Hardened criminal Judith Miller finally put in jail

[CitizenDan]

Judge jails N.Y. Times writer for refusing to name source

- Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, July 7, 2005

Washington -- A New York Times reporter was jailed Wednesday for refusing to submit to questioning by a special prosecutor investigating possible wrongdoing by the Bush administration, but a Time magazine reporter avoided jail at the last minute by agreeing to cooperate with the government.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Judith Miller, 57, imprisoned until she agrees to testify in an investigation into the illegal revealing of a CIA operative. The judge declared that the rights of journalists to gather news and protect confidential sources must occasionally yield to the power of prosecutors to demand testimony and investigate suspected crimes.

In the closely watched test of press freedoms, Miller's attorneys had contended that the reporter, who once shared a Pulitzer Prize, should not be sent to jail, because she was exercising her rights under the First Amendment. Hogan, however, said journalists have no greater rights than other citizens when called upon to testify in federal proceedings.

Hogan's order was the culmination of an emotional court hearing in which the fates of the two journalists took dramatically different turns. While Miller braced for jail, Time reporter Matthew Cooper surprised the court by announcing that he would agree to testify.

Both had been held in civil contempt of court by Hogan for their refusal to identify sources in their reporting on the possibly illegal disclosure of the identity of a CIA agent by a Bush administration official.

Cooper said a source in the CIA leak investigation had phoned him Wednesday morning to release him from his pledge of confidentiality and had encouraged him to testify. That source has not been identified.

An attorney for White House political strategist Karl Rove has acknowledged that Rove spoke with Cooper but has denied that Rove unmasked the CIA agent's identity.

"I have a person in front of me who is defying the law and may be obstructing justice," Hogan said in pronouncing judgment on Miller. "The court has to take action."

The judge said he feared that letting Miller avoid testifying would put the judicial system "on a slippery slope to anarchy."

Miller was escorted from the Washington courtroom by U.S. marshals. She reportedly was seen entering a detention center in Alexandria, Va.

Unless she agrees to talk, Miller will be imprisoned for the duration of the federal grand jury's investigation of the leak case, or about four months. Hogan raised the possibility that she might be held in criminal contempt if she continues to defy the order to testify, which theoretically could add months to her sentence.

The jailing drew widespread criticism from media groups, which said it will make it harder for journalists to do their jobs and to cultivate confidential sources willing to share secrets about government misconduct. They said it also will embolden other prosecutors to use the power of the courts to coerce journalists into sharing their reporting with investigators to help them do their jobs.

Outside court, Cooper declared it was "a sad day not only for journalists, but for our country."

He said he would have continued to defy the court if he had not received the last-minute reprieve from his source.

"I gave my word to a source, and I kept it for two years," he said. "This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that person agreed to give me a personal, unambiguous, uncoerced waiver that I could speak to the grand jury."

The move followed a decision last week by Cooper's employer, Time Inc., which separately had been held in contempt in the case, to turn over notes and e-mails that effectively revealed the source Cooper was using. Hogan said Wednesday that because of Time's action, the court would vacate the contempt order, which had exposed the publishing company to potentially massive fines.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been investigating the circumstances surrounding a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak that identified Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Plame is the wife of Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat who had written a column eight days before accusing the Bush administration of using faulty intelligence in deciding to wage war in Iraq.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether administration figures leaked Plame's identity to Novak and other journalists as retaliation for the column her husband wrote. Intentionally revealing the identity of a CIA operative is, in some cases, against federal law.

Miller -- who never wrote about the case -- was subpoenaed by Fitzgerald to testify about conversations she had with "a government official" about Wilson and Plame between the time of the Wilson and Novak columns. Fitzgerald has asserted that the unnamed official has given a general waiver permitting Miller to testify; Miller has said she does not consider the waiver to be voluntary.

Cooper has been of interest to Fitzgerald because of two articles he wrote after Novak's column, including a July 17, 2003, piece on Time's Web site in which he asserted that the administration had declared war on Wilson and that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews" that Plame was a CIA official.

======================
What a Kafka-esque farce. Miller has never published a single word about the Plame affair, and the extent of Cooper’s writing about it has been to chide Novak for letting himself be used as a club by the administration in outing Plame.

According to everyone involved, the same source named Plame to all three journalists. Wonder who that could be? I'm sure the fact that Karl Rove was fired from G.H.W. Bush's staff for leaking inside info to Novak is just a coincidence.

The funny part is, Miller isn’t exactly an enemy of the state. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, she wrote extensively about the WMDs that were subsequently never found. Cooper is a well-liked member of the White House press corps. Novak stands out only by being a long-time shill for White House policies.

And yet, Miller’s going to jail, and Cooper’s publisher had to cut a weak-kneed last-minute deal to keep him out of jail. Meanwhile, Novak, who flirted with treason by publicly identifying an American secret agent, skates away scot-free. What a country.

[Stretcher Case]

The funny part is, Miller isn’t exactly an enemy of the state. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, she wrote extensively about the WMDs that were subsequently never found.

I shed no tears for Miller. She worked directly with Chalabi to trump up the claims of WMD. Some theorize that she's not really a journalist per se, but a full fledged member of the intelligence services.

[krabapple]

The funny part is, Miller isn’t exactly an enemy of the state. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, she wrote extensively about the WMDs that were subsequently never found.

I shed no tears for Miller. She worked directly with Chalabi to trump up the claims of WMD. Some theorize that she's not really a journalist per se, but a full fledged member of the intelligence services.

It's been interesting watching the blogosphere trying to sort this one out. Who to hate more? Miller? Rove? Time magazine? Fitzgerald? Novak?

It appears Miller is protecting a source who outed a CIA agent for no good reason other than petty politics. I'm finding it hard to sympathize with her. But I also get the sense (a no-brainer really) that there's a lot of undercurrent to this story that we can't fathom yet.

[lukpac]

The latest from the White House. The press corps actually had some balls today.

And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Terry.

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.

Go ahead.

Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Can I finish, please?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go ahead, Goyal.

[...]

Carl, go ahead. I'll come to you, David, in a second.

Q Does the President continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Carl, you're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation. And I would not read anything into it other than I'm simply not going to comment on an ongoing --

Q Has there been -- has there been any change --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- investigation.

Q Has there been any change or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

[...]

Now I'll go back to David. Go ahead.

Q There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an email saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the President is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action, and that if he did, you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the President is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there's an investigation or not. So are you saying that he's not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has previously spoken to this. This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And we're just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

Q But you acknowledge that he is free, as President of the United States, to take whatever action he wants to in response to a credible report that a member of his staff leaked information. He is free to take action if he wants to.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

[...]

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, April. Go ahead.

Q Scott, what was the President's interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation? And understanding that Karl Rove was the architect of the President's win for the second term in the Oval Office, how important is Karl Rove to this administration currently?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is coming at it from --

Q It has nothing to do with what you just said.

MR. McCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

Q Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

Q No, no, no, no. Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the question, April. I think I've responded.

[...]

Q Scott, I think you're barrage today in part because we -- it is now clear that 21 months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete. I'm not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

Q Scott, at this point, are we to consider what you've said previously, when you were talking about this, that you're still standing by that, or are those all inoperative at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're still trying to come at this from a different angle, and I've responded to it.

Q Are you standing by what you said previously?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've heard my response.

[...]

Q When the leak investigation is concluded, does the President believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what the -- what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor. Again, this is an ongoing matter; I'm just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time. At the appropriate time, when it's complete, then I'll be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q Have you in the White House considered whether that would be optimum to release as much information and make it as open a process --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's the same type of question. You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and I'm not going to do that.

Q I'm actually talking about the communication strategy, which is a little different.

MR. McCLELLAN: Understood. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And that's what he expects people in the White House to do.

Q And he would like to that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with --

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've already responded.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, was it -- who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make the request of you --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, you can ask -- you can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who's involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The President wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q Was the request made of you, or of whom in the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.

[...]

Q Yes, in your dealings with the special counsel, have you consulted a personal attorney?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm just not going to say anything further. I expressed all I'm going to say on this matter from this podium.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 711-3.html

[Xenu]

Weirdly, the video of this (at the moment of writing) seems to have vanished from CSpan. You can still get a bit from C&L.

[Rspaight]

Dance, Scottie! DANCE, YOU FUCKER!

That was great. I need a cigarette. And I don't even smoke.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Am I missing something? This isn't in the whitehouse.gov briefing:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

Was there another briefing that hasn't been posted yet?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... k_quotes_1

[Xenu]

There was an earlier briefing this morning.

[Dob]

...because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States.

No one????

About the third time McClellan repeated this pointless bit of hyperbole, it actually started to read like sarcasm.

[Rspaight]

There's usually two briefings per day, the formal afternoon briefing and the more informal morning "gaggle." The gaggles are rarely posted on the whitehouse.gov site, the afternoon briefings usually are.

Ryan

[lukpac]

Fox has the scoop:

FOX NEWS 24/7

Around the World
A deadly explosion in Russia and white tiger cubs in China

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points
How Jane Fonda and the BBC put you in danger
• Read Talking Points

Neil Cavuto's Common Sense
Newsflash: A lot of the world doesn't like the U.S.
• Read Common Sense

Brit Hume's Grapevine
Guess what Hillary Clinton had to say about President Bush over the weekend
• Read the Grapevine

Pitching a Fit
Does MLB have an anger management problem?
• Read John Gibson's Interview

'Supreme' Dreamin'
Bestselling author Ann Coulter reveals her pick for the high court
• Read the 'H&C' Interview

And check out FNC's clever editing of things in a video spot.

[Xenu]

I can't view the video. What happens?

[lukpac]

Why the hell not?

Basically they edited it to make Scotty look really good, and to make the reporters look really stupid.

[Rspaight]

Later on Fox: "Liberal traitors hound patriot Rove from White House. Bill O'Reilly tells you what to think about it. Then, Sean Hannity eats a white Russian tiger cub."

Ryan

[Xenu]

Mmm...endangered.