The New York Times and Judy Miller - A Potential Explanation

There are many people who are heaping derision on the New York Times for their silence on the Valerie Plame leak investigation.  The New York Times has been scooped on the 'partial' content of their own employee's testimony, the agreement to testify, the existence of additional notes and has been completely silent from both an editorial and reporting perspective on what has become a major, at least for the Washington beltway crowd, investigation into who leaked the name of Joseph Wilson's wife to members of the press.

Judy Miller went to prison to protect her source, believed to be 'Scooter' Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, even after Libby had signed a waiver releasing Miller.  This puzzling act was initially credited as an in-your-face response to the hardball tactics of Fitzpatrick, the special prosecutor investigating the leak.  Miller was credited by the New York Times as taking a principled stand to protect her sources and the first amendment.

As time had passed, the leak investigation ground on with Miller cooling her heals in prison, and the New York Times writing editorials about her courageous stand.  Then...something happened.  Suddenly the Times went silent, and Miller agreed to testify.  Initially we were told by the New York Times this was because Libby, her source, had provided specific assurance that his blanket release of confidentiality was voluntary.  Libby's attorney objected to that interpretation of events and backed it up with documentation, a letter and an e-mail which clearly stated that Libby was voluntarily waiving his right to confidentiality.  Further, both of these documents pre-date the prison sentence.  Another rather interesting fact is that Miller switched attorney's from a constitutional attorney to William Bennett, a well respected criminal attorney.

Clearly there is a story here and the New York Times and the employee of the New York Times is involved and surely both of them know what the story is.  Why then has the New York Times thus far failed to report on this story?

Some folks have said that there are only two possible explanations:

1. The story involves criminal liability for the New York Times employee and they are trying to protect the employee from that liability.
2. The story could create liability for the New York Times itself, and as long as the investigation is going on, the story will not be told by the New York Times.

In either case the New York Times in their handling of the matter has not distinguished themselves...that is unless there is another explanation:

What if the prosecutor has missed something that would become obvious if the New York Times were to produce a complete report of everything they have uncovered?  What if the New York Times has in its possession information that could blow the entire case wide open and reveal once and for all who was orchestrating the entire leak?  So what...how would this affect the decision to publish?

What if that information revealed that the leak was coming from inside the CIA or from a source who has not been identified by the special prosecutor?

If this were the case it would completely explain the limited disclosure, the lack of detailed reporting and the silence taken by the New York Times.  If the New York Times were to reveal the information in their possession, the unidentified source could be exposed.

There is only one other explanation:

The New York Times could be in possession of information so damaging that the prosecutor needs to keep it quiet.  If this is the situation, it is likely that this could be a far larger and damaging case than we know of at this point.  It also might have very little to do with Libby, Rove and the existing administration folks who have been the only targets focused upon by the press.

Comments

[��������]

Бизнес авиация, Российские авиакомпании, руслайн, чартерные авиаперевозки,Чартерный рейс, Заказать рейс, заказать чартер, авиачартеры, бизнес авиация.

[Gaillnada]

dhRaQs penny auctions hoRcwvA
jtcdZQ penny auctions dvdsQvw
yccpQX pell grant application AaeAawj
ajhjvj pell grant Qduuoat
yQjpsd pell grant eligibility tseqtQt
utuvse pell grant qudRjdv
RpcQyR penny auctions XRhdAqe
dvjjEy penny auctions sisciAl