There were so many thousands of words published on the Plame scandal since Friday night, it’s easy for even the most voracious readers to have a) missed stuff; b) fallen behind; or c) given up. As near as I can tell, here are some of the highlights of things you need to know:<\/p>\n
* The NYT’s Judith Miller wrote what she described as “a personal account<\/a>” of her role in the Plame scandal. Miller spoke with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby three times, and after one such conversation, wrote the words “Valerie Flame” in the same notebook she used to interview Libby. Despite this, Miller wrote that she “could not recall” who disclosed Plame’s name, but said she “didn’t think” it was Libby. There’s ample<\/a> reason<\/a> for skepticism.<\/p>\n * Three New York Times reporters collaborated on an article<\/a> that details what the Times knows about Judith Miller’s role in the Plame scandal. It’s not a flattering portrait. As the NYT trio explained it, Miller became a “divisive” figure in the paper’s newsroom, operating free of editorial control. The divisiveness continues — Miller’s notes, shown to Patrick Fitzgerald, are still being kept from the New York Times, and she still won’t tell her colleagues the details of her interactions.<\/p>\n * In one instance, Libby asked Miller to describe him as a “former Hill staffer” while he tried to discredit Joseph Wilson. Despite the fact that this was an obvious attempt to deceive NYT readers about an anonymous source’s intention and motivation, Miller went along with Libby’s request<\/a>, bringing her journalistic ethics into question<\/a> (again).<\/p>\n * The NYT trio reported that Libby’s attorney, Joseph Tate, may have urged Miller, before her testimony before the grand jury, to hold back the whole truth<\/a>. In fact, Tate reportedly pressed Miller’s attorney for information about what Miller would say and suggested Miller perhaps should not testify unless she were willing to exonerate Libby. (Tate’s efforts sound similar to obstruction of justice<\/a>.)<\/p>\n * Tate stopped returning reporters’ phone calls<\/a> early last week. * The Washington Post reported that Miller was recently told by Fitzgerald that she is only a witness in the case and will not be charged<\/a> with a crime.<\/p>\n * The WaPo also reported that “Rove’s defense team… anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges<\/a> in the next two weeks.”<\/p>\n
\n
\n* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to say<\/a> yesterday whether she had testified under oath as part of the investigation. (We already know that she spoke with investigators<\/a> as part of the probe, but the “under oath” part remains unclear.) Rice was also asked if she was “part of an effort in July of 2003 to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson,” and she again refused to comment<\/a>.<\/p>\n