Plamegate: Judy's Story

Well, the big news of the day was that the New York Times finally published two articles providing long-awaited details about Judith Miller's role in the CIA leak investigation. The first article tells Miller's story from the perspective of three Times reporters trying to piece the facts together by talking to everyone involved, including Miller herself. The second article is Miller's own first hand account. Both are fascinating to read and are filled with enough new details to keep commentators and bloggers busy for days. There's no way I can address all the new information in one post, but here are a few of my initial reactions.

Miller's testimony did NOT help Libby

The articles describe at least two incidents that might form the bases for obstruction of justice charges against Libby. The first is the apparent attempt by Libby in 2004 (through his attorney Joseph Tate) to discourage Miller from testifying (or least from testifying in a way inconsistent with Libby's own testimony).

According to Ms. Miller, this was what
Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation
with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what
you would say. When I wouldn't give him an
assurance that you would exonerate Libby,
if you were to cooperate, he then immediately
gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want
you there.' "

Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion,
Mr. Tate asked me for a recitation of what
Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one."

If this account is true, Tate might need a lawyer himself. The second basis for an obstruction charge is the jailhouse letter that Libby sent to Miller. Describing her testimony, Miller writes:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three
paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. "The
public report of every other reporter's
testimony makes clear that they did not
discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me,"
Mr. Libby wrote. The prosecutor asked my
reaction to those words. I replied that this
portion of the letter had surprised me
because it might be perceived as an effort by
Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say
we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity.
Yet my notes suggested that we had
discussed her job.

Apparently both Fitzgerald and Miller had the same reaction to this passage that most bloggers did, believing that it was a not-so-subtle attempt to influence Miller's testimony. The fact that Fitzgerald is even asking about this letter is a terrible sign for Libby.

Additionally, the fact that Miller testified about an obviously material conversation that Libby apparently never mentioned in his two FBI interviews or his two grand jury appearances, clearly exposes Libby to potential perjury and false statements charges.

As for potential Espionage Act or IIPA charges, Miller's testimony appears to be a mixed bag for Libby. She does not offer any smoking gun. From her account, it is unclear how Libby first learned about Plame or whether he knew that her identity was classified. On the other hand, as I mentioned before, the mere fact that Libby discussed Plame (even if not by name) in June 2003 could be a big problem for him. If, for instance, Libby's story is that he first learned about Plame from talking to Tim Russert in July (which the Washington Post has previously reported), then Miller's testimony completely undermines Libby's defense.

Miller is still not being entirely candid

Neither article provides any clue why Miller had to make a return appearance to the grand jury or any information about the sudden "discovery" of her notes about the June conversation. This is important information. Did Miller mislead the grand jury in her first appearance? Who discovered the notes? The first article gives us the following clue as to why these important questions have not yet been answered:

In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would
not discuss her interactions with editors,
elaborate on the written account of her grand
jury testimony or allow reporters to review her
notes.

In other words, Miller is not being cooperative with her own paper. Perhaps it's because the answers to these questions will only embarrass her.

Miller's memory lapse is difficult to believe

Miller writes:

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry
in my notebook, where I had written the
words "Valerie Flame," clearly a reference to
Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know
whether the entry was based on my
conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't
think so. I said I believed the information
came from another source, whom I could
not recall. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could
recall discussing the Wilson-Plame
connection with other sources. I said I had,
though I could not recall any by name or
when those conversations occurred.

I find this very hard to believe. Just weeks after these conversations took place, everyone in Washington was aware of the significance of Valerie Plame. It was all over the news. Surely at that point, Miller would have thought long and hard about how and when she first heard about Plame and who she spoke with about her. Those conversations should be seared into her memory. How is it that all the key players in this affair have such selective amnesia?

Cheney is a subject of Fitzgerald's investigation

Miller writes:

Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked
me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked,
for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated
whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his
interviews with me or was aware of them.
The answer was no.

While Miller's testimony apparently did not implicate Cheney, the fact that Fitzgerald was even asking these questions is noteworthy. He is clearly investigating whether or not Cheney himself was behind the leaking of Plame's identity.

Well, that's all I've got for tonight. I promise there will be more in the days to come.