firedoglake Archive Site

What's a "Source," Judy?

A lot of folks were disheartened when NYT Editor Bill Keller made a statement regarding the limitation of Judy's testimony to the Traitorgate grand jury, which many took to mean that the only thing she would be questioned on was her conversations with Scooter Libby:

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Further, this morning in the WaPo, "anonymous sources" inform us yet again:

One lawyer involved in the case said Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions solely to Miller's conversations with Libby. [Miller's attorney Robert] Bennett, reached last night, said he could not discuss the terms of the agreement for Miller's testimony. Abrams did not return a call seeking comment.

But according to prosecutor Reddhedd, who just saw Bennett interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, the "narrow testimony" Judy was so proudly trumpeting on the courthouse steps today was more likely limited to anything regarding the Plame matter -- i.e., Bolton or anyone else she spoke with would be fair game.

On the other hand, Fitzgerald doesn't have the right to pump her for details of gettin' sexed up by, say, Muammar Gaddafi.

But then, who would want to.

(Sorry for the gross-out. Blame Gavin.)

Update: Miller herself seems to be confirming that her testimony is limited to conversations regarding her "source," whom she refuses to name:

Mr. Bennett, approached the special counsel to see if my grand jury testimony could be limited to the communications with the source from whom I had received that personal and voluntary waiver. The special counsel agreed to this and that was very important to me.

But as Reddhedd points out, she was in there for four hours. The members of the grand jury are free to ask her anything they want, regardless of what the deal with the special counsel is. She can refuse to answer based on her agreement with Fitzgerald, but as Reddhedd notes, even people with their lawyers present get up there and start jabbering. Judith Miller could not have her lawyers present during her testimony. Oh to be a fly on that wall.

Update II: David Corn, via Digby:

"For anyone following the matter, it's impossible not to guess about what's going on and what Fitzgerald will do. His grand jury expires at the end of October. He could impanel a new one and keep investigating. But all indications suggest he's close to done. One person who recently had contact with Fitzgerald and his attorneys says that they seem confident about whatever it is they are pursuing. The Miller matter was something of a sideshow that at times drew more attention than the central issue."

Digby also talks about a conventional wisdom building that no indictments will be handed down. I've been working on my Fitzgerald piece for Arianna and having looked over this guy's career with a microscope I have to say that it would be entirely out of character for him to spend two years on an investigation with no indictments to show for it. Judy Miller didn't tell him anything he didn't already know, presumably; he was looking for her testimony to shore up a case he already had.

I'm not buying it.

posted by Jane Hamsher @ 9/30/2005 01:32:00 PM