So Judy Miller has been freed to testify by her source, I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
The publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said in a statement that the newspaper supported Ms. Miller's decision, just as it had backed her refusal to testify.So why didn't Scooter give Miller the green light a long time ago, to save her from jail in the first place? What's so special about the "new and improved" waiver which gives Miller certainty that it is uncoerced (this time)?
"Judy has been unwavering in her commitment to protect the confidentiality of her source," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify."
Mr. Libby wrote to Ms. Miller in mid-September saying he believed that her lawyers understood during discussions last year that his waiver was voluntary.It took a star reporter for the New York Times a full year (and a couple of months in jail) to find out that one of her highly placed sources had released her to disclose his identity? The New York Times may claim that it provides all the news that's fit to print, but... tell me I'm wrong, that it's leaving out some key details.