Miller Miasma

I know I am getting very tiresome with this Judith Miller thing. But I am still bothered by the miasma surrounding this affair. Ms. Miller testified in front of the grand jury for the second time yesterday to answer more questions that arose after she had delivered to the special prosecutor last week a relevant E-mail that had been previously “overlooked.” Two things in particular gnaw at my craw:

1) You would think that Ms. Miller had plenty of time to remember all the details of her interactions with Scooter Libby as she was pacing the floor of her cell for three months. The fact that a significant document/event was left out of her first testimony is disturbing to say the least … and I think reflects on Ms. Miller’s veracity and her point of view. (I don’t believe the canard that she was a shill for Bush during the invasion of Iraq and therefore still is … she works for the NY Times after all.) I thought the slammer was supposed to “focus one’s mind.”

2) Ms. Miller’s attorney has admitted that Ms. Miller had had conversations with other people about Valarie Plame and that details about these other “leaks” were not discussed in her testimony as per the terms of her release from jail. Why is it that only Scooter Libby can be “outed” and her other sources can be kept behind the shroud. Doesn’t the special prosecutor have an obligation to get the “best evidence?” I can’t believe that these other interactions are not relevant to whatever determinations are made in this case. And if there are indictments, would not the defendents have every right to this information? Has the special prosecutor not painted himself into a corner with his treatment of Ms. Miller? (Perhaps that was his intent?)