BUT JUDITH MILLER WILL WIN AN ALL TIME PRIZE for chutzpah and the NEW YORK TIMES will lose more and more of its prized reputation the longer it sticks with a woman who mixes her roles like cocktails in a dive bar.
JUDY WILL NOT GET THE BEAUTY PRIZE in this ugly affair and she will not get the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF JOURNALISTS AND AUTHORS commendation in the form of it CONSCIENCE PRIZE either. The decision to give Miller that prize was unanimously overturned by a jury of her peers. Her unconscionable “journalistic” conduct with government official Scooter Libby would tarnish the prize. Golden opportunity to get to bottom of Plame affair and Miller covering golden contacts equals no gold prize fro for self annointed gold standard “reporter” Miller.
AND SCOOTER? How do you get a nickname like Scooter? When your middle name is Lewis and your first initial is I. I Lewis Scooter Libby can’s scoot away from attention anymore, but . . . SCOOTER MAY PEEL ON OUT to jail. I. LEWIS LIBBY and Judith Miller had a chat on July 8, 2003 that is at the center of special prosecutor PATRICK FITZGERALD’S investigation into who outed VALERIE PLAME. The New York Times continues to insist this is a tale of journalistic integrity. Miller simply cannot testify at all about a source. No, Miller cannot testify about a source without a waiver from the source. No, the waiver cannot be general, it must be a personal waiver. The waiver must be personal, but it must also be freely given.
WHAT IS A GIVEN HERE is that when caught, people come up with whatever plausible excuses they can for not cooperating. The Times and Miller are engaging in the same disconnected from reality behavior that George Bush is when he says he wants to get to the bottom of this.
WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT do we have when he can’t even get people who work for him to do what he says? Or maybe the precise point is to do what he doesn’t say. More smoke and mirrors. More black is white from the people who brought you moral clarity and an elevated moral tone in DC. Oy.
[TALK LEFT] I think that's the crucial question at this point. Why would Miller and
Libby meet in person unless it was to do something they couldn't do
over the phone - like review a document. What we don't know is whether
Miller showed Libby a document she received from another source or
whether Libby showed Miller a document. Libby has testified and thus
provided his version to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald needs to question Miller
to determine whether Libby told the truth.
[EDITOR AND PUBLISHER] Anita Bartholomew, a freelance journalist who has contributed to Reader's Digest, wrote in a resignation letter, "The First Amendment is designed to prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a government official or officials who attempted to use the press to retaliate against a whistleblower, and scare off other would-be whistleblowers, has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistleblowers. When your source IS the government, and the government is attempting to use you to target a whistleblower, the notion of shielding a source must be reconsidered. To apply standard practices regarding sources to hiding wrongdoing at the highest levels of government perverts the intent of the First Amendment.”
[OLD CRANKY/DISENCHANTED FOREST] By shrouding herself in a faux veil of journalistic integrity by failing to testify and/or turn over documentation regarding those in the administration who continue to put political protection and cronyism above national security, Judy Miller remains complicit in the unethical and potentially criminal behavior of those she is protecting.
[MURRAY WAAS/AMERICAN PROSPECT]It is also unclear whether Miller would testify to Fitzgerald's grand jury even if she were to receive such a personalized waiver from Libby. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams, said in an interview: "Judith Miller is in jail and at continued jeopardy. ... I have no comment about what she might do in circumstances that do not now exist." But numerous people involved in the case said in interviews for this story that a personalized waiver for Miller by Libby could potentially pave the way for Miller's release. Miller's testimony, in turn, might be crucial to a determination as to whether anyone might be criminally charged, and even to a potential end to the criminal investigation.