Judy Miller has had some quizzical responses in her testimony so far in the Libby trial. Other than her obvious memory deficiencies, she seemed to display a certain shock and awe upon her return home from the WMD scavenger hunt that some Democrats and mainstream media types were already insinuating malfeasance about the lack of said weapons.
We can examine Miss Run Amok's apparent shock in two ways. On one hand we have a self-interest angle. She had a lot invested in the WMDs, such as her reportorial career (and we saw how that worked out). Additionally, she'd co-authored a book called "Germs", which ironically featured input from Scooter Libby and Dr. David Kelly (she had an email exchange with Kelly right before he passed away). A lot could come tumbling down for her if it turned out the administration had lied.
On the other hand, it could have been actual shock. She had extensive knowledge of Saddam's arsenal and history, and knew the Butcher to be capable of mayhem and deception. It's almost akin to the recent comments from Hillary Clinton noted in the video post below from early 2003. A lot of people were shocked about the missing WMDs, apparently including some of Saddam's generals.
Sounds like a mixture of both. Her stubborn refusal to remember the names of previous sources regards Plame or Wilson prior to discussing Wilson and Plame with Libby, a discusion she'd previously forgotten until prodded by her notes, which didn't prod her on the other sources (got it?) frankly appears like general crapola to me. While some older folks on the jury might identify with her "note based memory" defense, it's not a get out of testimony free card.
Frankly, it seems unfair to Libby if she won't give up these previous sources. So far Mr. Libby seems partially cooked already due to Fleischer's testimony, although they may be hanging their hat on the "Mrs. Wilson" versus "Valerie Plame" distinction, we'll see. But when one factors in Miller's weird, less than ambitious attempt to stay out of jail in 2005 when already cleared to testify, and her comment today that she, "didn't want him (Fitz) to go on a fishing expedition", it should make everyone wonder what kind of fish-fry a sudden note-based memory flash might create.
While reading the excellent live blogging at FDL something crossed my mind. Here's what triggered it:
Jeffress. That's a really fine distinction for a jury to make.Forget the bolded part--do the vapid frogmarchers realize the irony of Jeffress's statement? Will they make the obvious connection between a lust for Libby's head and the not-yet-indicted officials who supplied Pulitzer Prize winning classified information to the New York Times and Washington Post in an effort to bash the administration?
We're talking to jurors here. It's a crime, it's a crime, to disclose information that may be helpful to our enemies