Bustado
I have to admit I was beginning to wonder. The cooler minds of people I respect absolutely were looking toward the simplest solution to the Judith Miller diary enigma -- namely that Miller has been cooperating with Fitzgerald all along, and he learned about her June notes during her September 30 testimony.
But sometimes being a bit of a loose cannon gives you the inside track into the psychology of wack jobs. Via Swopa, we learn that the Wall Street Journal says Miller might have been a bit evasive in her first appearance before the GJ:
She first appeared before the grand jury on Sept. 30 to talk about two conversations she had in July 2003. She made a second appearance Wednesday to disclose a third conversation in late June that she had previously failed to mention to the grand jury.Over at Reuters, Adam Entous underscores the obvious question:
It was unclear how Fitzgerald learned of the June 23, 2003, conversation.Well if you read yesterday's WSJ, her helpful lawyers leaped into the breech:
Since then, her lawyers have told Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the leak of the CIA agent's identity, that Ms. Miller's notes show that she also spoke with Mr. Libby in late June, information that was not previously given to the grand jury.It implies they all woke up one morning and spontaneously pulled the notebook out of their collective asses, with no prosecutorial prodding.
I'm not convinced.
Todays' WSJ also goes on to note that following Judy's September 30 testimony, her order of contempt was not lifted:
Her appearance Wednesday, which lasted about an hour and 15 minutes, won her a judge's order releasing her from the contempt-of-court citation that landed her in jail. The contempt order was still in place until her testimony was complete.If Judy had gone in initially and told the GJ about the June meeting and said "oh you know, I just might have some notes," the contempt order most certainly would've stayed in place until she produced them. But she didn't do that. Her lawyers imply that her testimony was complete on the 30th, then she suddenly remembered her notes the following week, had Bob Bennett get Fitzgerald on the horn and say "St. Judith wants to step into the confessional again."
But if Fitzgerald thought Judy had told him everything on the 30th, why wasn't the contempt citation lifted then? He knew she was holding out.
I'm sticking with my initial guess -- Judy lied and Fitzgerald nailed her.
Oh but not in a biblical sense. Image be gone.
Update: Eriposte has a superb post outlining why Miller was probably not honest (aka, the "dust bunny" theory). Go now.
posted by Jane Hamsher @ 10/12/2005 09:10:00 PM
<< Home