Traitorgate and Judy Miller

Will there be indictments in Traitorgate?

My Magic 8-Ball says all signs point to yes.

Oh, and allow me to get a few things off my chest despite their having been beaten on the blogs already like red-headed stepchildren. I don't wanna rehash everything going on right now with Patrick Fitzgerald's probe (woo hoo!), especially since leaks are starting to drip fast and furious these days, but I do want to offer a few quick thoughts on New York Times reporter and White House fluffer Judy Miller:

1. Miller wrote she told the grand jury that although Scooter Libby told her Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, she had gotten Wilson's wife's name, Valerie "Flame" (she apparently recorded the name incorrectly in her notebook), from someone else but she can't remember who it is.

Right. Makes sense. So Judith Miller would have the special prosecutor and the public believe she went to prison for 85 days all to protect someone whose identity she can't recall. What a sweetie pie.

"Miller cannot recall where the name at the center of the case came from?" muses PressThink . "Wowzer. ... Claiming memory loss about the most important fact in the story is weak. Very." Ditto that.

2. Miller wrote in her New York Times personal account that she agreed to Libby's request that, for their second conversation -- the one in which he trashed Wilson and outed the ex-ambassador's wife as a CIA operative -- she would identify him not as a "senior administration official," but rather as a "former Hill staffer."

Hmm.

Two things: First, the request seems particularly suspicious, especially since Libby, in their next conversation, was back to being fine with the identifier of "senior administration official." Could it be that Scooter Libby knew he was breaking the law, or coming mighty close to doing so?

Secondly, speaking as a reporter, Miller's agreement to play cute with her source's identity (technically accurate, but real-world accurate? No way, no day, as they say) is dishonest at best and collusive at worst.

And this administration mouthpiece works for the so-called paper of record? Why was/is Judith Miller a reporter for the premier newspaper in the United States? And why in the name of you-know-who is the Society of Professional Journalists proceeding with its plans to award the fluffer with a First Amendment Award?

As a journalist, I have a great deal of sympathy for reporters protecting their sources and I surely believe in the sanctity of shield laws. But I don't think journalists can hide behind such laws when, in instances such as this, the very act of leaking to a reporter is a crime that draws the reporter in as accessory.