WP: Attorney for Reporter Cites Possibility of Conflicting Testimony

[Bumblebee]

and here's the most intersting part -- to me -- in this one:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601228.html


In an interview yesterday, Abrams declined to endorse Miller's account that Libby did not want her to testify unless she was going to exonerate him. "That's Judy's interpretation," Abrams said. Tate "certainly asked me what Judy would say, but that's an entirely proper question."

Abrams also minimized Miller's assertion that another source may have given her the name "Valerie Flame," as she recorded it in the same notebook used for her first interview of Libby. Abrams said others may have mentioned Plame only "in passing. . . . The central and essentially only figure who had information was Libby."

[Halliburton]

1. when your own testimony

is discredited by your own lawyer, you know you're in trouble.

[senseandsensibility]

2. delete

eom

[senseandsensibility]

3. The link doesn't work for me

Anyone else having trouble?

[Halliburton]

4. works now

[Bumblebee]

5. fixed it

[stillcool]

6. did you'all catch this one...

Abrams also minimized Miller's assertion that another source may have given her the name "Valerie Flame," as she recorded it in the same notebook used for her first interview of Libby. Abrams said others may have mentioned Plame only "in passing. . . . The central and essentially only figure who had information was Libby."

[Bumblebee]

7. yes -- he is basically saying it must have been Libby

another vote of confidence for his client...