in the halls" of the Times. According to this theory, Miller somehow discovered Plame's identity, either through a non-White House source or through her own investigating. She told Libby and/or Rove who then passed the information along to other journalists (Novak, Cooper, Pincus, etc.). This theory is certainly plausible, all things being equal, but will someone please explain to me how it can be reconciled with Rove and Libby's reported testimony.
According to the accounts we've been presented with in the Times and Post (which clearly rely on sources friendly to Rove and Libby), Libby has told prosecutors that he first learned about Plame from Tim Russert, and Rove cannot remember how he first learned about Plame. If Miller was actually their source, why on earth wouldn't they just say so? After all, that would be a fairly significant exculpatory fact. And why would they blame other journalists or claim not to remember who told them? Why would they be protecting Miller? For that matter, why would Miller need protection? Does any of this make sense?
According to the accounts we've been presented with in the Times and Post (which clearly rely on sources friendly to Rove and Libby), Libby has told prosecutors that he first learned about Plame from Tim Russert, and Rove cannot remember how he first learned about Plame. If Miller was actually their source, why on earth wouldn't they just say so? After all, that would be a fairly significant exculpatory fact. And why would they blame other journalists or claim not to remember who told them? Why would they be protecting Miller? For that matter, why would Miller need protection? Does any of this make sense?
posted by A.L. at 10:07 PM
7 Comments:
Why would Rove and others protect Miller? Simple. As long as there isn't a formal statement pointing in her direction, she becomes a perfect container of any original leak. She simply goes to jail.
I don't buy it. Under this scenario, the information she's holding on to is exculpatory to Rove and Libby. Why wouldn't they point that out? Why wouldn't they finger her? Why would they risk prosecution by misleading federal investigators? The only possible explanation might be that she has something on them, something she might expose if they turned on her. But that seems far fetched.
What if Rove and Libby aren't trying to protect Miller, but are trying to protect her original source? What if it was someone like Cheney? Rove and Libby would not want to point the finger at Miller because it would eventually lead back to Dick himself.
Why would Cheney have told Miller about Plame instead of simply telling Libby, his Chief of Staff? Why would he use a reporter as a conduit for that information? I suppose he could have accidently blurted it out in a conversation with Miller, and she could have spread it around. But what would Cheney be doing talking to Miller anyway?
It could be that Miller is protecting much more damaging information about the administration than the identity of a leaker. She was so intimately involved in the WMD claims and the lead up to war. Rove and Libby may fear that if they point the finger at Miller, she'll expose a lot of dirt about the White House.
If Miller was actually their source, why on earth wouldn't they [Libby or Rove] just say so?
Why do you think they haven't?
Fitzgerald's subpoena is not a fishing trip - it orders Miller to testify about her chat with a specified WH official, and Fitz claims the official has waived confidentiality. The WaPo also says that Libby is the source in question.
And I am not as sure as you about Russert - suppose Libby told Fitz, "I heard about it either from Miller or Russert, but I can't remember which".
Currently, the CW is that Russert denied it (I think his denial is quite carefully worded). So, is Libby lying?
Fitz is at a dead end unless he gets Miller's story - he can't pursue perjury, he can't "prove" thjat Libby leaked classified info from the INR document, and he can't really advance against Libby until he rules out a Miller connection.
Tom Maguire
Thanks for the comment, Tom.
Here's what I don't understand, though. If Libby told Fitzgerald that he heard about Plame from Russert or Miller, why wouldn't Libby's lawyer correct the public record? Why stay silent and allow speculation of perjury in the media? Why not just point the finger at Miller (or Russert if Russert is parsing words)? And why wouldn't Libby give Miller the "specific waiver" she needs? If Fitz knows that Libby's her source, he also knows that Libby is obstructing his investigation by not giving Miller permission to talk. A lot of things don't add up.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home