Wolf Blitzer just said that Libby let Miller off the hook a long time ago.

[roguevalley]

He is talking about it on CNN Situation Room.

update: She says only now he released her to speak. Blitzer says Libby's lawyer said Libby gave her persmission year ago.

[wellstone_democrat]

1. is that phot o "shopped?"

Can a dog really stand up like that ? How on earth do you teach it to do that? Disturbing.

[RubyDuby in GA]

6. Oh it's not

That dog is a dachshund. I've had three in my lifetime (and hope for many more) and they've all been able to do that. That's how they beg for any morsel of food you're trying to eat.

See, here's my former beauty, Ruby (the original Rubyduby):


It's not that easy to see, but she's standing on her back paws too. She would use her tail to balance herself and stand like that for as long as she needed to to get a bite to eat.

[wellstone_democrat]

8. fascinating

I had no idea that they could do that---on a strange note, just recently I found out that my 32 y-old sister thought that Dachshunds were a specific kind of dog she wasn't familiar with but, when I mentioned that old Mrs. Kelly had one when we were kids, she said: "I thought that kind of dog was called a weiner dog!" She's no dope but she heard old Dempsey called a weiner dog so often that she actually thought it was the formal breed name.

She'll never live that one down, Christmas is going to be *extra* fun this year!

[Skittles]

18. that's not really a dog, it is a molded ham

yes INDEED :o

[wellstone_democrat]

19. lol

I thought maybe sculpted of chocolate

[napi21]

2. She claims that the release a year ago was coerced and she didn't buy it.

She wanted to hear it directly from Libby.

There's something else going on here, but it's going to take time before we finally realize what it is.

[joemurphy]

3. If that was true why didn't she call Libby a year ago and ask him

if it was coerced or not? This is a load of bull.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

5. Oh, Arianna already knows

two possible motives -- either Fitz was going to seek an extension of the grand jury term, which would have kept her in jail longer, or he was going to seek a criminal contempt charge against her, which would have kept her in jail a LOT longer.

To which I would add a third motive -- she finally realized Libby was going to leave her in the wind.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Besides, waiting pushed all revelations back past the election

thus not damaging *'s chance for a second term.

[mattclearing]

4. The understanding is that she had Libby's permission, but that the

scope of the testimony would have been unlimited, and there are issues she still wishes to keep confidential, presumably regarding other related sources (cough...Rove...cough).

Fitzgerald seems to have decided that Libby is better than nothing and let her off the hook for the other one.

[joemurphy]

9. It might be that her other source wasn't Rove but someone at

the CIA.

Speculation at the NYT among some of Miller's journalistic peers (who purportedly hate her guts) is that after Wilson's article ran in the Times, Miller went ballistic because she saw it as challenging the integrity of some of her reporting. Judy then tapped into some of her sources at the CIA and learned about the existence of Valerie Plame. Judy then contacted Scooter Libby by phone on July 6th and later met with Libby on July 8th. The issue is who told what to whom. Some at the Times think Judy told Scooter about Plame at that time and Scooter took it from there. This scenario has Judy being the one that outed Valerie Plame. It also is consistent with Rove and Libby's testimony that they first learned about Plame's existence from "a journalist" whose name they couldn't remember. If Judy was Libby's source she'll look real bad and so will her paper. It would appear she was giving Libby and Rove ammunition to smear Wilson and out a CIA agent.

On the other hand, if Libby told Miller about Plame in connection with an interview for a story Judy was working on but that she never printed (as she maintains) and no more than that happened, the only thing new we learn is that that Libby knew about Plame prior to his and Rove's conversations with Novak and before Novak's article outing Plame went to print. There isn't much new in that. Also, it still leaves unclear precisely when and how Libby found out about Plame.

Under either scenario, Judy's 83-day stay in jail looks curiouser and curiouser. Fitz always knew Judy had talked to Libby. Libby signed a general waiver releasing Miller to talk. Yet Judy wanted more -- a personal waiver. Arguably she could have gotten this anytime she wanted simply by asking Libby if it was OK to do so. Libby's lawyer is claiming now that this permission was available for Miller any time she wanted it. Other journalists testified with Libby's consent -- Russert, Pinkus, and Cooper. Why wouldn't Judy?

Something smells.

[aquart]

12. That makes no sense at all.

[spindrifter]

7. If the previous waiver

was coerced--who did the coercion? In what form was it? Witness tampering is a big f*cking deal!

[joemurphy]

11. It wasn't coerced. That "coerced" stuff is a lot of bull.

The whole spiel about general waivers being "coerced" or "not specific enough" is just a big red herring. This is the best explanation I've found about it:

<http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071405.shtml>

TAYLOR (2/14/04): The media's self-interested approach to such issues may explain the remarkably muted reaction to a February 10 Washington Post report that several White House officials have refused requests by prosecutors that they sign waivers releasing reporters from any promises of confidentiality to their sources in this case. The waiver forms reportedly request "that no member of the news media assert any privilege or refuse to answer any questions from federal law enforcement authorities on my behalf or for my benefit."

Why haven't the media—which have long clamored for Bush to order his aides to cooperate fully with prosecutors—made a stink about his apparent failure to order them to sign these waivers? The answer seems to be that the media understand that such waivers would increase the pressure on them to disclose their sources.

Taylor closed his piece by requesting “a more forceful effort by Bush to get his staff to come clean.” But according to Taylor, a major insider, why weren’t his colleagues in the press talking about this failure by Bush? What explained their “remarkably muted reaction” to that February 10 report? Yes, the report was news, Taylor said—but the press was taking a “self-interested approach!” In Taylor’s view, the media understood that such waivers “would increase the pressure on them to disclose their sources.” And because they didn’t want to do that (more below), they were hushing the topic.

[spindrifter]

13. This a.m. she said something about hoping the

bonds between journalists and their sources were strengthened as a result of her experience--or words to tht effect. Hmmm.

[joemurphy]

14. Judy has been known to fuck her sources.

You can't get any closer than that -- or be more unethical.

[spindrifter]

15. Yikes!!

Who would have thought a champion of journalism ethics would seek a story regardless of the moral cost!:rofl:

[applegrove]

16. No proof. That is what she needed. And when they did it this month -

they had a guarantee the Feds wouldn't prosecute them for conspiracy to obstruct testimony. I guess cause the discussion on freedom to speak isn't blanket - but what timeframe of when Miller could reveal discussion was an issue. If Fitz had them on tape negotiating "well - don't give up anything I said to you in June" that could be prosecuted.

IMHO

[cassiepriam]

17. I love your puppy.... she/he is a doll baby. nt