At long last, Jeffress gets to ask asks Miller about her other sources. Miller says she cannot recollect the names of anyone she spoke to regarding Wilson or her wife. She can remember other sources she spoke with about the ‘broader issues’ raised in Wilson’s op-ed article — but that is not relevant to this case.

“I don’t remember if the persons I spoke to were senior or not-so-senior. I have no reference in my notebooks, and have no independent recollection of them,” says Miller. “That’s all can tell you.”

Jeffress now turns to the attempt by Miller’s attorneys to make a deal with Fitzgerald early on concerning what her testimony before the grand jury might concern. If the government had agreed to limit the testimony to “one source and one subject” she would have testified — if she could also obtain voluntary waiver of confidentiality from Libby as well. Fitzgerald of course refused, and Miller went on to spend 85 days in jail for refusing to testify.

Was she aware when she was held in contempt for not testifying that other reporters—such as Tim Russert—had agreed to testify? “Yes.” Matt Cooper of Time magazine also agreed to testify. Miller chose not to because she didn’t want to be in the position of being asked to testify about her other sources. Now here she is one again in a similar position.

“After you went to jail,” asks Jeffress, “You authorized your lawyer to call Mr. Libby’s lawyer to see if Libby would waive confidentiality?”

“Yes,” says Miller.

“And didn’t Libby call you in jail and tell you it was okay to testify?” asks Jeffress.

“Correct.”

Jeffress then turns to Miller’s grand jury testimony. She can’t remember — the trial’s recurrent meme — if she ever heard about Wilson and his wife before hearing it from Libby. She told the grand jury “I don’t remember” if it was the first time, But she “believed” that it was.

Is she now saying it was the first time?

“I can’t be absolutely, absolutely certain,” she says. “I believe it was first time. There is nothing in my notes.”

In her grand jury testimony, Miller said she wasn’t sure what Libby had been referring to when he mentioned that Valerie Plame worked “in the bureau.” (She also said, “My memory is so bad on this.”)

Turning to Miller’s notes from July 2003, Jeffress asks about references therein to Valerie Plame. But first — the op-ed piece in the NY Times.

“I found it surprising,” says Miller. The notion that the government had distorted intelligence information surprised her. She also was surprised that CIA had permitted Wilson to write the article in the NYT. She planned to ask people about how that happened.

She spoke to a number of people about “that aspect” of the article.

Her notes had entries about Wilson’s wife—including one reference to her as Valerie “Flame.” She does not know where that name came from – but does not believe it came from Libby. There are several and varied references to Plame in her notes. She does not know where any of those came from — but not Libby.

“I’ve searched my memory but just cannot remember specific discussions about it,” she says.

Did she hear that Plame was a covert operator before Novak revealed it in his article of July 14, 2003?

She cannot recall.

Did Libby ever indicate that she was an undercover operative?

“No.”

Turning to the July 8, 2003 meeting with Libby in the St. Regis hotel, Jeffress notes that it concerned other matters in addition to the Wilson matter. She took many pages of notes. One entry noted, “Wife works at winpac.” This is the unit of CIA where Plame supposedly worked before being outed.

She cannot be ”absolutely certain” she didn’t speak to someone else about Wilson’s wife before the July 8 meeting.

In her grand jury testimony, Miller said, “I decided to ask as many people as I could think of” why Wilson was allowed to write the op-ed article about his trip.

Among those people — Scooter Libby.

He was one of the first she spoke to about the article.

She spoke to many others—but she can’t remember who they were…

When she first met Libby, he asked to be identified as “a senior administration official.”

Is this a common practice when talking to government officials—that they be permitted to speak without being identified by name?

Yes, responds Miller — “Particularly in the Administration.”

Touché—score one for Judy…

Recess, then Fitzgerald gets his turn to redirect.

Is there any reference in her notes about the June 23 meeting with Libby about Valerie Plame? “No.”

Any reference in the notes about the July 8 meeting? “No.”

All the notebook references to Plame are later in the notebook. Unclear where they came from — or whom…

In her grand jury testimony, Fitzgerald notes, she said that she thought the word “bureau” referred to the non-proliferation bureau of CIA.

Did she ever speak to Joe Wilson? No, although she did make an effort to.

In her initial grand jury testimony, Miller says she “had a vague memory” of hearing about Wilson’s wife, although she could not recall when. This was before she found the notebook that described her June 23 meeting with Libby—which she had forgotten all about.

The notes sparked memories of conversations she’d had – but not much specific beyond her conversation with Libby.

In her meeting on June 23 with Libby, her focus was on the ‘issues that had been plaguing me as I wandered around Iraq looking for WMD. How had this gotten so screwed up? The big picture…”

Libby seemed to her to be more focused on growing controversy about the “sixteen words”—“What I call inside baseball.”

On July 8, she was still trying to figure out how the hunt for WMD had been so badly mismanaged. Libby wanted to focus once again on uranium inn Niger and the sixteen words.

“That wasn’t my focus,” says Miller. The other ‘he said, she said, it’s your fault, not my fault” wasn’t what she was concerned about.

Fitzgerald now makes the case for offering the now-famous “Aspen letter” Libby sent to Miller while she was incarcerated. Judge Walton says he doesn’t understand its relevance at this point. Is the prosecution suggesting “some collusion?” asks the Judge.

We don’t think the letter worked,” responds Fitzgerald. The letter ‘intimates’ what testimony would be helpful to Libby, he posits.

It is decided to wait until later to determine its relevance.

Defense attorney Jeffress asks again to see the entirety of Miller’s notebooks. Miller attorney Bob Bennett asks the Judge to stand by his original ruling that the defense cannot see all the notebooks. Fitzgerald takes the same position. The judge says he needs to look at the notebooks again.

Finally, Jeffress offers into evidence the video clips he played of Miller and her faulty memory—only for the purpose of impeachment. Fitzgerald opposes this.

Following a ten-minute recess, the Judge asks Miller questions from the jury. First, why didn’t she contact Libby for a waiver earlier?

Good question.

Miller says it was because she did not yet have an agreement with Fitzgerald that questioning would be limited to one source—Libby.

Why did she makes the decision to go to jail?

“Because all of my reporting depending on people being able to trust me,” she says. “I felt as a professional, as an ethical matter, I had no choice, just trying to do the right thing vis a vis my sources. It was too important…”

Have you ever had previous memory losses such as this in your career?

“Yes,” says Miller. She gives an example from preparing her last book. Her notes corrected her memory—she had misremembered it, and from that time on tried to be very careful taking notes.

Any agreement with Libby that might have been considered a quid pro quo?

No, other than the way he was to be identified. “He didn’t ask me to do anything in exchange,” she says.

Miller has completed her testimony – without facing the possibility of again going to jail for refusing to answer questions about her sources.

Government now calls Matt Cooper.