How will the NYTimes come out of this Miller "affair"?

[kentuck]

If she comes out, not as the innocent reporter, but as an accomplice in a crime, then where does that leave the Times? They have defended her since the beginning as simply "protecting her sources". But, they will be seen as shirking their duty by not finding out the truth from one of their own reporters. They could come out of this mess stinking real bad.

[Ken Burch]

1. Now that Miller has testified, does anybody have any idea

What she might have said in the testimony that Fitzgerald was so obsessed with getting out of her?

My impression is that all she could have done was to provide secondary confirmation of Rove's role in the plot.

[librechik]

2. and so they should.

They pretend to be liberals for truth, but look what they do: they concoct Whitewater, ignore coverage ofClinton's final acquittal, help Bush seize the White House by burying news that Gore won the recount in all but one scenario, helped Bush gin up the war in Iraq, helped him hide the truth on 9/11.

I hope those corporate liars go down hard.

[PDittie]

3. "Some say" it's worse than the Jayson Blair affair

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/9/1447/51937

[Pithy Cherub]

4. The New York Times publically put its full credibility

behind Judith Miller. Judy made her full play on the fact that she was standing behind First Amendment protections and hired Abrams. She gambled and lost BIG that Fitzgerald was unaware of the date of first contacts with her source. She may have committed perjury and has nothing to trade now. If the NYT editors knew anything, then there is that whole conspiracy and obstruction of justice issue looming.

There seems to be two tracks of tricking the mass printed media. Cooper's employers said they couldn't protect him and he was on his own becasue they weren't going to pay the fine. So he complied. If the NYT's editors knew - wow. Are there sub-zero approval ratings for the media. It would also mean the press lies, often.

All along Fitzgerald has shown that there were severe national security issues involved. Several judges definitively agreed. SCOTUS stayed out. It is becoming increasingly clear that Judy was aware of conspiracy and the information earlier than stated under oath. That will mean she was a material witness to the crime or part of the conspiracy. If national security is compromised because of a collusion or conspiracy and the NYT is in the middle of it because of a reporter, well Katie bar the door.

[Garbo 2004]

5. NYT's still covered in shit from her earlier reporting and behavior.

She shoulda been axed then, but instead they kept her on as their resident "special" case.

And if recollection serves, at least the NYT DC bureau's policy (and perhaps NY's as well) was not to protect sources who lied, were spreading disinformation, etc. Reporter's have no obligation to protect sources who are engaged in such activity. (Besides, I recollect reading that Miller previously at least on one occasion in an unrelated story outed one of her actual whistleblower confidential sources in print while completely distorting what her source told her. So much for protecting her sources.)

Unfortunately the Times continues to protect and support Miller herself while she herself is still shoveling BS and practicing sleight of mouth. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012629.html

[Samantha]

6. This is an extremely interesting question which should have received

more responses.

A thread I was on earlier raised the question about how Miller's notes could have been found on file here in DC. I believe the NYT attorneys must have pressured her attorneys to persuade Miller to cough up any material she had been withholding. (That's just my own theory, not based on any fact). I was thinking Miller's attorneys are talking to NYT attorneys which are completely cooperating with Fitzgerald's office.

I am wondering (and I have no clue as to the answer) what exactly The New York Times legal liability would be if Miller were held responsible for the commission of a criminal act. Obviously, it's position would be ignorance of the commission of the crime. That raises the further question, however, what exactly is a publication's liability for even inadvertent participation in the commission of a national security breach?

We recently have read the NYT is laying off personnel. We know that many say the Washington Post and The New York Times are the most influential publications perhaps not just in this Country but in the world. What would a Miller conviction on the commission of an intelligence crime have on the impact of the reputation of The New York Times and additionally could it be held legally responsible for facilitating that crime in its neglect to fact-check assertions made by Miller toward facilitating an illegal war?

Further, could it be held liable in civil suits for damages done as a result of Miller's complicity in both the Plame revelation and the pre-emptive war waged by the Bush* cabal? That's a fascinating thought I wish DU attorneys here might comment on ....

Really, the debate on these issues could be fascinating. Why aren't we having it along with the Plame threads?