"Will Mr. Fitzgerald Now Say He Was Wrong?"

Bob Woodward tosses a spanner into the Plame leak chronology developed by Special Counsel Fitzgerald:

Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.

In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.

As noted by Libby's counsel, that does not jibe well with the assertion made by Mr. Fitzgerald at his press conference that "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."  (Give Fitzgerald props for qualifying this with "known to", but check (f) in the ERRATA).

This disclosure by Woodward raises many questions, starting with, why is he only coming forward now, and why is the "senior Administration official" only coming forward now [Note - it seems to be an "Administration official" in Woodward's statement].

However - the goal of the Libby defense team will be to create reasonable doubt about the scenario being presented by Fitzgerald (see indictment).  With Bob Woodward as a potential witness, the defense can have fun with an updated version of the old Watergate question - "What else did Fitzgerald not know, and when did he not know it?"

For starters, Andrea Mitchell of NBC has recently backpedaled from her statement of Oct 3, 2003, when she admitted that, among reporters who were probing the Wilson/Niger story, it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Based on the Woodward story, we have clear indications that at least one reporter, Woodward, knew about a Wilson and wife connection and kept quiet.  Is he the only one?

If Fitzgerald lacks for names, we have some here: In addition to Ms. Mitchell, Martin Peretz, Hugh Sidey, Cliff May, and General Vallely may be worth a chat.

The defense is going to hammer this point - reporters are not interested in giving up their sources, and the best way for reporters to avoid a court fight is to conceal the fact that they have relevant information.  If Fitzgerald was waiting around for volunteers, that wasn't going to get it done.

Fitzgerald blew it - he had White House phone logs, he had sign in sheets, he had Libby's notes, he had testimony from many, many people, he had two years, and still, somehow, he did not include Bob Woodward on his contacts-of-interest list.

As to the specifics of the Libby indictment, a bold prosecutor might press ahead - arguably, Libby's statement that he believed he was hearing about Plame for the first time when he spoke to Russert is still false, and arguably, Libby's assertions that he sourced his knowledge to other reporters when he spoke to Miller and Cooper are also false.

But it will take a mighty straight-faced jury to focus exclusively on that if the defense can bring in a parade of reporters that may have, directly or indirectly, put the Wilson and wife story in Libby's ear.

And in the court of public opinion, a Bush pardon in Jan 2009 becomes a lot less  politically charged if earnest Reps (and John McCain!) are convinced that the prosecution was deeply flawed.

ERRATA:  (a) Per the WaPo story, Woodward spoke with "a senior administration official".  But in Woodward's statement, he "testified under oath...about small portions of interviews I conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials".

Did the WaPo award a battlefield promotion to one of Woodward's sources?  And let's keep an eye on "former".

(b)  The WaPo tells us that Libby and Woodward met on June 27.  Fair enough, but they also spoke by phone on June 23, the day Libby spoke with Judy Miller.  Woodward does not recall a discussion of Wilson's wife, but he has no notes.  Groan.

Bonus puzzle - did Libby testify about this conversation?  Was it in his notebook, or phone logs?  Was he emphatic that he and Woodward did *not* discuss Wilson's wife?  Obviously, some answers are better than others for Libby's defense.

(c)  Apparently, Woodward spoke with "X" in "mid-June", "Y" on June 20 [the WaPo tells us that "Y" is Andy Card], and Libby on June 23 (telephone) and June 27 (a meeting).

Woodward says that with "Y", "I have no recollection of asking about [Wilson's wife], and that the tape-recorded interview contains no indication that the subject arose."

Well.  Why so coy about the first date?  If revealing the date would reveal a key clue about the source, it strongly suggests that the source was in on "the secret" from the start.  The infamous INR memo was circulated at the State Dept and (we presume) discussed at a White House meeting in mid-June.

(d)  Not a flicker at Gamblers Anonymous, where the contract for  Libby Guilty has been steady at a 50% probability.

(e)  This revelation by Woodward, and the possibility of more by other reporters, may force Fitzgerald to cross the Rubicon and confront the issue of whether Libby, or anyone else, can be prosecuted for misuse of classified information.  The earlier analysis was that, by lying about his information from reporters, Libby made that prosecution problematic (mens rea, state of mind, intent - all relevant, all potentially mitigated if Libby thought he was passing along harmless buzz).  To counter that, Fitzgerald, figuring that jail is jail, went for the seemingly easier perjury/obstruction charges against Libby.

But if it turns out that it cannot be proven that Libby was lying about hearing it from reporters, Fitzgerald may come back with the big stick.  Or go back to Chicago.

(f)  Later in his press conference, Fitzgerald says this:

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.

That looks a bit light just now.

(g)  How about Dick Cheney as Woodward's source?  I am intrigued by the idea of Cheney emerging from his secure undisclosed location to throw Libby a rope.  And I wonder whether Fitzgerald would even think about indicting Cheney for misuse of classified information - can't Cheney go with a "I'm the VP, it's declassified when I say it is?" defense?  I don't know the answer to that, but I don't need to.

If Cheney was Woodward's source, I want him impeached on totally different grounds - utter gutlessness.  C'mon, the guy who is leading the fight against Al Qaeda can't even stand up in July 2003 and say, "You're damn right I ordered the Code Red"?

If one of Cheney's aides, or someone at State, or even Colin Powell himself wanted to steer clear of legal trouble and watch Fitzgerald's investigation play out, well, whatever.  But that won't work with Cheney - if he knew he had personally leaked this in June of 2003, he should have said so a long time ago (I'll settle for October 2003, when the criminal referral was announced).

MORE REACTION:  Best title, and contending for best round-up - Decision '08, "Bob Woodward: The Grinch Who Stole Fitzmas".

From Editor and Publisher:  Walter Pincus explains his chat with Bob Woodward, and Former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee throws another log on my fire while defending Bob Woodward's two years of silence:

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee today defended Bob Woodward, who revealed in a story Wednesday that he waited more than two years before disclosing to current Post editors a conversation he had in 2003 with a White House official about CIA Agent Valerie Plame.

"I don't see anything wrong with that," said Bradlee, who ran the Post during the turbulent Watergate coverage that made Woodward famous. "He doesn't have to disclose every goddamn thing he knows."

Really?  If this was conventional journalistic ethics at work, how about Andrea Mitchell, then?  How about Walter Pincus, who was all over this story in June, has never denied receiving other leaks, and, apparently, was never asked that question by Fitzgerald?

Developing...

MORE:  A quick survey of my friends on the left finds reactions ranging from anger to denial.  I take that as good news for Libby.

Jane Hamsher:  Fred Fleitz may be the source (I add a crumb of evidence in support below); Woodward lacks credibility; Woodward lacks credibility.

Ms. Hamsher is focusing on Woodward's report that the national security implications of the Plame leak were minimal.  I have more on that here, but let's say, I am skeptical of the leak in the WaPo telling us this:

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.

Please - lives on the line, networks in jeopardy, and the CIA wants to wait three years until the investigation and trial is complete to see if there is a problem?

Nonsense - the CIA doesn't want to prepare an official "No Damage" report that will be subpoenaed by the defense; the informal assessment was (my guess) just as Woodward said.

Jeralyn Merritt: She bets the source is David Wurmser.

I disagree - I am having a hard time believing that the "senior Administration official" (WaPo) who recently stepped forward has previously testified to Fitzgerald or his investigators - what questions could the investigators have been asking that the contact with Woodward never came up?

Per Jane Hamsher, neither Fred Fleitz nor John Bolton have given evidence to Fitzgerald (we are both sure about Bolton; I don't think she is more sure about Fleitz than I am, but I am counting on her).

Other little hints that might support Fleitz - the WaPo says this:

It is unclear what prompted Woodward's original unnamed source to alert Fitzgerald to the mid-June 2003 mention of Plame to Woodward. Once he did, Fitzgerald sought Woodward's testimony, and three officials released him to testify about conversations he had with them. Downie, Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month.

Downie defended the newspaper's decision not to release certain details about what triggered Woodward's deposition because "we can't do anything in any way to unravel the confidentiality agreements our reporters make."

Woodward never mentioned this contact -- which was at the center of a criminal investigation and a high-stakes First Amendment legal battle between the prosecutor and two news organizations -- to his supervisors until last month. Downie said in an interview yesterday that Woodward told him about the contact to alert him to a possible story.

Well.  If the question was, why did the official come forward a week late (as opposed to, say, a year late), maybe he/she was traveling, sick, on leave or some such.  We have a bit of a hint from Steve Clemons on Oct 27:

...a short while ago -- one of America's top journalists called me to ask what I knew about Fleitz. He said rumors were swirling everywhere and that a "really wild rumor" was that Bob Woodward had a piece appearing in tomorrow's Washington Post focusing on Fleitz.  Realize -- NOTHING substantiated here.

Part of the rumor is that Fleitz is on leave.

I just tried to track that down. I just called Fred Fleitz, but got his answering machine and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. I then called Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph's office and talked to a person who told me that Fleitz was on leave for two days but would return to the office Monday morning.

If Woodward was planning a big story, that would tie to the news that he disclosed his situation to Downie last month.  Does support for part of the rumor strengthen the whole?

And what happened with Fleitz - cold feet?

Armando at Daily Kos is in denial - Woodward has no cred, this his no effect on the case, move on.  Whatever.

Josh Marshall is scratching his head while playing media critic, noting that Woodward should have disclosed his status before opining on this case so often over the past few years.  Yes, but the "all reporters are liars" theme hardly helps Fitzgerald.

Finally, the Walter Pincus angle is intriguing.  Woodward says he mentioned it to Pincus in June, Pincus says he never could have forgotten that.  Puzzling, but we have a different question.

Walter Pincus was all over the Niger/uranium story in June.  If Woodward got this leak (he says he did) and Andrea Mitchell got it (she said so, once), how did Pincus miss this angle? 

Or did he?  It may be worth going back over his reporting to see just what he admitted, and denied.  His testimony to Fitzgerald may well have focused exclusively on the specific leak to Pincus that he reported as ocurring on July 12, and skated past the broader question of whether others were leaking in June.

And I'll tell you why I ask - I have always been bothered by a detail in his story.  Mr. Pincus says he got a leak similar to the Novak leak on July 12, but didn't believe it.   My bafflement - why not, unless he had other, contradictory information?  So, had he kicked the "Wilson and wife" story around in June, and satisfied himself, via CIA sources, that there was nothing to it?  One wonders.

A lot of the WaPo reporting seems to have been re-archived, because links that worked last summer are failing now.  However, here is what Pincus wrote on Oct 12, 2003 that earned him a subpoena:

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.

I would not describe that as an exhaustive attempt by Mr. Pincus to document his every discussion with Administration officials abput Ms. Plame.

Comments

[paul]

Pucker up moonbats:

or in the words of Steam:
"So kiss him (I wanna see you kiss him. I wanna see you kiss him)
Go on and kiss him goodbye, na-na na-na-na na na"

Libby never goes to trial.

Merry fitzmas to all.

[Smithy]

TT:"Based on the Woodward story, we have clear indications that at least one reporter, Woodward, knew about a Wilson and wife connection and kept quiet. Is he the only one?

If Fitzgerald lacks for names, we have some here: In addition to Ms. Mitchell, Martin Peretz, Hugh Sidey, Cliff May, and General Vallely may be worth a chat."

Add David Corn of the loony left rag "The Nation" to that list.

He was the first reporter to mention Plame's CIA connections in an article.
The source of his info?
Why, none other than Plame's lying husband, Joe Wilson himself.

Why has Fitzgerald not brought in charges aginst Joe Wilson and David Corn?
Why, because Fitzgerald increasingly seems to me to be a RATS creature, who is not interested in any evil doers, if they are not in the Bush adminstration.

It may be time to investigate the investigator himself.

[TP]

Could it be that Judith Miller's source, "not Libby" for the Flame name was the same as Woodward's source. Did Tenet or Powell ever sign a disclosure waiver?

[Rarl Kove]

WOW! Many interesting things in this article:

1) Identifies Woodward's source as "Senior Administration Official" and not "Senior White House Official". But that may not mean much unless Woodward wanted to make it clear it was no one in the WH.

2) Article makes it clear that source is not Libby or Rove.

3) When Woodward met with Libby later in June, Woodward does not recall Libby making any mention of Plame. Maybe Libby was not trying to get the word out afterall. Woodword also met with another official around the same time who did not bring up Plame.

4) Woodward admits to telling Pincus that Wilson's wife was CIA. Pincus denys it. Hmmmm, Pincus the Perjurer? All of the reporters involved seem to have a worse memory than Libby.

5) This helps clarify while all this time Woodward has been saying things like: "When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter," he told CNN's Larry King. AND "When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great," he told National Public Radio this summer.

I think it's time for Fitz to quietly quash Libby's indictment, head back to Chicago and hope no one notices.

[Smithy]

paul :"Libby never goes to trial"

Oh I want Libby to go to trial.
Very much so.
Because we are going to get a chance to expose the lying liberal media and put hot fire under the butts of the loony left.

I can't wait to have Libby's very tough lawyers, put Tim Russert, Cooper from Time mag, Joe Wilson himself, David Corn and quite a few of the RATS/CIA/Liberal Media cabal on the stand, and start taking the suckers apart.
This trial IS very necessary.

[Jim E.]

Oh please. There's no evidence a reporter told a government official about Wilson's wife. Just because the administration was leaking like crazy doesn't give Libby an out. I guess Woodward, Miller, Cooper and Russert are all conveniently telling the same exact lie. Poor ol' Libby.

Bob Woodward was in the Judy Miller fan club -- he offered to spend time in jail on her behalf. Woodward was a proponent of all the half-baked NY Times "principles" about how this is all an attack on the First AMendment. I'm left wondering if this is all about principles why did Miller and now Woodward ever agree to testify?

Russert's "journalism" throughout all of this has been atrocious and weasly. But at least Russert, unlike Woodward, didn't offer pronouncements about how "disgraceful" the prosecutor is and how this investigation is "laughable." It's a sliding scale, but Woodward's been worse than Russert about this.

[TP]

I'm hoping Fitz asks for another few million to keep this going. You just can't buy entertainment like this.

[St Wendeler]

Elliot Ness - Please Call Your Office!

[Rarl Kove]

"I guess Woodward, Miller, Cooper and Russert are all conveniently telling the same exact lie."

They all don't have to tell the same lie...only one of them.

And even if Libby heard it from CIA a couple of weeks before he heard it from reporters, why is Libby's memory held to a higher standard than these reporters? Woodward says he told Pincus. Pincus says Woodward did not tell him. Rove says Cooper's call was about welfare (and has email backup). Cooper says welfare not discussed. Miller does not recall how "Valerie Flame" got in her notes. So Libby is a perjurer and the reporters just have bad memories?

Reasonable doubt...without a doubt.

[paul]

Smitty-
It would be sweet to get Wilson and Plame on the stand and have them perjure themselves, but I would just as soon hear the intro violins that Hardabll has running, pop a string...

Olbermann is in his shower, crying, right now.

[Dwilkers]

"Fitzgerald blew it - he had White House phone logs, he had sign in sheets, he had Libby's notes, he had testimony from many, many people, he had two years, and still, somehow, he did not include Bob Woodward on his contacts-of-interest list."

I couldn't agree more. It is shocking that this is popping up now.

Astonishing. What the bloody hell is going on with Fitz?

I gotta think about this one a while.

[Smithy]

JimE:"There's no evidence a reporter told a government official about Wilson's wife."

The is no evidence anyone from the Bush administration told any reporter about Plame either (even if lame was undercover at the time, which she wasn't).
On the other hand,there is plenty of evidence Joe Wilson "leaked" his own wife's name (if you can "out" someone who was not undercover in the first place).

JimE:"Just because the administration was leaking like crazy "

This adminstration does not do leaks.
The adminstration you wanmt is the Klinton adiminstration.
They are the ayatouhlaahs of leaks
Remember the Klinton vultures kept leaking the IRS recorsds of their political enemies?

JimE :"doesn't give Libby an out."

Libby doesn't need an out.
He never leaked anyone's name to anybody.
He has not been convicted of anything.

JimE:" I guess Woodward, Miller, Cooper and Russert are all conveniently telling the same exact lie"

Who said they are?
Sure they are lying to cover their butts, but what's new about that?
This week alone both the WaPo and the New York Slimes have been called out about their lies by the Bush Administration.
Lying comes very naturally to the Bush-hating liberal media.
Does it mean they tell exactly the same lies?
Nope.

[Florence Schmieg]

I, too, would like a trial. How else to get around the media filter and bias? It seemed obvious to me at least that in the summer of 2004 there was an all out assault on Bush over Iraq by the media, complacent co-conspirators with the Democrats, in the hope of tilting the election to Kerry. Everyone around me noticed this. By late in the 2004 campaign the NY Times didn't even try to hide its agenda, even on its news pages. So now the chickens come home to roost. I have had my disagreements with our judicial system, but here is one case where it is the only way to get at the truth and to protect the legal rights of the officials of the Bush administration that are presumed guilty instead of innocent for political advantage. And I would dearly love to see reporters and pundits cross-examined just for the shaudenfreude.

[Mark W]

It does sound kind of Strange that Fitz wouldn't of had investigators have a little chat Mr. Woodward. Writer of so many inside the White House books. Who knows maybe Woodward was on vacation in July so his name never appeared in the July logs. I just like to know why now have that chat with Woodward ? Did Woodward come foward or is Fitz just started looking at June's Logs . He couldn't get an Indictment, using 'her job is classified' with the last grand jury . Now with the June log excuse he can hope to get an Indictment with a fresh Grand Jury. But it should be also noted that Woodward would have vested intrest in stopping the investigation. His job depends on leaks of Classified information. If Fitz were to get an Indictment on 'her job was classified' Then all his source could dry up .

[Marcel]

Woodward's disclosure does not help the Administration or Libby. All it shows is that at least one more "Senior Administration Official" was telling reporters that Wilson's wife was CIA.

Libby's notes and other testimony clearly show that he discussed her identity with at least 7 Adminstration officials and 2 other reporters before he discussed it with Russert.

Woodward's recent assertion that the outing of Plame did no damage is now shown to be a self-serving statement designed to protect himself and his sources within the Administration.

Most of all, today's story shows that the leak investigation is far from over. The story won't go away.

[Cromagnon]

You forgot to mention the 4 administration officials, including Cheney, who told Libby about Plame in direct contridiction to his testimony to the GJ. Wonder if his lawyers are going to question their credibility too? Ooops... Sorry I quess that was an inconvienient fact mention

[owl]

OH--YIPEEEE--Pincus.

Couldn't happen to a better "enabler".

Wilson gets a DNC job and starts the thing with attacks on WH. Then switches into "please please OUT my wife" mode. You could see the entire thing go down if you paid attention to MSNBC/NBC.

DNC campaign with their MSM enablers. Hey Fitz......look at who they are all sleeping with please. Then it becomes a small DNC world.

[Jim E.]

Smithy is my new favorite poster. That post above is a classic!!

[sabria]

Dwilkers,

My sentiment exactly. How in the hell is this new information, from Woodward no less, making it's appearance now? What the hell was Fitz working on for two years?

This is incompetence on a level that is just astounding and, bad news for salivating Democrats, this throws a bit of a kink into Libby's indictment.

I can't wait to see this play out in court. If Libby gets even a barely competent lawyer they'll grind Fitzgerald to fine powder and take a fine whack at the MSM for good measure.

Oh well, at least this will give everyone another bit of info to play "guess the senior administration official" with.

Just when you thought all the cards had been dealt and the bets were down...

[Anonymous Liberal]

From a legal perspective, I don't see how this helps Libby very much. It doesn't seem to speak to any of the actual charges against Libby. I think you're right that *if* Libby's defense team can show that lots of people knew about Plame before Libby ever said anything, that might help make a case for jury nullification, but jury nullification is always a long shot. It also might help with the pardon case, but I don't think Libby needs much help there.

It's important to keep in mind, too, that Woodward's story is not the equivalent of Vallely's or Mitchell's or Cliff May's. Woodward isn't saying that Plame's identity was an "open secrect" in Washington. Quite the opposite. Woodward (perhaps the most connected reporter in Washington) claims that an administration official told him about Plame during the period when the White House was responding to Wilson's charges. The clear implication is that he didn't know this until he was told. And if Woodward didn't know, that would seem to undercut the notion that Plame's identify was an "open secret."

By the way, my guess is that Woodward's source was Fred Fleitz.

[Jim E.]

And here I thought Pincus had his own fan club around here when he slapped Wilson around a bit in a story a few weeks ago. I guess if anyone dares dispute Woodward's memory, like Pincus has, they are the "enemy."

[Florence Schmieg]

One more thing. I think Fitzgerald's mandate was very narrow. He simply looked for White House leaks and assumed that if the CIA asked for an investigation that automatically there was a crime and it was his duty to find out who. I guess that is how our system works but I find it disturbing. That is why it is essential that there be an opportunity for the defense. The bigger picture involving all this (CIA leaking themselves, Wilson's half truths, covert status or not, etc.) will never be examined honestly otherwise. Even with a trial, the judge could sustain all prosecutor objections when other issues come up in testimony, but at least the statements would be out there in public.

[Geek, Esq.]

Uh, TM, Libby's still a liar. This does nothing to change that. Nothing.

The real question lies in WHY this official waited so long to talk about his conversation with Woodward.

This shouldn't need repeating, but I'll say it anyway:

If a bunch of reporters were talking about it because Libby, or someone else working on behalf of Libby, told them, that isn't proof of innocence.

That's proof of conspiracy.

[Jim E.]

Would Fleitz be considered a "senior" source?

[Geek, Esq.]

The clear implication is that he didn't know this until he was told. And if Woodward didn't know, that would seem to undercut the notion that Plame's identify was an "open secret."

Good point. What kind of open secret evades the Great Karnak himself?

[Jim E.]

Geek's point is central: Why did Woodward's source wait so long before coming clean with Fitz?

Some commenters above are saying the source's silence somehow shows how incompetent Fitz's investigation has been. On the contrary, this revelation shows how uncooperative the administration has been with Fitz.

[Shakes]

Libby never denied hearing about Plame from other officials. He just recalled hearing about it from reporters as well. Ooops... Sorry, I guess that was an inconvienient fact mention.

I hope this story does not go away either. At least not until Libby is cleared...which should be soon.

Marcel, stick to your mime job.

[Smithy]

Marcel :"All it shows is that at least one more "Senior Administration Official" was telling reporters that Wilson's wife was CIA.
"

#1. Plame was NOT, repeat, NOT an undercover CIA agent, that had been on foreign assignment in the past 5 years prior to the time we are talking about, demanded by this law.
Hence you cannot "leak" her CIA status.
The law in question is very clear on that.

2.Plame had already been listed in the 2002 "Who's Who" even before this so-called "leak".

33. Even if any leaking was done, it was done by non other than her lying husband Joe Wilson to David Corn of the left wing rag "The Nation".

Hey, if you are worried about real leaks that put our CIA agents in danger, I suggest you to take on the Washington Post, who only last week, ILLEGALLY published a list of secret CIA detention centers abroad, having obtained that information directly from a source inside the CIA (no doubt planted there during the Klinton administration) that is hell dent on destroying the Bush administration.
Now that leak is exposing our CIA agents to any Islamic crazy out there even as we speak right now.
Lets see you RATS ago after the REAL CIA leaks shall we?

[dave]

This is what has the world shouting that "Bush is weakened"?

What a colossal waste of time and energy.

[TexasToast]

Dayum!

This is better tham one of those Scott Turot legal thrillers where the murderer turns out to be the defendants's wife and she gets him off while never being tried herself. Woodward "came forward" after Fitz showed some of his hand with the indictment - but it looks like the new deal gave Fitz sme new hole cards as well.

Wheels withing wheels.

[Truzenzuzex]

These new facts start making a jury nullification case for Libby's defense team much easier than it was. It will become a slam dunk if Fitzgerald's investigation manages to reveal that Plame was not actually "classified" in a strict sense, which is where this seems to be going.

We so far have not heard authoritatively from anybody (at least that I can recall) except Fitzgerald himself the nature of Plame's "classified" status. In the indictment, Fitzgerald states that her CIA employment was "classified".

However, doesn't the public deserve to hear from the CIA (now that she is way, way out of the closet) the exact nature and at least a general reason for her classification (i.e. "national security" or some such)? Surely Libby will want to know that at trial, and Fitzgerald must now be wondering if the CIA has been honest with him about her status. How is this relevant to perjury and obstruction, you say? Fitzgerald mentions Plame's classified status as a fact in the indictment. The defense will have an interest in exploring the veracity of that fact.

Now, I don't want to suggest Libby is off the hook - if he lied as alleged in the indictment, and Fitzgerald's supporting facts are true and Libby's false, Libby is guilty of perjury and obstruction.

But getting a jury to convict a person of perjury and obstruction in such a politically charged case will be very hard indeed if we discover that the original criminal referal that generated the investigation was unambiguously invald. The possibility of revealing that the reason for the investigation was never valid could possibly be the reason this new source finally contacted Fitzgerald. Other than helping Libby, it's hard to fathom why anyone not previously of interest to Fitzgerald would suddenly step forward (unless, of course, Woodward threatened to rat him out).

Who would benefit most from a Libby acquital? Cheney, of course. Despite my instincts, he would be my first suspect for Woodward's source.

"But wouldn't a conspiracy charge now be Fitzgerald's focus?" Only if there is underlying illegal conduct, and that is beginning to look very unlikely. If leaking Plame's name turns out not to be a crime, a conspiracy charge will not be forthcoming.

[clarice]

IIRC Woodward didn't voluntarily come forward with this. His source notified the SP and signed a waiver after which Fitz sought his testimony.

I, too, would like a trial because I think the back story (media complicity with liar Wilson to damage the Administration) would certainly come out, but I'd like Libby to be able to get on with his life without being further bankrupted more.

Given the fact that adequate discovery (and reporters' litigating to prevent it) would take years and the case itself is laughably weak, I'd prefer the case simply be dropped.And I think the msm would as well.

[Shakes]

I like the way that way the Jim E. feels that because this one administration official (and not White House official) did not come forward earlier about this non-crime, the entire administration is not cooperative. I guess all of the other testimony with no one taking the fifth and all of the document turnover doesn't count. Not everyone can be as cooperative and Clinton and his crew during their multiple investigations and hundreds of "I don't recalls". LOL.

[Smithy]

JimE :"Smithy is my new favorite poster. That post above is a classic!! "

You really crack me up.
Just keep 'em coming dude.
Just keep the loony left talking points right on coming.
I need some more amusement this morning. :)

[Slartibartfast]

By the way, my guess is that Woodward's source was Fred Fleitz.

I'd imagine Fred Fleitz is as good a name as any. Better than most, I think. He was in a position to know, after all.

[Jeff H]

Does this posting not qualify as fully Bizarro World?

[Smithy]

Sakes :"I like the way that way the Jim E. feels that because this one administration official (and not White House official) did not come forward earlier about this non-crime, the entire administration is not cooperative. "

Yep.
JimE reminds me of a cartoon charachter.
And he has the name to go along with it too.
LOL!

[Geek, Esq.]

For those who are criticizing Fitzgerald for not uncovering this tidbit earlier, consider:

1) The official in question may or may not have been questioned before the indictment came down. If they did, one can't blame Fitzgerald for the Bush administration's obstruction.

2) It would NOT have been acceptable for Fitz to drag every journo inside the Beltway before a grand jury and interrogate them. He had to have a reason to subpoena Woodward. If Woodward's name didn't come up in discussions with other witnesses, there's no basis for requiring such testimony.

[Jim E.]

"I guess all of the other testimony with no one taking the fifth and all of the document turnover doesn't count."

Let's see. We have "Official A" aka Rove, who is still facing legal possibilities regarding false statements (and that's according to Rove's attorney). We have Woodward's new official coming out of the woodwork AFTER Libby's indictment. And then, of course, we have Libby -- a liar and obstructor. But Libby didn't take the fifth, so we ought to give him a cookie.

[FitzRoy]

I'm trying to figure out what this revelation has to do with the fact that Libby committed perjury?? Seems like wishful thinking by the kool-aid crowd

And don't forget, the trial is being held in Washington D.C. Not exactly a favorable jury pool for Mr. Libby.

[Truzenzuzex]

Clarice:

Given the fact that adequate discovery (and reporters' litigating to prevent it) would take years and the case itself is laughably weak, I'd prefer the case simply be dropped.And I think the msm would as well.

Oh, I pray for a trial. It is also possible (although I consider it very unlikely) that Fitzgerald will be forced to drop the charges against Libby.

Look, this has the potential to create a politically devastating link between Wilson, Plame, the press and elements of the CIA in a way that could be seen (true or not) as a conspiracy involving the CIA to affect the political debate in the run up to the war. As (I believe it was) you have mentioned earlier, this case already poses some serious 6th Amendment issues. With this revelation, the likelhood of a clash between the 6th Amendment and CIA secrecy just took an exponential leap forward.

I think Republicans would benefit from a perception that this whole case was drummed up by the CIA with the intention to harm the administration by using the Times and the Post as foils. I refuse to believe Wison wasn't in on it from the get go, but am forced to admit that he could simply have been used by the CIA (including his wife!) - Wilson doesn't seem to be too smart.

[JAG]

What I don't understand is why Plame's status wasn't/isn't made perfectly clear by Fitzgerald.

Wouldn't any reasonable person determine COMPLETELY that fact BEFORE bothering to investigate anything else?

Can anyone show me where it has been established that Plame was "Covert" under the relevent statute? And if she was, why isn't Libby (as well as Rove and ANY other government officials who disscussed her with reporters)also under indictment for breaking that, most important,law?

Why hasn't anyone asked Fitz to explain that element of this case? Shouldn't he be able to eloquently explain the reasoning behind finding her "Covert", finding her NOT "Covert" yet going forward or not ACTUALLY DETERMINING this element BEFORE fishing about in his grand juries?

[richard mcenroe]

So George Tenet is back in play...

[Chris Fotos]

Off Topic: Humble apologies to Tom for the double trackback. Typepad is giving me fits this morning.

[clarice]

True enough, but as I say the injury to Libby and his famly is so substantial I have to weigh that in the balance.

And doing that, I'd like the case dropped, and a strong presser by Fitz explaining the prosecutor's misstatements to the Miller court and in his presser--and a big, fat juicy book deal for Libby in which he can lay it out.

[Lesley]

I'm beginning to think if Fitzgerald had had the opportunity to interview everyone & anyone with some knowledge of "Wilson's wife" prior to the Novak article, the number of people lined up to give depos would have looked like a crowd scene casting call for Cecil B. DeMille's "The Greatest Show On Earth."

[Truzenzuzex]

FitzRoy:

I'm trying to figure out what this revelation has to do with the fact that Libby committed perjury?? Seems like wishful thinking by the kool-aid crowd

It doesn't really, in a strict sense at least.

But look at a potential trial this way: Jurors are asked to believe Libby lied about his recollection. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Fitzgerald has no "smoking gun" showing Libby joking about how he lied or stating that he knew about Plame from, say, the CIA two weeks before he met with Russert.

Now, the defense puts on Woodward, asks him "did you tell Pincus?", Woodward says "Yes", because that is what he told Fitzgerald. Pincus then testifies that if that happend he forgot about it.

Then, as I suggest in my previous post, the CIA is asked to testify about Plame's classification, and they are forced to admit her employment shouldn't have been classified at all, or that it in fact wasn't.

Now the jury is asking itself, "how do we convict a guy of a crime for which there was no validity to the underlying investigation", and "if Pincus can have a "senior moment", couldn't Libby?"

Not a good place for the prosecution to be, DC jury pool or otherwise.

[p.lukasiak]

"Fitzgerald blew it - he had White House phone logs, he had sign in sheets, he had Libby's notes, he had testimony from many, many people, he had two years, and still, somehow, he did not include Bob Woodward on his contacts-of-interest list."

First off, we don't know if FitzG made overtures to Woodward or not. He may have and been turned down. Or he may not have, knowing that it would be a waste of time asking reporters to disclose information based on conversations with "confidential sources". And absent any evidence that Woodward knew something that was relevant to the investigation, Justice Department guidelines did not allow FitzG to issue him a supoena. And even if FitzG had issued one, it would have been fought by Woodward and the Post (and quashed by a judge) on the basis that this was just a "fishing expedition."

See, FitzG isn't like Ken Starr -- he actually follows the rules.

The real question is: Who is this "other official" and why didn't he tell FitzG about his conversation with Woodward until now?

(Theory --- After the indictment, Woodward goes to Libby's lawyers (or Libby himself) and tells them he has info that might be useful for Libby's defense. The "other source" is notified that Woodward will be called to testify about their "mid-June" conversation, and this source suddenly "remembers" it... )

*********************

aside from the Plame specific revelations, Woodward discloses something quite ugly about his willingness to kowtow to the administration --- he can't ask Cheney any questions that haven't been cleared with Libby first.

[FitzRoy]

"...and the case itself is laughably weak, I'd prefer the case simply be dropped.And I think the msm would as well."

The case against Libby is laugably weak??? Now thats laughable!!! Libby is toast. Fitzgerald will be the one laughing last

[clarice]

JAG I agree--P. 29 of Tate;'s opinion in the Miller case indicates quite clearly that the SP provided information indicating that Plame was undercover and her outing harmful to national interests.

Where did he get this evidence from?
Did the CIA provide misleading information for him to present to the Court? Did he do this on his own?
When did he learn this was not so (sometime before his presser I think because he sure ran away from the question of her status)?

I'd have to research the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and its affect on the continued prosecution of a criminal case, but my nose is pointing in this direction..

Any ideas?

[Geek, Esq.]

What I don't understand is why Plame's status wasn't/isn't made perfectly clear by Fitzgerald.

Wouldn't any reasonable person determine COMPLETELY that fact BEFORE bothering to investigate anything else

What makes you think he hasn't? If Plame's precise legal status wasn't relevant to the perjury and obstruction charges, then there was absolutely no need to discuss it in the indictment.

Moreover, it's possible that her status was highly classified even though she may not have been covert under the IIPA. That would still mean that the Espionage Act may apply.

[Smithy]

JimE :"Let's see. We have "Official A" aka Rove, who is still facing legal possibilities regarding false statements (and that's according to Rove's attorney)."

More reason to have another look at Fitzgerald himself.
Here is a guy, that was brought in to find out if administration officials leaked Plame's name or not, given all the resources he needs, given a virtual carte blanche, questioned anyone he wanted from the administration under oath, carried out a rabid investigation for to the tune of TWO years, and he still can't tell us if he has any evidence against Carl Rove or not?

Sounds like a deliberate attempt to incapacitate the administration to me, and carry out the orders of his RATS puppetmasters.

This piece here might explain where Fitzgerald is coming from:

"A federal judge in Chicago accused Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald of prosecutorial misconduct earlier this year and launched an investigation into what he said a misuse of grand jury materials - before Fitzgerald had the probe shut down by a higher court.

In January 2005, U.S. District Judge James F. Holderman accused Fitzgerald's U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago of turning grand jury materials over to a plaintiff's lawyer in a hospital-fraud case, the Associated Press reported at the time.

In addition to threatening to hold one of Fitzgerald's prosecutors in criminal contempt of court, Judge Holderman ordered a misconduct investigation of Fitzgerald and three of his assistants by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The federal judge asked that Fitzgerald be investigated for "misstating the law and other offenses" by the OPR, the arm of the Justice Department that investigates allegations of wrongdoing by prosecutors"
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/00441.shtml

Sounds to me like it's time to take another look at this Fitzgerald fellow.
He may not be what he is putting himself out to be.

He is using the same tactics on Cal Rove that he he illegally used in Chicago earlier.

[Geek, Esq.]

Again, "why now?" Answer that question, and everything else makes sense.

[FitzRoy]

Man, it looks like some of you are drinking the extra strong kool-aid this morning LOL

[BumperStickerist]

-

Valerie Plame worked at the CIA --- Not Classified. The reason being that she drove there to work and you could follow her to Langley.

Valerie Plame worked at the CIA on Weapons of Mass Destruction - Classified. You cannot follow Valerie Plame to her desk, without a security clearance (and need to know) yourself.

---------------------

The part that gets Libby in trouble for revealing Classified information was his mentioning that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA ON WMD ISSUES.

The "Former NOC/Covert Agent Revealed!" stuff is irrelevant with the Fitzgerald case.

...

[Geek, Esq.]

And the smear campaign against Fitzgerald is off!

Let's call up the Swiftboat guys--I'm sure one of them remembers Fitzgerald trying to shoot himself to get a purple heart.

[ed]

The only thing this proves is that Fitgerald is still on the case. The "known to have" in the indictment is clue number one. Obviously he suspected more. Now he's getting it. The Libby indctment is a step along the way. Does anyone really believe Libby will allow that to go to trial?

[DougJ]

Great post. Libby walks, no question. I have to wonder how long Pincus can old out at the post. Woodward's testimony makes it clear that Pincus lied and that there was no underlying crime.

And I repeat: Richard Clarke was involved with this. He was either Pincus' or Woodward's source.

[Shakes]

The Fleitz angle is interesting. From the WashingtonNote link...

"Fleitz, you will find a lot of commentary on this website about him. He's an interesting, swashbuckling, rough-and-tough character who kept his CIA WINPAC portfolio despite being seconded to the State Department."

If Fleitz worked at WINPAC, he most likely knew who Plame was. He would also know if she was some top secret agent or just an analyst desk jockey. And if he is Novak's first source (which Fitz knew) and didn't charge him with any classified leak...

[Truzenzuzex]

Geek:

What makes you think he hasn't? If Plame's precise legal status wasn't relevant to the perjury and obstruction charges, then there was absolutely no need to discuss it in the indictment.

Fair enough, but how about this scenario:

Fitz to CIA: "Was her employment classified?"
CIA: "Yes."

...

Libby's Attorney to CIA: Was Plame's employment classified?
CIA: Yes.
Attorney: Under your guidelines, should her CIA employment have been classifed?
CIA: Uh... Well...
Attorney: Surely you know, don't you? You told Fitzgerald Plame's identity was classified, right?
CIA: Well, yes.
Attorney: So then it was properly classified in accordance with CIA directives and procedures, correct?
CIA: Not exactly...

[Smithy]

Geek.Esq: "Moreover, it's possible that her status was highly classified even though she may not have been covert under the IIPA. That would still mean that the Espionage Act may apply."

Nonsense.

Read here:
"Unless we're missing something, Joe Wilson has disproved his own accusation that someone in the Bush administration violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, USA Today reports:
The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington--the "outing" of a CIA officer--may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today. As USA Today notes:
The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. "

And this :

Here is Joseph Wilson himself, talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN today: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." Read that again. Now reflect on the fact that there has been an ongoing investigation FOR TWO YEARS conducted, we were breathlessly and rather constantly told in the weeks surrounding the initial controversy, on the basis that the White House and reporters OUTED A CLANDESTINE AGENT. Now we know. She wasn't. Not then. "

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011038.php

Bush adminstration COULD NOT have "outed" Plame. Period.

[DougJ]

Good comments, Smithy. What do you think this investigation is *really* about? I suspect it has something to do with Whacko Clarko and Wilson's plans to sell Uranium to Libya.

[MaidMarion]

Woodward says in his Nov 16, 2005 WaPo article:

"...I testified under oath...about small portions of interviews I conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials..."

Was one of those "former" officials Rand Beers? Over the past few months I haven't seen much blogging about Rand and what his role may have been in the Democratic Party's flaming over Novak's Plame article.

Which is curious since Beers quit the administration five days before the Iraq Invasion and joined the Kerry Campaign. Seems he would have been in a great position to help Kerry torpedo Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Beers

I can't find the link right now, but the other night I was reading up on Rand and he seemed to have spent much of his career "in the intelligence field", but couldn't tell if that meant "employed" by CIA and detailed to NSC or simply the field of intelligence as it relates to national security from his positions on the NSC. Later today I'll try to find that link...

If Beers HAD been an employee of the CIA, then he could very well have been Seymour Hersh's unidentified "former high-level CIA official" who was a source for Hersh's March 24 and October 20, 2003 New Yorker articles. HE could have been the source who claimed to have knowledge that it was a bunch of disgruntled, retired CIA officers who forged the Niger documents in order to setup and ultimately defuse the Bush Administration's march to war.

Maybe that was one of the factors behind why he quit... How would HE have known about the caper?

[JayDee]

It's so fun to watch partisan bias create snap judgments. Libby walks? Because Woodward says he heard this from an admin official before Libby talked to another reporter. Huh?

And of course if Woodward and Pincus differ, then Pincus is the one who is lying? Uh, explain how that is obvious? Isn't Woodward the one who went all over talk shows, including the night before the indictment, saying "move along, nothing to see here" and concealing his own involvement? So Woodward is the one whose integrity is to be trusted?

Laughable. This is a parallel story to Libby's story, with no impact whatsoever on Libby. However, it makes Woodward look like a worthless sell out WH shill. He's finished.

[Geek, Esq.]

Smithy and DougJ are almost exactly the same.

Which is really damn funny.

Care to address the Espionage Act, Smithy?

[DougJ]

I suspect that two of Woodward's sources were Rand Beers and Richard Clarke. They may also have been sources for Pincus.

[Smithy]

Bumperstickerist :"The part that gets Libby in trouble for revealing Classified information was his mentioning that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA ON WMD ISSUES."

Huh?
What have you been smoking this morning dude?
Not even Fitzgerald has dared to come out with such an accusation against Libby.
In fact he went out of his way to make clear, during his press conference , that he was not bringing ANY charges against Libby for leaking any CIA agent's identity.

You gotta try harder than that.

[Jeff]

TM - In fact, the new news jibes perfectly with the quote from Fitzgerald you cite, since as you say he qualifies the assertion with "known to." However, Fitzgerald slipped up later in the press conference and was more assertive about Libby being the first to leak, and that is what Libby's lawyer is picking up on, though I have to say the speed with which the lawyer was able to make the attack on Fitzgerald in the wake of revelations about Woodward makes me strongly suspect he knew in advance about Mr. X going in to Fitzgerald, which makes me suspect Mr. X did so in an effort to help Libby. Which presumably must mean that Mr. X anyway thinks that Fitzgerald is done seeking indictments on the underlying crime.

But in fact Woodward's testimony as self-reported does not help Libby, and not because Woodward is a scumbag whose credibility is shot, though that's true. But Woodward did not testify that he circulated info about Plame back to government officials, and even his assertion of having circulated it among reporters is contradicted by Pincus quite categorically.

[p.lukasiak]

Now the jury is asking itself, "how do we convict a guy of a crime for which there was no validity to the underlying investigation", and "if Pincus can have a "senior moment", couldn't Libby?"

I don't think this would wash with a jury, unless a whole lot of evidence is suppressed.

Assuming, just for the moment, that it IS Pincus and not Woodward who had a memory lapse, we still looking at two different animals here.

One is a reporter who forgot a bit of gossip related by another reporter.

The other is a public official who made numerous iquiries about Wilson, was notified on 4-5 different occasions about "Wilson's wife", and acted upon that information and discussed "Wilson's wife" on at least three different occasions 2-3 day before completely forgetting that he had ever known about it.

Woodward's statement does provide an opening for Libby on the specific charge related to Pincus's testimony --- but its not much of one, given Woodward's admission that he "doesn't remember" and "doesn't recall" so many other things. (Prosecutor: Mr. Woodward, your memory about these various conversations --- memories of conversations when you had your "reporter" hat on --- is, as you acknowledge, sketchy at best. Isn't it possible that you are "misremembering" this conversation with Pincus -- that perhaps it happened at a different time, or perhaps with someone else entirely?)

In other words, I don't think that Woodward throws much of a spanner into the case against Libby...

[Smithy]

Geek.Esq :"Care to address the Espionage Act, Smithy?
"

Care to show me where Fitzgerald has actually made ANY charges against ANY Bush official using any Espionage Act, Mr?
In fact if I recall correctly he went out of his way to make clear thatduring his press conference, this is not what his indictments were about.

[Rick Ballard]

One might wonder what other shoes, flip flops, sandals, army boots, or hipwaders have yet to drop.

Should it be assumed that the "player to be named later" mentioned Plame's status only to Woodward? How many journos have to be told before a fact becomes "common knowledge"? The indictment states:

"f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

as a fact.

Is Woodward a member of the "intelligence community"?

Fitzgerald is the smartest guy in every phone booth he has ever been in. A decent prosecutor at the AA level - not quitre ready for the big show.

[Lion]

One thing--and only one--is clear to me from all of this: if I were trying this case, I am going to load my witness list up with reporters, and we shall see what we shall see. Since Fitzgerald is demanding Libby do "serious" prison time, I think Libby is likely to roll the dice. As for Geek's gratuitious shot at the SwiftVets, it's well to remember that two of Kerry's three wounds were indisputably self-inflicted; no one has ever contended that they were intentional. Having been there and done that, I can attest that no naval officer I know would have sought or accepted a Purple Heart for either of those two wounds.

[p.lukasiak]

Any ideas?

Clarice, have you explored the possibility that mind-rays from outer space aliens were actually Novak's original source? Because the rest of your speculation is almost as well grounded as that theory?

At some point, you need to deal with the simple fact that you DO NOT KNOW what Valerie Plame Wilson was doing every single day for the five years prior to the publication of Novak's column, and that there is not a shread of evidence indicating that the CIA lied to FitzG about her status, or that FitzG himself is now a central figure in some vast conspiracy (prosecutorial misconduct? Are you OUT OF YOUR MIND?!?!?)

[paul]

The indictment centers around what Libby said to Russert, and then later Cooper, In July 03, and then his presentation in the GJ.

Libby contends that Russert came to him with 'all the reporters know about Wilson's wife' story. The indictment says no to this-but makes no statement of finding regarding who in the press knew.

(Woodward stating that it was known in June 03, seems to lend some crediblity to Libby-that it was 'common knowledge' among the press)

Libby's argument will be, 'yes, I did find out about her role thru various levels of government, but when it became clear that reporters knew as well, it seemed no longer to be an issue. I realized that I couldn't confirm my knowledge of her role as it was learned from classifed work, but by the fact that it was known to press(Woodward, Mitchell, sidey and a host of others) and they were asking about it, it was an opportunity to advance questions to me from reporters, to other reporters.

Both Cooper and Russert did probably know Plame by July 03, but weren't ask by Fitz to reveal sources-it still hasn't been made clear whether they knew Plame or not, and at waht point they knew her. Woodward statement of knowledge would suggest that othere reporters associated with the WH would be aware of Plame-backing up Libby's claim that he was asked about this by reporters. It stands to reason that if you are looking into the Niger caper-you would ask the Veep's chief of staff what he knew, about what a reporter has learned-Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Libby just has to prove that he was told about 'Wilson's wife' through reporters prior to the point Fitz has chosen, which is July 03-extremely late. He was only advancing questions that were asked of him by reporters to other reporters. Woodward establishes a press person with knowledge, outside of Libby, and if Woodward admits that he went to Libby and asked him about it...

Libby tried to split hairs.

Can't disclose classified info-
But why can't he discuss info that is already known by others?

Woodward is not going to be the only press person to come foward, bu this is part of the Scooter's push-back.

[clarice]

Yeah, I think he is out of his league here--He's not dealing with some crazy blind sheikh he can throw in prison despite the fact he had nada to do with the WTC bombing, nor some party hack in Chicago putting dead relatives on the payroll.

Did the Agency play him like Wilson played Pincus?

[Rob]

I can't figure out what this information has to do with Libby's perjury.

What is all this talk about outing Plame. That is not what he was indicted for.

[Geek, Esq.]

Is Woodward a member of the "intelligence community"?

Do you know what "common knowledge" means?

Hint: One poster here knows my real name. That information is not common knowledge here.

[Smithy]

DougJ :" What do you think this investigation is *really* about? I suspect it has something to do with Whacko Clarko and Wilson's plans to sell Uranium to Libya."

Could be.
My own thinking is, this is normal dirty tricks campaign by the CIA against a sitting Republican President, to:

1. Make President Bush lose the 2004 elections and help their RATS pals.

2. To render the Bush administration ineffective and consolidate CIA power.
This is nothing new from the intelligence agencies
Remember, its was the deputy FBI director, who worked with an anti_republican Bob Woodward to being down the Nixon administration.

The CIA merely tried to do the same thing to President Bush.
I am happy to say the CIA FAILED abysmally.

Bush won splendidly in 2004, and today the CIA haas a new Bush-appointed leader, who is busy even as we speak, taking out the rabid RATS vermin that Klinton planted in the CIA during his disastrous 8 year tenure.

[Doofus]

Does anyone else know your name and occupation outisde of this board? Is that "common knowledge"?

[clarice]

I don't believe Novak is part of the Georgetown set (where romp the Wilsons, Pincuses and most of the MSM intel and foreign affairs set). My understanding is that Novak's contacts are more in the defense and intel community. And if Tenet was his source, it would explain Harlowe's otherwise inexplicable breach in confirming Plame's employment by the agency.

[p.lukasiak]

Is Woodward a member of the "intelligence community"?

you seem to miss half of FitzG's statement, the "common knowledge" part.

I've been saying all along that the Libby indictment was an attempt to squeeze Libby into giving up more info. So far, it looks like its working....

[Smithy]

p.lukasiak :

There is not shred of evoidence the CIA didn't lie either.

And the CIA do have a very long history of lying.
JUst last year, we had an anti-Bush book by a serving CIA agent, supposedly a "secret" agent, with the book timed to cause maximum damage to president Bush,and released just before the elections last year.

The CIA is truly pathetic.

[p.lukasiak]

There is not shred of evoidence the CIA didn't lie either.

that's correct. Its also true that there is not a shred of evidence contrary to the "alien mind rays" theory.

The point being that Clarice's "theories" are grounded on the assumption that the CIA is lying -- she accepts that as fact, when there is no evidence that supports that fact.

[TallDave]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!

Don't look now, but the whole case against Libby just fell apart.

D'oh!

[JayDee]

I can't figure out what this information has to do with Libby's perjury.

What is all this talk about outing Plame. That is not what he was indicted for.

Don't bother, Rob. You'll never get an answer. All you need to do around here is say the word Plame and about 10,000,000 words come tumbling out of the ether dissecting every possible angle on whether or not she was covert. Doesn't matter what the context is - all they want to do is talk about how she wasn't covert and Wilson is a rat. And now we're starting to see the swiftboats being lined up to attack Fitzgerald.

But you are correct. This whole story has ZERO impact on Libby - at this point. This whole conversation is just illustrative of the way radical partisan bias obscures one's understanding of the simplest of facts.

[JohnH]

This is an historic day. Not because of the Plame investigation. But because the left's central tenet of "investigative journalism" has been abandoned. Over the last 30 years we have heard no end of blather about what "journalism" is all about. It is "speaking truth to power" and "afflicting the comfortable." If you read any interview of a left-leaning journalist at any time in the last 30 years you will get this blather shoveled up to your ears. And when the journalists are asked for an example of these noble principles, the first and foremost example is always, without a single exception, Woodward and Bernstein.

But as of today, we must amend that lofty definition of journalism. It appears now that investigative journalism is defined as the way Woodward and Bernstein did it, but only when the target is a Republican. Otherwise, the definition is inoperative and Woodward is a lying hack.

[Geek, Esq.]

Does anyone else know your name and occupation outisde of this board? Is that "common knowledge"?

They know my name. However, my Internet name is classified information, and my posting status here is covert.

[Syl]

One is a reporter [Pincus] who forgot a bit of gossip related by another reporter.

Well, it wasn't exactly gossip about who JFK had an affair with forty years ago, it was gossip about players in a story that Pincus was involved in.

Pincus made damn sure fitz wouldn't question him about it. The questions fitz could ask Pincus were agreed on before he would open his mouth.

[Geek, Esq.]

It appears now that investigative journalism is defined as the way Woodward and Bernstein did it, but only when the target is a Republican. Otherwise, the definition is inoperative and Woodward is a lying hack.

When's the last time Woodward actually investigated anything? Now he's the writer of hagiographies mislabeled as books.

[p.lukasiak]

But you are correct. This whole story has ZERO impact on Libby - at this point. This whole conversation is just illustrative of the way radical partisan bias obscures one's understanding of the simplest of facts.

I think "zero" impact is a slight exaggeration. Woodward's "Pincus" story has the potential of raising questions about Pincus's credibility, but I don't think that potential would be realized, because any decent prosecutor would be able to raise serious questions about Woodward's recall.

*************

here's a good question. If no one in the administration has anything to hide, why have they forbidden Woodward from disclosing their identities?

[Syl]

re the Espionage Act.

That is the default law when everything else fails. And Fitz said a prosecutor want's to be very careful about applying the Espionage Act because it bumps up against the 1st Amendment. He made is hesitation to indict under the Espionage quite clear.

And if his case boiled down to only releasing classified information (that wilson's wife was CIA) the Espionage Act was all he was left to use.

It goes back to the question of what Valery's status actually was and whether she may have been misclassified. Just because her specific status was classified does not mean she was covert.

[Reg Jones]

TM

Indictments concentrate minds. Why did this source come forward after the Libby indictment? Three thoughts:

1. Libby was not charged with leaking classified information. Maybe the source felt a bit more confident that Fitz wouldn't charge him.

2. The source saw Libby in trouble and thought his story might help Libby.

3. Maybe Woodward called his source after the Libby indictment and said, "we have a bit of an ethical problem. Here's how you can solve it. And if you don't I might be forced to solve the problem my own way."

Woodward's ethical problem is doubled if the source did testify and lied under oath. But even if the source never testified would Woodward just sit back and watch the Libby indictment even though he knew a significant part of it was false?

[DougJ]

A lot of people on the left are going to owe us an apology when it becomes clear that Fitzgerald is simply wrapping up book deals. This “prosecution” isn’t going anywhere. A couple from Indiana recently told an Evansville morning tv show that they heard about Valerie Plame during a White House tour in 2003 while visiting the capital with a church group. I mean, was there anyone in Washington who didn’t know who she was?

[Smithy]

p.lukasiak: "The point being that Clarice's "theories" are grounded on the assumption that the CIA is lying -- she accepts that as fact, when there is no evidence that supports that fact."

This is the deal.

1. Do the CIA have history of lying? YES.
2. Do the CIA have a history of dirty tricks ? YES
2. Did certain members of the CIA set out to undermine the Bush adminstration and work towards President Bush's defeat in the elections last year?
YES.

We have the book by the sitting CIA agent last year to prove it.

Does this whole business of sending Wilson to Niger, at the instigation of his wife Plame, now look, with hindsight, to be a CIA dirty tricks campiagn against the Bush Administration with the intention of getting President Buish defeate? last year Oh YES!

[Doofus]

"why have they forbidden Woodward from disclosing their identities?"

They didn't forbid it, hence the testimony to Fitz. Any public disclosure should wait until the investigation is complete or until Fitz thinks it would help to disclose. Duh!

[JayDee]

Woodward's "Pincus" story has the potential of raising questions about Pincus's credibility

How does Woodward's story raise questions about Pincus' credibility? Am I missing some corroborating facts? Woodward - the guy who was ALL OVER the media saying this was a "laughable", meaningless story and Judy Miller was a hero, while concealing his own rather intimate involvement in it - says he told Pincus, and Pincus says otherwise. Is there any way of knowing who is telling the truth? Maybe I missed it.

[Doofus]

"They know my name. However, my Internet name is classified information, and my posting status here is covert."

And what do you know...you're also a desk jockey! Just like Val.

[Gary Maxwell]

A quick survey of my friends on the left finds reactions ranging from anger to denial. TM

I start my riff with the words of TM as my springboard. This does in fact seem to be troublling our lib friends. As evidence I quote our own JimE to wit:

Bob Woodward was in the Judy Miller fan club

How the mighty have fallen. Once upon a time Mr. Woodward was a god to the left. The man who banished the wicked to the 7th level of hell. The David who slew Goliath with his mighty pen. Now the only trace to his David legacy is that some (who speak yiddish)are calling him a Schmuck.

Is it not ironic that when the memo goes out from the NYT about Judy Miller have "entanglements" with a Republican administration that we suddenly get a Judy Miller who is kryptonite to the Left. It as if the signal was to be in code, subtle but unmistakable. JimE sure got the message. Woodward therefore is trash despite his previous cred.

[JayDee]

Woodward is also the guy who said the CIA had done a damage assessment on this matter and concluded no harm was done, while his own paper was reporting there was never any such damage assessment done. Explain to me how Woodward's integrity is suddenly to be considered unimpeachable. He looks like a jerk right now.

[p.lukasiak]

Well, it wasn't exactly gossip about who JFK had an affair with forty years ago, it was gossip about players in a story that Pincus was involved in.

again, assuming that Woodward's recall is correct....

it would be considered irrelevant gossip, UNLESS Pincus had reason to believe otherwise. Unlike you, Pincus didn't start out with the assumption that Wilson's trip was part of some vast CIA conspiracy to bring down Bush.

If one takes Woodward's account at face value, it was gossip. Woodward doesn't say he was "passing along a tip" to Pincus, but his statement does certainly leave open that possibility. If Woodward was "passing on a tip", the question then becomes why Woodward would think the "casual and offhand" disclosure of Plame's working for the CIA would be significant enough to "follow-up" on.