Less Credible Than Judith Miller - AlterNet, CA - 7 hours ago

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/37145/

With Washington's attention focused on the murky fate of top White House official Karl Rove, one surprising and potentially significant development in the ongoing CIA leak case against top White House official I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby has largely escaped notice. It concerns questions about the credibility of one of the reporters at the center of the case. To the surprise of many, however, the reporter in question is not the much-maligned ex-New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- but Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper.

The issue surfaced recently when US District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton issued an Order and Memorandum Opinion in response to efforts by attorneys for Miller, Cooper, two journalists from NBC News and their respective news organizations to quash subpoenas from Libby's attorneys seeking a wide range of the journalists' work material.

After personally reviewing the documents in question, Judge Walton upheld Miller's motion to quash her subpoena in full -- meaning she would not have to turn over anything -- but ordered at the same time that Time magazine must turn over drafts of articles written by Cooper. Walton noted there were variations in the drafts, written after Cooper had testified before the grand jury that investigated and indicted Libby in the case involving the leaking of C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame Wilson's name. ''Upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the court discerns a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper,'' the judge wrote in a memorandum opinion.

"This slight alteration between the drafts will allow the defense to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions," the judge concluded. "Thus, unlike Miller, whose documents appear internally consistent and thus will only be admissible if she testifies inconsistently with these documents, Cooper's documents will undoubtedly be admissible."

What do all the legal shenanigans mean? One lawyer close to the case, who requested anonymity so as not to anger Judge Walton, agreed that the discrepancies between the drafts of the articles could potentially be used to impeach Cooper's credibility at trial. "Compare that to the Judith Miller portion of the judge's ruling," the attorney explained. "She has been criticized publicly for her supposed 'credibility problems.' But after looking at transcripts of interviews and drafts of articles by Miller, the judge ruled that she is credible -- in direct opposition to Cooper, as specifically noted by Judge Walton."

[CoffeeCat]

1. Am I understanding this correctly?

So...Ms. Millers' notes and transcripts are more consistent than Coopers'. So, this means that Ms. Miller is to be trusted and believed and Cooper is not?

Do these people understand that Miller is a diabolical liar? Do they understand that she lied the entire country into war--just because Junior asked her to? Do they understand that she propagandized our nation into war--with statements and articles that were discredited?

Hello? Ms. Miller is a sociopath. She's a demonic stenographer for a group of psychopaths who get off on murdering innocent people. Do you think that tampering with notes and transcripts is beyond her?

The fact that her papers are in such meticulous order, should raise red flags. I'm sure she worked for hours and hours--assuring that her fabrications looked solid.

I might be misunderstanding the assumptions in this article--I hope I am.

[NNN0LHI]

2. They are not saying that she is credible

The ARE saying she is more credible than Cooper which ain't saying too much for Cooper.

Don