Ex-Reporter for Times
Testifies
for Prosecutor Who
Jailed Her
By NEIL A. LEWIS and
SCOTT SHANE, NYTimes on the Web, January 31, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — Judith
Miller, a former reporter for The New York Times, testified Tuesday as a witness
for the prosecutor who had put her in jail for 85 days, recounting details of
her once-confidential interviews with I. Lewis Libby Jr.
Ms. Miller had initially refused to cooperate with the government in its
investigation of Mr. Libby, saying she would not violate her oath of
confidentiality to Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick
Cheney. But the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with the
support of the federal courts, had her jailed until she relented. She
asserted that Mr. Libby had released her from her vow of confidentiality.
As she began her testimony, she was calm and soft-voiced as she faced Mr.
Fitzgerald — who is still investigating her in an unrelated case — and discussed
three conversations she had had in June and July of 2003 with Mr. Libby.
Those conversations, in which Ms. Miller said an agitated and anxious Mr. Libby
criticized the Central Intelligence Agency and informed her of the identity of
an agency operative named Valerie Wilson, are a significant part of the perjury
and obstruction case against him.
It was only after Mr. Fitzgerald briskly concluded his questioning, and Ms.
Miller found herself facing a caustic cross-examination from one of Mr. Libby’s
defense lawyers, that her composure slowly withered. Under the questioning
by the lawyer, William H. Jeffress Jr., who attacked her memory and credibility,
she began to sigh frequently and grow testy in her responses.
Pressed about why she failed to remember an important June meeting with Mr.
Libby during her first grand jury appearance, she said with her voice rising:
“Counselor, I’ve already said I didn’t remember that meeting. I just
didn’t remember.”
The day ended with an extraordinary argument by lawyers for both sides, as well
as a lawyer for Ms. Miller, over whether Mr. Jeffress could ask her if she had
other sources she spoke to about Ms. Wilson. The question, which was left
unresolved by Judge Reggie M. Walton until Wednesday, threatened to derail the
trial over the very constitutional issue that saw Ms. Miller go to jail in 2005.
Judge Walton seemed disinclined to allow questions about Ms. Miller’s other
sources. “I appreciate that there is an interest the media has in not
having questions asked that aren’t germane to this case,” he said. But if
he does allow them — and she refuses to answer — she could be held in contempt
once again and a mistrial could result.
In her more than two hours on the stand, Ms. Miller became the focal point for
an intense drama involving three people in the room: herself, Mr.
Fitzpatrick and Mr. Libby. As she provided the testimony that was most
damaging to Mr. Libby, he sat almost motionless in his chair about 20 feet away
and stared at her.
Mr. Fitzgerald first took her through her June 23, 2003, meeting with Mr. Libby.
Mr. Libby, who she said was usually low key, “appeared to be agitated and
frustrated.”
He was unhappy about growing public concern that President Bush had used
inaccurate information in his most recent State of the Union speech, in which he
said there was evidence that Saddam Hussein had recently tried to acquire
uranium from Africa.
She said Mr. Libby said the C.I.A. “was beginning to backpedal from the
unequivocal intelligence” it had provided before the war about Iraq’s efforts to
obtain uranium.
He said the C.I.A. was doing so through “a perverted war of leaks” related to a
fact-finding mission to Africa by Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was married to Ms.
Wilson, also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.
“Did he discuss the wife?” Mr. Fitzgerald asked. “Yes,” Ms. Miller
replied, adding that Mr. Libby had said Ms. Wilson worked at the agency’s
division that dealt with limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
Ms. Miller said Mr. Libby told her that Mr. Cheney had asked the agency in early
2002 about Iraq and African uranium, and the C.I.A. decided to send Mr. Wilson
on its own without telling the vice president.
She described a second meeting with Mr. Libby at a Washington hotel that lasted
two hours, as well as some telephone calls.
The main line of attack by Mr. Jeffress concerned the fact that Ms. Miller did
not describe the June 23, 2003, meeting with Mr. Libby when she first appeared
before a grand jury on Sept. 30, 2005, the day after she got out of jail.
He noted with a large measure of sarcasm that she had just finished testifying
in detail about Mr. Libby’s comments and even his mood during the June 23
meeting. How was it possible that she forgot entirely about the same
meeting before the grand jury? he asked.
Ms. Miller had said that her memory of the June 23 meeting was triggered only
when she accidentally discovered a shopping bag full of notebooks under her desk
in the Times’s newsroom. Her lawyer then informed Mr. Fitzgerald, and she
described the previously forgotten meeting in a second appearance before the
grand jury.
Ms. Miller is the first of a series of reporters who are lined up to dispute Mr.
Libby’s account of his behavior in the investigation of who may have leaked to
the press Ms. Wilson’s identity as a C.I.A. officer.
Beyond the drama of the day’s proceedings, the appearance of Ms. Miller as
someone forced by the government to testify against a source emphasized how the
case has changed the landscape of relations between journalists and government
officials.
As the day ended in the argument over whether Ms. Miller could be questioned
about other sources, Judge Walton took the unusual step of calling on Ms.
Miller’s lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, to explore what questions she might be
willing to answer.
Mr. Bennett confirmed that Ms. Miller had already indicated she would testify
she did not recall any sources other than Mr. Libby with whom she had discussed
Mr. or Mrs. Wilson.
But the defense argued that it should be allowed to ask a broader question:
whether she recalled other sources with whom she had discussed the issues raised
by Mr. Wilson’s July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The New York Times, which accused
the Bush administration of twisting the intelligence that led to war. Mr.
Jeffress argued that because Ms. Miller had said in a 2005 affidavit filed with
the court that she had discussed those issues with multiple sources, he should
be permitted to ask about them.
Mr. Fitzgerald, having once jailed her for protecting a source, now argued that
she should not have to answer the question about sources.
“I don’t want to make the First Amendment argument,” Mr. Fitzgerald said, noting
the contradiction of his position. Instead, he argued that questions about
sources on subjects other than the Wilsons were not relevant to the charges
against Mr. Libby. If they were allowed, the prosecutor said, “We’re off
on an irrelevant fishing expedition.”
But Theodore V. Wells Jr., one of Mr. Libby’s lawyers, argued that Ms. Miller
should be asked the questions so Mr. Libby could have an opportunity to impeach
her credibility.
“This is nothing more than classic 101 impeachment,” Mr. Wells said. “I
don’t think we have a First Amendment collision at this point.”
Ms. Miller left The New York Times in November 2005 after a 28-year career at
the newspaper. Her reporting came under attack after articles she wrote
suggested that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, coverage that helped
the Bush administration build its case for invading Iraq but that turned out to
be wrong. In a letter to the editor explaining her reasons for leaving,
she said she had “become a lightning rod for public fury over the intelligence
failures that helped lead our country to war.”
Mr. Fitzgerald is investigating Ms. Miller in an unrelated case involving leaks
about Islamic charities.
|
