Miller, who never wrote about the case, was subpoenaed by Fitzgerald to testify about conversations she had with “a government official” about Wilson and Plame between the publication of the Wilson article and that of the Novak column. Fitzgerald has asserted that the unnamed official has given a general waiver permitting Miller to testify; the journalist has said she does not believe the waiver was signed voluntarily.
Patterico points out that the news that Miller, like Cooper, got a waiver from her source is buried after the jump in the Los Angeles Times story. It does not appear at all in today’s stories in either the LA Times or the New York Times.
Apparently, Fitzgerald not only knows the source but has gotten a waiver from the source. Miller does not dispute those facts but adds that the waiver was involuntary, further implying that it was the prosecutor who got it.
From these facts, the following conclusions seem logical:
1. The investigation is no longer focused on who the source is.
2. The investigation is not aimed at proving that the source perjured himself. If the source has signed a paper admitting he was the source, that would be enough to prove perjury if he is one of those who testified. Miller’s testimony is unnecessary.
3. The source is unlikely to be one of those who have testified. The only slim possibility would be if the source testified truthfully that he was the source.
Following the last slim possibility, for it to be Rove, we’d have to believe the following:
Rove was the source.
Rove testified truthfully he was the source but claims no illegality in whatever he did.
Fitzgerald wants Miller’s testimony because he is looking to prove it was a leak that fits within the statutory prohibition.
Fitzgerald got Rove to sign the waiver under duress.
Fitzgerald got Rove to sign the waiver under duress?
Given the underreported “involuntary” waiver by the source, I see no scenario that leads to Rove being the source. I’m open to suggestions though.
Edited: LIPowered by Sidelines