Did The Pincus Story Change?

NOTE: This post is for the truly obsessive; a Plame-investigation post of greater general interest, where Karl Rove gets an alibi from Tim Russert and the AP learns how to read is below.

The WaPo reprises the Plame investigation, and seems to have changed the story of their own reporter, Walter Pincus:

Pincus, who spoke with Fitzgerald early in the case after his source said he could, has never revealed who told him that Wilson's wife helped arrange the trip to Niger. Pincus has said the source was not Libby, and has described the person as a "White House official" who called him. The source came forward to the prosecutor and released Pincus to discuss their conversation with Fitzgerald but not with the public.

Pincus identified his source as " White House official"?  When?  In his original account from Oct of 2003, and in his recent Nieman Watchdog explanation of his experience with Fitzgerald, his source was an "administration official".  And given the legal drama around this case, I sort of expected Mr. Pincus to stick with precisely the same formulation every time he described this source.

Pretty funny if the WaPo got this wrong.  Interesting if they got it right, since it puts the kibosh on speculation that Pincus got a leak from Tenet or McLaughlin at the CIA, which was related to the idea that maybe Novak got a leak from the CIA.

I have more links in this July post.

UPDATE:  Can't tell the players without a scorecard - Hotline has a list of folks who have cooperated with the investigation, but Walter Pincus is not on it.  Yet.

And they have a section described as "Other journalists mentioned in press acounts as having initially sparked Fitzgerald's interest".

A longer list or reporters is in this old Newsday excerpt, but note the key detail - these reporters were not, at least per this story, actually subpoenaed.  What was subpoenaed was information from the White House side about contacts with these reporters.  Bob Somerby waxes on this point, and we will add that they may well have been contacted by investigators.

UPDATE:  IN an NPR interview on Oct 23, 2005, Walter Pincus described his source as a "White House official".

Comments

[Syl]

It's close to the end time. There is the possibility, though not a sure thing of course, that this might just go away.

In which case, Pincus would want it to be known (through these reporters), for the record so to speak, that his source was more specific than 'administration official'. It was someone closer to the Whitehouse.

This still does not identify him/her, just narrows the field a bit.

[Syl]

Or, narrows the field a lot. :)

[pollyusa]

The new WAPO article helpfully gives us a list of possible suspects in the next paragraph

Many White House officials have been called before the grand jury, including spokesman Scott McClellan, senior adviser Dan Bartlett, former communications aide Adam Levine and Fleischer, among others. Bush spoke personally with Fitzgerald early in the probe

Certainly better than the 11/04 WAPO which gave us this entry into the crack the anonymous source game.

One current or former administration official has told Fitzgerald that he or she had a conversation with Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus

[Syl]

My money is on someone who is no longer there.

Which gives us Fleischer. Anyone else?

[topsecretk9]

JM

one strange thing about Pincus (which I am sure you have covered).

Pincus goes to lengths to tell us his source did not name Plame, only "Wilson's wife helped arrange the trip to Niger" and Pincus says that he does not believe his source was knowing giving classified info

but yet he runs to the phone to tell Wilson "they're coming after you"?

Since he's got so much love for his source, why would an objective and DC hardened journalist be alarmed the WH had a version of the story. Wouldn't Pincus be interested in the information the WH had on Wilson. He did stake a little of his reputation on this. I mean Pincus is smart enough to know that his big storyteller could turn out to be a monumental fraud.

[clarice]

I believe Pincus and his wife are friends with Wilson/Plame. DIdn't one of his stories relate to a party with them? He knew her name even if he didn't disclose it. And IIRC she was obviously the "CIA analyst" source in his pieces?

Fhttp://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/10/the_f_list.html#contentsor reference this is the hotline list :

October 18, 2005
The F List
From today's Hotline:

Here's a list of folks who have either testified or have been interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald (or by FBI agents) in connection with the Plame probe. Please send us omissions and additions and expansions. Anonymity is guaranteed. To repeat: the list below is of those who have been interviewed by officials in connection with the case. Inclusion does not necessarily indicate that the listed person has testified under oath.

Bush: Early Summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)
Cheney: Early summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)
Ex-Dep. Sec/State Richard Armitage
WH Assist. To. Pres. Dan Bartlett
Ex-WH press aide Claire Buchan: Feb. 6, 2004
WH COS Andy Card
Time's Matt Cooper: July 13, 2005
Ex-WH press. sec. Ari Fleischer (at least twice)
A.G. Alberto Gonzales: June 18, 2004
Ex-DOS BIR dir. Carl Ford
NSA Stephen Hadley
Ex-CIA comm. dir. Bill Harlow
Assis. Sec. of Commerce/Ex-Rove assist. Izzy Hernandez
Assist. Sec. of State Karen Hughes
Ex-Sec/State counterproliferation offic. Bob Joseph
Washington Post's Glenn Kessler
Ex junior WH press aide Adam Levine: Feb. 6, 2004
Cheney CoS Irving L. "Scooter" Libby (twice)
Ex-Cheney adviser Mary Matalin: Late January, 2004
Current WH Press Sec. Scott McClellan: Feb, 6, 2004
Ex-CIA dep. dir. John McLaughlin
Cheney aide Cathie Martin
New York Times ' Judy Miller (twice)
CIA comm. dir. Jennifer Millerwise (did not go before grand jury)
Columnist Bob Novak
Ex-Sec/State Colin Powell: July 16, 2004
Ex-Abramoff assist./Rove assist. Susan Ralston
WH DCoS Karl Rove (4 times)
NBC News' Tim Russert
Stranger who stopped Novak in the street
Ex-CIA dir. George Tenet
Sen. Adviser to Sec/State Jim Wilkinson (has said he did not testify)
Ex-Amb. Joseph Wilson

On the witness list at one point but never called to tesify:

New York Times' Nick Kristoff

"Cooperated" with Fitzgerald:

Sec/State Condoleezza Rice

Others believed to have testified:

John Hannah, David Wurmser (senior members of Cheney's staff) (Hotline sources)

Other journalists mentioned in press acounts as having initially sparked Fitzgerald's interest:

Time's Massimo Calabresi
Time's Mike Duffy
Time's James Carney
NBC's Andrea Mitchell
NYTer David Sanger
Newsday's Timothy M. Phelps
Newsday's Knut Royce
Newsweek's Evan Thomas
Ex-Postie Mike Allen
NBC's Campbell Brown
WSJ ed. page. editor Paul Gigot / reporter Greg Hitt
Ex-celeb. James Guckert/Jeff Gannon

(Back to Contents)

Not on the list--Plame,Pincus Bolton.I think this list is incomplete. I know Pincus gave a written deposition and Wilson said his wife had been interviewed. And I am certain I read that Bolton was interviewed or testified.

Syl--there are a number of ex's here.I think Pincus' strongest links are with the CIA and DoS. I'd start with the exes from those places.

[Syl]

clarice

Thanks for posting the list. I don't smell CIA here because I see these two acting in the background, not leaking this kind of info to reporters themselves.

But Bill Harlow? - Well, wouldn't that be just too funny! But, nah.

If it IS Whitehouse, I still say Ari.

Otherwise I think it's....

Bob Joseph.

Only because I don't have a clue nor remember reading much, if anything, about him. His request to not let his identity go public to one reporter, may also be extended to other reporters who haven't fessed up.

Including Novak.

He could possibly fit the profile for the Novak source. No?

[TM]

Pincus would want it to be known (through these reporters), for the record so to speak, that his source was more specific than 'administration official'. It was someone closer to the Whitehouse.

Good point.

but yet he runs to the phone to tell Wilson "they're coming after you"?

Wasn't that Chris Matthews?

OK, I have two non-unified theories (non-unified in the sense that I think each fits the facts, but they sort of contradict each other).

1. Pincus's source was Karl Rove. Rove spoke to Cooper on the 11th, in part because he knew Tenet's statement was coming out, and Novak had a column coming. Novak's column was published on Mon July 14, but actually went out on the AP wires on Fri, July 11.

So, on Sat July 12, Rove calls Pincus, thinking that Novak has published, Tenet has declassified the Wilson trip, and the starting gun has sounded.

Since Rove also called Matthews after the Novak column, we know he was helping to spread the story.

And, since we are in the late innings, the WaPo decides to tighten up their sourcing a bit, elevating Karl from Admin official to WH official.

And this has never been leaked because... unlike Cooper and Novak, Pincus never caught much attention, and the July 12 date made it street-legal.

Now, theory 2, answers the Frequently Unasked Questions - assuming Russert told Libby about "Wilson's wife at CIA", who told Russert, adn why doesn't Fitzgerald seem to care?

Why didn't Fitzgerald press Russert on this point, and why didn't Russert get a second subpoena?

Possible answers:

(a) Russert never gave Fitzgerald any reason to think that Russert knew about Wilson's wife, his denial is *not* carefully phrased, and Libby is lying. I don't like this answer.

(b) Someone had already told Fitzgerald that he had talked to Russert. So, to keep things simple, let's assume that Russert and Pincus had the same source, but days apart.

The source went to Fitzgerald and admitted to leaking to Russert and Pincus. Pincus was subpoenaed to verify it, and Fitzgerald skipped a potentially long legal tussle with Russert since the source's story had already checked out with Pincus.

In this version, Russert got the leak before it was published, so we think the leaker is not Rove.

Or, I suppose Russert could have ducked a follow-up subpoena by going with the "I forgot" route, like Judy - she clearly said she had other sources, but apparently Fitzgerald won't be following up on that.

[kim]

I've said before that following Fitz's tactical moves makes more sense than interpreting spun leaks. Now I have confirmation for my approach. Fitz's lack of apparent action toward Russert, and others, means that he already has them rolled up. Ah, science. Fitting non-facts to theory. Even better when you have no theory.

But Fitz does.
==============

[Jeff]

Wasn't that Chris Matthews?

Two different episodes. According to Wilson's book (p. 345) -- which topsecretdog seems to believe in this case -- Pincus called Wilson some time between late afternoon on July 8 and July 14 to tell him that they were coming after him. Matthews called Wilson well after Novak's column came out on the 14th.

So, on Sat July 12, Rove calls Pincus, thinking that Novak has published, Tenet has declassified the Wilson trip, and the starting gun has sounded.

I still think the relevant classified information at least included the memo generated from Wilson's trip, in no small part because of the end of Novak's July 14 column:

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.

In this regard, the apparent fact that Novak filed the story on July 11, the very day Rove is telling Cooper that they are going to declassify some relevant information, seems to me to make it more likely that Rove was talking about the CIA summary, and not Tenet's statement.

[Florence Schmieg]

I found the Post article misleading in the following way: After mentioning Cooper publishing his story about speaking with Rove, they then say something to the effect that The White House was calling reporters etc. But the Cooper testimony shows that he called Rove not the other way around. I haven't followed this closely enough to know which direction the calls went for the other reporters, but I think a lot of them were initiated by the reporters themselves. Anyway, my complaint is that the Post is deceptive, misleading, or just plain sloppy in this article.

[Syl]

TM

Theory 1 doesn't quite fit with Pincus explanation that his source cleared him to talk about the conversation but not to make it public. I guess Novak and Cooper didn't get the shhhh message?

But that's not necessarily a theory killer.

Theory 2 sounds good. Well, not the (a) part, that's just scary.

Could this be the other source for Novak too? We're looking for someone who said 'Valery Plame' but Novak could have gotten the name through open source if he dug around.

It's possible this mystery source called three reporters: Pincus, Russert, and Novak.

An aside. It's also possible Fitz already has gotten testimony from another source who spoke to Miller (whom she 'forgot') and Fitz is seemingly disinterested because he already has his testimony?

Then it's possible this mystery source called FOUR reporters: Pincus, Russert, Novak, and Miller.

Busy guy.

[pollyusa]

Jeff,

I think Tenet's statement does declassify part of Wilson's trip.

Who told Novak that the WH wanted to declassify the CIA summary. Novak's other administration source or did Rove say more to Novak than we know.

BTW nice pick up last night on the WH official in the WAPO

[Syl]

Wait a second.

Let's go back to the waivers.

Bush's people all signed the same waiver. Looks like it covered his staff and Cheney's staff, the WHIG group.

But was the waiver signed by those at State any different?

How could it be that the guy who spoke to Pincus signed a waiver that didn't waive as much as everyone else's did?

His name was kept out of the public record.

Or, nobody at WaPo is talking, and Pincus got his own personal waiver from this source, like Cooper and Libby, but it included this 'only our conversation but don't tell the public' bit?

Possible.

But then what are the implications for this same person being the source for someone else if he was requiring a special waiver?

[kim]

Only report part of what I say. Great waiver.

Let's see, who does that remind me of? Whoa! Too much.
===============================================

[pollyusa]

Russert is parcing again in the lastest AP article. The parcing is in the word "identity". Trying to make it look like Russert didn't talk to Libby until after the Novak column.

Interesting that they use Wilson's wife not Plame. Could it be that is exactly what Russert did tell Libby.

Prosecutors, however, have a different account from Russert. The network has said Russert told authorities he did not know about Wilson’s wife’s identity until it was published and therefore could not have told Libby about it.
AP

Let me add that it's clear Libby knew about Plame in June and the Russert/Libby conversation occured in July.

[Cecil Turner]

How could it be that the guy who spoke to Pincus signed a waiver that didn't waive as much as everyone else's did?

Perhaps Pincus has a different reason for not wanting to talk about it. His June 12th article tells Wilson's story and quotes a "senior CIA analyst.":

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

A month later, he gets a phone call from a WH official who's trying to explain it to him? Looks like somebody wasn't paying attention. Did he ever get asked a simple "when did you first learn Wilson's wife worked at CIA"?

[kim]

What dya bet Fitz asked him?
================================

[Syl]

"Perhaps Pincus has a different reason for not wanting to talk about it."

Heh.

heheheheheheh.

I wonder if Fitz asked Pincus if he and his two main sources for that article all met for lunch to discuss it.

[kim]

Oops, got a little ahead of the curve there. Maybe Fitz hasn't asked Pincus about that, yet.
=================================================

[pollyusa]

Cecil

I agree that Pincus likely talked to someone else regarding Plame. He is clearly of the mind that the story on the boondoggle wasn't true when he heard it.

I didn't write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip

[kim]

Someone called this Opera Bouffe, but I think it'll turn out Grand.
==============================================

[Syl]

Uh oh!

[Syl]

and somebody better tell Jay Rosen. So he can shake his finger at the WaPo for not revealing as much as it knows. He's complained enough about the NYTimes. Now it's WaPo's turn.

[kim]

It's time for a shimmeree.
===========================

[Syl]

Or a KIMmeree.

[kim]

or a Chimeree.
=================

[Jeff]

Cecil - What are you talking about? I think you may be assuming that Pincus suggested or stated that his July 12, 2003 conversation was the first he had heard about the matter. But that is an unwarranted assumption. As Polly says, Pincus in fact suggests that he knew enough already to know that what his conversation partner on July 12 was telling him was incorrect -- probably from having talked to the CIA already (although Pincus does not come out and say that he thought at the time of the conversation that what his source was telling him was untrue, he might have found it out afterward). In any case, Pincus also said that he thought his source was trying to discredit Wilson in order to get him not to publicize Wilson's version of events.

As for the waiver question, my understanding is that Pincus, like other journalists, was not satisfied with the blanket waiver, but testified after getting a personal waiver from his source -- and apparently that personal waiver from his source waived confidentiality for the purposes of Pincus testifying before the grand jury (or talking to investigators) but not for the purposes of going public. And Pincus was satisfied with that -- which is understandable, since it enables him to comply with the investigation but not break confidentiality with his source for public purposes (for the time being, anyway).

[kim]

Some chimerae would be better.

Does Fitz not need Pincus's testimony because he has that his source?
==============================

[kim]

I meant does Fitz not need Pincus's testimony because he has that of his source?
==========================================

[Syl]

Jeff

Joe and Valery got to Pincus first. (And he believed every word.) Do you think that CIA analyst, one of his sources for the June 12th article, was somebody other than Valery?

Did Pincus know they were husband and wife?

If so, has Pincus ever told his editors or the public that he knew Wilson's wife was a CIA analyst before Novak's article?

Has the WaPo ever investigated this at all?

[kim]

THAT shimmer is a Big Boy.
==========================

[kim]

This was an obvious question from the gitgo. Was the WaPo Asleep at the Wheel? The NYT was Drunk at the Wheel. Drunk wih unearned power, read Pinch. What is the problem with the WaPo?
=========================================

[Syl]

kim

We don't know who among 'the suspects' called Pincus and told him "Wilson's wife helped arrange the trip to Niger."

Fitz has that person's testimony. I think all Fitz has from Pincus is a written deposition.

So, no, it doesn't look like Fitz ever inquired about his sources for the June 12 article. Unless Pincus volunteered that info which I doubt. He probably limited his deposition to the phone call with our mister x.

[Cecil Turner]

I think you may be assuming that Pincus suggested or stated that his July 12, 2003 conversation was the first he had heard about the matter.

Jeff, the alleged illegal act is to leak Plame's relationship to the CIA to someone without clearance. Don't you think it's pertinent to ask if that person already knew? And if he's learning about that from a CIA source (especially if it's a particular CIA source), isn't that also pertinent?

[kim]

Is the key going in the lock? It fits, does it turn?
==============================

[clarice]

I still haven't received a response to the email I sent to Pincus asking him if he didn't do the readers a disservice by cloaking his June sources in anonymity,that had we known they were Wilson/Plame/Johnson and McGovern we'd have had a better basis for assessing their credibility.

Of course Plame was the "analyst" in the piece. Certainly Mr, and Mrs, Pincus(she was a Clinton political appointtee) knew the couple and certainly where she worked.

BTW, he seems to no longer be on the stories about the case, does he? I haven't noticed his byline on them recently.
Am I correct? Do you suppose the editors finally caught on this was inappropriate?

[kim]

Watch it turn and the door still not swing open. Pooch, go fetch my linked key chain.
==================================================

[Syl]

Also, I think one of Judy's sources, instead of being mister x, was probably Pincus. Whom she called for more background because of his June 12 story.

That was supposed to be her bailiwick, finding out what went wrong with the whole wmd thing, but everybody else was scooping her. She was probably calling like mad all over the place.

Taking those notes.

What exactly she got out of Pincus I don't know. They'd certainly protect each other as sources.

[TM]

On the subject of declassifying thinsgs:

seems to me to make it more likely that Rove was talking about the CIA summary, and not Tenet's statement

Well, I guess I am blurring the two. The CIA has not yet (as best I know) declassified the report that circulated after Wilson's debriefing.

However, I assumed that, prior to Tenet's statement, it would be a leak of classified info even to say "The CIA sent someone to Niger to check out uranium sales".

Tenet's statement at least cleared the way for legal leaks about what Wilson did or did not report.

On the Pincus theories:

Theory 1 doesn't quite fit with Pincus explanation that his source cleared him to talk about the conversation but not to make it public.

OK, I'm lost - it seems as if Pincus' waiver experience was roughly the same as the others, although he added the info that his source had already testified.

In the cases of Russert, Libby, and Miller, their sources had already testified, too. Miller just did not advertise that, since she was promoting the vision that she was protecting thre identity of her source.

[pollyusa]

Clarice

Pincus wrote a story Tuesday. WAPO 10/18/05

[pollyusa]

Syl

According to Pincus, he was subpeonaed as a result of his mention in a 10/12/03 article that a Washington Post reporter had recieved the leak on July 12th.

Because of that article, The Washington Post and I received subpoenas last summer from Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor looking into the Plame leak. Fitzgerald wanted to find out the identity of my source.

And you are right about the deposition per article linked above..

[clarice]

Thanks, Polly. I missed the Oct 15 article.

[Jeff]

Jeff, the alleged illegal act is to leak Plame's relationship to the CIA to someone without clearance. Don't you think it's pertinent to ask if that person already knew? And if he's learning about that from a CIA source (especially if it's a particular CIA source), isn't that also pertinent?

Yeah, yeah. And why do we think Fitzgerald didn't ask? Also, there are lots of people at the CIA, let me remind you, not just Plame. My suspicion has long been that Pincus was following a similar track to Novak's, he got the same information from the CIA that Novak did -- that is, that the story that Wilson's wife set up his trip to Niger as a boondoggle was incorrect -- only he reported the story correctly.

[Syl]

TM

OK, I'm lost - it seems as if Pincus' waiver experience was roughly the same as the others, although he added the info that his source had already testified.

And that his identity wouldn't be made public.

The source came forward to the prosecutor and released Pincus to discuss their conversation with Fitzgerald but not with the public.

That's the part that doesn't seem to fit Rove. However, that whole bit was much earlier than Cooper. So maybe by the time Cooper got his 'deal' Rove couldn't get the same thing.

On the others, yes, their sources testified but still we don't know who they are. Just like the source for Pincus. Could mean nothing.

pollyusa

Thanks for the info. Fitz isn't going beyond the mechanics of the leak.

[pollyusa]

The "boondoggle" reference is interesting because Cooper and Novack never used that term, only Pincus did.

The only other time I've heard that reference is in Wilson's book when he says

Libby evidently seized opportunities to rail openly against me as an "assh*le playboy" who went on a boondoggle "arranged by his CIA wife"

I think it's possible that either Pincus talked to Libby as well as his other source or Pincus heard the term from Wilson.

The other possibility is that I am reading way to much into this.

[kim]

With Stone Face Fitz reading anything into anything is at least possibly too much.
===============================================

[Cecil Turner]

My suspicion has long been that Pincus was following a similar track to Novak's, he got the same information from the CIA that Novak did -- that is, that the story that Wilson's wife set up his trip to Niger as a boondoggle was incorrect -- only he reported the story correctly.

In the first place, a CIA spokesman providing reporters information about Wilson's wife and her involvement in his trip is every bit as much a criminal act as that alleged by Administration leakers. In the second, if you're buying that Plame had nothing to do with sending Wilson, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

The other possibility is that I am reading way to much into this.

I don't think so. Wilson is obviously acting as an information broker in this deal, before and after Novak's article. Probably why he managed to put such an effective spin on it while the Administration floundered.

[Creepy Dude]

OT-but the funniest thing I've read this morning:

Colonel Wilkerson says: "....And, of course, there are other names in there, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whom most of you probably know Tommy Franks said was the stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man."

[Jeff]

In the first place, a CIA spokesman providing reporters information about Wilson's wife and her involvement in his trip is every bit as much a criminal act as that alleged by Administration leakers.

Is it unimaginable that Pincus asks, "The White House is telling me that Wilson's wife set up her trip as a boondoggle. What about it?" and Harlow (or whoever) responds, "That is an incorrect account. The decision was made by CPD [or whatever]." No info about Wilson's wife given.

I know, I know there is some dispute about the CIA-Novak interaction, which I hope we will learn more transparently about. My guess is Novak, coming from his peculiar perspective, says something like, "Tenet, your boss, already told me that Wilson's wife works at the agency, so I've got that info already. I've also learned she sent him on the trip, care to confirm?" So Harlow goes through it, falling for it. But that's just a guess.

In the second, if you're buying that Plame had nothing to do with sending Wilson, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I didn't say Plame had nothing to do with sending Wilson -- and nor did Wilson in his book, despite the hack job of apparently maliciously misquoting him Steno Sue Schmidt or whoever it was did. My claim is that she did not authorize his trip, she did not set it up, she did not send him, which are all things that we have heard the administration claiming. She was involved indeed. Did she suggest him for the trip? The SSCI wants to claim that, but does a piss-poor job of marshalling the evidence, which makes me suspicious.

Wilson is obviously acting as an information broker in this deal, before and after Novak's article. Probably why he managed to put such an effective spin on it while the Administration floundered.

Well, Wilson has said that when his friend who encountered Novak on the street came into his office with the story, he had his friend write up his account. So we can check on that in several ways, and my strong suspicion is that if it were just not true, we would have heard as much from Novak. And it seems implausible to me in the extreme to imagine that Wilson somehow conspired to have his friend encounter Novak and have Novak use substantially the same talking points as administration members were using -- including with Pincus four days later. So, if Wilson has the dated testimony of his friend, from that very day, his friend confirms this, Novak does not dispute the account (indeed, according to Wilson, Novak apologized for that), and Pincus' source was using, say, the same term four days later, that speaks against the idea that Wilson's powers of information brokering goes that far.