Following an excellent suggestion, I am offering a post dedicated to "Reporters Who Knew".
But knew what? Well, knew that Valerie Plame was with the CIA before Bob Novak published anything.
Now, some of these worthies may have received a leak directly from Karl Rove or Lewis Libby. But not all of them! And a real name might fill out Mickey's example of Libby's chat with a hypothetical "Sam".
And I know I am going to forget a few, but let's get started:
Andrea Mitchell, from CNBC, 10/03/2003:
MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
Hugh Sidey, formerly of TIME, in an amicus brief on the Miller case, and/or to the NY Sun:
“In this case it seems to me the protection of a source transcends the other considerations,which do not seem to threaten national security,” he wrote.
Mr. Sidey said in an interview that the identity of the CIA operative, Ms. Plame, was widely known-well before Mr. Cooper talked to his sources. “You know this game as well as I do,” Mr. Sidey said. “That name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time.”
Martin Peretz of the New Republic:
Still, in a lot of dining rooms where I am a guest here, there is outrage that someone in the vice president's office "outed" Ms. Plame, as though everybody in Georgetown hadn't already known she was under cover, so to speak. Under cover, but not really.
[Note - you really ought to follow that link. If someday I write that well, I only hope I use my great power wisely. Of course, wisdom would include passages such as this:
[Sandy Berger] clearly still has McGovernite politics, which means, in my mind, at least, that he believes there is no international dispute that can't be solved by the U.S. walking away from it.
Sorry, that was a sidebar.
OK, Walter Pincus of the WaPo is well known, but his story was recently modified to assert that he had a "White House" source, so it is highly unlikely to be exculpatory.
Cliff May, the NRO, Sept 29, 2003:
On July 11, I wrote a piece for NRO arguing that Mr. Wilson had no basis for that conclusion — and that his political leanings and associations (not disclosed by the Times and others journalists interviewing him) cast serious doubt on his objectivity.
On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.
That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.
Hard to date May's knowledge - it certainly reads to me that he learned about Wilson's wife after investigating Wilson in response to his July 6 op-ed, and in preparation for his July 11 column. And out-of-government source could be a neocon in a think-tank.
OK, help me out.
UPDATE: Fox analyst and retired General Pete Vallely says that Joseph Wilson told him that his wife was at "the Agency" while they chatted in the "green room" at Fox News in Washington. He has repeated the claim on Sean Hannity's radio show.

Fred Barnes claimed on Fox News this past summer that he had known about Wilson's wife. Gordon Liddy claimed on Fox News last week that "everyone in Washington knew".
Maybe they, like Scooter Libby, will have difficulty remembering who they first heard it from and when.
Posted by: Marcel | November 02, 2005 at 10:44 AM
Andrea M. remains unverified with me since in Hardball transcripts (which are publicly available online) she said the exact opposite. Prove it to me.
Sidey-sure it was so well known-Cooper, his colleague at Time who was actually writing a story, had to find out from Rove. Why didn't Rove just tell him talk to Hugh?
Peretz-do Plame's neighbors live in Georgetown? I saw them on TV proclaiming their ignorance. So maybe he needs to back down from the universality of the claim.
As for May-he's never had the guts to repeat or explain that claim. Plus he's a moron. Nuff said.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 10:48 AM
P.S. None of this helps Libby (or Cheney) anyway. Don't blame me-take it up with Fitzgerald.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 10:52 AM
Oh, reporters knowing Plane's identity helps Libby dramatically. It goes to motive. Why lie about something that was not a crime to begin with? To cover up for Cheney? Why, if no crime? Plus there is nothing wrong with Cheney discussing Plame with Libby in context of refuting Joe Wilson's proven lies. Plus if reporters knew beforehand then there is a possibility that Libby heard it from reporters around the same time as he heard it from government sources.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.
By the way Creepy, no one cares if it is still unverified with you. But thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Larry Liberal | November 02, 2005 at 10:59 AM
Plus Cheney didn't know until the CIA told him. Libby himself didn't know until Cheney then told him-(according to his notes)-which he then forgot-and relearned from Russert-(according to his testimony).
So there's less knowledge in the corridors of power than at a Georgetown cocktail party?
How comforting.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 11:01 AM
It doesn't help Libby if the charge that he was intentionally hiding the name of his sources is true, but frankly I'm unpersuaded from all the circumstances, that those snippets of conversations in the indictment represent more than his state of mind when he talked to reporters. In any event it shows how hoked up the entire demand for a special prosecutor was--and especially when so much of that was from this very same press corps.
Posted by: clarice | November 02, 2005 at 11:02 AM
I see a lot of vague statements about what "people" knew but not a lot of "I knew this on XXXX date and I heard it from XXXXXX." May's statement being the exception, not the rule.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | November 02, 2005 at 11:05 AM
This is not reporters who knew Plame's status, but veteran former coverts talking about the condition of Plame’s cover with her neighbors.
I mention only because it’s a scratch that itches --
From the Washington Times, July 15, 2005, there is Fred Rustmann saying:
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Contrast that with 60 Minutes and one of its main sources on the Wilson segment from last Sunday. Here’s what they said:
“It's a spy agency. And you don't expose people working for a spy agency. And no one knew that she was working for a spy agency until she was exposed,” says Jim Marcinkowski, a deputy city attorney in Royal Oak, Mich. In the late 1980’s, he was a covert CIA agent spying in Central America..."
Posted by: JJ | November 02, 2005 at 11:20 AM
I would think that Libby would be interested in getting Jill Abramson under oath because of the reference in the lost notebook to a source who was "not Libby". Judy's email to Calame outing Abramson as her editor is what caught my interest. If you read her whole email, it is very threatening. Plus, Pinch is now apparently making nice to her after letting Maureen Dowd rape her while the editors held her down
Posted by: TP | November 02, 2005 at 11:30 AM
But, then, I am new to this and might not understand NYT tribal rituals.
Posted by: TP | November 02, 2005 at 11:36 AM
I also heard Fred Barnes on Fox News on 10/28 or 10/29/05 state that he knew. He was quickly cut off so he did not elaborate. Quelle dommage.
Posted by: Rita | November 02, 2005 at 11:43 AM
Fred Barnes claimed on Fox News this past summer that he had known about Wilson's wife. Gordon Liddy claimed on Fox News last week that "everyone in Washington knew".
Considering the fact that Cheney frequently lunches at Fox, and has used Fox as his own private propaganda mouthpiece almost from its inception, this isn't exactly proof of anything Libby might like to prove. It would be interesting to have them explain themselves under oath at trial, though considering the slippery ethics of pubbies these days, even that might tell us little.
There's a real tone deafness amongst conservatives these days. A federal prosecutor concludes that her identity was classified and NOT common knowledge, even goes so far as to re-interview her neighbors to re-affirm this information...yet conservative bloggers continue to assert the opposite. Let Libby's lawyers try this at trial...lol.
Posted by: JayDee | November 02, 2005 at 11:43 AM
Why isn’t Joe Wilson being prosecuted for lying to Congress?
-demosthene
Posted by: demosthenes | November 02, 2005 at 11:49 AM
Why isn’t Joe Wilson being prosecuted for lying to Congress?
-demosthenes
Posted by: demosthenes | November 02, 2005 at 11:49 AM
if everyone in DC knew, how come Judy Miller (well connected in WMD and GOP circles with many sources) did not know on June 23?
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | November 02, 2005 at 11:51 AM
Why isn’t Joe Wilson being prosecuted for lying to Congress?
-demosthenes
Posted by: demosthenes | November 02, 2005 at 11:51 AM
The 'crime' Fitz was investigating, since it seems the IIPA did not apply, was revealing classified information. Which, to whit, was that mrs. wilson worked for the CIA. Necessary and sufficient.
Revealing 'covertness' would just be a bonus.
So, all we need to know is whether reporters knew mrs wilson's wife valery worked for the CIA. Not necessarily what else they knew.
Interesting to find out who, how many, if any, if only because Fitz said this 'was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community'.
But, as we know, Fitz couldn't fish around for knowledge among journalists. So how would he know.
We also know, that even if 'knowledge' of her CIA employment was out there (and who would believe an egotist like Wilson, anyway?) it does not affect the illegality of an official leak of her CIA affiliation.
Except it does help in explaining some of Libby's testimony (which and what, not sure though) if he did, indeed, hear of her CIA connection going around unofficially.
And the knowledge of Val's CIA employment is not enough for people to figure out she was involved in sending Wilson to Niger. Note that even though Andrea found out low-level operatives in the CIA had sent him, and she knew Val was CIA, she still didn't make the connection.
Therefore any reporter who knew she was involved in the Niger trip didn't gain this knowledge independently.
BUT where the gossip re Valery's CIA connection would have been important is in diffusing the public cry for an investigation and a special prosecutor to boot.
Not that it might not have happened anyway, but since Woodward reported the damage of the outing was minimal, the whole matter might have been dropped.
So, reporters knowing her affiliation with CIA is really too little too late.
Except I want to know anyway.
Posted by: Syl | November 02, 2005 at 11:52 AM
if everyone in DC knew, how come Judy Miller (well connected in WMD and GOP circles with many sources) did not know on June 23?
Well, Judy had been out of the country.
I'd really like to see some dates attached to this purported knowledge by reporters. If it became common knowledge amongst reporters by early July, that really proves nothing other than that there was a very effective leaking campaign underway.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | November 02, 2005 at 12:00 PM
Syl,
So, what if Kristof and his editor knew the whole story?
Posted by: TP | November 02, 2005 at 12:00 PM
...since Woodward reported the damage of the outing was minimal
Little problem there. Woodward Lied
The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted.
Now, why would Woodward do that? Is bald faced perfidy a new kind of rite of passage for newly crowned Pub Shills?
Posted by: JayDee | November 02, 2005 at 12:02 PM
geek:
When we talk of knowledge in terms of this issue, I assume it is knowledge of long standing (as implied in the Hugh Sidey quote), not of more recent vintage. As you say, if folks were learning of this back in early June, that does not really help the WH on the charge that they were leaking the name.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | November 02, 2005 at 12:03 PM
TP
"So, what if Kristof and his editor knew the whole story?"
I don't think Wilson was telling them Valery was involved in sending him. Something he denies anyway.
If Kristof and his editor learned anything, they may have learned she was CIA. Which is no different than the supposed gossip going around anyway.
Still, it was fresh, and Kristof could have told someone.
But there's the notion of the 'involved in sending Wilson to Niger' to get around. And I don't think we can get around that.
Posted by: Syl | November 02, 2005 at 12:04 PM
JayDee:
Fitz can say whatever he wants outside of a courtroom like everybody else. He knows he's never going to get a conviction for leaking classified information no matter what evidence he has now or in the future. His case would fall apart as soon as Joe and Valerie and her superiors hit the witness stand.
Posted by: GEB4000 | November 02, 2005 at 12:06 PM
JayDee,
Easy on the Kool-Aid.
Fox News was the personal propaganda mouthpiece of the VPOTUS since (almost) its inception?
That statement is nuts.
Really.
And I am being generous here.
When you write nonsense like that the immediate response is to think of you as a juvenile, hysterical, insulting jerk.
Really.
Now, there are no doubt others who believe such piffle, but they aren't taken seriously either, except in their own echo chambers.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: MeTooThen | November 02, 2005 at 12:07 PM
JayDee
"Woodward Lied"
There's a difference between a formal statement from the CIA and an informal one.
Hmmmm, with all the sources Woodward has that go deeper inside than most others, I wonder if he knew Valery was CIA too.
Posted by: Syl | November 02, 2005 at 12:07 PM
While people debate who knew what when, what the meaning of "it" is in Libby's testimony and who may or may not be called to testify, the MSM moves on to the next pseudo scandal.
Ref: the following article in this morning's Wash Post by Dana Priest
"CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons"
"Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html
For what it's worth, here's my tin-foil-hat view of events. It's just too convenient that this story breaks out of the CIA following the implosion of the Fitzgerald investigation and its "no there, there" indictment of Libby. Victoria Toensing opined a few days ago that the whole Wilson/Plame/Niger/Forged Docs business was a CIA black ops job intended to either weaken or take down this president during this particular war. Now we have this latest "revelation" to occupy the media with the hope of lighting a spark in the public's attention. Does anyone see a trend here besides business as usual within the beltway?
Posted by: arrowhead | November 02, 2005 at 12:08 PM
Cliff May tells us more about the person that revealed Plame's status to him.
Male, Democrat, Friend of Cliff's, and a former government employee.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | November 02, 2005 at 12:09 PM
AM-I wouldn't trust Sidey. Contra TM-he's not from the New York Times-Sidey is from Time Magazine. i.e. he works the same place as Cooper.Cooper has testified he learned about Plame from Rove. So I'm a little skeptical of old Hugh's claim that "in his world" they all knew it from way back.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 12:09 PM
creepy dude wrote all the stuff in blockquotes:
Fork out the $3 for lexis ala carte and find out for yourself.How would Rove know that Sidey knew?No, the Wilson's don't live in Georgetown. They live in a neighborhood called Colony Hill in the Foxhall area. Here's a map. Interestingly enough, the Roves live there too, and the Roves and Wilsons attend the same church. Here's a fascinating neighborhood vignette: PALISADES DISPATCH: Joe and Val’s Noisy Neighbors, Amalie and the Death of a PartyWhen you run out of lies, ignorance and deliberate obtusness, there's always ad hominen.Well past enough, I'd say.cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | November 02, 2005 at 12:13 PM
Gabriel
I didn't read his statement as identifying his source as male.
Posted by: Syl | November 02, 2005 at 12:14 PM
Jim,
You are correct. So another CIA Leak, this time to show the GWB Admin holding who knows who, who knows where, in Secret Prisons!
Wonder when Harry Reid, John Kerry and Kos are going to comment on this atrosity?
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 02, 2005 at 12:16 PM
Jim Marcinkowski is part of the anti-neo con crowd of ex-CIA agents. I'd discount everything he says as ridiculously biased. You might as well quote LCJohnson .
And as someone noted at Kristof's first reported meeting with Wilson, a lunch after a DNC meeting, Plame was present.It doesn't prove he knew she was in the CIA, but undoubtedly she was along to add credence to Wilson's report. And the way to do that was to explain her expertise in the area.
Posted by: clarice | November 02, 2005 at 12:18 PM
Nice smackdown cathyf:)
creepy dude, quit moving the goalposts, try using facts, not feelings.
Posted by: BurbankErnie | November 02, 2005 at 12:19 PM
CathyF-has the AM quote been Lexis certified? Because Andrea Mitchell said the exact opposite over and over. So I still don't think the quote actually exists as verifiable fact.
BTW Cliff May seriously advanced the idea that David Corn outed Valerie Plame. I'm sorry-but he's a moron. Sometimes ad hom is just the right way to go.
P.S. was leaking Plame's name an ad hom attack on Wilson?
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 12:21 PM
'A federal prosecutor concludes that her identity was classified and NOT common knowledge...'
So he asserted, but he also asserted that Libby told Judy Miller that Plame worked in 'a bureau of the CIA'. And, Judy said something very different in her article about her testimony.
This all looks very bad for Fitzgerald's integrity.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | November 02, 2005 at 12:22 PM
MeTooThen, if it weren't for TM's generosity in allowing dissident voices here (a true rarity in the rightwing blogosphere), this would be an echo chamber as well. And you'd probably never notice.
Don't tell me what to say about FoxNews. I actually have excellent sources in the general workplace at Fox, who understand - as do ALL Fox employees - that their primary mission is to disseminate Pub propaganda. Do you not know Roger Ailes' pedigree? Do you think he had a midlife epiphany that he should become an objective journalistic font? Stop insulting your own intelligence.
Are there other news stations where employees must go into office lockdowns because of visits by Cheney & his security entourage? I think you know the answer.
This admin, more than any other in our history, has manipulated and abused press freedom in America. Amusingly, they have fashioned an ingenious cover for themselves while so doing - the carefully cultivated paranoia amongst pub acolytes that the boogeyman "msm" (which FoxNews, no matter how humongous it becomes, will have permanent immunity from somehow) is out to get them.
Posted by: JayDee | November 02, 2005 at 12:23 PM
Sullivan-questioning Fiztgerald's integrity looks bad for your sanity.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 12:26 PM
Ok-TM has verified he has a Lexis transcript. Like JimE I admit I was wrong. However, Andrea Mitchell lacks all further credibility as a reporter.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 12:31 PM
Are there other news stations where employees must go into office lockdowns because of visits by Cheney & his security entourage?
I'm pretty sure any office where Cheney visits has to go into lockdown/security mode. But why do you think Cheney would bother visiting CNN, MSNBC, or CBS instead of the news station with the highest ratings?
I assume Cheney's spare time for interviews is limited, so it only makes sense he'd spend it at the place where he'd get the most eyeballs for his message. That's not "manipulating the media", that's time management combined with marketing saavy. If MSNBC ever managed to get their ratings out of the gutter and outdid Fox, I'm sure they'd be going into a lot more lockdowns as well.
Posted by: The Unbeliever | November 02, 2005 at 12:34 PM
If people were hired on tv for their reporting skills, would they have to spend so much time at the hairdressers?
Posted by: clarice | November 02, 2005 at 12:37 PM
You misunderstand, Unbeliever. Cheney doesn't only come for interviews. He comes to confer with Ailes. The head in the sand thing is very comfy for you all, but it doesn't bear any connection to reality.
Posted by: JayDee | November 02, 2005 at 12:38 PM
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | November 02, 2005 at 12:40 PM
Jim
I agree. This has become open warfare with the CIA.
I thinking a lot of people are waking up to the reality behind anonymous sources.
Posted by: Syl | November 02, 2005 at 12:42 PM
Bulletin for Creepy Dude: Cheney doesn't need any help. Woodward said the CIA has done a damage assessment; a formal damage assessment is not underway, or at least has not been reported. I believe that disclosing classified information is not, except under narrowly circumscribed conditions, a crime; if anyone knows to the contrary, please cite the statute. Has it been established that the fact of her employment was "classified?" Would it have been a crime to disclose that George Tenet worked at the CIA? I have known a number of people over the past 30+ years who worked at the CIA and let it be known. How did they differ from Plame? Trotting out neighbors who didn't know of her employment is a bit like the Irishman, accused of murdering his wife, who called a bunch of witnesses to testify that they hadn't seen him do it. The highlight of this trial, for me, is going to be the defense calling Joe Wilson to the stand and cross-examining him under oath--an event that has not yet occurred, and will be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Posted by: Lion | November 02, 2005 at 12:51 PM
JayDee
You married to Etienne? She also has sources inside Foxnews. Hmmmmmmm.
"their primary mission is to disseminate Pub propaganda."
No, it's their point of view. To you it's propaganda because it's not YOUR point of view.
Nothing nefarious going on.
BTW
..."TM's generosity in allowing dissident voices here"...
I agree. And it's good for all of us to argue back and forth sometimes. But each of us has to determine who, on either side, argues in good faith..or just argues.
Granted, we also must understand that some argue in good faith in some comments but in others go off the rails. But then, experience in following these threads should guide us all.
Anyway, sometimes it's just for fun.
And Kerry still sucks eggs. :)
Posted by: Syl | November 02, 2005 at 12:52 PM
Jay Dee,
I've often wondered why everyone is so worried about what Fox News is up to. Do you have someone forcing you to watch it? You know Chris Matthews is a shill for the democrats, Keith Olberman their #1 front man, yet Fox News is your whipping boy. :) Are we still guessing your party affiliation?
Posted by: Sue | November 02, 2005 at 12:52 PM
Does anyone actually watch MSNBC?
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | November 02, 2005 at 12:54 PM
Hey Lion-it turns out we're running a goddamn Gulag literally using prisons in the former Soviet Bloc and Cheney is on the Hill fighting against an anti-torture amendment that 90 senators voted for. The man is truly a disgrace-maybe he thinks he has to destroy America to save it,but there's more destruction than saving.
Posted by: Creepy Dude | November 02, 2005 at 12:57 PM
JayDee says:
objective journalistic font?
So JayDee when did you morph into Ponce de Leon in search of this mythical fountain?
Where pray tell could we find such a font of which you speak? Dare say you CBS ( Rathergate) or CNN ( making a deal with the devil Saddam )? Enlighten us, and try to do so in 25 words or less.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | November 02, 2005 at 12:58 PM
Lion
'"Has it been established that the fact of her employment was "classified?"'
Yes.
CIA employees have various statuses. If the status is not classified, go ahead and tell people you work for the CIA. If the status is classified, even the fact you work for the CIA is classified.
Valery's status was of the classified variety.
Posted by: Syl | November 02, 2005 at 12:59 PM