The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Weird turn in the Plame case: why is the Times going after Judith Miller?
Captain Ed draws our attention to the sudden evisceration of Judith Miller by her own employer, the New York Times. Morrissey thinks that this could have the effect of discouraging a Fitzgerald indictment of Libby (if one was ever indeed in the works--see my post from last night...). But why would the Times do this? I think the good Captain may be on to something in suggesting that in going after its own, its liberal agenda may indeed may be trumping loyalty to someone who did jail time on its behalf. Could they be trying to protect bigger fish who it believes might be indicted instead? can anyone say "Joe Wilson"? :
Josh Gersten at the New York Sun reports today that the ongoing attacks on the credibility of Judith Miller at her own newspaper may have an unintended, ironic effect on the grand jury investigation headed by Patrick Fitzgerald. Given that her testimony and writing has been central to the efforts to tie Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to an alleged conspiracy to discredit Joseph Wilson, the continued disparagement of her truthfulness might well result in an inability to use her in support of any prosecution:
Attorneys closely following the case said the sharp criticism Ms. Miller has received from her editors and colleagues may discourage the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, from bringing perjury charges against Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.
According to Ms. Miller and others who have testified before the grand jury investigating the leak, Mr. Fitzgerald has shown significant interest in whether Mr. Libby or other White House officials testified truthfully about their involvement in an alleged effort to discredit a vocal critic of President Bush, Joseph Wilson IV, by disclosing that his wife is a CIA employee. ...
"If it's going to be a perjury case, he's got a hard case because his key witness is Judy Miller," a former federal prosecutor, Paul Rosenzweig, said.
"She has some issues as a witness."
Last week, the Times published a lengthy story containing unflattering anecdotes about Ms. Miller, including a claim that she referred to herself as "Miss Run Amok." On Friday, the newspaper's managing editor, Bill Keller, sent a memo to his staff asserting that Ms. Miller "seems to have misled" the paper's Washington bureau chief, Philip Taubman, regarding her knowledge about Mr. Libby's alleged campaign against Mr. Wilson. On Saturday, a Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, questioned Ms. Miller's candor and suggested that she no longer be allowed to write for the newspaper.
Mr. Rosenzweig, who worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton, said the attacks on Ms. Miller would complicate any attempt to present her as a witness. "Can you imagine a defense attorney saying, 'So, I understand they call you Miss Run Amok?'" the ex-prosecutor said.
One could try to make the argument in court that Miller would testify against interest in order to build some credibility for her testimony, but while that makes a fine theoretical argument, it would hardly outplay "Miss Run Amok" with a jury. Perjury convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If it comes down to Miller's word against Rove or Libby, it will be tough to hold Miller up as a paragon of virtue when her own employer calls her a liar in print.
In its zeal to indict Miller for using her extended contacts with the White House to get scoops inaccessible to the rest of the industry, the Exempt Media and most of the punditry have probably crippled a portion of Fitzgerald's work, regardless of whether he has garnered more information elsewhere. He obviously considered the Miller connections at least moderately important to his investigation. If he issues indictments that rely on her testimony, he may as well resign himself to the fact that the administration's opponents will have made it almost impossible to ever get a conviction.
This almost appears too unthinkingly foolish, even for the Gray Lady. I wonder if Bill Keller thinks that Fitzgerald might be aiming at another Times source instead of Scooter Libby, leading him to go out of his way to discredit Miller now. Perhaps these memos and editorials mean to protect Joseph Wilson instead?
UPDATE: John Podhoretz notes the strange strategy of the New York Times in his latest column for the New York Post:
Previously, when newspapers have taken their own work to task, it has resulted from one of two causes. A reporter was caught committing outright acts of plagiarism or fabrication — as with The Washington Post's Janet Cooke or the Times' Jayson Blair. Or the paper needed to clear the name of an innocent person whom the newspaper had effectively tried and convicted of a serious crime — as the Atlanta Journal and Constitution did to Richard Jewell, falsely accused of the 1996 Millennium Park bombing, and the Times did to Wen Ho Lee, falsely accused of spying.
THE issue that has ostensibly caused this unprecedented character assas sination is Miller's involvement in the public exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame. And in this case, no one at the paper is accusing Miller of making anything up — because she never published anything on the subject. Nor can anyone accuse Judith Miller of harming the reputation of an innocent — because, again, she never published.
So what is it she supposedly did wrong? The paper's managing editor, Jill Abramson, says Miller didn't get permission from her editor to pursue the Plame story. If true, that's hardly cause for someone to have her name dragged through the mud — and it may well not be true at all. Miller says flatly that she did get her editor's permission and that her editor, in this case, was Jill Abramson.
It's almost as if they want to create a huge distance between Miller and credibility -- and I doubt they're doing it to benefit Rove, Libby, or the Bush administration, although that may wind up being the overall effect. They want to discredit the WMD reports themselves, of course, but those have largely been discounted before now. So why this full-court press on Miller by her own paper?
UPDATE: Clarice Feldman also thinks that this latest wrinkle might not be bad news for the Administration:
Today’s New York Times breathlesssly reports that notes from Libby indicate he may have learned about Wilson’s wife’s role in his Mission from Cheney who heard it from Tenet. The Times notes,
“It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration.”
But it suggests that Libby lied to the grand jury because he said he learned about this, not from the vice president, but from the media.
Looking at all we know, about the case, Tom Maguire, who has been covering the matter closely implies that Libby and his lawyers have always been truthful about this to the special prosecutor and have pulled a great head fake on the press.
Why do we think Libby testified to a “Blame the media” strategy? Do we think that is based on leaks from Fitzgerald? No. As many have noted, most of these leaks are coming from lawyers whose clients work for the Administration (a few reporter’s attorneys have been swept up as well, of course).
So, suppose Libby’s attorneys have been whiling away the summer months, and on into autumn, feeding the press a partially true cover story that Libby was blaming the Plame leaks on Tim Russert, and encouraging speculation about Judy Miller. Clinton’s team made the mistake of attacking the prosecutor and drawing return fire; this time, the White House was crafty enough to attack the press.(snip)
In this theory, Fitzgerald (if he reads the papers) is laughing out loud – Libby testified to Cheney’s role almost two years ago, and Fitzgerald doesn’t care about Cheney.
As to Libby’s “Blame the media” pose – his actual testimony may only be a bit different from the staged leaks. For example, perhaps Libby testified that he only talked with reporters about Wilson’s wife after hearing about it from other reporters, and in leaks to the press that conveniently morphed into “Libby only knew about it after talking with reporters”.
And why did Fitzgerald pursue the media so intently? Because he still needs to know who leaked, and Libby’s “blame the media” strategy” is relevant to that line of inquiry even if Cheney’s role has been fully disclosed.
Stay tuned. This may not be the disaster that it appeared to be. Has the press "Misunderestimated" the Bush Administration--again?
Josh Gersten at the New York Sun reports today that the ongoing attacks on the credibility of Judith Miller at her own newspaper may have an unintended, ironic effect on the grand jury investigation headed by Patrick Fitzgerald. Given that her testimony and writing has been central to the efforts to tie Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to an alleged conspiracy to discredit Joseph Wilson, the continued disparagement of her truthfulness might well result in an inability to use her in support of any prosecution:
Attorneys closely following the case said the sharp criticism Ms. Miller has received from her editors and colleagues may discourage the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, from bringing perjury charges against Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.
According to Ms. Miller and others who have testified before the grand jury investigating the leak, Mr. Fitzgerald has shown significant interest in whether Mr. Libby or other White House officials testified truthfully about their involvement in an alleged effort to discredit a vocal critic of President Bush, Joseph Wilson IV, by disclosing that his wife is a CIA employee. ...
"If it's going to be a perjury case, he's got a hard case because his key witness is Judy Miller," a former federal prosecutor, Paul Rosenzweig, said.
"She has some issues as a witness."
Last week, the Times published a lengthy story containing unflattering anecdotes about Ms. Miller, including a claim that she referred to herself as "Miss Run Amok." On Friday, the newspaper's managing editor, Bill Keller, sent a memo to his staff asserting that Ms. Miller "seems to have misled" the paper's Washington bureau chief, Philip Taubman, regarding her knowledge about Mr. Libby's alleged campaign against Mr. Wilson. On Saturday, a Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, questioned Ms. Miller's candor and suggested that she no longer be allowed to write for the newspaper.
Mr. Rosenzweig, who worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton, said the attacks on Ms. Miller would complicate any attempt to present her as a witness. "Can you imagine a defense attorney saying, 'So, I understand they call you Miss Run Amok?'" the ex-prosecutor said.
One could try to make the argument in court that Miller would testify against interest in order to build some credibility for her testimony, but while that makes a fine theoretical argument, it would hardly outplay "Miss Run Amok" with a jury. Perjury convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If it comes down to Miller's word against Rove or Libby, it will be tough to hold Miller up as a paragon of virtue when her own employer calls her a liar in print.
In its zeal to indict Miller for using her extended contacts with the White House to get scoops inaccessible to the rest of the industry, the Exempt Media and most of the punditry have probably crippled a portion of Fitzgerald's work, regardless of whether he has garnered more information elsewhere. He obviously considered the Miller connections at least moderately important to his investigation. If he issues indictments that rely on her testimony, he may as well resign himself to the fact that the administration's opponents will have made it almost impossible to ever get a conviction.
This almost appears too unthinkingly foolish, even for the Gray Lady. I wonder if Bill Keller thinks that Fitzgerald might be aiming at another Times source instead of Scooter Libby, leading him to go out of his way to discredit Miller now. Perhaps these memos and editorials mean to protect Joseph Wilson instead?
UPDATE: John Podhoretz notes the strange strategy of the New York Times in his latest column for the New York Post:
Previously, when newspapers have taken their own work to task, it has resulted from one of two causes. A reporter was caught committing outright acts of plagiarism or fabrication — as with The Washington Post's Janet Cooke or the Times' Jayson Blair. Or the paper needed to clear the name of an innocent person whom the newspaper had effectively tried and convicted of a serious crime — as the Atlanta Journal and Constitution did to Richard Jewell, falsely accused of the 1996 Millennium Park bombing, and the Times did to Wen Ho Lee, falsely accused of spying.
THE issue that has ostensibly caused this unprecedented character assas sination is Miller's involvement in the public exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame. And in this case, no one at the paper is accusing Miller of making anything up — because she never published anything on the subject. Nor can anyone accuse Judith Miller of harming the reputation of an innocent — because, again, she never published.
So what is it she supposedly did wrong? The paper's managing editor, Jill Abramson, says Miller didn't get permission from her editor to pursue the Plame story. If true, that's hardly cause for someone to have her name dragged through the mud — and it may well not be true at all. Miller says flatly that she did get her editor's permission and that her editor, in this case, was Jill Abramson.
It's almost as if they want to create a huge distance between Miller and credibility -- and I doubt they're doing it to benefit Rove, Libby, or the Bush administration, although that may wind up being the overall effect. They want to discredit the WMD reports themselves, of course, but those have largely been discounted before now. So why this full-court press on Miller by her own paper?
UPDATE: Clarice Feldman also thinks that this latest wrinkle might not be bad news for the Administration:
Today’s New York Times breathlesssly reports that notes from Libby indicate he may have learned about Wilson’s wife’s role in his Mission from Cheney who heard it from Tenet. The Times notes,
“It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government’s deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration.”
But it suggests that Libby lied to the grand jury because he said he learned about this, not from the vice president, but from the media.
Looking at all we know, about the case, Tom Maguire, who has been covering the matter closely implies that Libby and his lawyers have always been truthful about this to the special prosecutor and have pulled a great head fake on the press.
Why do we think Libby testified to a “Blame the media” strategy? Do we think that is based on leaks from Fitzgerald? No. As many have noted, most of these leaks are coming from lawyers whose clients work for the Administration (a few reporter’s attorneys have been swept up as well, of course).
So, suppose Libby’s attorneys have been whiling away the summer months, and on into autumn, feeding the press a partially true cover story that Libby was blaming the Plame leaks on Tim Russert, and encouraging speculation about Judy Miller. Clinton’s team made the mistake of attacking the prosecutor and drawing return fire; this time, the White House was crafty enough to attack the press.(snip)
In this theory, Fitzgerald (if he reads the papers) is laughing out loud – Libby testified to Cheney’s role almost two years ago, and Fitzgerald doesn’t care about Cheney.
As to Libby’s “Blame the media” pose – his actual testimony may only be a bit different from the staged leaks. For example, perhaps Libby testified that he only talked with reporters about Wilson’s wife after hearing about it from other reporters, and in leaks to the press that conveniently morphed into “Libby only knew about it after talking with reporters”.
And why did Fitzgerald pursue the media so intently? Because he still needs to know who leaked, and Libby’s “blame the media” strategy” is relevant to that line of inquiry even if Cheney’s role has been fully disclosed.
Stay tuned. This may not be the disaster that it appeared to be. Has the press "Misunderestimated" the Bush Administration--again?
