More on Miller's Mousetrap
Today's Washington Post article ends with the following account of Judith Miller's experience before the grand jury:
I find it totally inconceivable that Miller simply "forgot" about her June meeting with Libby. She had 85 days in jail to think about her testimony and to review her notes. Yet somehow she "forgot" about THE most important conversation she had with Libby, i.e., the one in which she first learned about Wilson's wife? Please. If the above account is accurate, there is only one logical explanation: Miller did not think Fitzgerald knew about the June conversation, and she had no intention of volunteering that information, even if that required misleading a federal grand jury. I suspect that she knew, based on his letter and his leaked testimony, that Libby had not mentioned the June conversation in his testimony. I think she took to heart his message about Aspens turning in clusters. Only after she realized that Fitzgerald knew about the meeting did she finally fess up. If the Times can verify this account, they should terminate Miller's employment immediately.
Miller testified, and Fitzgerald prepared to
wrap up his inquiry, but not without a
final surprise.
A lawyer familiar with Miller's grand jury
testimony said the special counsel asked her
to discuss all relevant conversations she had
with Libby before Novak published Plame's
name. When Miller detailed two July 2003
discussions and said she could not remember
any others, Fitzgerald begged to differ.
He showed her a page from a White House
logbook that recorded a June 23 visit by Miller
to Libby at the Old Executive Office Building.
Miller corrected herself and soon produced for
the grand jury her notes from that meeting.
Soon after, Fitzgerald called it a day.
I find it totally inconceivable that Miller simply "forgot" about her June meeting with Libby. She had 85 days in jail to think about her testimony and to review her notes. Yet somehow she "forgot" about THE most important conversation she had with Libby, i.e., the one in which she first learned about Wilson's wife? Please. If the above account is accurate, there is only one logical explanation: Miller did not think Fitzgerald knew about the June conversation, and she had no intention of volunteering that information, even if that required misleading a federal grand jury. I suspect that she knew, based on his letter and his leaked testimony, that Libby had not mentioned the June conversation in his testimony. I think she took to heart his message about Aspens turning in clusters. Only after she realized that Fitzgerald knew about the meeting did she finally fess up. If the Times can verify this account, they should terminate Miller's employment immediately.
posted by A.L. at 12:26 AM
2 Comments:
I am in roughly 99% agreement - she could not have forgotten that meeting, and it should have been obvious to her from her subpoena (and Libby's letter) that Fitzgerald did not know about it.
However - I am unwavering on the point that Fitzgerald did not know for sure that she had a "relevant" talk with Libby, regardless of how many outlets this "lawyer familiar" finds for his story (we have Waas, thr AP, and now this).
And this story contains a bit of auto-rebuttal:
...the special counsel asked her
to discuss all relevant conversations she had
with Libby before Novak published Plame's
name...
He showed her a page from a White House
logbook that recorded a June 23 visit by Miller
to Libby at the Old Executive Office Building.
OK - did she sign in as "Judy Miller, here to talk with Lewis Libby about Joe Wilson and his wife"? I doubt it.
So even if Fitzgerald knew she had signed in to see Libby (she may have signed in to see someone else), it seems far-fetched that a sign-in log would prove to him that the conversation was relevant.
Now, maybe (almost certainly) Libby stonewalled it (the word "relevant" appears in Fitzgerald's letter to Libby), which is very bad for him.
But Miller could easily have started with, "I wouldn't remember unless I checked my notes", and backed down from there.
And a sidebar - the Times can't get her Grand Jury testimony, so how can it be the basis for a dismissal?
Tom Maguire
That's a good point, Tom. The Times may never have any definitive proof that Miller attempted to mislead the grand jury. One possibility, though, is that if Libby is indicted for obstruction, Miller's experience before the grand jury might be trotted out by Fitzgerald as evidence of witness tampering on Libby's part. If so, Fitzgerald may describe Miller's testimony in Libby's indictment.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home