The Truth is Finally Revealed in the Leakgate Scandal

Judith Miller was released from prison this afternoon, and suddenly everybody's talking. Every news organization has multiple anonymous sources spilling their guts. The big scoop goes to the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt and Jim VandeHei, who--buried in the middle of their story--give us the information we've been craving for so long, the content of the conversations between Miller and I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff. They write:

According to a source familiar with Libby's
account of his conversations with Miller in July
2003, the subject of Wilson's wife came up on
two occasions. In the first, on July 8, Miller met
with Libby to interview him about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, the source said.

At that time, she asked him why Wilson had
been chosen to investigate questions Cheney
had posed about whether Iraq attempted to
buy uranium in the African nation of Niger.
Libby, the source familiar with his account said,
told her that the White House was working with
the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip
and how he came to be selected.

Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife
had something to do with sending him but he
did not know who she was or where she worked,
the source said.

Libby had a second conversation with Miller on
July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he
told her that he had learned that Wilson's wife
had a role in sending him on the trip and that
she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew
Plame's name or that she was a covert
operative, the source said.

So we now have Libby's version of the story (most likely provided to the Post by his own attorney), and it appears to clear Miller of any wrongdoing. She apparently didn't tell Libby anything about Plame; she was merely the recipient of the leak.

Personally, I feel vindicated. I noted on numerous occasions (e.g. here, here, here) that the 'Judy Miller did it' theory didn't make sense. If Libby had learned about Plame from Miller, why wouldn't a "source close to Libby" have leaked that information a long time ago? The lack of finger-pointing by the administration spoke volumes.

I think Libby may be in some serious trouble here. First and most obviously, he told Miller about Plame (or "Wilson's wife"), not vice versa. Second, his version of the story doesn't seem all that credible. How, for instance, would he have known that Wilson's wife had something to do with his trip to Niger without at least knowing where she worked? If I were a prosecutor, I'd be very skeptical of that account. No wonder Fitzgerald wanted Miller's testimony so badly. Libby better hope that when she testifies tomorrow, she gives a substantially similar account of their conversations.

Also of note, is this conflicting account of the original waiver given by Libby to Miller over a year ago. First, from the Post.

[J]oseph Tate, an attorney for Libby, said
yesterday that he told Miller's attorney, Floyd
Abrams, a year ago that Libby's waiver was
voluntary and that Miller was free to testify.
He said last night that he was contacted by
Bennett several weeks ago, and was surprised
to learn that Miller had not accepted that
representation as authorization to speak with
prosecutors. "We told her lawyers it was not
coerced," Tate said. "We are surprised to learn
we had anything to do with her incarceration."

But we get this from the New York Times:

On Thursday, Mr. Abrams wrote to Mr. Tate
disputing parts of Mr. Tate's account. His letter
said although Mr. Tate had said the waiver was
voluntary, Mr. Tate had also said any waiver
sought as a condition of employment was
inherently coercive.

If Abrams is telling the truth, then Libby apparently did NOT give Miller the kind of voluntary waiver last year that he claims he did. If Tate told Abrams that the waiver Libby signed was "inherently coercive," then Abrams and Miller were correct to interpret that conversation as not amounting to a free and voluntary waiver. How else were they supposed to interpret such a comment? Moreover, if Miller really had nothing to hide, which Libby's account of their conversations seems to indicate, it's hard to see what motive she would have had for refusing to accept a genuine waiver. It may turn out that Miller really was protecting Libby all along. She may have known that her testimony could potentially be very damaging to Libby and, therefore, did not want to break her promise of confidentiality unless she was absolutely sure that he had given her permission to do so.

And finally, now that we know (presumably) that Libby did not learn about Plame from Miller, the question remains: how did Libby first learn about Plame? According to previous reports, Libby has told Fitzgerald that he first learned about Plame from journalists, specifically Tim Russert. Russert, for his part, has issued a non-denial denial. Will the truth about Russert's involvement, if any, be revealed in the coming days? Will it turn out that Libby learned about Plame from the State Department memo? Or from John Bolton's office? We'll just have to wait and see. But with Miller testifying tomorrow, we may not have to wait much longer.

UPDATE: As Tom Maquire points out in the comments below, there is an updated version of the New York Times article out now that contains another account of the conversation between Miller and Libby. The Times writes:

According to someone who has been briefed
on Mr. Libby's testimony and who believes
that his statements show he did nothing
wrong, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Libby during
their conversations in July 2003 whether he
knew Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former
ambassador who wrote an Op-Ed article in
The Times on July 6, 2003, criticizing the Bush
administration. Ms. Miller's lawyers declined to
discuss the conversations.

Mr. Libby said that he did not know Mr. Wilson
but that he had heard from the C.I.A. that the
former ambassador's wife, an agency employee,
might have had a role in arranging a trip that
Mr. Wilson took to Africa on behalf of the agency
to investigate reports of Iraq's efforts to obtain
nuclear material. Mr. Wilson's wife is Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Libby did not know her name or her position
at the agency and therefore did not discuss these
matters with Ms. Miller, the person who had
been briefed on the matter said. (emphasis added)

This account seems to differ slightly from the Washington Post's version. According to this version, Libby knew that Plame worked at the CIA, and he learned that information, apparently, through official channels, not from Tim Russert or Matthew Cooper or any other journalist. Of course, this could just be sloppy word choice by the Times, the Post, or both, so who knows. Perhaps Judith Miller can clear this all up for us soon. For more analysis of this, check out Tom Maguire's post.