Judith Iscariot
Oct. 5th, 2005 11:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
womzillaNeedless to say, there's been an explosion of commentary on the blogosphere since the NY Times writer Judith Miller chose to end her imprisonment for civil contempt by testifying to the federal Grand Jury about the Valerie Plame Wilson case.
One of the points around which commentary circles, like a dog returning to its vomit, is that Miller just spent 85 days in prison rather than give up her source, even though the person believed to be her source--I. Libby "Scooter" Lewis--publically gave her a waiver from confidentiality over a year ago. Miller has said, through her lawyer, that a new waiver from her source was the reason for her change of mind. Elaborate speculations have revolved around what games Miller and/or Lewis are playing, that the public waiver from last year wasn't enough to allow Miller to testify but the new one, which no one has see, is enough.
There's a possibility I haven't seen discussed which seems obvious, though: What if Miller's source wasn't Lewis? What if the person Miller is protecting isn't any of the people who have publically given public waivers of confidentiality?
The list of people who are likely to have spoken to Miller who are higher-ranked than Rove and Lewis is very small, and very interesting, and most of the people on it have the words "Secretary", "Director", "Chief", or "President" in their job titles.
I could easily be wrong. But this strikes me as an obvious avenue for inquiry.
One of the points around which commentary circles, like a dog returning to its vomit, is that Miller just spent 85 days in prison rather than give up her source, even though the person believed to be her source--I. Libby "Scooter" Lewis--publically gave her a waiver from confidentiality over a year ago. Miller has said, through her lawyer, that a new waiver from her source was the reason for her change of mind. Elaborate speculations have revolved around what games Miller and/or Lewis are playing, that the public waiver from last year wasn't enough to allow Miller to testify but the new one, which no one has see, is enough.
There's a possibility I haven't seen discussed which seems obvious, though: What if Miller's source wasn't Lewis? What if the person Miller is protecting isn't any of the people who have publically given public waivers of confidentiality?
The list of people who are likely to have spoken to Miller who are higher-ranked than Rove and Lewis is very small, and very interesting, and most of the people on it have the words "Secretary", "Director", "Chief", or "President" in their job titles.
I could easily be wrong. But this strikes me as an obvious avenue for inquiry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 05:08 pm (UTC)PS it's Lewis Libby, not Libby Lewis.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 03:02 am (UTC)It looks more likely, in the light of the letter from Fitzgerald to Lewis that was just leaked, that Miller was pretending that she didn't believe Lewis's waiver so that she could bargain for a better deal from Fitzgerald.
(And as to Lewis Libby--there's an NPR reporter named Libby Lewis. And, of course, Libby is a first name, as in Libby the Kid. So I always get that messed up.)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 07:59 am (UTC)I can't get references for where I've seen it, this time in the morning, but if I do later, I'll post some.
PS you did it again! It's not even common in those places where they like to refer to political figures by their first names, because friend and foe alike call him "Scooter" when they want to be familiar.
Libby Lewis / Lewis Libby
Date: 2005-10-20 01:31 am (UTC)... and she is actually covering the whole leak scandal! Makes for very confusing radio.