Judge Lifts Contempt of Court Citation for Miller

By E&P Staff

Published: October 12, 2005 8:45 PM ET updated 11:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Judith Miller's second appearance before the grand jury probing the Plame/CIA leak case on Wednesday lasted only a little more than an hour but it was enough to earn a judge's order releasing The New York Times reporter from the contempt-of-court citation that landed her in jail.

The order was still in place until her testimony was complete. It was liften by Judge Thomas F. Hogan.

"I am delighted that the contempt order has been lifted, and Judy is now completely free to go about her great reporting as a very principled and honorable reporter," said Robert Bennett, one of Miller's attorneys.

Much later in the day, after the story was widely reported elsewhere, The New York Times quoted Bill Keller, executive editor: "It's a great relief to have Judy out of legal jeopardy. And it should clear the way for The Times to do what we've been yearning to do: tell the story."

Keller had said in a letter to newsroom staffers on Tuesday that once Ms. Miller's "obligations to the grand jury are fulfilled, we intend to write the most thorough story we can...." He also criticized "armchair critics" and those who had spread rumors and "myths" about the case.

A New York Times spokeswoman told E&P the paper would not say when any major article would appear.

Miller testified Wednesday about a recently uncovered June 23, 2003, discussion with her source, "Scooter" Libby.
Writing in the Washington Post on Thursday, Jim VandeHei observed, "The June 23 conversation would be significant if Miller and Libby discussed Plame, the lawyers in the case said. If they did, it could help Fitzgerald establish that Libby was involved in an administration effort to unmask Plame weeks before she was publicly outed by conservative columnist Robert D. Novak in the middle of July."

VandeHei added that lawyers in the case "said Fitzgerald does not appear likely to charge anyone with the crime he originally set out to prove: whether anyone in the Bush administration knowingly disclosed the identity of a CIA operative whose covert status the agency was actively trying to keep secret. That crime is difficult to prove because Fitzgerald would have to show that the officials knew Plame was a covert operative and that the CIA did not want her name revealed.

"Instead, based on the questions Fitzgerald is asking, the lawyers surmised that he is looking into a broad conspiracy charge against a group of administration officials or into charging one or more officials with easier-to-prove crimes such as disclosing classified material, making false statements or perjury."

Meanwhile, appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball," Mike Allen of The Washington Post said officials inside the White House are readying this legal defense: the Valerie Plame information came from the press to them, not the other way around. One problem: Some people at the State Department (including Colin Powell) may have testified that the White House specifically requested information about Plame.

Karl Rove, top White House deputy, will testify this week, for the fourth time. Fitzgerald may move quickly after that to produce indictments.

Link Here