The Sunday New York Times has a report on the Judith Miller case. Rather odd story. Very long, yet I didn't learn much. Probably because, according to the article, "In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes." This is how cooperative she was in an interview with her own paper. One gets the impression Miller is a bit of a loose cannon, whose decision not to testify might have been motivated as much by an unwillingness to be held accountable for her reporting as any higher journalistic principles (though the fact that Miller didn't publish what she was told undermines this point--though the Times piece suggests, in conflicting reports, that the failure to print the information was not for lack of trying). So all we get is the back-and-forth between her lawyer and Lewis Libby, and it still doesn't make a lot of sense why she was in jail. She still claims she just didn't believe Libby's waiver of confidentiality was freely offered, but then, after hearing the tone of his voice, was suddenly convinced he was eager to talk (even though he still expressed confidence she would exonerate him, when she actually did the opposite). It sounds more likely she became more eager to cut a deal with the special prosecutor when it was suggested he might empanel a new grand jury and keep Miller in jail for 18 more months (seems unlikely a judge would go along with this).

In any event, the article doesn't add too much to what was already known, though it is probably worth reading for discussion of the difficulties for the Times in covering the case while defending Miller's pledge of privacy. And for those wondering where the grand jury is heading, from what one can gather from the description of grand jury testimony in this piece, it seems purjury charges against Libby might be in the cards.