Holes, Part One
On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.
I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him.
From the Times article:
[On September 27, 2005,] Mr. Bennett, who by now had carefully reviewed Ms. Miller's extensive notes taken from two interviews with Mr. Libby, assured Mr. Fitzgerald that Ms. Miller had only one meaningful source. Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questions to Mr. Libby and the Wilson matter.
The obvious questions:
How could Bennett assure Fitzgerald that Libby was the only "meaningful source" if he only reviewed the notes from the Libby interviews?
How could Miller (through Bennett) represent that Libby was the only meaningful source when she allegedly couldn't recall where the "Valerie Flame" note came from, and denied it came from Libby?
How could either Bennett or Miller make such assurances at a time they had "forgotten" about the additional interview notes "found" in the NYT newsroom after Miller's release?
Bonus question: If the prosecutor was limiting questions to Libby and the Wilson matter, then he wasn't really limiting questions to Libby, now was he?