Judith Miller headed for the Grey Bar hotel

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:46 am

or will she say the Supremes made me do it. <img src="http://www.cursor.org.nyud.net:8090/images/iheartchalabi.jpg" style="border:0;"/> AP: Supreme Court Won't Hear CIA Leak Case <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700405_pf.html" target="top">www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700405_pf.html</a> A step closer to treason, espionage?

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:32 pm

I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state AND media and state, even though the media has become a mouth of the state. I believe that going after Miller and Cooper is wrong, even though I don't like what Miller has to say. This is a travesty. I have no respect left for the supreme court (lower case is deliberate).

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:13 pm

BIG FISH ..... Fitzgerald needs the testimony of Cooper and Miller not as direct evidence against the leaker himself, but as the final link in proof of a larger coverup of the crime. (For recent overviews see here and here.) Bush Administration A number of journalists at this point have testified as to the administration officials that spread the Plame leak to them, including the Washington Post's Walter Pincus. But at this point, the number of administration officials involved in the case would appear to extend far beyond that of the original Novak leaker or leakers. (In addition, Novak himself has changed his story multiple times -- first citing a CIA source in his conversation with Wilson, then citing two "senior administration officials" in his subsequent column -- as well as changing his story as to how and why he was given the information by those officials. In short, Novak has probably given testimony to Fitzgerald, but that testimony is probably deeply suspect.) If the testimony of other interviewed reporters and administration officials conflicts, there would certainly be a solid basis for a more encompassing obstruction investigation -- and that appears to be what is taking place. One of the most credible working theories is that a midlevel administration official involved with the Niger uranium claims was the one who "broke" Plame's undercover status, after a retaliatory investigation of her husband. That official then shopped the leak widely inside the White House as personal retaliation against Wilson, distributing the information to more senior individuals that may or may not have had clearance for such highly classified information, but who in any event would have had little credible "need to know" justification. Those multiple figures, including apparently senior administration officials, then moved the information to reporters via the usual press contacts -- perhaps knowing the leak itself was a crime, or (dubiously) not. Certainly, reporting indicates, Fitzgerald has been able to confirm the involvement of multiple White House personnel in a coordinated effort to push the story to reporters -- and yet, incredulously, none of these administration officials have been able to tell Fitzgerald where they themselves obtained this classified information -- or, if they have, Fitzgerald has obtained significant evidence suggesting investigators should not believe them. If this is indeed the case, and as commonly reported the Special Counsel has moved from the original crime into a investigation of a wider after-the-fact administration coverup, Fitzgerald likely needs Cooper and Miller to narrowly testify towards establishing that the particular administration officials they spoke too did indeed speak to Plame's covert status before it was widely known -- classified information relegated to a narrow set of people, and presumably not something they would ordinarily have clearance towards, and presumably something they only could have received from someone with access to that information. Presuming Fitzgerald indeed has contradictory testimony from the players in question, which is a very safe bet, this in turn would fundamentally prove that these officials had lied to investigators about where they obtained the information from, in an effort to protect the original (criminal) leaker. And that coverup would be an indictable offense. It would be an offense remarkably similar to the original Watergate coverup, in fact. And, intriguingly, may involve some of the same players. <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/16318/8942" target="top">www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/16318/8942</a> A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case: Insights Gained From The New Edition of The Book by Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson By JOHN W. DEAN ---- Friday, May. 20, 2005 The grand jury investigation into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity still has not led to the public revelation of any suspect who might be responsible for the leak. Yet according to columnist Robert Novak, who published the leaked information, the suspects are two "senior" Bush Administration sources - who may be high-profile. A number of reporters have already voluntarily testified before the grand jury. But New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Mathew Cooper are not among them. In a recent column, I explained why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did not protect Miller and Cooper's ability to hide their sources - and why I believe the U.S. Supreme Court is very unlikely to step in. Someday soon, then, the grand jury is very likely to hear from Miller and Cooper - or else Miller and Cooper will opt for jail. But beneath these legal issues, lies a mystery: Why has the investigation's focus fallen on them, in particular? Miller never wrote about the leak of Plame's identity; Cooper wrote about it well after Novak had included the leaked information in his column. So these two would seem peripheral - but plainly, they are central. Why? U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan's opinion in the case gives one clue. In discussing the sealed affidavit filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge Hogan noted that "the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation" and "now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation." Though vague, these references are also significant. The newly released paperback edition of the book by Plame's husband - former Ambassador Joseph Wilson - entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Put the White House on Trial and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity, helps explain what Judge Hogan may have been getting at, and what that sealed affidavit may say. The World Of Fog Facts: Interpreting the Public Information on the Plame Leak more http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html Joe Wilson Responds to Supreme Court Decision by SusanG Mon Jun 27th, 2005 at 08:46:53 PDT In response to the Supreme Court's decision today to decline to hear the appeals of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper in regards to who in the Bush administration leaked Valerie Wilson's name to reporters, Ambassador Joseph Wilson responds: That two reporters may now have to go to jail is a direct consequence of President Bush's refusal to hold his administration accountable for the compromise of the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Wilson. Had he enforced his edict that all members of his administration cooperate fully with the Justice Department investigation, we would not be where we are today. Equally, some senior administration officials who spoke to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller today cravenly stand by while the two journalists face jail time because of a conversation they had with them. It is an act of extraordinary cowardice that those officials not step forward to accept responsibility for their actions. <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/114653/692" target="top">www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/27/114653/692 </a>  Each time the White House officials told a journalist about Plame, it is a criminal offense. They told six or seven journalists; there are therefore six or seven potential counts. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seemslikeadream@rigorousintuition>seemslikeadream</A> at: 6/27/05 7:39 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:52 am

I'm trying to sort through all the information. Seems to me that the reporters fall into two categories--witnesses of or perpetrators of a crime. Unless he is successful in proving otherwise, Novak outed Plame, which to me looks like a violation of the law. I have no problem making him reveal his information. Miller and Cooper seem to be witnesses who can provide further information to make a stronger case for the prosecution, with which I do have a problem. The only gray area would be if reporters knew before the fact (knew someone was attempting to reveal or was planning to reveal) that Plame was being outed, knew it, and failed to report, which would make each and every one of those a conspirator to the crime. Doesn't that fall into the same category that mental health therapists belong, who are mandated (in most states?) to report a client who has indicated he/she is planning to harm another person? Still doesn't feel right. These conditions would require reporters to become tattle-tales. I suppose the qualifier would be whether a person's life would be at imminent risk, which would look to be the case here. Just mulling here, and I am certainly no legal expert. I will have to think on this some more.

by **seemslikeadream** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:14 am

<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt" target="top">news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt</a> By PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writer NEW YORK - Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name. U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and Judith Miller of The New York Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time. In a statement, Time said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society." But it also said that despite its concerns, it will turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak. "The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity," the statement said. The New York Times was preparing a statement, said spokeswoman Catherine Mathis. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan agreed to hold a hearing next week to consider arguments against jailing the two. But he expressed skepticism that any new arguments would change his mind. "It's curiouser and curiouser; I don't understand" why the reporters are asking for more time, Hogan said. "It seems to me the time has come. Much more delay and we will be at the end of the grand jury." Time magazine's lawyers had revealed Wednesday that the company was considering turning over the documents sought by the grand jury, a step that Cooper said he hoped the magazine did not take. Fitzgerald said that the documents are Cooper's notes of his interviews. "On balance, I think I'd prefer they not turn over the documents but Time can make that decision for itself," Cooper said outside the courthouse. Meanwhile, columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to identify CIA officer Valerie Plame in print, told CNN he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved, adding that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists. Novak, who has not been held in contempt, has not commented on his involvement in the grand jury leak investigation. Cooper wrote a story subsequently about Plame. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, has been investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity days after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly undercut the president's rationale for invading Iraq. Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing Time magazine, told the judge Wednesday, "We don't want to reargue this case." The magazine hopes to "avoid this crisis and journalists going to jail," Boutrous added. Robert Bennett, representing Miller, told the judge in asking for more time that "it's a big step to put two people in jail who have committed no crimes." After Hogan held Miller, Cooper and the magazine in contempt, an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. It was that appeals court decision upheld Monday without comment by the Supreme Court.

by **gwbushmalecheerleader** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:55 pm

I'd agree with everything you've stated, except for this detail: The right of a reporter to shield his source is vital, I agree. However, in a case where disclosing the identity of a field operative, that results in the collapse of years of investigation into terrorists obtaining WMD's (real ones, not her buddy Chalabi's pretend ones) and the death of local agents, I think the law should allow the door to remain open enough to see if EVIL INTENT was a motive. Don't you? Maybe I'm wrong here, not thinking it all the way through, but if it starts with an evil intention of Rove's for revenge on Wilson, and Judith collaborates, should evil be shielded by law? I would draw the line at using torture to get her to disclose the source, personally. But jail? Works for me. Call it Karma for 1700.

by **gwbushmalecheerleader** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:21 am

From "Bad Attitudes" blog: June 27, 2005 No Immunity For Criminals So the Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases involving Judith Miller and Matt Cooper. And this has sent editors and journalists around the country into a tizzy. Here’s one such response from The Washington Monthly. Back when I was a working investigative journalist, the rules governing source confidentiality were made quite clear. You could protect your sources UNLESS they were involved in committing a crime and your protecting them furthered the commission of the crime or of future crimes. The example given to me was that I could protect the bank vice president who told me about the bank president laundering money for a drug ring. I COULD NOT protect the money-laundering bank president if he was giving me inside info on how money laundering works. It seems to me that Miller, Cooper, Novakula and the rest who are intimately involved in Plamegate are actually furthering the commission of a federal crime (leaking Plame’s identity) by not revealing their source(s). No self-respecting editor or journalist should countenance this. That these people just happen to be journalists (and we use that term very, very loosely here) makes no difference: Their actions make them part of a criminal conspiracy — one that had and has a very big and direct impact on the security of the United States. To say they should get off free is an insult to real journalists who have risked their lives to uncover wrongdoing by our government. That editors and journalists cannot see the distinction is a tragedy. Posted by Moe Blues at 04:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) For what it is worth, I'd agree with this sentiment, this interpretation of protected sources.

by **seemslikeadream** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:21 pm

<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/3/17138/30618" target="top">www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/3/17138/30618</a> (snip) Fitzgerald has long been criticized for going after Miller, who, after all, never wrote a story about the Plame affair. I always assumed, as did others I'm sure, that Miller filed a story, but that the Times declined to run it (after all, outing a CIA agent for no good reason is generally frowned upon by the media, especially when the outing is being done by administration officials in the furtherance of a political agenda). Like every one else I assumed Fitzgerald was after Miller's sources. The new element in this to me is that Miller apparently had some contact with someone at the White House on or about July 6, 2003, the day Joe Wilson's op-ed piece appeared in the New York Times revealing that he had investigated the yellow-cake rumors for the CIA and found them to be untrue. We also know from recent news stories that the Times is not in a position to do what Time, Inc. did relative to Cooper, namely turn over its (Miller's) reporter's notes. That is because the Times says they do not have Miller's notes. To me that suggests that Miller never filed a story after all. Surely if she did she would have had to supply background and documentation to her editors if the story were to be considered for publication. So if Miller never filed a story, just what role did she play in this affair? Why was she in contact with an unnamed "government official" regarding this story on or about July 6th? The Downing Street Memos and Minutes prove what we really knew all along: that the White House was "fixing" the intelligence in order to justify going to war with Saddam. The major element of that fix was a pr campaign to convince the public that Saddam had a major WMD program. More than any one else, Judith Miller was the primary instrument of that pr campaign, landing story after story prominently in the pages of the New York Times (often on Page One) seeming to make the case for the Bush administration that Saddam was a genuine threat. We know, thanks to leaked e-mails revealed by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post, that one of her primary sources was Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, darling of the Neocons who merited the coveted seat next to Laura Bush at the 2004 State of the Union address. So if Miller did not file a story but was in touch with a "government official," presumably in the White House, when the Plame story was being leaked, just what was her role? Did she aid and abet the White House in getting this story into print? One thing we know for certain is that Karl Rove told MSNBC's Chris Matthews immediately after Robert Novak broke the Plame story that Valerie Plame was "fair game." While that conversation, revealed by Matthews and never denied by Rove, does not prove Rove was involved in the leak, it certainly proves he was in the loop. (more)

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:20 pm

So, this might mean that Miller is the go-between leaker? Oh, my! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:23 pm

Seems to me the Times had better find out, if it wants to maintain any crumb of credibility.

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:00 am

Judith Miller and New York Times reporter Philip Shenon are also under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, for tipping off an Islamic charity, the Global Relief Foundation to a Dec. 14, 2001 FBI raid its office. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Judith_Miller" target="top">www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Judith_Miller</a> US Reporter Charged With Terror Tip-Off September 29, 2004 — The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents. The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court. The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak. The Times last night flatly denied the allegation. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act. “It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times,” Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times’ legal department. <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040929-092447-8153r.htm" target="top">washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040929-092447-8153r.htm</a> <a href="http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12880_Feds-_Times_Reporters_Tipped_Off_Terror_Charity" target="top">www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12880_Feds-_Times_Reporters_Tipped_Off_Terror_Charity</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Judith+Miller%22+%22Global+Relief+Foundation%22+%22tipping+off%22&btnG=Suche&meta=" target="top">www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Judith+Miller%22+%22Global+Relief+Foundation%22+%22tipping+off%22&btnG=Suche&meta=</a> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4014006&mesg_id=4014227 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4012907

by **rain** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:35 am

interesting guy, Fitzgerald. <a href="http://www.rense.com/general63/gan5.htm.">www.rense.com/general63/gan5.htm.</a> and there's mention of that hospital again.

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:49 am

rain that link is not working, am interested in reading it, thanks SLaD

by **rain** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:02 pm

if that link is dead try - <a href="http://www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html">www.rense.com/Datapages/s...apage.html</a> - Gannon Cannon. particularly, pt.5.

by **rain** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:50 pm

seemslikeadeream, likewise, would like to read your thoughts on this. is it damage control, or dare we even hope that someone actually has the audacity to grab the beast by the tail. can't help but be curious as to what the ruckus over Edgewater was about. does this little linch-pin ring a bell for people like Kathleen? oh well, it's nearly wednesday.