Now The Times Corrects Itself When They Are Right

Fresh from the 43rd St. Comedy Club comes this correction:

A front-page article yesterday about a new disclosure in the C.I.A. leak investigation referred incorrectly to an assertion made by the special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald about I. Lewis Libby Jr., whom he indicted in the case involving the naming of Valerie Wilson, a C.I.A. officer. Mr. Fitzgerald said that Mr. Libby was the "first known" government official - not the first - to discuss Ms. Wilson with a journalist. Go to Article

Go to article - what oddly helpful advice.  Here is what the Times thinks they are correcting:

On Wednesday, Mr. Libby's lawyer, Theodore Wells, pronounced Mr. Woodward's revelation a "bombshell" that contradicted Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that Mr. Libby was the first government official to discuss Ms. Wilson's C.I.A. connection with a journalist, Judith Miller, a former reporter for The New York Times, on June 23, 2003.

Well, I made a similar mistake, but had a helpful commenter for an editor.  Let's go to the transcript of Mr. Fitzgerald's press conference.  Early on, he makes the comment that inspired the Times correction:

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Nicely spotted by the Times!  But keep reading:

At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

No correction called for, gents.  Hey, you were right! 

And while we are all feeling friendly, help me out with this - any luck on the Bold Assertion about Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus?  Todd Purdum, David Johnston and Douglas Jehl told us this:

In his formal statement in The Post, Mr. Woodward said he had mentioned to Mr. Pincus in June 2003 that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. But Mr. Pincus, who has written that he first heard about Ms. Wilson from a senior administration official in July, said he did not recall that.

Emphasis added, I stand by my earlier comment that Mr. Pincus wrote no such thing, and I challenge the Times reporters (who evidently have trouble reading a transcript) to show us the text.  (And if it is a private email, they should have said so; if a TV appearance, why say "written" and send us searching in the wrong place?)

My position - since Mr. Pincus was all over the Niger trip story in June, he may well have received a leak from the same source that leaked to Woodward.  That would be a bit of a bombshell, wouldn't it, especially after the Times reported it to be impossible.

And why do we wonder?  I have long been puzzled by Mr. Pincus' explanation for why he ignored the July 12 leak, which was, he didn't believe it.  What's not to believe, unless Mr. Pincus had checked it out.

Anyway, here is what Mr. Pincus wrote in the Nieman Watchdog describing his leak experience:

On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. 

I didn’t write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip. But I did disclose it in an October 12, 2003 story in The Washington Post.

Nothing about this being his first such leak.  And how about in the Oct 2003 WaPo?  He wrote this:

On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.

No, nothing about "first leak" there.  If the Times wants to argue that he implied it, fine - don't write that Mr. Pincus "has written that he first heard about Ms. Wilson from a senior administration official in July" without evidence.

Let's at least get the correct corrections.  It seems odd that the Times corrected accurate reporting in order to burnish Fitzgerald's image.  Go, go figure.

At this point, the Times Public Editor Byron Calame is beaten down and discouraged by this story, but give him a try: public@nytimes.com

Comments

[Jeff]

Remember how it suddenly showed up in the WaPo that Pincus' person was a senior administration official, and other info showed up to rule out Tenet, in a similar way? It turned out Pincus was clearing stuff up, had said something on TV or something, so maybe something similar is going on here, though it would be nice to get some clarification even if that's the case.

Also don't forget that it's possible that Pincus did not publish the information because he did not believe it was true because he learned that after having spoken with the official on July 12, say by talking with the CIA subsequently.

[Syl]

Idea for fitz: Get the logs of calls to the CIA public affairs office in June and July, 2003.

[Rob]

I'm curious, do you even believe the stuff you write? Or is just an excercise.

What part of 'know' don't you understand?

[Geek, Esq.]

That's nice.

It's also completely irrelevant to LIBBY's perjury charge.

[TM]

What part of 'know' don't you understand?

Uhh, do you write these comments as an exercise? I have no idea what you mean.

Jeff - Good point, he might have checked it subsequently, but he might not have.

[Syl]

Rob

What part of Fitz' own words do you not understand:

He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter.

[TM]

It's also completely irrelevant to LIBBY's perjury charge.

Lots of things that are irrelevant to Libby's perjury charge are deeply relevant to my Three Years And Counting Quest For Clear Corrections at the Times.

On, Rocinante!

[Sue]

People keep saying this has nothing to do with the Libby perjury charge. The same people who claim Fitzgerald is still investigating the outing/conspiracy/espionage/george at the tater tots theories. All roads do not lead back to Libby, or so it would seem. Rove either. An interesting point. Especially since reporters can't seem to get their information correct. Through no fault of Libby, it would seem.

[Sue]

Who needs preview? We need preview. :( Should be george ate the tater tots. Kind of ruins the joke...

[JayDee]

Warning: Addiction to the Plame Leak story can cause you to become inordinately obsessed with completely irrelevant details.

The rightwing media is like a windup toy these days. Libby's lawyer runs to microphones to spew blather about what a bombshell it is that Fitzgerald called Libby "first" when he wasn't. Never mind that Libby isn't charged with being first to do anything, nor that he isn't even charged with the leak. The media runs with this irrelevance as if it somehow changed everything, when in fact, it is completely meaningless.

We already KNEW the administration was grasping at every warm journalistic body they could find to twitter about Plame. And we've already seen the "hey, nobody remembers who they said what to" defense coming from miles away. So Woodward also got in on the telephone game. Big deal.

I'm not saying it's completely insignificant. If nothing else, it's given fresh life to Fitz's investigation. But this "first" business? Reminds me of second graders in a schoolyard.

[Geek, Esq.]

People keep saying this has nothing to do with the Libby perjury charge. The same people who claim Fitzgerald is still investigating the outing/conspiracy/espionage/george at the tater tots theories.

Sue has been pwn3d.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.

ADVERTISEMENT
Get Our Top 20® Newsletter
in Your Inbox Each Week!
The Most "WOW!" Travel Deals
on the Internet - here's a sampling: Released
NOV 16, 2005

JetBlue Companion Sale: Florida & Coast-to-Coast $39-$59 JetBlue Airways

Worldwide Sale incl. 2 FREE Nights in London $149 & up British Airways

Caribbean Vacations Sale to over 30 Resorts $299 & up CheapCaribbean.com

Fly to Hawaii (each way), in January-March $149 Hawaiian Airlines

Click on Any Deal and Check Them Out Today!
*Fares listed may not include all taxes, charges and government fees.
More information. © 2005 Travelzoo Inc.

In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said "the investigation is continuing" and that "the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment" against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

[Geek, Esq.]

Dammit, sorry about that yahoo! ad crap. Feel free to edit, TM.

Juicy bit:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.
In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said "the investigation is continuing" and that "the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment" against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

[clarice]

The AP reports Fitz is empaneling a new gj..He said he might for administrative reasons at his indictment presser, but naturally Matthews will be certain to report the entire WH is going down now.

OTOH there is a possibility that new information willr equire him to rethink the indictment and his back assed view of the case..When the "first" shall be the last, etc.

[syl]

Syl
Look at the transcript. He had already qualified it with 'known'. That qualifier stays with the rest of his statements.

Besides this whole thing is silly. Libby was indicted for perjury. It has nothing to do with anything else. He either lied to the grand jury or he didn't.

[Sue]

Geek,

My point exactly. It was you who said it had nothing to do with Libby's perjury. And yet, as you point out, the investigation goes on. Something TM is continue to follow. :)

[Geek, Esq.]

These indictments are about the fact that Scooter lied and tried to obstruct the investigation.

That obstruction was part of an attempt to thwart the overall investigation into the underlying claim.

Speaking of corrections, every Republican pundit who was claiming that Fitzgerald had concluded there was no underlying crime committed should be forced to wear a dunce hat.

[Sue]

Geek,

Why? The article you linked doesn't specify that indictments will be issued for the 'underlying crime'. In fact, were I to be a guessing person, I would guess additional perjury charges/obstruction/false statements for the person who forgot to mention Woodward.

[Geek, Esq.]

Who knows? I would find it stunning if someone who was in the clear threw themselves on the grenade like that.

I'll be even more stunned if it's someone who hates LIBBY's guts--as did most of the State Department folks.

[epphan]

Dunce hats would be a great idea. Then at the end of the day, we could count the hats and decide which side is the winner. I don't think you want to play that game, Geek.

[JeanneB]

Tom: There's another possibility...maybe your "emphasis added" is in the wrong place. Try this:

"...Mr. Pincus "has written that he first heard about Ms. Wilson FROM A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL in July"

If Pincus wrote the above, he isn't necessarily saying this was the FIRST time he heard about Ms. Wilson. A skeptic might wonder if he heard it earlier from someone who IS NOT a senior administration official (say----Woodward?!). Was this sentence written to be deliberately misleading?

[ed]

Also note that Rawstory is ramping up their Hadley claims. They are either certain, or have a death wish.

[Geek, Esq.]

To recap:

Armitage or Tenet: Good for the administration

Hadley or Cheney: Really, really bad for the administration.

[AdyZol]

What about degree of dammage re Woodward compared to Libby. I give Bob Woodward many A's in his history of reporting; but in the Judge Fitzgerald - Valerie Plame case I think he earns an F. Granted, the judge's putting a reporter in jail for something she never reported is spooky in itself. However Valerie Plame functioned as a CIA agent; and as I have read [I don't know how completely reliable this information is] she was a supervising agent and her many subordinates had dangerous assignments; and that 2 of them have since been murdered. I think Woodward's severely ridiculing Fitzgerald's entire interest in this case, and additionally while being a crucial part of this case who questionably avoided testifying, is what earns him an F grade. Woodward's behavior regarding this case may be criminal.

[Rob W]

I guess the argument is that he limited his statement first, then stated it without the limitation second, therefore he said it without limitation. Tiresome semantic parsing. And for what? It has no effect on the Libby case. What's Libby's lawyer going to do? Go in front of the jury and try and play the news conference and argue that because of this contorted reading of Fitzgerald's words, his client is innocent? Not only is that not admissible, if I were the trial counsel for the government, I'd let him argue it because it is such a totally disengeous non-defense that it would discredit the whole case. I'd be nailed for malpractice for making that kind of argument in open court. And I'd deserve it.

[Rob W]

Hello? Didn't anyone read Hadley's statement in the press conference in Korea? He actually said he had read press accounts saying that White House officials had said he wasn't the leaker. They asked him if that meant yes or no and he said "it is what it is." Its Hadley alright. Remember also that Woodward said he had three sources--Armitage could be in there, of course.

[Kate]

Geek-it is definitely not Cheney or Hadley. They purposely delay denying so that they can laugh at the media.

It's probably Armitage. I suspect the new Grand Jury may start looking at perjury charges against some media members as well as Armitage.

Fitzgerald almost has to open a new Grand Jury after the fiasco with Woodward.

[Rob W]

Also new grand jury this morning in court filings from Fitzgerald. I'd say it looks bleak for the Administration. Why they let Hadley take questions, I'll never understand. Seems like an unecessary desperation move--if they are really that desparate that they will just stonewall until the paddy wagon hauls off half of the West Wing, it makes you wonder what the Administration knows that we don't.

[BurkettHead]

"But Mr. Pincus, who has written that he first heard about Ms. Wilson from a senior administration official in July, said he did not recall that."

Did Pincus mean AS IF he heard it for the 1st time?

[Lion]

Geek still doesn't get it: The prosecutor cannot make out the elements of an IIPA violation, and cannot make out the elements of an Espionage Act violation. If he could make out either against anyone, he could do so against Libby, but has concluded that he can't. Read the statutes. Incidentally, while it is true that at his press conference Fitzgereald did at one point use the qualifier "known," he did not use it later in the same conference, when he said unequivocally that Libby was the "first."

[Kate]

Rob W-on the contrary, I think it looks very good for the administration. It is definitely not Hadley. They never answer when they are asked directly. Even Condi didn't. The fact that Hadley was smiling indicates he's enjoying watching the media make fools of themselves.

I suspect Fitzgerald was too cautious in questioning the media during the last Grand Jury.

Now that we know they were willing to stand by and let a man stand denounced before the whole world as the original leaker when they know better let's us all know what a bunch of partisan hacks the media are.

They clearly have their preferred leakers and ones they'll toss over.

[ed]

In the indictment it says "known." In the press conference he said "first." One is a court document, the other is pretty meaningless in the courtroom. Also there is always the possiblity that the prosecutor suspected an earlier leak and therefore did not want to indict Libby for the leak. He was being carefull. His case against Libby would have fallen apart if he had gone that route. I don't think his knowledge of who said what first, should be underestimated.

[Kate]

Read that the new Grand Jury will examine the Woodward evidence. Wonder if he'll do a better job with the other media this time. He needs to call Pincus, Mitchell, Russert again, David Corn.

Maybe Fitzgerald will get it right this time.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'That obstruction was part of an attempt to thwart the overall investigation into the underlying claim.'

How about the obstruction Fitz committed by tying a blindfold on himself regarding the journalists he questioned.

[Tom Ault]

I'd like to point out the following from the AP:

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in announcing the charges three weeks ago, portrayed Libby as the government official who first revealed Plame's name to reporters. At a news conference in Chicago Thursday, Fitzgerald ducked questions about how Woodward's assertion, that he got it first and from someone other than Libby, would affect the investigation.

After Fitzgerald was tipped by Woodward's source that they had discussed Plame in June 2003, Woodward met with the prosecutor and on Monday recounted their conversation. His account, but not the source's name, was reported in Tuesday editions of the Washington Post, renewing speculation about who leaked Plame's name and how high in the administration his source resides.

(emphasis mine). Based on this information and the timing of Woodward's testimony, I would say that it is unlikely that Woodward's source is anyone who has testified before the grand jury or been thoroughly interviewed by the FBI. Note that it was Woodward's source who talked to Fitzgerald first. Furthermore, Fitzgerald apparantly did not know about Woodward's conversation until after Libby's indictment was issued, or he would have had Woodward testify before the original grand jury. But certainly, Fitzgerald's investigators would have asked any of the usual suspects in the Plame affair about any conversations with reporters regarding Plame, not just conversations with reporters they knew about. Consequently, anyone who had been asked if they had talked about Plame with reporters, which I believe includes Hadley, would be opening themselves to charges of making false statements to the FBI and obstructing justice by volunteering information about their conversation with Woodward so late in the game.

For these reasons, I believe that Woodward's source is either someone who was either casually interviewed by the FBI about Plame or never interviewed at all and who until Libby's indictment had no motivation to volunteer information about his or her conversation with Woodward. So I think there are some intriguing possibilities for the new grand jury, besides it being empanneled for administrative reasons or to bring new charges against an old player. One is that Fitzgerald wants to present the current case against Libby to the new grand jury, including the new testimony from Woodward and his source, and see if it still sticks. In this case, Fitzgerald will quash any existing indictments that the new grand jury doesn't agree with.

Another possibility is that the testimony of Woodward and his source called into question the earlier testimony given by some of the reporters in the case. If this is so, Fitzgerald may be preparing additional indictments against Cooper, Pincus, Russert and so forth.

[JamieIrons]

TM,

One self-promoting, would-be ironist had this to say yesterday about his being tired of the whole mess...

Jamie Irons

[clarice]

I don't know what the new gj is about, but if it doesn't involve calling in the original reporters and Mitchell, Vallely, May, Kristof and Corn, and asking them about when and how they first knew of Plame it's a farce.
If it doesn't involve putting Wilson and Plame under oath, it's a farce.

It it doesn't involve calling Woodward's source, it's a farce.

It is doesn't involve calling Larry C Johnson and Ray McGovern and Rand Beers it's a farce.

[clarice]

Jamie--I did love that article..;)

[Kate]

Tom Ault- you are correct. If Fitzgerald waws just looking to indict a player from the previous GJ (Rove), he could just borrow a GJ.

THe fact that he plans to enpanel a new Grand Jury means there is more evidence out there.

Plus, we know the leaker spoke to Woodward. Did he speak to another reporter who hasn't come forward?

[JeanneB]

I can think of another reason Woodward's source may have come forward at this late date. Suppose Woodward, while staying mum, had not thought there would be indictments---because he KNEW who the "leaker" was and he knew Fitz wasn't on to it.

Now. Fitz indicts Libby and Woodward has info that can exonerate Libby. Some don't like Woodward, but I don't think he would sit still and watch an innocent man take the fall. So, let's suppose Woodward contacts his gutless source, tells him he will be exposed after his death as having been the leaker AND having let an innocent man be tarnished. IF the source cares about his legacy---don't they all?----he wouldn't relish that item cluttering up his life history.

Under Woodward's pressure, he goes to the prosecutor, gives the OK for Woodward to testify, but says Woodward can't expose him publicly. Neat trick...if that's what Woodward pulled off.

[p.lukasiak]

Tom....didn't Pincus write at one point that he had two sources for his story...one was Libby, and the other one is the one he wrote about in the Nieman piece?

If that is the case (and I'm not positive it is), wouldn't this make the Times story true?

**************************8

Is Woodward in legal trouble?

Len Downie was in full McClelland mode during his on-line chat today --- he didn't answer one substantive question that could not be answered with what is already in the public record, while repeating talking points which consisted of "Bob has acknowledged his mistake and apologized", "Bob is a great reporter" and "Protecting confidential sources is important."

But Woodward's story doesn't add up. He says he didn't tell Downie because he didn't want to be supoenaed --- but Downie and the Post lawyers negotiated an arrangement with FitzG that allowed Pincus to provide info without a supoena.

And Woodward remembered telling Pincus about "Wilson's wife" --- why did he think Pincus wouldn't tell Downie, and/or FitzGerald about that?

And why did he think there was any possibility that his source would not tell FitzG about the conversation?

[Kate]

p.lukasiak-Woodward is not in any legal trouble. However, the reporter I think has the most chance of being in trouble is Russert.

The ones who testified under oath could be in trouble. I think they knew the original source but tried to cover for him by being misleading or limiting their testimony.

[Rob W]

Can't see what Woodward would be in trouble for. He's not requried to come forward. He is an ethically-challenged journalist, but that ain't no crime.

[JamieIrons]

Clarice,

Thanks! ;-)

Jamie

[Syl]

I have arrived!!!!!

Finally!

After all this time commenting, I have finally been...

SPOOFED!

Check 9:46 AM

[Lew Clark]

Thanks for clearing that up Syl, I read that and feared you had finally succumbed to the power of the dark side.

[ed]

JeanneB, the problem with your speculation is that Woodward's testimony does not exonerate Libby. In fact it has almost zero to do with the Libby indictment.

[Terrie]

Wishful thinking aside, the Woodward testimony is relevant to the Libby prosecution because Fitzgerald made such a highly public - and I believe inappropriate - case against Libby, naming him as the "first official" to expose Plame's CIA affiliation to a reporter, although he did not charge him as such.

The court of public opinion, including the prospective jury pool, will note that this charge has been effectively dismissed.

[Jeff]

TM - Reuters is reporting that Woodward's source is someone who has not previously testified before the grand jury. I can't remember, has Hadley testified before the grand jury? and Armitage?

[paul]

testing...testing...

[clarice]

I don't know about Hadley, but I am sure Armitage was not.