The ever-intrepid Murray Waas has the latest scoop on Novak-Plame-gate. Waas reports today in the National Journal that Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, (1) did not tell special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the grand jury, or the FBI about a critical June 23, 2003 meeting with NY Times "reporter" Judith Miller (Fitzgerald learned about it from Judith Miller’s recently-discovered notes of the conversation), and (2) may have actively attempted to discourage Miller from testifying before the grand jury.
Both bad things, and both possible ways to put Scooter Libby behind bars! Bad thing #1 could be fodder for a perjury charge, and bad thing #2 could be obstruction of justice.
These revelations also add a fascinating spin to the saga of Judy in jail. As we and others have discussed at length, Miller’s claim that she only agreed to testify after Libby provided her with a truly voluntary waiver of confidentiality is quite absurd, especially since the personal waiver he gave her a couple of weeks ago was just as coerced as the blanket waiver he signed a year ago, if not moreso (it came about as a result of a direct request from the special prosecutor). Miller, the Times, the prosecutor, and everyone else involved surely knew that. So why was she so resistant to testify, to the point that she spent 85 days in jail? Was the pressure that Libby allegedly brought on her to keep quiet that intense? What on earth could he have been saying to her? Was he trying to bring home to her the possibility that the more she says, the more likelihood there would be that she herself would be indicted for whatever role she played in this shameful episode?
The thot plickens.
UPDATE: According to Huffington Post, the Wall St. Journal and Bloomberg are both working on stories that will tie VP Dick Cheney directly into Novak-Plame-gate. Oh, be still my heart!
FURTHER UPDATE: Part of tomorrow’s WSJ article has been posted here [additional update: the whole thing is here]. Nothing specific about Cheney, but it does suggest that Fitzgerald’s probe may extend beyond the narrow issue of the Plame outing to a broader conspiracy involving, among other things, the inner workings of the "White House Iraq Group" (which included Rove and Libby). That ought to be interesting.
why was she resistant to testifying? well, the timing for one thing. the june date was prior to wilson’s editorial. it opens a new can of worms. if she discussed the upcoming editorial which perhaps she was privy to, it stands to reason the administration had plotted earlier . it could have been this conversation the information about plame was disclosed to miller, or libby and passed onto novak.