Why did Miller spend 85 days in jail?

I don’t know all the legal wrangling behind the Judith Miller case. But it’s puzzling why The New York Times reporter went to jail in the first place. The source she allegedly was protecting — Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff — reportedly had his attorney tell Miller’s attorney more than a year ago that she was free to talk. And he told other reporters that he didn’t need protecting. So was Miller really taking a stand on principle? Or was she, as some have suggested, attempting to boost her image after her lame reporting on Iraq and WMDs? And why was Miller’s testimony so important to special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s investigation that he sent her to jail?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

8 Comments

  1. Galahad
    Posted October 3, 2005 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know–it’s a mystery.

    But this is going to make Watergate look like a third-rate break in.

  2. XXX
    Posted October 3, 2005 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    It’s like I said in an earlier thread. She’s fluffing her credentials. It’s not like she did time in a “real” jail.

    Galahad, I’m going to disagree with you on this one. I’m betting that very little will come from this investigation, at least for now. As long as Bushco is in power, this will all be swept under the rug. What comes after…. Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. But as you say, at some point when all this breaks loose, it’ll make Watergate look like a grade school picnic.

  3. R.D.Liebst
    Posted October 4, 2005 at 2:47 am | Permalink

    The only time anything will come of it is if Bush& co. fall out of favor with Isreal and the Neo-cons.Then hooded assasins will wripe them out.I really need to stop reading Ed’s posts!

  4. Sum1
    Posted October 4, 2005 at 4:53 am | Permalink

    The 1.2 million she’s getting for a book deal is probably a good enough reason for her.

  5. Sum1
    Posted October 4, 2005 at 4:59 am | Permalink

    I would normally believe that the Bushco’s would be able to sweep this under the rug.Lawrence Franklin pleading guilty to the espionage Act could be a turning point. He’s the guy who leaked classified information to people who didn’t have a right to it.Her stand on principle was flawed for attempting to cover for a crook. There is a definite need to be able to use an unnamed source and protect them WHEN the public needs to be aware of an issue.This stand was backwards. The people needed to know their administration, while fighting a war on terror, outed the very class of people who do the fighting on terror to bring in information.Her stand was to keep the public from being aware just how crooked and how far this administration would go to punish someone who didnt’ agree with them.

  6. Jed
    Posted October 4, 2005 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    No, Miller just knew that if she caved, she’d never get another tip from a source that didn’t want to be identified! While Skippy’s motives were less than honorable, the next one might be essential. Subpoening reporters, for whatever reason, does the public a disservice.

  7. Joe C
    Posted October 4, 2005 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    This case is mostly smoke and mirrors. None of us can tell the facts from the lies. I would like to know from all you left and right thinkers where the limits are for such activities.What if known STAMPED secret data is leaked to a reporter that also knows it is secret and the reporter spreads it around the world causing serious harm to our interests including loss of lives. Is the leaker the traitor? The Reporter? The media outlet? All of the above?

  8. Ed Friedemann
    Posted October 5, 2005 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Don’t look now but I’m stealing your brain-waves.

    Opps, will you please take them back…pretty please…pretty please with sugar on it?