Judith Miller’s release came after she received “a personal and voluntary waiver directly from her source encouraging her to provide evidence” in the case, the source said.
Miller reached an agreement with the special prosecutor handling the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, on the scope of her testimony, the source said. It was unclear when she might might testify before the grand jury.
Fitzgerald is investigating the revelation of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity, which was published by syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Robert Novak in July 2003.
Novak’s column came days after Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly questioned part of President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.
The Philadelphia Inquirer [subscription] says she will name Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, as her source for the leak. If so, he violated federal law. Anyone taking bets on whether or not he’s indicted?
I want in on the bet. Any Odds?
Either way my money is on : NO
You still think it’s a violation of law? It all depends on how he got the information, and what exactly he knew.
So why is Miller talking now, when the grand jury’s going to be shhut down soon? Was she just staying quiet so everyone would think Rove was ehr source? Libby claims he gave Miller a personal waiver a year ago.
Here’s my guess about this mess. The White House wants to move on and start-up social security ‘reform’ and ‘death tax’ repeal for its rich corporate patrons. Rove’s manipulation of the media in this CIA woman case is still hanging over them, and Bush will not give over Rove.
‘Scooter’ Libby is expendable and has agreed to fall on his sword and be the fall guy.
He probably will be indicted, and become an instant martyr on Fox News, write a big book explaining how the President needs despotic powers, go on a big book tour, and (in any event) have his retirement needs supplied by a bunch of oil-bidness folks and others in the ‘political-donor’ class.
“It’s good to be free,” Miller said.
In other words jail sucks.
Is this a real surprise? I suspected the Cheney side of the house was involved all along.
ABCD – You can look at this from a “Law” perspective or you can look at it from an ethical perspective. Even if a law was not broken, the fact is that not only a undercover operative was revealed, but that the whole infrastructure behind her (the cover company) was also indirectly disclosed.
There are two guilty parties here… the people that either deliberately or accidentally revealed the information, and the reporter that published it for no valuable reason. The people that revealed the information should be fired for the mistake, and the reporters that initially published it should be investigated for treason to the US.
Why multiple sources? Because it was a concerted and coordinated effort, made to multiple reporters by different sources, under orders from someone at the top. Cheney probably gave the instructions… but Bush possibly (probably?) knew and approved of the actions. We are talking about TREASON at the highest levels, for purely personal and political reasons. The way that they did It may not be against the law (hence unimpeachable) but they should become political pariahs of this evolves as I suspect.
The hypocresy of the top two in command is beyond belief.
I vote for a medal of freedom.
Check out the Washington Post article. Miller agreed to testify after the prosecutor agreed to only ask about Libby, who got his information perhaps from Matthew Cooper. Fitzgerald won’t ask about Judy’s second source.
I think the ethics of those who defend the “outing” are as questionable as those who did it. I care not a whit for CIA spooks; but, the outing of an agent — who was, in fact, NOT functioning as a public representative for the CIA — regardless of whichever neo-con-artist website denies that — results in every government in the world now being able to check back and see who in their nation, their government, their business structure, was cozy with that agent.
There are citizens around the world friendly to the United States who will lose political power, influence and, perhaps, their lives — because some petty political pimp felt he had to do whatever he could to back his boss.
Paul Theodoropoulos,
You need to do some fact checking yourself. She was working in a civilian job that was, of course, not aware she was an undercover CIA agent. It came as quite a surprise to everyone who was around her, and now that her cover is gone, she can never work as a CIA undercover agent again.
I find it very interesting that the White House that got into office based on National Security could so quickly violate National Security.
–Monty
Awake, you seem awfully sure of the facts. By your logic Wilson should be thrown in jail because his column in the New York Times led to his wife’s cover being blown. If the facts are as you claim, then it’s not a matter of ethics but law. In this case if it’s not illegal then it’s not unethical. If the people involved didn’t know she was an undercover operative, then they couldn’t have been motivated by political payback. If Scooter Libby tells Judy Miller that John Dvorak works for PC Magazine, that doesn’t hurt his career. As far as the reporters, you are again assuming facts that aren’t there, though the media has always been in love with outing the CIA, such as an article about a company airline that happened last year.
>> the facts, as already revealed, prove that ms. plame was *not* an undercover CIA operative at the time she was ‘outed’.
Paul,
Where do you get your “facts”? I’ve never seen that aspect of this case challenged by any legitimate reporter or expert and I’ve followed this fairly closely.
Possibly you heard it from Limbaugh or his ilk. Don’t ever ever trust what those guys say!
Greg, she hasn’t been undercover in years. If she had been then presumably Wilson’s article in the NYT outed her as foreign agencies would have her name as the wife of a CIA worker. If she uses other names overseas, then it is her Vanity Fair picture which blew her cover, not a reporter’s repeating her unused name.
What is Savage telling you people? Especially YOU Martin!
Of the CIA people I’ve known, only the office clerks will tell you. The problem with the “outing” is the way it was presented, the words. The word was OPERATIVE. That doesn’t mean a typist, a clerk, or a copy machine operator.
She was MOST LIKELY NOT an office clerk as, obviously Savage and the talking heads are claiming. However, her COVER (although a weak one, I must admit, the D&B information was flimsy) was as a cler, an analyst, whatever. (Sheesh, people, use your brains, and read instead of just parroting what some idiot says.)
My source here, will be Wikipedia, which is about as neutral as I can find…it’s written by “both sides” of the party line.
“Little is known of Plame’s professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an “energy analyst” for the private company “Brewster Jennings & Associates,” which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. “Brewster Jennings” was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a “legal services office,” located at 101 Arch Street. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
Now….given that IF SHE WERE just an office clerk, then why would she be described as an “operative”? It is the choice of words that is damming. As a journalist this is odd…especially since editors will ask about such wording, or should. This must be what the source said, because I can’t think of any reference to ANY news article that would use CIA and OPERATIVE in an article ..willy-nilly. Just for the fun of it, or not understanding. The definition of operative: secret agent: a person secretly employed in espionage for a government.
Given that even if this woman WERE an office clerk …the reporter should be FIRED for making such an outlandish error. As it is, if it were true in the present or the past, it will limit the future actions of this said “operative”.
Bush and his cronies are not looking out for anyone’s best interests but their own. Wake up, Savage Nation. Savage is a bile filled bag of hot air who preys on people looking for easy answers and talking points. WAKE UP. You have minds, use them!
Two days after Wilson made public his findings about the fallacy of the “yellow cake” in Niger, up to six reporters were contacted by officials in high places to accidentally ‘out’ his wife. Two days later! Up to six ‘accidental revelations’ by different people to different people at the same time!
This was a well coordinated attack, not just against Wilson and his wife, but on government employee perception. What was done was to send a message that said “Watch what you say, because we can hurt those around you.” It was a threat to every single person that might have something to say that disagreed with the White House.
But the White House, as always, made a dumb choice: in the end the action that they took may be judged as treason.
Make no mistake, this symbolic ‘breaking of fingers’ – mafia style – goes all the way to the top ranks. It may stop at Cheney, since Bush is too out of the loop to be included in anything, but it goes way up there.
2 days – six leaks on the same subject. Anyone that believes this was not intentional is just plain dumb.
Awake, again your facts lead to the wrong conclusion. IF the people involved didn’t know she was a secret operative, then there is not threat. The real message was to the journalists was: don’t believe this guy, he just got the gig because of his wife, and the story is going nowhere.
Meetsy, Bob Novak has explained his use of the word operative was not meant with the connotation you provide.
It’s possible Fitzgerald is looking into the real story: whether there was a conspiracy to lie about weapons in Iraq. It’s known that people were talking to some reporters about Wilson even before his column was written.