NationStates Jolt Archive


Judith Miller, the Rest of the Story?

Myrmidonisia
04-11-2005, 14:09
In the WSJ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007504), this morning, was a good editorial calling for the release of material that was used to put Judith Miller in jail. It would be interesting to know what else she knows and was keeping to herself.

Rather than join this parade of masochism, we thought we'd try to speed things along, as well as end one of the remaining mysteries in the probe. That's why Dow Jones & Co., this newspaper's parent company, filed a motion late Wednesday requesting that the federal district court unseal eight pages of redacted information that Mr. Fitzgerald used to justify throwing Judith Miller of the New York Times in the slammer.

The pages were part of Judge David Tatel's concurring opinion in the ruling against Ms. Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Judge Tatel said the eight pages showed that, with his "voluminous classified filings," Mr. Fitzgerald had "met his burden of demonstrating that the information [sought from the reporters] is both critical and unobtainable from any other source."

The pages remain sealed, but now that Mr. Fitzgerald has indicted Mr. Libby and said "the substantial bulk" of his probe is "completed," there's no reason to keep those pages secret. The indictment itself discloses the nature and "major focus" of Mr. Fitzgerald's grand jury probe, including the fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. The special counsel's own extensive public discussion of the facts in the case should also have vitiated any protection from disclosure under grand jury rule of evidence 6(e). Future prosecutors and judges trying to decide whether to throw a reporter in jail should be able to inspect the evidence in this case, which will be an influential precedent.
The Nazz
04-11-2005, 14:39
I have to admit, I'd like to see the info released as well, as long as there's no other damage to national security by doing it. The WSJ Editors seem to assume that's the case--I'm not so convinced.
Myrmidonisia
04-11-2005, 14:44
I have to admit, I'd like to see the info released as well, as long as there's no other damage to national security by doing it. The WSJ Editors seem to assume that's the case--I'm not so convinced.
What's left? We know about Plame's status. That was in the indictment. I'm having a hard time figuring out what might be germaine to the case and still classified.
The Nazz
04-11-2005, 14:51
What's left? We know about Plame's status. That was in the indictment. I'm having a hard time figuring out what might be germaine to the case and still classified.
Whatever was in there was serious enough for an appeals court judge who was writing a partial dissent to redact it--I'm assuming that those judges don't do that sort of thing lightly. I don't know what's left to be discovered, and like I said, I'm curious, but not if it endangers national security. It's not particularly satisfying to have to depend on others to make that determination, I know, especially when you have an inherent distrust of the people involved as I do, but it's all I've got. I've got to trust those judges.
Sierra BTHP
04-11-2005, 15:29
Whatever was in there was serious enough for an appeals court judge who was writing a partial dissent to redact it--I'm assuming that those judges don't do that sort of thing lightly. I don't know what's left to be discovered, and like I said, I'm curious, but not if it endangers national security. It's not particularly satisfying to have to depend on others to make that determination, I know, especially when you have an inherent distrust of the people involved as I do, but it's all I've got. I've got to trust those judges.

Considering the language in the recent finish of the Cisneros investigation http://barrett.oic.gov/opinions/10-24-05op.pdf
one might conclude that material may be redacted for reasons other than national security.

I'm wondering why they are concealing major portions of the Cisneros outcome - I mean, we already know most of what happened and it's over. So what's to conceal there?

They may be concealing evidence found by the prosecutor in the CIA leak case because it may be germaine to the trial of Libby, and they don't want to potentially contaminate the jury pool.
The Nazz
04-11-2005, 16:02
They may be concealing evidence found by the prosecutor in the CIA leak case because it may be germaine to the trial of Libby, and they don't want to potentially contaminate the jury pool.
There's also the fact that the case isn't closed yet, and that more indictments may well be coming. Remember, Rove still remains in substantial legal jeopardy, according to his defense team.