More Developments in the Plame Saga
Yet again the Washington Post has out-scooped Judith Miller's own paper. This time, the Post reports the contents of Miller's grand jury testimony.
In my previous post, I discussed the emerging dispute between Miller and Libby's attorneys over the nature of the waiver Libby claims to have provided Miller last year. Well, the New York Times greatly expands our knowledge of that dispute and even prints actual copies of the dueling letters between counsel. I found the letter from Floyd Abrams particularly interesting to read. Based on some of the other posts I've seen around the blogosphere, I may be in the minority on this one, but I find Abrams version of events more plausible than Tate's (Libby's attorney). It may well be that Libby had no objection to Miller testifying and did not think that he was the reason she was in jail. Nevertheless, if Abrams is telling the truth about his call with Libby's attorney last year, I completely understand why he and Miller did not think they had been provided with a free and voluntary waiver. Moreover, I don't think I buy Libby's assertion that he had no idea that he was the reason Miller was refusing to testify. After all, as Abrams points out in his letter, Miller had stated publicly on multiple occasions that she did not feel she had received a voluntary waiver from her source. And Libby was receiving public pressure from commentators and politicians to provide Miller with the waiver she required. You would think, given those facts, that if Libby really wanted Miller to testify, his attorney would have at least tried to confirm with Miller that her refusal to testify had nothing to do with him. In light of all that, I think Libby was being, at the very least, willfully ignorant about the reasons behind Miller's continued incarceration. His actions do not seem to be those of someone who affirmatively wanted Miller to testify.
So how do things look for Libby, given what we know now? At this point, my hunch is that an indictment is unlikely (at least for Libby). But let's not lose sight of some important facts. At the very least, Libby (like Rove) identified a CIA employee to a reporter. That may or may not be a crime, but it's certainly reckless and ill-advised. Even if Libby did not know that "Wilson's wife" was an undercover operative, he should have had sense enough to check on her status before revealing anything about her to reporters. For someone in Libby's position, such behavior is inexcusable and is certainly a firing offense. And is the White House ever going to be held accountable for it's unequivocal denial that Libby and Rove were involved in this affair? As we now know, they were both right at the heart of it.
Finally, as others have noted, there is an important piece of the puzzle that is still missing. The Times has reported that Libby was not a source for Bob Novak, and we already know that Rove was only a confirming source for Novak. Therefore, there must be a third leaker. This mysterious administration official may well have been Walter Pincus' source as well. I think the most likely suspects are John Bolton's former chief of staff Fred Fleitz, former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Any other suggestions?
Sources familiar with Miller's testimony say herApparently Miller's testimony about the key events at issue was substantially similar to Libby's. At least that's what this Post article seems to imply. That would certainly be good news for Libby.
account of two discussions with Cheney's chief
of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, that July are
similar to the account Libby reportedly gave
the grand jury last year. Both said they spoke
about Plame's husband, administration critic
and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV,
on July 8 and again on July 12 or 13. On at least
one of those occasions, Libby told Miller that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the sources
said. . . .
A source close to Miller said yesterday that
her testimony does not implicate Libby as
intentionally and knowingly identifying Plame.
In my previous post, I discussed the emerging dispute between Miller and Libby's attorneys over the nature of the waiver Libby claims to have provided Miller last year. Well, the New York Times greatly expands our knowledge of that dispute and even prints actual copies of the dueling letters between counsel. I found the letter from Floyd Abrams particularly interesting to read. Based on some of the other posts I've seen around the blogosphere, I may be in the minority on this one, but I find Abrams version of events more plausible than Tate's (Libby's attorney). It may well be that Libby had no objection to Miller testifying and did not think that he was the reason she was in jail. Nevertheless, if Abrams is telling the truth about his call with Libby's attorney last year, I completely understand why he and Miller did not think they had been provided with a free and voluntary waiver. Moreover, I don't think I buy Libby's assertion that he had no idea that he was the reason Miller was refusing to testify. After all, as Abrams points out in his letter, Miller had stated publicly on multiple occasions that she did not feel she had received a voluntary waiver from her source. And Libby was receiving public pressure from commentators and politicians to provide Miller with the waiver she required. You would think, given those facts, that if Libby really wanted Miller to testify, his attorney would have at least tried to confirm with Miller that her refusal to testify had nothing to do with him. In light of all that, I think Libby was being, at the very least, willfully ignorant about the reasons behind Miller's continued incarceration. His actions do not seem to be those of someone who affirmatively wanted Miller to testify.
So how do things look for Libby, given what we know now? At this point, my hunch is that an indictment is unlikely (at least for Libby). But let's not lose sight of some important facts. At the very least, Libby (like Rove) identified a CIA employee to a reporter. That may or may not be a crime, but it's certainly reckless and ill-advised. Even if Libby did not know that "Wilson's wife" was an undercover operative, he should have had sense enough to check on her status before revealing anything about her to reporters. For someone in Libby's position, such behavior is inexcusable and is certainly a firing offense. And is the White House ever going to be held accountable for it's unequivocal denial that Libby and Rove were involved in this affair? As we now know, they were both right at the heart of it.
Finally, as others have noted, there is an important piece of the puzzle that is still missing. The Times has reported that Libby was not a source for Bob Novak, and we already know that Rove was only a confirming source for Novak. Therefore, there must be a third leaker. This mysterious administration official may well have been Walter Pincus' source as well. I think the most likely suspects are John Bolton's former chief of staff Fred Fleitz, former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Any other suggestions?
posted by A.L. at 11:08 PM
1 Comments:
Not sure how accurate this is...but what is anymore? I've read that Colin Powell was Walter Pincus's source. I have to disagree with you though, I'm not so sure Libby will come out unscathed based on Miller's testimony alone.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home