[There's a large section above that painstakingly details various news accounts of Judith Miller's notes. All emphases below are mine.]

This one seems to support Jane Hamsher's point--if the NYT is only admitting now that there were earlier conversations between Libby and Judy, then either it or Judy was not entirely forthcoming beforehand. This is a new story we're getting.

I'm curious about the way the NYT describes these notes: newly discovered notes compiled by Ms. Miller. Sounds like she's cherry picking. Maybe Fitz is still concentrating on the Plame leak and allowing her to redact information on Iraqi acquisition of uranium.

The date change is significant. According to Wilson, the UK's Independent ran a story coming close to naming him on June 22. (I'm still trying ot get a copy of that story.) Was Libby out shopping this story around June 21?

[More detail, and quotation from the Newsweek article to which JPol referred in his piece, "Is Rove the Scapegoat?".]

Finally, Newsweek, the story that has everyone scratching their head. I included the Rove stuff that is the main jist of the story to show how closely Luskin's description of Wilson matches (presumably) Bennett's--he's a critic, not a diplomat. We'll be hearing a lot about Wilson's extensive career as a White House critic in the coming weeks, I'd wager.

And to get to source. This story relies on "lawyers close to the case," which almost certainly includes Luskin (who wouldn't be left out of a leak-fest if he could help it). Probably a lawyer from Fitz' shop. But then, down there at the end, the NYT's lawyer. Not Judy's lawyer. The NYT's lawyer.

At this point, that detail is one of the most compelling reasons I think there are two notebooks. Isikoff, presumably, has a better understanding of what this notebook is than he's letting on. ...

So it was not, presumably, discovered in Judy's desk. If I were a journalist fighting hard to keep my sources confidential, I wouldn't store the records of those sources somewhere where I didn't own the key.

I also think Isikoff uses the passive here very deliberately. Isikoff may have his limitations as a journalist, but basic grammar is not one of them. A professional writer knows the weakness (and the strength) of the passive construction quite well--it obscures who is completing an action.

The NYT is trying very hard to hide their complicity and possible implication in this conspiracy. Which is why, I think, Isikoff uses the passive here.

So what? Why does it matter if there are Judy notes and NYT notes being handed to Fitz?

For starters, it suggests the NYT may be ready to jettison their beloved martyr. If she has gotten them into some legal hot water, their willingness to hand over additional materials suggests they're now trying to protect themselves, perhaps at Judy's cost.

But it also suggests a possible scenario whereby Judy came to discover some notes she forgot about. It may be that Fitzgerald caught her in a perjury trap

[editor's note, by susanhu] Added embedded link.

(or she just perjured herself believing the subpoena's terms protected her). But the involvement of the NYT in this directly (if that's what it is) could suggest Fitzgerald has demonstrated to Pinch that his best interests lay in providing materials from June (and note--if this notebook references story assignments without source, this bypasses any First Amendment issue).

In which case, Judy may now be in a similar situation as Cooper was, where it was futile to hide her materials any longer because those provided by her employer already exposed the bulk of what she might have hidden.

-- From the "The Theory of the Two Notebooks" by emptywheel.

As I noted in "Judith's Attorneys Don't Agree," the NYT attorney (Abrams) and Judy's criminal attorney (Bennett) seemed to be operating completely separately of each other, including in their communications with Scooter Libby's attorney.