She went to jail, but for what?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/01/Columns/She_went_to_jail__but.shtml

It was the mystery many of us who care about journalism had waited 85 days to see answered.

Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to tell a federal prosecutor what she knew about efforts to reveal the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, faced reporters Friday after brokering a deal to win her freedom and testify before a grand jury.

News outlets were already reporting she had secured permission personally from her confidential source, vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to speak about their conversations on the issue.

But viewers watching Miller's Friday news conference were only left with more questions, following her refusal to explain why she sat in jail for nearly three months before obtaining a release Libby had granted to another reporter over a year ago. (Miller actually referred the question to her lawyer, who did not comment.) snip

So was Miller simply playing the journalistic martyr, when she could have resolved this earlier and ethically?

[LARED]

1. Sorry to be cynical, but I see a book in her future (n/t)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Hopefully, it's being thrown at her.

[bahrbearian]

3. I think they were trying to get the public on her side, the media

sure was trying to martyr her, but the question Why needs to be repeated over and over.

[NNN0LHI]

5. I think Lou Dobbs was shedding tears as he spoke of the poor thing n/t

[Mich Otter]

4. Her role in this is "witnessing a crime".

She apparently did not want to identify the criminals involved.
I hope someone has gotten Robert Novak's measurements for a striped suit.
Karl Rove and Libby Scooter, as well as Novak, should be stripped of their American citizenships and given appropriate housing at Guantanamo.
They are all traitors.

[madrchsod]

6. street cred baby...

she`s done hard time now....

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. the most telling comment was made by Libby's attorney

who said, since she and her attorney had been notified a long time ago of Libby's release to journalists , that they assumed she was protecting ANOTHER source. I think they are right. This little charade about Libby's release does not smell right to me.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. I think it has something to do with the "focus" of the investigation

I haven't figured it out yet, but she made a point of saying in her press conference, that the fact that Fitzgerald had 'narrowed his focus' played a role in her agreement to testify.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. I think that has to do with the whole theory that she had

5th as well as 1st Amendment problems. In other words, she may not have just been a witness, but a participant.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. "other sources"

From todays NYT:

{In a third letter, Mr. Tate wrote to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the leak, about his conversations with Mr. Abrams. "Over a year ago, I assured him that Mr. Libby's waiver was voluntary and not coerced and she should accept it for what it was."

He added that he understood from his conversations with Mr. Abrams that Ms. Miller's "position was not based on a reluctance to testify about her communications with Mr. Libby" but on journalistic principle and an effort to protect "others with whom she may have spoken."}

"others with whom she may have spoken" ding! ding! ding! ding!

If Judith Miller did indeed get her testimony strictly limited to her contacts with Libby, then Fitzgerald may have made a crummy deal if her tentacles went further and deeper. Why would he make an agreement like that?

[bluedog]

11. and I think most people think shes a Fraud

to me it was just her little publicity stunt to draw attention to herself.it wouldn't surprise me if she pinned the blame on someone in the Democratic Party..this woman is not to be trusted.