Judith Miller leave of absence for memory problem?
Judith Miller appears to have been given an indefinite leave of absence by the NYT because she allegedly could be indicted for perjury.
Miller's statements, actions, and circumstances appear to lack credibility.
Miller says she doesn't remember where she got the Plame name.
Did you know that Grand Juries can indict people for perjury if they assert, "I cannot recall," but the reasonable person "should recall"?
Given the Grand Jury appears to have ordered Miller back to review her paperwork, I suspect the Grand Jury doesn't find it credible that Miller "can't remember" where she got the name.
Let's accept Millers' contention that "she can't recall where she got the name" at face value: OK, let's enter Mr Rodger's Makebelieve.
The problem Miller, Libby, and both of their respective counsel have is that all of them appear to have no credible reason "why Miller and Libby" didn't quickly come to an agreement of whether it was OK to talk.
We see the opposite: A glacial movement toward something Miller would have us believe was over a gap between one of her brain cells.
She's still walking without assistance, so it looks that excuse doesn't fly: Her brain cells, however wide they might be from one another, are not Grand Canyon Wide.
There are already doubts about the claims that "Libby wanted Miller to testify". It is unlikely Libby wanted anything of the sort. If he did his wise counsel would have swiftly moved to save the scarce resources and diligently exercise his duties as an effective officer of the court.
It is not likely Lbiby wanted anyone to say anything. This amounts to more than a brain freeze, but a winter iceage, despite all the Washington hot air.
On the contrary, all actions by all witnesses appear to have one goal: To not communicate.
That, in my personal opinion, is a reasonable basis for a Grand Jury to return an indictment for an obstruction of justice.
Let's think about Miller's excuse in the context of the terms of her agreement with Libby; and the nature of the release from that agreement.
If Miller "truly can't recall where she got the name," why would there be any reluctance by either Miller to testify about Libby; or for Libby/counsel to grant a release?
It makes no sense that "if Miller really didn't knew where she got the name," that Libby would be in a position to worry; nor can Miller credibly argue that "protecting Libby is important".
If she can't remember the source of the name, then whether she did or didn't have an agreement/release/waive from Libby is irrelevant.
But, we are asked to believe "without a release," she couldn't talk.
What, "Can't talk" about "not knowing anything"? That makes no sense, and the scale tips against both Miller and Libby.
Given Millers selective memory, or recalling, let's be blunt: Miller never denied she got the name from someone.
So who or how did Miller get the name?
Enter, Sibel Edmonds. IT remains t to be understood whether Miller was actually having contact with those people Sibel kept talking about: The alleged drug runners who were funneling money to "high powered politicians."
Woudlnt' it be funny if the Delay and Fitzgerald Grand juries were actually sharing information, but nobody in the White House figured that out?
Yes, it's likely that they haven't figured that out, and that they are that stupid. But there are more surprises.
Let consider the time delay.
Recall, Libby "wanted Miller to testify" [sure, whatever]. So why "not take action" over something that "nobody can remember?"
The reason your head is hurting is because the "convoluted logic required to believe Miller is too extraordinary to inspire confidence.
Again, Libby and Miller jointly, through whatever greement, walked down the aisle toghether in this marriage of "we're not going to timely coopreate."
Why would both parties apparently "through a communcation problem" [over an issue that nobody can remember], take so long to talk about something that nobody can talk about?
Wouldn't it have been easier simply to have said, "Hay, we can't remember, ther's nothign to it"?
The answer is: ALl the parties know that Fitzgerald knows the real answer. He's already got the information needed.
Fitzgerald as this pint is simply letting the fish, with hooks already in deep, run their course and get tangled up.
It is not credible to believe that Libby, his counsel, and others would "let" Miller sit in jail this many months over an issue that was easily reasolved by admitting, "I can't remember."
What is to be said of this? To say, "I can't remember" as an explanation for this state of affairs is not believable. The actions, conduct, and time dleay are factors all tilting the scale away from Miller.
But let's not stop there. We are asked to beleive that Libby and Miller have nothing to hide; wanted Miller out of jail; can't remember something; but this nexus of events is explained by a communication problem.
No. It's called non-sense. It doesn't add up.
If it ruly added up: Libby and MIller would have never had had to have an "agreement" in the firts place.
You don't agree to "protect a source" when the "issue under investigatoin," as you want us to believe, is "unrelated to that agreement, because you can't remember."
Either the information in that agreement was the binding nature of that confidentiality agreement; or
The agreement between Libby and Miller was structured to protect both, but then provides no explanation why an agreement to "protect" something is real if the "issue of that agreement" wasn't specific information to protect.
There's no reason to have an agreement to "not discuss a relationship," if that relationship is unrelated to the issue of inquiry; or the inquiry and area of interest is unrelated to that agreement.
But MIller and LIbby want us to blieve that the agreement was the requisite "unknown all this time," that prevented a timely resolution to this problem.
Either the agreement existed realted to something; or
The agreemenet related to something else.
Regardless the agreement, MIller wants us to believe she can't remember. So why is Libby and the agreement and the time in jail of any relevance to whether we know or do not know what Miller was or wasn't told?
Answer: Fitzgeral already knows the answer; and is trying to get Miller to commit to something. No matter what Miller does, even feign ignorance, is simply an assertion taht is most likely at odds with what Fitzgerald already knows.
And so does the Grand Jury. Otherwise, they wouldn't be telling MIller to go back and look at her notes again as a "memory refresher."
Teh grand jury already knows th answer; they're setting up Miller, and nothing Miller does or says appears to be improving her situation.
Every statment, action, or hint of air she exhails appears to make her situation worse.
It's not reasonable that Miller "can't remember the source of the Plame name," while at the same time there was all this concern about whether Miller did or didn't testify about Libby.
The timing, glacial response of counsel, and the public story of "we wanted her to testify" is at odds with Miller's contention that "she can't remember."
If so, then she had no reason to mention Libby; nor was Libby involved; and if she truly "can't remember" then there's no reason to "not testify" on the basis of whether or not Libby did or didn't grant a release.
It is not plausible that the "can't remember" argument is unrelated to the Libby waiver and release.
Rather, if she couldn't remember where she got the name from, then whether Libby did or didn't testify would be irrelevant; and this matter could have simply been resolved months ago by her saying, "I don't remember where I got the name from; Libby and I talked about something else."
That didn't require a waiver from Libby.
So the "issue of whether Libby did or didn't grant a waiver" appears to be a red herring.
Moreover, given that Miller wants us to believe that "she can't remember," has a poor foundation. In short, I suspect Miller's assertion will be looked at by the Grand Jury as absurd, and potentially something warranting an indictments for perjury.
Here are the issues the grand jury is likely looking at:
- A. Unlawful domestic surveillance/Able Danger;
- B. JTTF violations of criminal law and engaging in unlawful intimidation of witnesses, jury members, or other citizens;
- C. To what extent did the White House direct and authorize, or should have known about efforts to intimidate the civilian population with threats of jailtime; or use other acts that amount to state sponsored terrorism;
- D. Was torture committed on American citizens to keep them silent about war crimes planning by civilians in the White House and the Pentagon;
- E. Did civilians produce software allowing the government to surveil communications and disrupt lawful Congressional inquiry into issues related to an authorization for war;
- F. Were Non Official Cover personnel in the CIA targeted, threatened with harassment outing and smearing if they revealed the full scope of the conspiracy?
Based on the public record alone, it appears the "I can't remember"-excuse has far wider implications.
It doesn't appear this Grand Jury has enough time.
But that's the illusion. Now, from the surprise files, come the answer to the above questions.
The trap Fitzgerald has set is that he already knew the answers before he asked. He just wanted the witnesses to think he was stupid and didn't know.
This many people, and none of then know how much evidence Fitzgerald already knows about.
Here's a hint: He's been bluffing, and the blogsophere helped set-up more people.
It's going to get much worse shortly.