Ongoing Plame Case thread...

[Taco John]

Just thought I'd start a thread to consolidate the news that comes out of the Valerie Plame ordeal...

[|Zach|]

This thread is plame.

[Taco John]

Here's the latest:

Time Reporter to Testify in CIA Leak Case

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
43 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper agreed Wednesday to testify about his sources in a government leak of a CIA agent's identity, a dramatic about-face which came as he faced going to jail.

I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan.

Cooper's turnaround came at a hearing at which Hogan was to consider whether to jail Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller for defying his order to testify about their confidential sources in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt_35

[Taco John]

From Drudge:

"'I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions' for not testifying, TIME mag reporter Matthew Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received 'in somewhat dramatic fashion' a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret... "

[Donger]

From Drudge:

"'I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions' for not testifying, TIME mag reporter Matthew Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received 'in somewhat dramatic fashion' a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret... "

Well now. That is interesting.

[Taco John]

Well now. That is interesting.



Indeed. It confirms for me what I have been thinking... This is going to go nowhere.

[Taco John]

Of course, Judith Miller has just been ordered to jail... Too bad her source wasn't so benevolent! ROFL

[RINGLEADER]

Sorry, didn't see this before I posted on an older thread. They were talking on the radio about how Rove had freed Cooper from any sourcing privilege (again, I know it's a reporter thing - not a legal thing) months ago and Cooper is now saying that he got the waiver from the source THIS MORNING.

Of course that wouldn't get Rove off the hook if this was a perjury issue, but I think the fantasy that Rove is the source of the leak is beginning to unravel...much to Lawrence O'Donnell's consternation.

[RINGLEADER]

Of course, Judith Miller has just been ordered to jail... Too bad her source wasn't so benevolent! ROFL


They said that the source (which is beginning to sound like the same source Cooper used considering they were both contacted this morning) DID release her from any promises that she had made but that she felt he was being coerced into making the offer from his employer.

Which, if it is Karl Rove, puts a whole new spin on things. ;)

[Taco John]

Hard to feel sorry for her then...

[RINGLEADER]

Cooper said he got a personal waiver, not the written waiver. So maybe Miller and Cooper don't have the same source.

[RINGLEADER]

The reporters are grilling the reporter... but he wouldn't tell who the source was.

[|Zach|]

The reporters are grilling the reporter... but he wouldn't tell who the source was.
Seems he is sticking to the new deal in that he will only talk about it to the Grand Jury.

[Oxford]

Of course, Judith Miller has just been ordered to jail... Too bad her source wasn't so benevolent! ROFL

Why has her source not released her? It can't be Rove. If this source was within the Bush Administration we would know about it, so it stands to reason that someone opposed to the administration has something to lose. Who is the NY Times protecting? The law says in National Security cases, reporters can't shield their sources..........

[jiveturkey]

Let's call it Plame-Gate.

[DanT]

I don't think you can deduce from Judith Miller's refusal to name names that her source hasn't signed a waiver releasing her to do so. Those waivers might be such that they're being signed under duress. If a reporter makes a pledge not to reveal a source's identity, it could well be that the reason why the source asked for the pledge was to protect himself from a Federal prosecution. In that case, it would be chickensh!t to reveal the source's identity just because the source later signed a waiver that supposedly gives you permission to rat the source out. If a reporter's policy is to have some shred of integrity and not go turning her back on pledges she makes, then she mightn't give a f*ck whether the source did or did not sign a release.

I doubt that Judith Miller would make pledges of confidentiality that are understood to only last as long as the source doesn't sign a release with, of all people, a Federal prosecutor.

Top of a recent news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt

WASHINGTON - New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed Wednesday for refusing to divulge a confidential source to a grand jury investigating the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name. Another reporter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed to talk and avoided jail.

Cooper agreed to cooperate with prosecutors after disclosing that his source had given him permission to do so hours earlier. The about-face came after nearly two years of refusals to disclose the information.

The developments added further intrigue to what already was one of the most closely watched press freedom cases in recent history.

"I do not view myself as above the law," Miller told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan. "You are right to send me to prison."

But she said she had an obligation to protect a confidential source: "I do not make confidentiality pledges lightly, but when I do I must honor them."

[NewPhin]

Here's the GOP talking points on this issue, if you want to skip the middlemen here and get straight to the source:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html

[Bootlegged]

Oh, Karl Rove :whackit:

[Henry]

Here's the GOP talking points on this issue, if you want to skip the middlemen here and get straight to the source:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html


Remember, it's not a criminal act, if the person in question is on your side.

[Pitt Gorilla]

For the first time during this whole mess, I think Rove may be in trouble.

[Donger]

Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_rove;_ylt=AkT4Q3gZ8CXlYPIlqmib4aKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

WASHINGTON - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.

Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and — in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations — informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.

Rove's conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Democrats continued this week to sharpen their attacks, accusing Rove of compromising a CIA operative's identity just to discredit the political criticism of her husband.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said President Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: "This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to "partisan war chants."

Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

"If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

[Donger]

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

Whoa. Just saw that. That's major.

[HC_Chief]

Whoa. Just saw that. That's major.

Not really... the law stipulates that if she were undercover out of country within the past five years, then the act would be illegal.

Just an FYI

[jiveturkey]

Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak

And Novak got it from two sources within the Bush admin. So this might help Rove but someone inside still has stink on them.

[Donger]

Not really... the law stipulates that if she were undercover out of country within the past five years, then the act would be illegal.

Just an FYI

Really? I thought it was only illegal if the person outed was actively undercover and if the leaker knowingly outed the covert officer.

[HC_Chief]

And Novak got it from two sources within the Bush admin. So this might help Rove but someone inside still has stink on them.

I think Rove was one of the two Bush Admin officials he was referring to in his story. Remember, his story was about nepotism and the attempt to manipulate public opinion, as well as influence government decisions based upon partisan acts of Wilson. Plame was included in the story since she was the nepotism link... she was the actual WMD expert, not her husband - but she promoted him for the trip to Niger (upon return he published a false report).

[jiveturkey]

Really? I thought it was only illegal if the person outed was actively undercover and if the leaker knowingly outed the covert officer.I remember reading the last 5 years as well. Some of those missions might still be ongoing (without her) and this could put those in jeopardy. Her life could also be in jeopardy if contacts from previous missions are now aware of her status.

The 5 year rule probably isn't enough in a lot of cases.

[HC_Chief]

Really? I thought it was only illegal if the person outed was actively undercover and if the leaker knowingly outed the covert officer.

Saw it on the news last night. They said if the person had been actively undercover in a foreign land within the past 5 years, then it's illegal. After that, no problemo.

[Donger]

Here's the law, apparently: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

I see nothing about five years.

[jiveturkey]

Here's the law, apparently: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

I see nothing about five years.
:shrug:

[Donger]

:shrug:

I could be wrong. Reading that gave me a f*cking headache.

[jiveturkey]

I could be wrong. Reading that gave me a f*cking headache.
I didn't bother to read it after I opened it and hoped that a shrug would be enough. :)

[HC_Chief]

Here's the law, apparently: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

I see nothing about five years.

Definitely not in there. Who knows where they (news) came up with that? Perhaps it's in a law attached to this one? :shrug:

[Taco John]

Twist: Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak


WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.

Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and - in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations - informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.

Rove's conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Democrats continued this week to sharpen their attacks, accusing Rove of compromising a CIA operative's identity just to discredit the political criticism of her husband.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said President Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: "This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to "partisan war chants."

Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

"If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0.html

[patteeu]

Here's the law, apparently: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

I see nothing about five years.

You have to look in Section 426 which provides definitions of terms used in Section 421.

(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

[Donger]

You have to look in Section 426 which provides definitions of terms used in Section 421.

Ah. Thanks.

[Electric]

I don't suppose that the news that someone else leaked the name means anything to those that want Rove hung.

I know, don't let facts get in the way of your vengence.

[jiveturkey]

I don't suppose that the news that someone else leaked the name means anything to those that want Rove hung.

I know, don't let facts get in the way of your vengence.Have you been wanting to type that line last week and you finally go the opportunity?

Nobody has said much of anything since the new news came out. I now have to wonder if it will come back to him once we find out who gave Novak the name since he's saying that it was 2 Whitehouse sources.

[Electric]

Have you been wanting to type that line last week and you finally go the opportunity?

Nobody has said much of anything since the new news came out. I now have to wonder if it will come back to him once we find out who gave Novak the name since he's saying that it was 2 Whitehouse sources.

Not really, I don't care much for Rove. But I also don't think so much of Soros either.

[Taco John]

What does Soros have to do with Rove?

[mlyonsd]

Wow, even Eleanor Clift from Newsweek just said on Hannity and Colmes she doesn't know if Rove comitted a crime and we should wait for results from the grand jury.

Left wing moonbats should take notice, cause when she talks common sense all the planets must be aligned.

[KC Jones]

Rove outed more than Plame - because he mentioned Brewster Jennings, the company signing Plame's undercover paychecks. Any other under cover agents who 'worked' for Brewster Jennings have now been outed as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

[patteeu]

Rove outed more than Plame - because he mentioned Brewster Jennings, the company signing Plame's undercover paychecks. Any other under cover agents who 'worked' for Brewster Jennings have now been outed as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

Link to some context?

[Electric]

What does Soros have to do with Rove?

He is just another person that is influential in the political field. Too far left for me, probably further left than you are.

[KC Jones]

Link to some context?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=FK8&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=defmore&q=define:context

[patteeu]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=FK8&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=defmore&q=define:context

LOL

[DanT]

I don't think you can deduce from Judith Miller's refusal to name names that her source hasn't signed a waiver releasing her to do so. Those waivers might be such that they're being signed under duress. If a reporter makes a pledge not to reveal a source's identity, it could well be that the reason why the source asked for the pledge was to protect himself from a Federal prosecution. In that case, it would be chickensh!t to reveal the source's identity just because the source later signed a waiver that supposedly gives you permission to rat the source out. If a reporter's policy is to have some shred of integrity and not go turning her back on pledges she makes, then she mightn't give a f*ck whether the source did or did not sign a release.

I doubt that Judith Miller would make pledges of confidentiality that are understood to only last as long as the source doesn't sign a release with, of all people, a Federal prosecutor.

Top of a recent news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050706/ap_on_re_us/reporters_contempt


WASHINGTON - New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed Wednesday for refusing to divulge a confidential source to a grand jury investigating the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name. Another reporter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed to talk and avoided jail.

Cooper agreed to cooperate with prosecutors after disclosing that his source had given him permission to do so hours earlier. The about-face came after nearly two years of refusals to disclose the information.

The developments added further intrigue to what already was one of the most closely watched press freedom cases in recent history.

"I do not view myself as above the law," Miller told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan. "You are right to send me to prison."

But she said she had an obligation to protect a confidential source: "I do not make confidentiality pledges lightly, but when I do I must honor them."


There's just now been a new development in this story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation
Miller Agrees to Testify in CIA Leak Probe

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - After nearly three months behind bars, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was released from a federal prison Thursday after agreeing to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA officer, two people familiar with the case said.

Miller left the federal detention center in Alexandria, Va., after reaching an agreement with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Legal sources said she would appear before a grand jury investigating the case Friday morning. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.

The sources said Miller agreed to testify after securing an unconditional release from Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to testify about any discussions they had involving CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Miller has been held at the federal detention facility since July 6. A federal judge ordered her jailed when she refused to testify before the grand jury investigating the alleged leak of CIA officer Plame's name by White House officials.

The disclosure of Plame's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July 2003 triggered an inquiry that has caused political damage to the Bush White House and could still result in criminal charges against government officials.

The federal grand jury delving into the matter expires Oct. 28. Miller would have been freed at that time, but prosecutors could have pursued a criminal contempt of court charge against the reporter if she continued to defy Fitzgerald.

Of the reporters swept up in Fitzgerald's investigation, Miller is the only one to go to jail. She was found in civil contempt of court on July 6.

Time reporter Matthew Cooper testified to the grand jury after his magazine surrendered his notes and e-mail detailing a conversation with presidential aide Karl Rove.

Last year, Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert answered some of the prosecutor's questions about conversations they had with Libby.

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus also answered the prosecutor's questions about a conversation with an unidentified administration official. Under the arrangements for his testimony, Pincus did not identify the official to the investigators, who already knew the official's identity. Prosecutors also say they know the identity of Miller's source.

[DanT]

washingtonpost.com
Times reporter tried to cut earlier CIA leak deal

By Adam Entous
Reuters
Sunday, October 2, 2005; 7:14 PM



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York Times reporter Judith Miller tried a year ago to make a deal with the prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity but the prosecutor would not agree then to limit her testimony to Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, her lawyer said on Sunday.

Some lawyers involved in the case said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to reject the deal a year ago -- only to agree last week to limit the scope of Miller's testimony to the subject of Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- suggested Libby may have become increasingly important to wrapping up Fitzgerald's case.

After spending 85 days in jail for refusing to name Libby as her source, Miller testified before the grand jury on Friday about two conversations she had with him in July 2003.

Lawyers said her testimony should clear the way for Fitzgerald later this month to conclude his 2-year-old inquiry into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and whether anyone broke the law in doing so, lawyers say.

Fitzgerald had indicated he could wrap up his investigation once he obtained Miller's cooperation. The grand jury considering the case is scheduled to expire on October 28.

Floyd Abrams, one of Miller's lawyers, told CNN: "I tried to get a deal a year ago."

But Abrams said that when he spoke to Fitzgerald about it at the time, he would not agree to limit his questions "to assure that the only source he would effectively be asking about was Mr. Libby."

Fitzgerald's spokesman was not immediately available to comment on Abrams' account of the offer.

One lawyer involved in the case said Fitzgerald's change of mind "suggests that he doesn't think he needs to hear about anybody else" but Libby.

Fitzgerald could bring indictments in the case or he could conclude no crime was committed and end his investigation. Lawyers involved in the case said he could signal his intentions as early as this week.

In addition to Libby, Fitzgerald's investigation has ensnarled President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. The White House had long maintained that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak but reporters have since named them as sources.

Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, has said the administration leaked her name, damaging her ability to work undercover, in order to get back at him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy.

Recriminations have broken out between lawyers over why Miller had not accepted a waiver sooner. She was sent to jail on July 6 although she never wrote an article about the Plame matter.

"While Judy Miller sat in jail for 85 days and Mr. Libby knew that she was doing it to protect him, no call came in from him, no letter arrived from him," Abrams said on CNN.

Abrams said he spoke to Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, before Miller went to jail. "It is true that he said to me it's OK with him (Libby) if she testifies," Abrams said.

But he added: "It's also true that, in the same conversation, he said to me that the waiver (which Tate said gave Miller his consent for her to testify) that he had signed was by its nature coerced. How could it not be, he said. That's a waiver the government forces him to sign in order to stay on in the government. Otherwise he'd be fired."

Tate disputes Abrams' account of that conversation. In a September 16, 2005, letter, Tate said he told Miller's attorney more than a year ago that Libby's waiver of confidentiality was "voluntary and not coerced."

Tate said he believed Miller's goal in refusing to accept that waiver was to protect other sources.

Abrams said: "She has other sources and was very concerned about the possibility of having to reveal those sources or going back to jail because of them."

That appears to conflict with comments by attorney Robert Bennett, who also represents Miller in the case. Bennett said on Friday that "Judy is not protecting anybody else."

Viewed by some as a martyr for press freedom, Miller has faced criticism for some of her prewar news reports on Iraq's alleged weapons programs. Critics say those reports helped boost the administration's case that Iraq posed a threat. No weapons of mass destruction were found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100200934_pf.html