Miller

JUDY MILLER

The indictment counts –32and 33-- relating to Judy Miller do not charge perjury or false statements—only obstruction:

In the indictment Fitzgerald asserts that Libby claimed: "32(c) LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true."(I have no recollection of the prosecution asking her this today.) and that "On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA"

(If I recall today’s proceedings accurately,Miller testified that Libby said Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau, and she after some puzzlement took that to be a section of the CIA) and that" On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; "

and that

"33(c) LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;"

(I don’t recall this being asked on direct today)

Rory O’Connor has accurately described the direct testimony here: http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/?p=223

And the cross examination here: http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/?p=224

Miller had obviously prepped her testimony today with the prosecution and it was a startlingly different account than the "bafflegab" testimony earlier reported in pleadings and in her various accounts of that testimony. Like some other witnesses her memory is spotty on some critical issues, but like fine wine markedly has improved with age on others.

In the court’s media room where she is not a favorite her lapses inspired some snickers and Rory documents the more serious memory failures. Much of the afternoon was taken up with a dispute relating to the promise the prosecutor gave her when she agreed to testify that she would not have to name other sources. In the dispute leading up to her agreement to testify before the grand jury she filed an affidavit saying she had other sources besides Libby and had promised confidentiality to "one or more of them." When she agreed to testify after serving time in jail for contempt, Fitzgerald promised her that she would not have to name those other sources. Today she confirmed in her testimony that she did have other sources, that she was investigating the Wilson story before the Novak story was published and she confirmed that she had Wilson’s name, phone number and his extension in the steno book with the June 23 notes of the meeting, and that that information was there before her meeting with Libby.

At the grand jury, after being promised she wouldn’t have to name those sources, Fitzgerald asked her if she remembered those sources and she said she didn’t.

Today, the defense tried to explore the same matter with her—for impeachment purposes they said. Her attorney, Bob Bennett joined the prosecution and defense counsel in a long bench conference followed by further debate outside the jury’s presence and proffered as an officer of the court that his client has no recollection of who those sources are..

I have always considered the prosecution offer one which might well collide with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The question, defense argues, is smaller. They want simply to put on the record that despite the affidavit, despite the long time in jail until she got that promise, she doesn’t

even know who the sources are, according to a proffer by her lawyer. The defense wants her to say that under oath. Will the court permit it? We should find out tomorrow. The judge wants to sleep on it.

Tom Maguire offers his pithy analysis on the judge’s dilemma:

[quote] Miller is being asked about other sources and claims she does not remember them. The defense wants to argue this:

1. IF she honestly to god has forgotten, then how credible is her memory of the Libby conversations?

2. IF she remembers but has claimed bad memory because she doesn't want to say, then Libby is losing a chance to confront a key witness - as noted, her sources might include Powell, Armitage, Wilson, Rove... who knows, except maybe Judy?

SO - Walton wants to avoid Judy staging a First Amendment meltdown; he also wants to avoid having Libby's people win an easy appeal.

And his choices seem to be:

1. Disallow the question - Libby will squawk;

2. Allow the question, threaten her with contempt -

Fitzgerald will squawk, because he sees this freight train coming - she will insist her memory has failed, and advise him to put an egg in his shoe and beat it.

3. Some middle ground - She can assure the court she remembers sources, but won't have to name them. This has the added benefit of assuring Walton a permanent gig on Comedy Central - c'mon, how is the Libby team supposed to refute that?

I welcome suggestions here

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/david_gregory_w.html#comment-28483229

Comments

[Melinda Romanoff]

Bookmarked.