Saturday, October 01, 2005

NYT: "Phone Call With Source and Deal Led Reporter to Testify" (Adam Liptak)

One of Ms. Miller's lawyers, Floyd Abrams, wrote a letter to Mr. Libby's lawyer on Thursday in what he said was an effort "to set the record straight." Mr. Abrams acknowledged that the lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, had told him in the summer of 2004 that Mr. Libby had no objection to Ms. Miller's testifying about a meeting with him a year earlier. But Mr. Abrams also said Mr. Libby's lawyer had said that a blanket form waiver Mr. Libby signed at the request of investigators in January 2004 had been "coerced and had been required as a condition for Mr. Libby's continued employment at the White House."
"The message you sent to me was viewed by Ms. Miller as inherently 'mixed,' " Mr. Abrams wrote.
He said Mr. Libby's failure to contact Ms. Miller as the case proceeded had also led her to conclude that he did not want her to testify.

The above is from Adam Liptak's "Phone Call With Source and Deal Led Reporter to Testify" in this morning's New York Times and Wally e-mailed to note it. Scoots lawyers maintain that it should have been clear ("over a year ago"), Miller's side maintains the position they've maintained publicly throughout. The artilce also refers to a recent fifteen minute phone call between both sides where Miller is said to have been able to determine Scoot's willingness for her to break confidentiality. According to Liptak, that combined with the offer, similar to Glen Kessler's of the Washington Post, that she'd only have to reveal her source re: Valerie Plame resulted in Miller's decision to testify. (Floyd Abrams offers that the deal arrived at a point when she had "no desire to continue to endure life in the detention center.")

Katharine Q. Seelye notes, in "Journalists Fear Impact on Protecting Sources," that:

But some lawyers and journalists said the claim by journalists that they have the right to protect confidential sources had been weakened. And they were less worried that Ms. Miller's case would cause sources to refuse to talk than it would cause prosecutors to clamp down.

Marcia notes William Yardley's "Day Arrives for Recognition of Gay Unions in Connecticut:"

Beginning Saturday, town clerks in some of Connecticut's 169 cities and towns will keep their offices open to accept applications for civil unions. The rest will begin accepting applications on Monday. Some gay partners, including a state lawmaker, are planning Saturday ceremonies in parks, churches and city halls.
Even those like Ms. Bailey and Ms. Smith who are not planning civil unions see them as progress. "It's remarkable that we've come from the days that we spent in coal-black bars in Provincetown to the light of day," Ms. Smith said.
But the new law, which effectively grants gay couples every state right and benefit that married couples receive, does not resolve many major questions, including how gay couples will be treated in other states, what their status is under federal law, which does not recognize gay unions, and whether it is financially wise to legally unite.

Norah e-mails to note Matthew Rothschild's "Delightful Indictment of DeLay" (This Just In, The Progressive):

Tom DeLay indicted.
It’s got a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
I'm deLighted and eLayted.
As Molly Ivins once said of the Reagan Administration, so it may soon be said of the Bush Administration: "Half of it is under average, and the other half is under indictment."
Actually, DeLay qualifies in both categories.
And if there's another category for rattlesnake mean, he's there, too.
But God didn't give Bush the sense to distance himself even when this guy got trapped and startled to rattle.
DeLay "is a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people," said Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan.
Yes, Bush has worked closely with him but not for the American people but to further the crony capitalism that so mars this Administration.

There's an issue that members want addressed involving an article that they (and I) find offensive. I'm not doing it today. I stayed up all night (and just realized that as I looked out the window) attempting to get an entry on that. (It's twelve paragraphs currently. I can't believe I wasted that much time on twelve paragraphs.) We'll make it our Sunday entry. I would honestly prefer to act like it never made it into print but since members (including Pru) are offended by it and want a comment, something will go up tomorrow.

In the meantime, we have other things to focus on. I need to finish this entry and to get Ruth's latest Morning Edition Report up, plus we have a new The World Today Just Nuts from Isaiah. We'll also repost the section from the Sunday Chat & Chews on The Laura Flanders Show. I'm too tired to care about the other Air America programs this morning, sorry.

Cedric e-mails to note Seth's latest "No Time For Silence" and to say that is our "commonalities that drive home our connections." Seth's writing about his difficulties finding people around him to discuss issues that matter to him with. Cedric recently wrote that about that in relation to some of the women he's dated. (That could actually tie in with the print article that has offended so many. I think we're all sick of people who miss the obvious especially when their skewing of the facts seems intentional.)

Cedric highlights this from Seth's latest entry:

So many of my friends, when we get together, just want to talk about their personal lives and nothing else. I hear about countless relationship dramas, family dramas, or work dramas. I admit that those things matter, too, but why are they our only focus?
And why do I always end up going along with those conversations, biting back what I really want to talk about so that I won't bore everyone? I feel like a total closet case when I'm with them, hiding who I really am because they probably won't approve! Only it's not my sexuality I'm hiding, it's the large part of me that cares about what's going on outside of our own little circle.
I get so depressed over it sometimes, and I think it's just me. I'm too serious. I should be just having fun. I should just go with the flow. Sometimes I really, really want to just not care. I wish I could stop and live a blissful life where the only thing that matters is how my hair looks and getting that hot guy into bed. Life would be so much more simple.
But that's not who I am and if I'm honest, I'm proud that it's not.

The e-mail address for this site is (And thank you Ava for correcting typos yesterday evening.)