Friday, September 30, 2005

Lock her back up.

Power Line was suspicious of Judy Miller's deal. I had just assumed that she wanted Libby not just to release her but beg her to testify so she could impress her fellow "journalists." I'd think the Times would want to let go of this tiger's tail, without trying to get the last bit of flesh out of the transaction.

But then there's this, submitted by a P.L. regular reader:
Re: your post this evening regarding Judith Miller. Her change of heart may have been prompted by the prosecutor's agreement to refrain from questioning her not about other sources in the Plame matter, but about another matter in which the same prosecutor filed a motion to compel Miller's testimony before the grand jury.

I wrote you about this several months ago. U.S.D.J. Robert Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) denied Fitzpatrick's motion to compel Miller to testify before a grand jury relating to a leak to Miller about a warrant issued to the FBI for a search of a New York Muslim charity's offices. A source leaked this information to Miller, who, incredibly, promptly contacted the Muslim charity and revealed the warrant prior to the search. Fortunately, no FBI agents were injured when they searched the offices the next day, in what clearly could have developed into a very dangerous situation.

If this is true, why wasn't she charged with obstruction of justice?

The fact that this story doesn't sound beyond belief is a sad commentary on the attitude of the media these days--above the law, above the government, above question. I wonder what would happen if people started complaining to sponsors.

Update: I just saw Michael Isikoff on Chris Matthews aharing a moment of thanksgiving that Miller's Passion is finally over, after which the topic went back to whether Scooter Libby could still be hung for Plamegate. Matthews introduced Isifkoff as "the best in the business" and I thought, that doesn't say much for the business, does it? These guys are comparing Libby and Rove to Haldeman and Ehrlichman! Don't they understand that to indict either one of them over the Valerie Plame "leak" would be sillier than Ronnie Earle's case against Tom DeLay?

Can this get any more bizarre?


Post a Comment

<< Home