Login HereWhat a day at the Scooter Libby trial. This is what I came to Washington for -- that sense of being right in the middle of the action, totally engrossed in the moment, never once looking at my watch, and when 5:00 came, wishing we didn't have to go home.
The day began slowly enough, with David Addington still on the stand and Libby lawyer Ted Wells questioning him about documents for almost two hours. Enough about that.
The main attraction, of course, was journalist and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. She looked stunning, very pretty and impeccably groomed. The reporters in the courtroom all turned to watch her stride into the courtroom, chin up. Her lawyer, Washington powerhouse Bob Bennett, took a seat behind the Government's table. She was calm as she took the stand.
Fitzgerald did a crisp and clean direct examination, taking only 40 minutes to go through her career, how she hooked up with Libby, their meetings, her legal fight over being subpoenaed, her 85 days in jail, and her two subsequent grand jury appearances. Judy and Fitz were like a well-oiled machine. Unlike Ari who played to the jury, Judy directed her answers to Fitz, occasionally turning to the jury to explain a term, but then returning her attention to Fitz. The jury hung on to every word.
For the whole story, read Marcy's great live-blogging. Shorter version: She met with an agitated, frustrated Scooter Libby on June 23, 2003. Libby complained to her about Joseph Wilson, whom he called "that clandestine guy," and Wilson's attack on the Administration's WMD claims, which he called "an irrelevant ruse." During this off-the-record meeting, Libby told her Wilson's wife worked in "the Bureau" which at first she interpreted as being the F.B.I., but then figured out he meant the C.I.A. and its non-proliferation division.
They met again on July 8, spending two hours in the dining room of the St. Regis hotel. Libby again was agitated. They had a wide-ranging discussion on the intelligence leading up to the war, and Libby asked her to not to mention him, but to attribute his statements to a former Hill staffer. He told her Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA's WINPAC, the unit focused on WMD's. She spoke to Libby twice on the phone on July 12. He didn't tell her where he got the information about Valerie Wilson and they had no discussions about whether her status was covert.
Fitz then took her through her legal fight to avoid testifying which she said was the result of her not having received a personal, voluntary waiver from Scooter. As soon as she did, and as soon as Fitz agreed to limit her questioning to the topic of Libby, Wilson and Plame, she agreed to testify. The day after leaving jail, she went before the grand jury and told them about the July 8 meeting and July 12 calls, but had forgotten the June 23 meeting. That night, she found notes of the June 23 meeting, had Bennett call Fitz, and returned to the grand jury to describe that meeting in detail, her memory having been refreshed by her notes.
Judy, you see, has a note-triggered memory. She can forget an event even happened, but upon finding notes that it did, she remembers not only the event itself but details beyond those contained in the notes. Until she found those notes, she had zero recollection of having met with Libby on June 23, let alone what he told her. Once she reviewed her notes, she regained her independent memory of the meeting, Scooter's demeanor and his disclosures about Joseph and Valerie Wilson. Enter Libby lawyer Bill Jeffress. He's a little guy, but a dynamo. Focused, no nonsense, polite but firm and pressing. He challenged Judy again and again on her selective memory, eliciting answers like, "I don't remember what I remembered then" and "Counselor, I already said, I didn't remember it, I just didn't remember it." Yet, she's now sure Libby told her about Wilson's wife working for the CIA.
It's not that she was repeating what was in her notes, she said, it's that her notes brought back her independent memory. Jeffress, being a skilled lawyer, began to test her credibility on her note-triggered memories. And that's what brought the trial to a standstill.
She told him that she had no memory of discussing Valerie Plame Wilson before her June 23 meeting with Libby. He introduces a paragraph from an affidavit she signed, in which she mentions other sources for information related to Wilson's July 6 New York Times op-ed. Jeffress wants to know whether she can remember who those sources were and if so, he's going to ask her to identify them. Sidebar after sidebar results.
This isn't about the First Amendment, it's about Libby's right to impeach Miller's credibility, Wells argues. Fitz says asking her about sources related to the op-ed as opposed only to sources of information about Valerie Plame Wilson and her employment is too broad and not relevant to the case. Bennett weighs in.
They go back and forth, and I'm nodding my head in agreement with each of them as they argue opposite sides. The Judge leans toward Fitz's position but is clearly concerned about not wanting to infringe on Libby's 6th Amendment right to confront and impeach Miller. Judy by this time is clearly frustrated and anxious. She's repeatedly sorting her bangs, blowing her nose and taking sips of water.
Finally, the Judge says he's going to sleep on it and he'll have an answer in the morning. It's going to be a long night for Judy Miller. In the end, I think the Judge will split the baby, telling Jeffress he can ask about her other sources for information about Joseph and Valerie Wilson, but not other sources for the broader topic of everything in Wilson's July 6 oped.
What's the best that can happen for Libby? That the jury will conclude that Miller's memory is so unreliable and selective they can't trust any of it.
The worst? That some of jurors will recognize themselves in Judy's account of her note-triggered memory. I know I do.
Matthew Cooper will follow Judy Miller. He and his lawyer were at the courthouse, waiting in the wings today, relieved I think they had another day before facing what's sure to be a grueling grilling by Jeffress. Don't miss Jeralyn and Marcy on tonight's installment of politicsTV.com.
Share This 
Spotlight
Jeralyn!
YAHOO! Even with “real life” intruding, timing is everything. Nyah nyah guys!
I look fwd to back-tracking & reading your post Jeralyn. ;-> bye for now guys while I read…
If I’d known there were a zed down here I wouldn’t have stopped to read…
Curses, foiled again!
It sounds like you are somewhat sympathetic to Judy. Slightly different than EW’s reaction. Did you find her to be somewhat imperious?
Actually there is validity to notes triggering memories of an event beyond initial rememberance. Going back to old daytimers or yearbooks for example. Seeing our own notes links us visually to the event, and extra details can pop up then…
Not defending Judy or anything, just an observation…
Aha. Judy see notes, Judy recall suddenly refreshed — pop up like Pop-Tarts!
So Pavlovian.
Veracity, it seems, will not be this trial’s strong suit.
Game on…
Kelven @ 5
I agree with the observation, but I don’t think for a second that that’s what happened.
Back to Addington, what was it with the AQ Khan reference? Was that a defense-introduced document (because it’s not on Fitz’s site!)?
Haven’t you ever had an “Oh, now I remember!” moment?
No Blood for Hubris @ 5
I gotta agree with Jeralyn above. My mind works that way too. So this is a toughie. Often I’ll scribble a word, knowing that will bring back a flood of “real” memory when I see it in my notes. Especially happens with music - a money-saver, ’cause I don’t need any I-pod to hear a symphony while I exercise.
But I digress. Jus’ sayin’, memory’s a strange thing. I’d hate to put my money on either side of that sorta choice.
Jury’s on their own to develop a gut feeling of truthiness, combine with facts presented, & do their best.
Been on juries before. Not much fun…. Always an emotional trial for the jurors also in my experience, no matter the circumstances…
Major kudos to Marcy and everyone at FDL. The work you all are doing is astonishing.
Also, the commentary is terrific. Lots of great analysis here, and some pretty funny jokes, too.
I was just reading through most of the liveblogging from Judy’s very bad day at court. I am so intrigued to figure out if she’s panicking because she’s worried about spilling the beans to protect someone else (Cheney?), or if she’s only worried about her pretty (?) little self. Sounds like there is a good chance she committed perjury before the GJ.
I wanted to comment from an earlier thread:
Rayne @ 248
Rayne, that is exactly what I was thinking yesterday when Ari Fleischer said “Plame or Pla-may”, not able to remember the pronunciation. I figured that meant that Scooter was given the name in writing, and then gave it to Ari orally and spelled it out. Why else would Ari be confused how Scooter pronounced her name? Either he pronounced it both ways (”Plame, or Pla-may, she’s Wilson’s wife”), or Ari is talking out of his behind.
Then, I remembered Judy’s surprise notebooks, with “Flame/Plame” written. It made perfect sense that Scooter had learned how to pronounce Ms. Plame’s name, and wanted to make a point to Judy of how it SOUNDED and was spelled. (I never came up with the French connection, though… could it also be that Scooter showed Judy and Ari some documents?
(About those notebooks that just magically showed up one day… doesn’t it seem inconsistent that Judy says she takes all of her notes in notebooks, writes a Table of Contents after she finishes each notebook, and both can’t remember a damn thing AND didn’t even realize she had a lot of missing notebooks? Wow, her story really smells very rotten, indeed.)
I did not find Judy at all imperious. In fact, she came across as very needy.
I used to make her out as a potential narcissist, but she reminds me in a jillion ways, through all very very eloquent and rapid fire non-verbal tells and communications, like a former patient I had for a year. Diagnosis of that one was dependent personality disorder with histrionic features.
She does not show the imperious grandiosity of the narcissist
I think the attention seeking (narcissism) is secondary to Judy in her quest to be loved loved loved, in order to feel like a real person. Without that, she wilts, as if she feels she does not exist. I saw this live on the stand when she felt all alone up there, trapped, during sidebars. So she’s not so much fundamentally narcissistic as she is deeply craving approval.
It’s amusing to me how confused I am, following the live blog during the day and understanding barely a whit of it all, and then at last the evenings synopsis makes it all clear as a bell ringing my poor, tired & outclassed neurons to attention; like a sharp wack on the side of my head, creating a beautiful crystalline cognition of the day’s events.
I didn’t understand that I understood it, until I understood that I did understand it….
Yes, I agree that Post-its and Dayrunners can prompt our memories. However, I don’t think Judy’s memory is the least bit faulty. She was protecting Scooter and was determined not to reveal anything if she could get away with it. I’m more interested in exactly what Fitz said between GJ #1 and GJ#2 that made Judy “remember” she had notebooks stashed under her desk. Could Fitz have found out about the existence of those notebooks from another source? Was Judy required to keep these notebooks as documents for her employer, the NYT? What would have prevented her from shredding them, or would their absence have looked even worse?
On the subject of note-triggered memory…I’ve been called to testify in a case only once. It was three or so years after, as a cub reporter, I’d written a story about a police union conflict with the local police chief over whether some officers had gone off duty and had others clock out for them later.
When the case went to trial and I received a subpoena (a real surprise as I’d only written one story about the dispute), I was working for a different newspaper and my notes from the previous employer I’d long since chucked into the trash.
On the morning of my testimony, the police chief’s attorney handed me a copy of the story. I can only say the SOME of it came flooding back. The rest of it was hazy.
Would I have written the acknowledgement from one officer that he was in the changing room — and not at his post — when he was supposed to be on the clock? No. But did I remember precisely how the conversation went when he told me so? How much detail he went into? How much time we spent on the phone? No again.
Memory’s a slippery thing. While Ms. Miller unquestionably allowed herself to be played like a violin in the run-up to war, parts of her testimony today ring true to me.
FWIW, of course.
I think Scooter’s goose is totally cooked at this point. Even the judge is saying that he’s going to have to take the stand in his own defense, and that means he’s going to have to answer a number of very uncomfortable questions, starting with: “Has the evidence presented at this trial, INCLUDING YOUR OWN NOTES, refreshed your memory about leaking the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife?”
Kelven @ 5
I am with you on that one. Notes bringing back all sorts of stuff…but not remembering at all…hmmm…maybe a little convenient.
“Judy by this time is clearly frustrated and anxious. She’s repeatedly sorting her bangs, blowing her nose…”
MoDo must be jumping up and down with glee. Just think of the snark she will serve up describing Judy’s day in court.
Adie @ 12
I still don’t buy it. She could have just gone to the GJ and said, “I don’t remember any of this, and for the record, I wouldn’t tell you about it even if I did.” That would have saved her 2 1/2 months in federal prison.
On the other hand, it’s more likely that she never forgot the things she now remembers.
It may be that Cheney is Fitz’s ultimate target, but the defense attempt to draw Bush-Rove into the story makes for fascinating drama. Of course, Fitz drew up the indictment narrowly in order to keep the actual underlying crime out of the charges, so the revelations are not necessarily useful to the defense. That’s why impeaching Ari as a witness doesn’t help Scooter much, because the defense couldn’t prove anything more than that Ari was trying to protect the Resident against the original investigation, which is not germane to the actual charges against Libby.
Pachacutec @ 14
Thanks, Pach. I’ve been waiting for your take on Judy all afternoon/evening. How lucky you were in the courtroom today.
No wonder she’s both crushed and clueless as to why people might be disgusted with her role in the debacle that is Iraq.
In Libby #1 today, Judy Miller stated that one time taking notes, the pen didn’t work. How in the hell can she remember a flipping pen didn’t work 3 years ago, but not remember sources for a story? I know she thinks we’re stupid because she contributed her part to a nation being gullible enough to be dragged into war, but come on.
I hold many of these witnesses and the accused as owning some responsibility for our dead and wounded soldiers and over half a million Iraqis who have perished. I am angry.
“Diagnosis of that one was dependent personality disorder with histrionic features…”
What are histrionic features?
susan @ 20
I truly cannot stand MoDo - I’d say despise is more the word.
Has she ever done anything constructive with her column? No. She’ll go after anyone for any reason - as long as she can rip them to shreds with her snark.
Frank Probst @
18
Oh, I’m pretty sure that Scooter will admit to talking about Plame now — it’s just that he’ll say, like Judy Judy Judy, that his memory has been refreshed.
We’ll see. I’m going to put my marker down as saying that he won’t testify, regardless of all that indications that he and his lawyers have made. It’s just too perilous. Like another commenter said about Cheney — Libby will only testify if he thinks it’s close. If he’s a dead duck, what’s the point? If he’s clearly ahead, they why potentially step into quicksand?
Thad
dab from CT @ 23
And she can’t not try to climb back into good graces.
The first time she left the courtroom, during a break, after reviewing all her history with Fitz on direct, including reference to all meetings with Scooter, I almost felt bad for her. Walking down the center aisle of the court past all the press was a serious walk of shame for her. She had a quickness to her step and was looking down, not just to avoid eye contact out of professional awareness of her role as a witness, but according to my eye, because she is also deeply ashamed.
In my view, she’s a very weak woman, for all her past intransigence, which I see as tied to her desperate (it feels like literal survival) need to remain attached to the people whose approval she had so cultivated for so long.
Her actions don’t in my view stem from any any malicious neocon ideology, nor do they represent any conscious “fuck you” to the world. Quite the contrary. She didn’t want to lose the approval of her set of crucial validators.
Funny you should mention Judy’s pretty. My boyfriend says that whenever he sees her picture. It drives me crazy.
Now Fitz - he’s just dreamy……….
susan @ 26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....r#Symptoms
“I truly cannot stand MoDo - I’d say despise is more the word…”
You’re not alone. I have read the the Bush family cannot stand her. Somehow this endears her to me.
Pach 13
Hoo boy-oh-boy! I was only reading Marcy, so whadda I know?! No chance it was an “act” by Miller today?
- Or strain caused by a very real sense of being trapped by her own recklessness into losing all the fancy schmancy lifestyle & kudos she’s been used to enjoying lo these many yrs?
I’ve seen an absolute snake of a fella act same as described in the play-by-play today, and… well, he mighta been a totally mixed-up fella, he still acted like a dangerous, deliberately hurtful scum on a regular basis till brought to heel.
Does being an emotional mess absolve one from consequences of one’s actions that are admittedly hurtful to others and are, in fact, illegal?
your court….
As Pach above said at #14, he sees Judy as being very needy. This makes perfect sense to me (having seen my share of therapy from the patient side). The whole Bush dynamic seems to be to pull needy people to them so they can shower them with attention and then get them to do things they would never consider independently.
Gonzales? Meirs? Condi? Judy? Even Scooter perhaps. And some journalists wanting to be with the ‘in’ crowd gets them to suspend objectivity. If they ever become truly objective, they will lose affection. And with the Bush crowd — even worse, derision.
Oh, yes, Judy was played like a fiddle. But we knew that. She was not a player but an instument.
Kelven @
5
It’s sort of an absurd argument by Jeffers. Don’t lawyers on both sides use exhibits and show testimony to witnesses to “refresh their memories”.
Any psychologist that gets up and testifies that there is such a thing as non-contextual recollection isn’t worth their degree. Memory is based on integrated multiple pathways that can be triggered by many external stimuli. Photographs, timelines, notes, letters, visits to ones old grade school or athletic field, bumping into old friends, smells, etc. all can elucidate poorly remembered memories otherwise.
You watch how many times the Defense Team uses “memory aids” for their witnesses and that will be accepted by them as accurate testimony. While it’s true that subsequent events can alter recollections, the use of external resources such as contemporary notes, actually IMPROVES the recollection of events devoid of intervening occurances.
The fact that there are scads of notes demonstrating that Libby did, in fact, know Plame’s identity (or Flame’s identity) indicates that he did, in fact, know her identity. I think that the sheer number of occurances and depth of his involvement (after all he was repeatedly very upset about the Wilson leak…and emotional states like this make the events stand out in memory) would indicate that he WOULD remember his being put into the “meat grinder”.
This blog has been amazing. Every day it seems more like a watershed event in the development of information collection, dissemination and analysis. The points raised in the comments have been excellent also.
Kudos to Marcy and Jeralyn for the video linked at the end of the post. Great summation. Keep it up!
Frank Probst 20
I’m not saying I buy her act. I’m just saying that such memory techniques are not beyond the realm of plausibility, given my own experience with others, and myself.
Her discovering the shopping bag of notes under the desk. OHGAWD! That’s a whole other pile of % &#! Geesh! Sooooo glad I’m not on that jury, trying to keep a straight face(!)
GrandmaJ @ 34
And, she knows it. I sounds like it is very obvious to any onsite observers that she is shamefully aware of what a tool she was, and that no one is going to help her now.
If I have this right, it appears that Addington, Fleischer and Miller are all saying that they learned of Plame from Libby prior to the date Libby claims he heard it from Russert, and Russert himself is likely to testify that he did not give it to Libby, but instead got it from Libby (or someone else.)
So, unless the jury believes that Libby’s memory failed him badly, with several people, he will be convicted of perjury. Dunno about obstruction.
At which point, will it be time for Let’s Make a Deal? Will Scooter cough up Big Time to avoid the slammer? Bush could pardon him, but that carries a lot of political risk. Smarter people than me are beginning to suggest that Cheney’s on borrowed time in the VP’s office…
Adie @ 37
I was waiting for a joke about the Evidence Fairy.
Adie @
33
If my hypothesized character profile is right:
In some sense, she’s always acting, because she does not have a very solid core of a self from which to operate. But when she’s not on favorable ground of her own choosing, and she is not getting admiration or approval, the stress for her gets very intense, and I don’t believe what I saw of all that today was false. You had to see it.
Her face flashed so much rapid transition of emotions, her body so many postures, going from almost a cry in her voice a few times, to phony bravura to slouching churlishness during breaks to furtive attempt to get the jury to look at her/like her during breaks (but not so they would think she, you know, needs them), etc. Emotionally, she was like the new 8 year old in school sometimes in trouble with the teacher and sometimes wanting to sit with the cool girls at lunch.
She functions at a higher level than my old patient, so she might be more squarely in the histrionic personality disorder territory, not as deeply dependent as my patient was, but a lot of their whole vocal styles, facial features, responses to stress, body language and little tics. . . all the same.
Judy might have visual memory - seeing something triggers the whole set of memories of the occasion. I can look at a map, at work, and remember stuff from ten or twenty years ago (not necessarily in great detail, that far back), but without the map, it isn’t always accessible to me.
I recognize myself in that “note triggered” thing as well.
I often do that, take notes at a meeting or during a phone call and completely forget the whole thing until I read the notes again.
Y’know, it’s possible that Judy, Judy, Judy can’t remember events without prompting from her notes. M’self, I find that, appositely, taking notes inclines me to remember an event without further prompting, but, that’s just me.
But, how did this woman ever get through school when she had to take an exam without her notes?
Be that as it may, though, if I had 85 days in jail to think about why I was sitting there, and what the events were that put me in that position, my brain would start working on that, with all that time to do so. I would also think that my company’s lawyers weren’t earning their retainer if they couldn’t tell the difference between protecting a source and being a potential witness to the commission of a crime, and decide my fate accordingly.
There’s much that Miss I’mtherealvictiminallofthisreallyIam knows and is not telling….
Yesterday, while trying to avoid the REFRESH button, I was sorting trough my desk and came across an address book from 30 years ago. My hubby and I had a hoot last night going through it and remembering people and events that were triggered by the visual stimulus of the names.
Here it is, from Libby #1:
“F Did you take notes, anything particular about process
Obejction sustained
F Pen or pencil
M Used pen. The pen didn’t work”
If she can remember this minute detail from that long ago, the rest of her testimony is bullshit. Memory triggers, my ass.
Don’t know why I’m in such a foul mood over this, but this makes me crazy.
Pachacutec @ 14
And just how easily can a person like this be manipulated by someone else (under the right circumstances)?
Any insights about the body language of the lawyers, judge or jury? I am not asking for specifics - especially of the jury - but just a general sense of the attitude in the courtroom?
From EW liveblogging, it seemed like the prosecution was objecting a lot and the judge was sustaining … true?
I also noticed Fitzgerald was joking at a couple of points, did you notice any change in the demeanor of the prosecution or defense team?
Wells interrupted Walton a couple of times. How did Walton react to that?
Just trying to get your sense of the atmospherics - if possible. Following the trial this way has been so cool. Thanks.
susan @ 32
Well, yes. There’s that. And I’d like to like her for that reason.
But she’s an equal opportunity offender.
I enjoy snark - but to my mind she’s just snarky because it makes her “cool” - not because she stands for anything or believes in anything.
Just my humble opinion. I simply don’t like her.
clueless @ 47
Easily.
As I mentioned above, I wonder how many other of these ‘needy’ women and men have been choosen to surround Bush. Condi and Harriet Meirs come to mind. Fleischer maybe. Gonzales?
mauricehall @ 16
Sounds like she indexed them pretty well. Maybe Fitz got/saw her index log and figured it out (or guessed correctly).
Suddenly ‘losing’ things does look fishy, but the prosecutor is going to have to prove they existed & what they said before he can make a federal case out of it. I think.
I’d start here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....our-daddy/
No noticeable changes in demeanor, but Fitz’s objections were mostly upheld. There were more of them today than perhaps has been his baseline standard.
Walton does not have a real bug up his ass. He lets Wells express himself as long as Wells knows who’s in charge, and Wells’ has not taken it to that level of disrespect.
Please don’t say Judy’s pretty. It makes me nauseous.
The more I hear about Judy Judy Judy, the more someone comes to mind…”Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up.”
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mp.....amp;seq=29
dab from CT @ 49
I’m with you. I still remember what a hatchet job she did on Gore in 2000. She likes to pile on when someone is under sttack.
Got around to reading Scooter’s “Dolphin” memo to Ari. Standard goodye stuff except for this key graf: “We’ll still count on you to come to our rescue when the going gets tough.”
Very possile to read that in an Aspen sort of way.
Yes, me too. Especially when you have a lot going on at once… I’ve completely forgotten about projects I’ve done in only the last couple of years, only to run across the documents in my archives, say to myself “what was that project?”, read a few paragraphs, and had it all start trickling back to me.
The pen rings true too, since its the modus for the memories, it’s linked to the memory in several different ways.
Norma Desmond
bonkers @ 54
So is the gist that she said she met Libby writing a book, then she talked on the phone every so often, but she hadn’t seen him in a long time, then he calls her up and wants to meet her in person on June 23, so she goes, but the event is so unmemorable she forgets. then he wants to meet again, and she remember that occasion? Huh. I feel like a memory master at this point compared to the so-called elites that both drive opinion and make decisions in this country.
Pach~
Come to think of it…
Don’t the hardcore Evangelicals fit in this “needy” mold? “Please tell me what to believe?”
Is this what ties the Bushies and the Christianists together?
I don’t doubt that the notes may trigger some memory. But what I found unbelievable is how Judy went to jail knowing what this was about, agreed to testify, did not look for all notes, and then suddenly found her notes just as Fitzgerald caught her lying.
She did all she could (and is still doing all she can) to protect Libby, short of getting caught for perjury.
The irony is that Fitz is using her testimony (because it helps him), and the Libby’s team is tearing her down.
Joel @ 56
“We’ll…”
Very mafioso-sounding isn’t it?
lectric lady @ 61
I think John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience (which was discussed on the Lake) would suggest that they’re authoritarian followers.
Pach:
Thank you for your insights. They ring true-I just so appreciate both your insight and your williness to share it.
And Marcy -you are amazing.
Like so many others-I am addicted to this live blogging!
Jon Stewart live-blogging at the trial - watch out Marcy.
The Daily Show is on the case now. Especially good on Novakula.
fourlegsgood @ 43
But not, I dare say, if you had 85 days in jail to think about precisely the thing you “forgot”
I know that I sound like a Dowd defender; however, she often irritates me too. Nonetheless, if you remember this column, she was dead on, IMHO. I would imagine that Miller is still smarting from it.
Woman of Mass Destruction
By MAUREEN DOWD
I’ve always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate’s Becky Sharp.
The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy - her tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur - have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types.
Once when I was covering the first Bush White House, I was in The Times’s seat in the crowded White House press room, listening to an administration official’s background briefing. Judy had moved on from her tempestuous tenure as a Washington editor to be a reporter based in New York, but she showed up at this national security affairs briefing.
At first she leaned against the wall near where I was sitting, but I noticed that she seemed agitated about something. Midway through the briefing, she came over and whispered to me, “I think I should be sitting in the Times seat.”
It was such an outrageous move, I could only laugh. I got up and stood in the back of the room, while Judy claimed what she felt was her rightful power perch.
She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet “Miss Run Amok.”
Judy’s stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House’s case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, and I worried that she was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber that Senator Bob Graham, now retired, dubbed “incestuous amplification.” Using Iraqi defectors and exiles, Mr. Chalabi planted bogus stories with Judy and other credulous journalists.
Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.
When Bill Keller became executive editor in the summer of 2003, he barred Judy from covering Iraq and W.M.D. issues. But he acknowledged in The Times’s Sunday story about Judy’s role in the Plame leak case that she had kept “drifting” back. Why did nobody stop this drift?
Judy admitted in the story that she “got it totally wrong” about W.M.D. “If your sources are wrong,” she said, “you are wrong.” But investigative reporting is not stenography.
The Times’s story and Judy’s own first-person account had the unfortunate effect of raising more questions. As Bill said yesterday in an e-mail note to the staff, Judy seemed to have “misled” the Washington bureau chief, Phil Taubman, about the extent of her involvement in the Valerie Plame leak case.
She casually revealed that she had agreed to identify her source, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, as a “former Hill staffer” because he had once worked on Capitol Hill. The implication was that this bit of deception was a common practice for reporters. It isn’t.
She said that she had wanted to write about the Wilson-Plame matter, but that her editor would not allow it. But Managing Editor Jill Abramson, then the Washington bureau chief, denied this, saying that Judy had never broached the subject with her.
It also doesn’t seem credible that Judy wouldn’t remember a Marvel comics name like “Valerie Flame.” Nor does it seem credible that she doesn’t know how the name got into her notebook and that, as she wrote, she “did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby.”
An Associated Press story yesterday reported that Judy had coughed up the details of an earlier meeting with Mr. Libby only after prosecutors confronted her with a visitor log showing that she had met with him on June 23, 2003. This cagey confusion is what makes people wonder whether her stint in the Alexandria jail was in part a career rehabilitation project.
Judy refused to answer a lot of questions put to her by Times reporters, or show the notes that she shared with the grand jury. I admire Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller for aggressively backing reporters in the cross hairs of a prosecutor. But before turning Judy’s case into a First Amendment battle, they should have nailed her to a chair and extracted the entire story of her escapade.
Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover “the same thing I’ve always covered - threats to our country.” If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.
Pach, thanks for the well-expressed, keen observations and analysis.
Three questions. From Marcy’s amazingly detailed descriptions of Miller’s postures, facial expressions and activities during “downtimes” I got the sense the woman was having a panic attack. Certainly this was a stressful situation, but would you suspect an anxiety disorder component that intruded into her long-term behaviors and that made her testimony today sometimes unbelievably incoherent? Not?
Second, did anything about Miller suggest to you that she could have legitimate psychological problems with memory? Much of her testimony revolved around having a certain “kind” of memory, which implies a disconnect from other kinds of memories. Is the “forgotten” shopping bag of notes perhaps too bizarre to be fiction? Most of us could make up a better story, couldn’t we?
Would you hazard a guess as to the genesis of the personality disorder that you suspect? Anything that might compartmentalize memory?
I have to say I LOVE the youtube videos. We can see the beginnings of progressive TV right here. No need to corporate news when we’ve got our own great sources of information.
Fantastic stuff.
Frank Probst @ 20
Just to muddy the waters s’more, I’m gonna bet she’s a different personna now, in lotsa ways, than she was before this all started.
e.g., co-workers apparently regarded her as imperious?…, Pach now struck by her obvious vulnerability.
The self-proclaimed mighty fall farther & harder, perhaps? in their own estimation, if & when they’re brought down/cause their own undoing.
Pach. Do such people usually blame others, or themselves?
Sorry to sound so harsh. Not sure I buy her act. But then I wasn’t there to see her. Still, suggest you revisit video of her perky-looking step as she walked up to the courthouse today…
Is she putting all her personal eggs in the pity-poor-me basket? as a last ditch attempt to salvage whatever dwindling reputation she may still claim?
All the above just speculation. Just want people to think, deeply, about all this. A lot of people have been killed or grievously, brutally injured as a result of these folks’ shoddy behavior. I do want justice, but I don’t hold special sympathy for some of the players in this courtroom right now
… except for Fitz & the FDL crew!!! ;->
*hits head on keyboard*
Own and read John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience.
Just remade the connection that Judy is in the same camp.
Pach, Thanks for your take on Judy M and the link to Histrionic Personality Disorder. The word histrionic comes from latin for actor, not the greek hsyterical, but the two adjectives come together in the disorder.
I have developed a mental image from the description provided by Ari Fleisher of the gang on the plane. They were like the Rat Pack or a fraternity. Some of the lower level individuals in the adminstration may not hold neoconservatism and American hegemony as a core belief. They are simply going with the flow for the money, connections and prestige.
It’s interesting how details of the emotional states of Libby lend a stonger valence to the testimony. It translates as more genuine.
Jeralyn does a nice job of bringing that out.
.
TRex is in the house, and apparently so is John Dickerson.
Oh but it was so much fun when she was sleeping with her sources! Shame on you Judy, women like you make us look bad…
Can you see any level of personal exchange between Lewis and Judith?
Hmmmm….
Judy may not have been imperious TODAY –
But does anyone remember a certain story about Judy being called “Queen of All Fucking Iraq”? Imperious sounds like just the right word.
And that NY Mag article about Judy –yes it was catty, but if there was truth to it, it seems Judy bossed everybody in the newsroom around. Telling everyone she should have the prime real estate in the joint because she was their most valuable employee, etc.
Remember?
Maybe she knows well enough to not do any bossing around on the stand, eh?
Jeralyn, thanks for a great post. Even with all the live blogging today, I was jonesing for another informed opinion, such as your’s.
Pach in the comments is just frosting. Thanks a lot Pach, your analysis really makes sense. I was just floored by her admission that she rarely read the NYT’s. A very small person, trying to scratch her way to approval and blissfully unaware of the enormous amount of damage she and her editors at the NYT’s did in the process. Her editors had to have some sense know that Judy was just a subtler version of Jason Leopold. She was a stenographer and her value to the NYT’s came with her ability to gain access to anonymous sources, not her ability to ask questions or to inoculate her stories against spin.
Memory is strange. In December, I was flown back to the US to testify about what happened for about five minutes in 1979. 1979? Was there ever such a time?
I refreshed my memory by looking at the police report, only to have the defense attny suggest that the report was hearsay, since I hadn’t written the report myself and didn’t know the person (policeman) who had written the report.
OK, why are a few people finding it hard to believe that she actually remembers minute details so hard to believe? As though she’s just making this stuff up now. As for a pen not working, that’s easy: when a pen doesn’t work it fades out and you make lots of circles and scratches on the paper trying to make it work again. It’s right there in your notes. Duh.
It’s not a question of how reliable her memory is. It’s a question of how honest she is. She never forgot a damn thing. She purposefully withheld information from the grand jury until she was almost caught. And then she miraculously found the notes and made up an implausible story about her memory. She was protecting Libby who she knew was guilty. Hopefully that will be clearer to the jurors that it is to some of the posters here.
Pach, ditto on analysis.
Doug Keenan @ 77
Judy really lit up when she told two stories.
The first was when she first met Scooter and he praised the book she coauthored, and asked for an inscribed copy. She really lit up at that, thinking back fondly. Sccoter smiled, but down to the table where he sat.
The same thing happened when Judy related, in detail, her meeting of Scooter in Aspen, when she at first did not recognize him, at the rodeo, as previously described in her writing. Sje glowed with that memory, too, nd Libby smiled a bit as if in memory or reflection, or perhaps, at what a pliant tool she was. . . who can tell?
Pach — As long as we’re tossing out diagnoses, can I throw in my best guess, which is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)? You might not have seen it on full display in this courtroom, but I have to admit, Judith Miller reminds me a lot of someone I knew a few years ago who had BPD with narcissistic/histrionic tendencies.
The woman I knew was highly manipulative, and cunning, but with rescue fantasies (perhaps because she was never rescued herself, her mother having the same psychological make-up). Once caught in one of her schemes, you could see the fright, the shame in her eyes, even as she went on to repeat her constant, needy manipulations. You are apparently more likely to find women with BPD working as psychiatric nurses than in the journalistic profession, because these people are very difficult to work with (as a rule). But under the right circumstances, a borderline personality could make an efficient and prolific reporter — someone like Judy Miller.
There’s a pop paperback on BPD with a memorable title, “I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me.” I always thought that phrase summed up well the rollercoaster emotional life of these individuals. (I also feel sorry for Judith Miller on some level, Pach, and was touched by your remarks about her. But who has any doubt that she blew lies in her first gj appearance, then recovered the June 23 notebook to relieve herself of contempt? I think the jury pretty much got that point. But even so, her notebooks tell a story.)
Pachacutec @ 41