more judy miller, again. and more miers

oops - this post was supposed to go up a couple of days ago - i just found it in my 'draft' folder.

* "Tate told Miller attorney Floyd Abrams that he is engaging in "spin control" by suggesting in interviews that Tate had a year ago described Libby's waiver to Abrams as conditional and inherently coerced. He also accused Abrams of failing to mention in media interviews that Abrams never told Tate that Miller had doubts about the waiver or wanted to speak to Libby directly.
"The significant fact that you continue to omit, and that seems to be lost here, is that you never told me that your client did not accept my representation of voluntariness or that she wanted to speak personally with my client," Tate wrote. "Even you can't spin those facts away. That is the answer to this unfortunate circumstance of your client's incarceration, not any failure on our part."" (link)

* "A second factor in Miller's decision was a recent agreement with Fitzgerald to limit his questions solely to her conversations with Libby." (link)
theres some dispute about this - some versions say that the testimony was restricted to the conversation with libby, others say that the testimony was limited to plamegate discussions. i think that confusion is probably intentional.

* "Ms. Miller said Mr. Libby had not agreed to these conditions until late last month and so, contrary to what she called White House "spin," she could not have testified a year ago or avoided jail. " (link)

* "Ms. Miller also turned over her notes to Mr. Fitzgerald, but she said she was allowed to redact them herself, removing irrelevant information, rather than having to submit them to a third party to redact." (link)
wtf?

* "Ms. Miller was introduced by Bill Keller, the executive editor, who said the newspaper planned to publish a full account of Ms. Miller's case. He said the article could appear as soon as this weekend.
"I know that you and our readers still have a lot of questions about how this drama unfolded," he told the staff members. He said the paper had been wary of revealing too much about the case for fear of compounding Ms. Miller's legal problems, but added, "Now that she's free, we intend to answer those questions to the best of our ability in a thoroughly reported piece in the pages of The New York Times, and soon. We owe it to our readers, and we owe it to you, our staff."" (link)
i wonder how many revisions the story will go through between now and then?

* "Probably the most insolent quality of this nomination derives from her recent job experience, where her duties since 2001 have been as an inside, direct, advisor to the president, including a stint managing his access to information. In the current case, the idea that such a resume merits consideration for any high office is beyond satire and beyond ridicule, because this administration has a nearly unblemished record of taking bad advice, ignoring useful information, and making catastrophic choices on a steady and varied stream of international and national policies. Anyone suspected of being in the advisory chain that generated this record would seem to be flatly disqualified from any job involving good judgment or insight, at least on a prima facie basis." (link)

* "Once again, Bush opts for someone with negligible experience and keeps within his inner circle. Does this guy know more than 20 people?" (link)
lol