Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I agree he might want that. But the defense that libby and rove are apparently working on (according to your article) is that they got the name from a reporter, rather than the internal WH memo, noting the name as secret. It provides two defenses: 1) they didn't reveal secrets; 2) even if it were a secret, it really wasn't because novak et al. knew.
So, if Miller can say she didn't supply the name, that cuts off the defense they have. So what if she didn't supply the name specifically to Rove and/or Libby. Ruling out all rules out those two.
Of course, it may be that she couldn't make the statement I propose because it's not true.
|
If she gets out of jail with that, it gets Fitzgerald part of what he wants, but perhaps he's after more. The appellate opinion apparently says F. knows who she talked to in the WH, and he may want to know what was said, not just what was not said.
Remember, there's no love lost between F. and Miller. F. probably is in no hurry to get Miller out of jail. F. believes that Miller tipped off several Muslim charities that he was investigating in 2001 just before the Feds arrived with subpoenas, and the charities were allegedly able to destroy a lot of evidence as a result.
