10/15/2005

Daily Kos :: Comments NYT Writes its Story.. - Miller's security clearance

u don't address issue of her "clearance" (4.00 / 6)

which I am sure will be used by Repbs and Libby to claim that they could share the info about Plame at CIA with Miller, because they thought she was still cleared from her work in Iraq.

BUT -- and this is important, merely being cleared does not mean that one is entitled to hear everything. She was cleared only with respect to the work of that unit. Anything not dierctly relevant would not have been included, and thus the line she tried to throw Libby in her piece should have no legal weight.

Libby said something classified to someone not authorized to know that piece of information. That violates his own statement authorizing him to receive classified information, and violates a ton of additional statutes and regulations.

Clearly his letter to Miller should qualify as prima faciaevindence of an attempt to subborn perjury, just as what has been quoted about his lawyer, Mr. Tate, might well similarly qualify on obstruction of justice, as Mark Kleiman has noted.

I also think the fact that Miller may have been presented to the grand jury only as a witness means nothing after her testimony --her status can now clearly be changed, and she can again be in jeopardy - for perjury, for obstruction, ....

Methinks the only reason you may not ahve had indictments yesterday is that only 15 grand jurors were present, and you need a quorom of 16/23 in order to issue a true bill.

But then, for all we know there are already sealed indictments, and Fitgerald is now in the process of trading up?

by teacherken on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:38:37 PM CDT

I pondered that for a while. (4.00 / 2)


I think it's a red herring essentially for the reasons you said.

* Just because Miller had clearance for some classified information doesn't mean she had clearance for that classified information. The reasons she had clearances in the Iraq War were specifically so she could accompany troops in her "embedded" status role. Knowing CIA agent status doesn't enter into that.

* Miller implies she had few dealings with Libby before meeting him for these 2003 stories. Libby wouldn't have known what clearances Miller had -- and if he did look them up, he would have seen that they no longer applied.

I mean, honestly, I could go right up to Libby and tell him "oh, yeah, I got all them clearances. Type B, Codename Mitten Farmer, with a subheading of Magic Cheese Pants, the whole works. So tell me everything you know." And if he did, his own stupidity wouldn't absolve him.

There's going to be a whole lot of parsing and investigating around "did Miller have clearance?", but I'll be very surprised if it isn't discounted within the week, considering that she herself seemed to discount it. I think the line of questioning was to explicitly rule her out as a valid recipient of the info.

by Hunter on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:51:34 PM CDT

And even if she DID have clearance- (none / 0)

the information was STILL slipped to Novak and Cooper as well (and who knows who else) which means that people who did not have clearance at some point passed on the information. If it wasn't Libby breaking the law, it was Miller and I don't think Miller would come OUT of jail so she could incriminate herself somehow...

by Arken on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 07:55:43 PM CDT


Daily Kos :: Comments NYT Writes its Story, and Miller Buries Libby

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home