The Underground Railroad

Here is a bit of bonus fun for folks following the latest Woodward revelations in the Plame investigation - Bob Woodward chatting with Tim Russert on July 17, 2003.  Let's roll the tape, as Mr. SayNothing talks with Mr. SayLittle:

MR. RUSSERT:  And how do you apply what you learned during that time as a reporter to what we're going through right now [i.e., the Fitzgerald investigation]?

MR. BERNSTEIN:  They are your life line.  Nobody in this town can tell the truth openly because of fear they're going to lose their jobs, that the only way you get real information is by talking person to person without--with the knowledge that your name is not going to go in the paper.  What's important is the information and that the reporter is good enough to triangulate it elsewhere.  That's what we did in Watergate.  We didn't just use Mark Felt's information.  Everything he told us we had somewhere else as well.

MR. WOODWARD:  And you know what?  The special prosecutor, Fitzgerald, in a way, has discovered that there is an underground railroad of information in Washington.  You're smiling because no one knows more about it than you.

MR. BERNSTEIN:  Well, you were down there.

MR. WOODWARD:  Well, you talk to people, you talk to somebody in the White House or the CIA or the Democratic Party, and you say, "I've heard or I understand; what are you hearing?"  And one of the discoveries in all of this is that reporters, in asking questions, convey information to even somebody like Karl Rove.  Where did he first learn important elements of this?  From a reporter.  Now, my view, and I think Carl agrees with this, this investigation, though properly empowered, is an assault on that process that we have not just in Washington, any other community in this country where we have a First Amendment, and he will wind up crippling that process by dragging reporters before the grand jury.  And I wonder if he and the judge have really sat down and said, "Now, what are we going to gain here vs. what are we going to lose?" And the loss might be immense.

Was it Russert that was smiling, or Bernstein?

Well.  Bob Woodward apologized for keeping the Post in the dark.  And do note the broadly applicable motive:

Bob Woodward apologized today to The Washington Post's executive editor for failing to tell him for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of those leaks mushroomed into a national scandal.

Woodward, an assistant managing editor and best-selling author, said he told Leonard Downie Jr. that he held back the information because he was worried about being subpoenaed by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case.

"I apologized because I should have told him about this much sooner," Woodward said in an interview. "I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's Job No. 1 in a case like this. ...

"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

For a reporter who want to protect his sources from a special counsel, the best defense is to avoid giving offense, by laying low.

How many other reporters figured this out all by themselves?  Is Mr. Fitzgerald going to try and find out, or will he simply let the defense provide that information at trial?

Keep in mind, following the Wen Ho Lee ruling the defense may have much broader subpoena power than Fitzgerald. 

This is kind of exciting, actually - it gives the whole prosecution a certain "let's fly under the bridge" flavor.

Comments

[Chants]

That should be July 17, 2005?

[Geek, Esq.]

LMAO! Woodward did the opposite of laying low--he was a shameless camera whore.

[Geek, Esq.]

Also remember that every reporter that testifies will also have to say where they heard that information.

This wide net of subpoenas could practically make Fitz's conspiracy case for him.

[Jeff]

How many other reporters figured this out all by themselves? Is Mr. Fitzgerald going to try and find out, or will he simply let the defense provide that information at trial?

TM - This raises the question of what the motive of Woodward's leaker to tell Fitzgerald was. My initial thought was that it was to help out Libby, even though in the end it appears not to, on account of actions subsequently taken (or not taken) by Woodward himself. (He didn't spread the word around, especially not to administration officials.) But as you suggest, you probably get more bang for your exculpatory buck at the trial itself. So what happened now such that the source talked with Fitzgerald? Do you think that Woodward, realizing his leak preceded Miller's, which the WaPo today reports he thought significant, decided to write about it and told his source he was going to, at which point his source went to Fitzgerald?

[Doofus]

Conspiracy? LMAO. It's called common knowledge.

Statement of Ted Wells, Attorney for Mr. Libby:

Woodward's disclosures are a bombshell to Mr. Fitzgerald's case. First, the disclosure shows that Mr. Fitzgerald's statement at his press conference of October 28, 2005 that Mr. Libby was the first government official to tell a reporter about Mr. Wilson's wife was totally inaccurate. Second, Woodward's disclosure that he talked to Mr. Libby on June 20 and June 27, 2003 and that Mr. Libby did not mention WIlson's wife undermines Mr. Fitzgerald's key theme that Mr. Libby was involved in a scheme to discredit Wilson by telling reporters about Wilson's wife's employment at the CIA. Hopefully as more information is obtained from reporters like Bob Woodward, the real facts will come out.

[TM]

This wide net of subpoenas could practically make Fitz's conspiracy case for him.

If two or three people leaked, it's a criminal leak of vital info.

If twenty people leaked, its a wide-ranging conspiracy.

Love it.

[Geek, Esq.]

If those twenty or so had a common agreement, yes. If it was 20 random individuals, no.

If everyone doing the leaking was part of the WHIG, for instance, that looks and smells like a conspiracy. If half the leakers didn't know the other half, no conspiracy.

I don't believe in coincidences, hence my leaning towards the conspiracy angle.

It may or may not be true, but it's more credible than the idea that LIBBY wasn't lying his rear end off.

[TM]

This raises the question of what the motive of Woodward's leaker to tell Fitzgerald was.

...Do you think that Woodward, realizing his leak preceded Miller's, which the WaPo today reports he thought significant, decided to write about it and told his source he was going to, at which point his source went to Fitzgerald?

Woodward sat out this long, and sat on Deep Throat for 33 years, so I doubt he did that. However, he might have called the source and wondered what was happening...

I am leaning towards the ieda that the source either never talked to Fitzgerald, or had a cursory chat ("No, I didn't leak to Bob Novak, nice seeing you".

He/she figured they would wait and see what developed.

Finally, a nagging conscience brings them forward (or Woodward's request for a chat - maybe the person doesn't want to have their soul leased to Woodward forever)

In that view, the person is more likely to be not in the White House (or at least, not lying awake nights worried about Libby's well-being), and may well be retired and not worried about anything.

Someone like Colin Powell would fit perfectly.

A Libby loyalist should have come forward sooner and saved Libby's job, or at least his hair.

But I welcome suggestions - its a baffler.

[Syl]

Without the IIPA, fitz was treading dangerous ground and, from his press conference, it seems he knew it.

But, here's the rub. It's one thing to be aware of the conflict between charging the release of classified info (with no proof that harm has been done) and the 1st amendment rights and protection of the press, and quite another to go ahead when you can't even question the press about what they knew and who they learned it from.

It's like knowing sharks can be dangerous, but not finding out beforehand if the shark in the tank you're jumping into is a nurse shark or a Great White.

[Geek, Esq.]

Raw Story (giant nugget o'salt time) is reporting that it was Hadley.

If that's the case (and that's a giant if) this is bad, bad news for the WH.

[Syl]

I split infinitives too.

Sigh.

[Jim E.]

"If that's the case (and that's a giant if) this is bad, bad news for the WH."

No way, dude. This just means that Wilson and Plame figured out a way for Chris Lehane, on orders from Kerry, to impersonate Hadley in order to fool Woodward. You know, to throw the 2004 election. Duh. clarice will fill us all in on the details later. No matter what, Walter Pincus is goin' DOWN!! And the MSM, too!

[DougJ]

"This just means that Wilson and Plame figured out a way for Chris Lehane, on orders from Kerry, to impersonate Hadley in order to fool Woodward."

You joke, but stranger things have happened. I read in all The President's Men that something liked this happened with one of their sources. Luckily, Bernstein was able to figure it out before they got too much bad information. Woodward is dogged, but not always the smartest.

[arrowhead]

"I don't believe in coincidences, hence my leaning towards the conspiracy angle."

Conspiracy to do what? To prove what was self-evident that Joe Wilson is a pompous ass? Fitzgerald is/was fixated on the notion that the WH engaged in some sort of whispering campaign to destroy a "whistle blower." The facts, however, don't support his theory. That didn't deter Fitz from manufacturing this loosely woven bizarre indictment.

Now, all the threads are beginning to unravel. Plame's employment was no secret and she wasn't a covert employee. Joe Wilson and his wife discussed her employment to just about anyone who was within earshot apparently. The media withheld information from the SP to avoid having to go before the GJ. That was not "coincidence", it was deliberate. If you're looking for a conspiracy, you won't find it in the WH.

[Rob W]

I respectfully disagree. First, take everything Libby's attorney says with a huge boulder of salt--If I was represnting him I would push that story too. But as has been pointed out, Fitzgerald qualified his naming of Libby as the first person to leak by saying he was the first person known to have leaked. That's a lot different.

There's no evidnece that this has even the slightest impact on the Libby prosecution. The hope of the owner of this blog is apparently that the Defendants will be able to bring out all sorts of testimony from reporters other than those whose testimony is counter to that of Libby, to prove that somehow those reporters did know that Plame was a covert CIA operative. This evidence thus "proves" that Russert also knew.

Nice try, but no. First, Russert may have known and said nothing to Libby, or Libby may have started the conversation and revealed identifying information and then Russert may have said "yes I know that." Since Libby said it first, he's still lying when he says he learned it from Russert.

Second, assuming, arguendo, the theory that showing Russert knew is somehow relevant, showing that "everyone else knew" doesn't tell us anything about whether or not Russert knew.

I see a criminal conspiracy here. It isn't just a random thing when three senior Administration officials, some told by the Vice President information identifying a CIA covert operative who had been overseas within the statutory period and whose identiy was a classified secret, then pass that information on to several reporters, apparently in some instances serially calling the reporters to do so. Fitzgerald has never been shown to have any agenda at all. There is no evidence of any bias. There's no reason for him to go forward on all of this unless he thinks he has a good case and that it is important. He's got more information than we do as well.

[Syl]

Rob W

But if we look at it as Libby trying to hold it back because he knew it was classified, the entire picture changes.

Now you have an administration official (unknown) who apparently did not know it was classified as a source for at least one reporter (Woodward) and perhaps more.

Then it makes sense that the info is going around unofficially in reporting circles. Libby may not have heard it from Russert (though I think he did) he may have heard it from someone else and forgotten who is who. He was surprised he was learning it unofficially. He didn't know anyone not authorized to have that information actually knew it.

And, there seems to be different lines of information which are next to impossible to trace.

Mrs. Wilson is CIA
Mrs. Wilson is CIA and works for WINPAC
Mrs. Wilson is CIA and got Joe the trip.
Mrs. Wilson works for CPD
Mrs. Wilson, aka Valery Plame, blah blah

We wouldn't all be so interested in this if it were simple, straightforward, and easy to follow.

It does seem extremely complex with dozens and dozens of actors with various motives.

[Kate]

TM: I agree with your analysis. I think it was someone who waited out the Grand Jury and felt guilty over Libby.

I think it is a second tier official though. I also often thought it was Powell, except I believe he did testify before the Grand Jury.

Unless, Fitzgerald's line of questioning was very narrow, I think it wouldn't be Powell.

A second tier person who felt gulty is my bet. If there's a chance Woodward told Libby in early or mid-June it's all over and Fitzgerald should encourage Libby to plead to a much reduced charge.

[millco88]

What about somebody like Dick Armitage? Wasn't he a huge source for Woodward in the past and wouldn't he fit the profile of someone who may or may not be senior??

[p.lukasiak]

How many other reporters figured this out all by themselves? Is Mr. Fitzgerald going to try and find out, or will he simply let the defense provide that information at trial?

no, he's gonna let the defense file motions to compel journalists to testify, and follow-up on the information that Libby's team will have to disclose about these conversations.

I mean, lets face it.....its highly unlikely that Woodward's source suddenly remembered disclosing the "Wilson's wife was CIA" stuff spontaneously. The timeline on Woodward and his source talking to FitzG remains indistinct, but there are a number of possibilities. Here are two likely ones....

1) Woodward finally told Downie, and Downie insisted that FitzG be notified because of the agreement the Post had negotiated pursuant to Pincus's testimony (or something similar)

2) Woodward goes to Libby and tells him he has info that can help his defense (He knew early on AND he told Pincus). Then...

a) Libby goes to Woodward's source, tells him he knows about his Woodward convo, and the source scurries to FitzG to tell him he just remembered his conversation with Woodward OR

b) Woodward goes to his source, tells him he has talked to Libby, and the source goes to FitzG...

The point is that the Libby indictment is serving FitzG's larger purpose here, i.e. to determine if a crime was committed, and if so, who committed it.

[Syl]

3) Woodward's source goes to fitz of his own accord and releases woodward.

[p.lukasiak]

3) Woodward's source goes to fitz of his own accord and releases woodward.

why? because he feels guilty about Libby's indictment?

or are you seriously suggesting that the source just happened to remember, after over two years had passed, that he'd told Woodward about "Wilson's wife" in an "offhand" manner?

[Syl]

p.luk.

What do we know about Woodward? That he won't reveal a source. I mean he waited 33 YEARS before he revealed Deep Throat.

Woodward is not going to initiate anything by talking to his boss, or Libby, or fitz.

The only way, I think, this thing broke is that the source went to Fitz, released Woodward, and fitz took it from there.

I have not idea what the source's motives were. We don't even know who it is.

[Gary Maxwell]

Puke'

We got it. As you have posted ad nauseum on multiple days and every G D thread, you think Fitz is on a mission and is just rolling up on the entire occupancy of the West Wing. Hell Laura and the pet cocker spaniel will be frog marched out soon.

Now if this were the case I seriously doubt that Libby's attorney would be giving statments to the press basically mocking the prosecutor, but if that does not deter you, far be it from me to try.

Will you at least remember you heard it here first. No additional indictments, and this one is looking a wee bit shaky for a conviction. (I didnt think so).

[p.lukasiak]

I have not idea what the source's motives were. We don't even know who it is.

Syl...how about this theory...

Pre-indictment, Woodward goes to Rove, does not disclose his source, but tells Rove that he knew about "wilson's wife" and told Pincus.

Rove's lawyers tell that to FitzG...keeping Rove from an indictment.

FitzG goes to the Post/Downie, says "What the F*CK are you trying to pull here. Our agreement was based on Pincus not hiding any relevant testimony. And now, I find out that Pincus knew before he talked to Rove.

Downie confronts Woodward, Woodward tells what he knows, and Downie tells woodward he has to talk to FitzG....that the Post isn't going to let Woodward pull a "Judy Miller" on him....

So Woodward tells his source what happened, and the source shows up at FitzG's door...

(IIRC, we actually don't know who showed up first, Woodward or the source...)

[p.lukasiak]

Hell Laura and the pet cocker spaniel will be frog marched out soon.

Well, Gary, you might be right.

But I wouldn't count on it. After all, the Bush's don't have a cocker spaniel. There is a springer spaniel (Spot--his mom was that bitch Millie, one of Pappy's dogs) and a Scottish terrier (Barney)....and a cat.

In other words, obviously you aren't that good with details...and attention to detail is what makes the difference between a sucessful prosecution and a failed one.

[Sue]

Holy Moley Batman. If we weren't confused before, we are now. :) Cats and dogs and guilt and sleepless nights. Oh my.

[Syl]

p.luk

(IIRC, we actually don't know who showed up first, Woodward or the source...)

Woodward said the source showed up first:

I was first contacted by Fitzgerald's office on Nov. 3 after one of these officials went to Fitzgerald to discuss an interview with me in mid-June 2003 during which the person told me Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst.

[Syl]

p.luk.

Your entire scenario depends on this:

Pre-indictment, Woodward goes to Rove, does not disclose his source, but tells Rove that he knew about "wilson's wife" and told Pincus.

Pre-indictment but during the investigation? Woodward wouldn't open himself up like that.

He was staying mum. Hunkered down and pretending he didn't exist.

[clarice]

I saw call a fancy party at the National Press Club, invite every reporter in town and serve subpoenas on all of them as you pass the champagne.

[clarice]

saY (not saw)urgh

[Sue]

Syl,

He really wasn't though. Staying hunkered down. He was talking it up on the circuit. Which makes it all really strange. It was like when the NYTs was reporting on the leak like they weren't in the center of it. This is what happens when you allow clowns to do the work of the CIA. You get a circus. :)

[cathyf]

He really wasn't though. Staying hunkered down. He was talking it up on the circuit. Which makes it all really strange.

Actually, not so strange, I think. If Fitz had stood up and said, "Well, we investigated, no crime, no indictments, thank you very much, I'm back to Chi-town," then Woodward and any other reporters hiding sources would have been off the hook. They could have all taken their secrets to the grave with all of the other secrets Woodward has kept over the last 4 decades.

cathy :-)

[rb]

Any of you worthies remember the story of the King's New Clothes?

Much admired, much talked about, but in the end, a little boy who looked clearly and saw nothing there, and said what he saw. And the entire pretense collapsed.

So is there any question, that looking at these empty Talmueic arguments about who did what, and with which, and to whom, that the same kind of ambigity could just as well have happened to you or me in remembering events two years back in the face of incredibily busy days?

This is all total nonsense.

There are no "new clothes" on anyone being talked about here.

All sophistry and sophomoric word games.

Just humans doing various jobs as best thay can.

WAKE UP (finger snap). How are you feeling?

[p.lukasiak]

Pre-indictment but during the investigation? Woodward wouldn't open himself up like that.

keep in mind that a week before the indictments were announced, Rove was expected to be nailed (Why do you think we called it Fitzmas?) Suddenly, Rove is off the hook.... and if there is one person in this administration that I would want to owe me a BIG favor, its Karl Rove.

[Syl]

and if there is one person in this administration that I would want to owe me a BIG favor, its Karl Rove.

Awwwww. You mean you don't like our lovable Danny DeVito? :(

[Lion]

Bulletin for Geek: A "conspiracy" is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. No unlawful act, and no conspiracy, has been alleged by Fitzgerald, and indeed no such allegation arises anywhere but in the fever swamps. This trial is going to be great fun. And it is truly exhilarating to watch this whole thing fall apart. Perhaps when it is over, Fitzgerald and Joe Wilson can stage a charity frog-marching contest to benefit the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

[Geek, Esq.]

Bulletin to Lion:

Fitz's investigation is continuing.

[Cyber]

If by continuing you actually mean crumbling, then I suspect you are finally on to something Geek.

[Florence Schmieg]

There are now two Scotch Terriers at the White House, Barney and Mrs. Beasley. Spot died, just like the Libby case just did and, hopefully, the credibility of the MSM.

[Syl]

Bulletin to Geek:

Has anyone you've ever known committed a conspiracy to throw you a surprise birthday party?

If not, well I'm sorry.

[Chris]

I notice the word "apparently" shows up in arguments used by those who think the Woodward revelations mean Fitzgerald's investigation is torpedoed, as in

"Joe Wilson and his wife discussed her employment to just about anyone who was within earshot apparently."

"Now you have an administration official (unknown) who apparently did not know it was classified"

Sorry, but neither one of those things is apparent. First, I find it interesting that the people that Joe Wilson supposedly was so open with about his wife's occupation were all right wing media people. Gee, how do you suuppose that happened?

Second, Woodward has put enough qualifiers in his statement that nothing is apparent. He said "I testified that the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive." It didn't seem to be classified to Woodward. That doesn't mean that the official "apparently" didn't know it was classified, it means Woodward didn't think it was. In addition to the possibility that Woodward was mistaken, we also have to take into account that we're learning all this from a guy who's credibility is shot.

The fact is, all we've really learned is that the White House effort to out Plame may have started a month earlier than we thought. I don't see how this gets anyone off the hook. The point is what the White House was doing, not just what Libby was up to.

And rb, this whole "who can remember a conversation they had two years ago?" excuse is particularly weak. When Alberto Gonzalez notified the White House staff on September 30, 2003, that an investigation into the Plame affair was being conducted, and that everyone needed to preserve all materials related to it, I'm guessing Libby and others thought quite a lot about any related conversations they'd had. That wasn't "two years later."

Finally, this is the most incredible point, courtesy of doofus: "Woodward's disclosure that he talked to Mr. Libby on June 20 and June 27, 2003 and that Mr. Libby did not mention WIlson's wife undermines Mr. Fitzgerald's key theme"

So the only way Libby could possibly be guilty is if he revealed Plame's identity to every reporter he talked with? Wow. So if Libby doesn't have the kind of relationship with Woodward where he wants to provide him with a leak, he must be innocent? That's quite a leap of logic.