John Dickerson Speaks! (Where Is Cliff May?)

John Dickerson, one of Matt Cooper's less well known co-authors on the article that made Matt a near-household name, steps forward with his story.  Mr. Dickerson came to people's attention last week when he received an unexpected mention in some correspondence from Special Counsel Fitzgerald to Libby's defense team.  Let's repeat that to build suspense:

"We also advise you that we understand that reporter John Dickerson of Time magazine discussed the trip by Mr. Wilson with government officials at some time on July 11 or after, subsequent to Mr. Cooper learning about Mr. Wilson’s wife," Fitzgerald writes. "Any conversations involving Mr. Dickerson likely took place in Africa and occurred after July 11."

We eagerly awaited an account from Mr. Dickerson of his interaction with the FBI investigation; our curiosity was especially piqued by his non-denial to Raw Story:

“I didn't know I was mentioned in the court filings until I saw it on the web,” he said. “I've never been contacted by anyone in Fitzgerald's office.”

Ahh!  Since Fitzgerald's office was not established until Dec 30, 2003, this left open the possibility that Mr. Dickerson chatted with the FBI in the fall of 2003.

And now he has stepped forward with his story on Slate.  Intrigue, secret meetings, glamorous locales, hard-boiled interrogations - it might all be here!

Or not - Mr. Dickerson *seems* to be telling us that he has not had contact with the FBI at any point:

After the special counsel went after Matt so enthusiastically, the arrival of men in trench coats asking what I knew seemed imminent. But I never got to try out any of my Dashiell Hammett lines on them. When my other former Time colleague Viveca Novak got tangled in Fitzgerald's hunt last year, I thought, OK, they're coming now for sure. Nope. No Fitzgerald; no FBI; no nothing.

However that passage does not exclude the time period prior to the creation of the special counsel.  Oh, well - if he does not want to tell us, waddya gonna do?

Mr. Dickerson does provide an interesting hint about sources - Mr. Dickerson was on the President's trip to Africa, and Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Ari Fleischer are the only three senior Administration official named in the article as accompanying them on the trip.  Two different senior Admin officials exhorted Mr. Dickerson to look into who it was that sent Wilson on his trip to Niger, but neither mentioned Valerie Plame.

From that short list, it has to be Condi Rice and Ari Fleischer, who teamed up to make the "Look at Wilson" point in late this July 11, 2003 press gaggle:

DR. RICE:  The IAEA reported it I believe in March.  But I will tell you that, for instance, on Ambassador Wilson's going out to Niger, I learned of that when I was sitting on whatever TV show it was, because that mission was not known to anybody in the White House.  And you should ask the Agency at what level it was known in the Agency.

Dr. Rice was speaking there, yet Mr. Dickerson wrote this last fall:

More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position.

Pretty easy to believe that Ari Fleischer was one of Mr. Dickerson's sources.

OK, did anyone with the investigation ever contact Mr. Dickerson?  One last hint is here:

Where did Fitzgerald learn about my activities? Matt told me he briefly mentioned me in front of the grand jury and Viveca Novak said my name came up in passing when she talked to Fitzgerald. He also subpoenaed White House e-mail records that included, White House officials tell me, e-mails I sent to them about the Wilson business in the days and months after that July trip to Africa. Those officials also told Fitzgerald and his grand jury about conversations we had.

Well.  If Fitzgerald's tip came from Matt Cooper, then Mr. Dickerson's denial is conclusive.

On the other hand, one might presume that Ari Fleischer, Condi Rice, or both are the officials mentioned in the last sentence:

Those officials also told Fitzgerald and his grand jury about conversations we had.

So think about this - assuming that Ari Fleischer is one of the two senior Administration officials, then Ari Fleischer told Fitzgerald that he had discussed the background of the Wilson trip with John Dickerson, but had *not* leaked info about Valerie Plame.  And Fitzgerald did not even attempt to verify that with Mr. Dickerson.  That certainly speaks well of Mr. Fleischer's ability to convince people (a useful knack for a press secretary), and it explains Fitzgerald's "abundance of caution", but it leaves us wondering about how this investigation was handled.

Now, the alternative theories might be, the two officials with whom Mr. Dickerson spoke are Powell and Rice.  Powell?  C'mon.  Or maybe there is an unnamed senior Admin official hiding in this story.  Possible.  But Ari Fleischer was at the July 11 press conference putting out the story on which Mr. Dickerson was following up.

Mr. Dickerson adds this:

I came back from the trip harboring a suspicion that only fully made sense when I learned Plame's CIA cover had been blown. It seemed obvious that the people pushing me to look into who sent Wilson knew exactly the answer I'd find. Yet they were really careful not to let the information slip, which suggested that they knew at the time Plame's identity was radioactive.

Hmm.  That might explain Tim Russert's "wow".

MORE:  Re-emphasizing the obvious - if Ari Fleischer had leaked to Pincus or Novak, do you think Fitzgerald would have let the Dickerson piece slide?  I don't, either.

UPDATE:  Tear out the front page!  Per ReddHedd at firedoglake, now that Fitzgerald the Omniscient Master is armed with this new info from Mr. Dickerson (which Fitzgerald the OM overlooked for two years), the full conspiracy will be unmasked.  At Last!  It must be great to live in a world without contradictions. 

Meanwhile, in my world, Fitzgerald ignored this for two years because he didn't care, not because he is an idiot.  And the sun is yellow. it's the glasses that are rose-colored. 

[And a final guess - Fitzgerald got consistent stories from Cooper, Fleischer, and someone (Rice?) about what Dickerson knew and didn't know, so he quite reasonably gave him a pass.  However, in "an abundance of caution" he noted his own ignorance in his correspondence with Libby's attorneys.  And well he might be cautious - here is what he wrote (Exhibit C):

...we were not aware of any reporters who knew prior to July 14, 2003, that Valerie Plame, Ambass. Wilson's wife, worked at the CIA, other than: Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, Bob Novak, Walter Pincus and Matthew Cooper."

Well, since Cooper told Dickerson, I guess we can add him to that list - reporter to reporter communication ought to count, even if Fitzgerald did not pursue it.  And, one wonders, didn't Cooper mention to Fitzgerald that he told Dickerson?  Guess not.]

FWIW:  On the off chance that evidence matters, here is Andrea Mitchell on July 8, 2003, citing CIA sources for the news that "low-level CIA operatives" planned the Wilson trip.  Gee, that was three days before Dickerson got that beaten into him by "Senior Administration officials".  And Reuters had a similar leak (involving mid-level CIA folks), also on July 8.

Andrea Mitchell:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Reuters:

A U.S. intelligence official said [Joseph] Wilson was sent to investigate the Niger reports by mid-level CIA officers, not by top-level Bush administration officials. There is no record of his report being flagged to top level officials, the intelligence official said.

"He is placing far greater significance on his visit than anyone in the U.S. government at the time it was made," the official said, referring to Wilson's New York Times article.

Well, at the time (July 8, 2003) Josh Marshall was imploring reporters to poke into this.  So the White House conspired to respond to press inquiries?  Cool.  Someone tell Fitzgerald.

FINALLY:  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  Well, this won't be over until we hear from Cliff May!

Comments

[ende]

Seems like John Dickerson has a lot to say - especially on conspiracy, on top administration officials trying to leak the information on Wilson's wife, and on the panic in the White House on the false Niger claims. Looks like a lot more than lying and obstruction of justice .....

[ed]

So are you guessing Russert knew her occupation and was wowed to see it in the press, or he was ignorant of the information just wowed to learn of it?

[ed]

"Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? [polly's emphasis]"

[ed]

From here http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/02/dickersons_subp.html#more

[Cecil Turner]

The thing that seems most important from the Dickerson sideshow is that Fitz obviously knows the critical date is the 11th. So why the indictment keeps emphasizing the 14th (and why he's chasing after Libby over conversations on the 12th) remains an open question.

[TM]

Seems like John Dickerson has a lot to say

Semms like Fitzgerald has had the outline of his story for over two years and could care less.

(Well, I tackle the firedogs in an UPDATE)

[Rick Ballard]

I wonder what the sentencing guidelines are for "First Degree Conspiracy to Out a Lying Fraud".

Prolly pretty tough - in the Alterman Reality.

[pollyusa]

Tom

Dickerson even mentioned you in his article.

but I thought I'd get more out of my bit part in the Valerie Plame saga than the overheated scrutiny of a few bloggers.

Slate 2/7/06

You're the overheated one.

The Ari and Dan show quote Ed pointed out is from Newsweek.

"Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure?

Newsweek 7/17/05

[epphan]

Seems to me that whatever interpretation you take away from this…from TM to Firedog to the nuts on either end…that Fitzgerald comes out looking like an idiot one way or the other. We know TM’s side, but if there’s some big conspiracy at work, Fitz is doing a terrible job of unraveling it.

[epphan]

And Dickerson seems disingenuous at the end of his piece…So Ari gives him a hint and tells him to do his job (that’s probably gone down like that a bajillion times) and we’re supposed to believe that it was because the PlameName was radioactive…how about interpreting it as meaning look in front of your face for your nose, you idiot!

[Cecil Turner]

"Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip."

How were they supposed to "look into" it? By asking Wilson? The folks at CIA? (Seems fairly obvious those would be fruitless.) But perhaps checking with other reporters . . . okay, that might work. Not sure this is the smoking gun some claim.

[TM]

You're the overheated one.

Polly, you know I luv ya, but on this one, ReddHedd has the heat.

Hmm. Put another way - if my suggestion that Dickerson had a story to tell was overheated, how could one characterize ReddHedd?

if there’s some big conspiracy at work, Fitz is doing a terrible job of unraveling it.

Good point. Whatever the conspiracy.

[Syl]

Yeah. Like a 'conspiracy to set the record straight'--not a 'conspiracy to out a covert agent in retaliation'.

No wonder fitz couldn't unravel it--he was looking for the wrong conspiracy.

[TM]

Remember, Cooper told Russert that he has other sources, and that Fitzgerald "knows what I know" (paraphrase).

Dickerson could be one of the mystery "sources" (if a fellow reporter qualifies).

[pollyusa]

Pincus has Barlett leading reporters to the CIA origins of the trip as well.

Dan Bartlett, the most senior communications strategist in the White House, has also told investigators that he did not know who Ms. Wilson was, according to a person who has been briefed on the case.

Few if any reporters who traveled with Mr. Fleischer, Mr. Bartlett and the White House entourage that week have been called to testify before the grand jury. A background briefing during the trip in which Mr. Bartlett spoke with reporters and urged them to look into the C.I.A.'s role in sending Mr. Wilson to Niger has not drawn substantial interest from prosecutors recently.

One source familiar with the case said Mr. Fitzgerald knew about the briefing but was apparently not pursuing it as a significant lead.

snip

That individual added that Mr. Bartlett did not see the classified State Department memorandum.

WaPo 7/27/05

From the Pincus article Barlett denies reading the memo or knowing about Plame, I don't buy it. Why would he be telling reporters to look into the CIA's role if he didn't think there was something to find there. I believe Bartlett is very likely one of the people described in the story in the LaTimes.

Powell told prosecutors that he circulated the memo among those traveling with him in the front section of Air Force One. It is believed that all officials in that part of the aircraft had high-level security clearance.

LaTimes 8/05

[skinnydog]

How is this a conspiracy to out Plame? Who sent Joe Wilson to Niger was a hot topic started by Joe himself. At the time, the clear implication from Joe was that Cheney had sent him on the trip (see especially Joe's speech prior to his article), then after requesting trip, Cheney and others had ignored his findings about Niger.

On the question of who sent Joe, Fleisher et al. said go ask the CIA who sent Joe because in fact they sent Joe to Niger. It was then up to the CIA to answer the question as best they could.

[Rick Ballard]

Alterman Reality On-Line Dictionary:

conspiracy

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare

1 : the act of conspiring together

2 : any act involving two or more Republicans

[Syl]

polly

What the hell would be wrong with any administration official suggesting that reporters look into the origin of the Niger trip--whether any specific individual knew about wilson's wife or not?

The origin of the trip is key to understanding that it wasn't Cheney who sent Wilson, and it wasn't Cheney who received a report of the trip.

And part of that key is that low-level CIA folks sent Wilson. It, in fact, does not matter if those low-level folks included Wilson's wife. If the reporters discover that fact, so what? It is the reporters' responsibility to do what they will the information--like contact the CIA to see if it's okay to go to print with it.

This would be a conspiracy to out Wilson's wife only IF the administration guaranteed the CIA would okay the printing of such information.

Is there any indication whatsoever that the administration got to Harlow before any journalists called him?

I didn't think so.

[Lew Clark]

Next we're going to find out that there is a nefarious conspiracy in the White House to discredit that nice "speaker of truth to power" over in Iran who exposed that phony Holocaust conspiracy.

Damn straight there was a concerted effort to “push back” against Joe Wilson’s assertions. In time of war you always push back against enemy propaganda.

[maryrose]

Syl;
You have it exactly right. The conspiracy here was who sent Joe to Niger. This of course exposes Joe as a liar so he has to invent the conspiracy "who outed my wife/"

[eden]

"Remember, Cooper told Russert that he has other sources, and that Fitzgerald "knows what I know" (paraphrase).

Dickerson could be one of the mystery "sources" (if a fellow reporter qualifies)."

Did you actually read Dickerson's article? It says Cooper told him about Plame. You got it exactly backwards.

[jbateman]

Good Grief.

I used to check out this site a couple times a week, untill it became all Plame, all the time.
Today was my first visit this year, and your still stuck on this topic.

You really need to get a life, Tom.

[Gary Maxwell]

Rick

You dropped the last line of definition #2 ergo:

"...whether acting in concert or not."

[maryrose]

I think Fitz needs to read the opinions andpostings on this blog so he can get a clue about what has happened and how weak his case has become. I hope it's starting to dawn on him now and I hope he's going to take the steps necessary to put this case to bed. It's a political and a legal loser for him.

[Rick Ballard]

Gary,

I think that would be too restrictive. The Latin root actually breaks down as "breathing together" (whispering) they just tighten it up to "two Republican individuals breathing". It's very logical - in the Alterman Reality.

[Lou Grunt]

Firedogg says "During that same time period, Rove contacted Matt Cooper and planted the same seeds --"

Um, Cooper contacted Rove.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Tom,

I agree with your general assessment. This story doesn't really add much to the mix. But Dickerson's article does make one important point very clear, albeit one that has been pretty clear for a long time: those in the White House who knew about Plame were very cautious and circumspect when talking about her prior to the Novak column. That can ONLY mean that they knew they were not supposed to mention her. That is very strong circumstantial evidence that they knew or at least suspected that Plame worked in some sort of covert capacity.

[topsecretk9]

You're the overheated one. HEH!

On the question of who sent Joe, Fleisher et al. said go ask the CIA who sent Joe because in fact they sent Joe to Niger.

Which turns out was not a bad suggestion, it worked for Novak. --Go ask Harlow, he'll tell you!

[Sue]

What is it about democrats and funerals that turns them into political events? It never ceases to amaze me...

[Lew Clark]

AL,
You almost got it right. There was political and there was legal. There was no legal reason to protect Plame's identity. There was the political fallout, which has occurred. Remember, this administration has been accused of attacking Iraq to steal their oil and give it to Halliburton. So the prudent thing to do is what the State Department did. Tell reporters to check out Joe Wilson's connection with the CIA. Let them out Valerie based on previous contact with Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. Libby was not so clever. In hindsight, I think Libby wishes he had been a little more politically clever.

[pollyusa]

Tom,

I wouldn't dream of calling you overheated, but Dickerson did. He links to you in his article. Click on the word overheated in the Dickerson article.

bit part in the Valerie Plame saga than the overheated scrutiny of a few bloggers.

Slate 2/7/06

[topsecretk9]

TM

Anytime a member of the "coalition of the widely" feels compelled to address a pesky blogger you know your doing something right.

I'm looking forward to the boiling point.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' But Dickerson's article does make one important point very clear, albeit one that has been pretty clear for a long time: those in the White House who knew about Plame were very cautious and circumspect when talking about her prior to the Novak column. That can ONLY mean that they knew they were not supposed to mention her.'

Is there a gold medal for leaping to unjustified conclusions in the Winter Olympics?

[owl]

Firedogg says "During that same time period, Rove contacted Matt Cooper and planted the same seeds --"

Um, Cooper contacted Rove.

Bingo, and that is a problem for Cooper's tale.

[Sue]

Owl,

And seems to be a problem in Dickerson's tale, too.

[noah]

AL promised to not come back. AL have you no honor?

[topsecretk9]

Sue
Esplain Lucy- need Plame for Dummies version

[Sue]

Noah,

I think that was Appalled Moderate that promised not to come back.

[topsecretk9]

I think that was Appalled Moderate that promised not to come back.

Always empty promises. They all come back.

[Sue]

TSK9,

Hey Tops. Well, for Dickerson's tale of a conspiracy to work, Rove would have had to call Cooper. Otherwise, Dickerson told Cooper what he was being told in Africa and then Cooper called Rove, but Rove did not call Cooper so Dickerson's ominous tones about meanwhile....back in Washington....wasn't really true. Follow me? ::grin::

[maryrose]

When the truth comes out, is there anyway we can nail Wilson in all this. False claims, frivolous lawsuit, defamation of character? As far as Plame and this conspiracy theory that doesn't even rise to the circumstantial evidence bar.What an incredible waste of money.

[Sue]

Or maybe Cooper knew independent of Dickerson, but not from Rove calling him.

[sillyman]

Hmmm....

Andrea is saying more than we think here (maybe)....not the two words strung together one beginning with a "c" and the next word beginning with an "o"....

"because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level"

[Lew Clark]

Which brings us to the burning question. Why hasn't Tom Maguire, overheated blogger, been called to testify.

And Sue, you made my head hurt!

[Sue]

Lew,

I'm sorry. I make my own head at times. ::grin::

[sillyman]

sorry for the error in my previous post. in the first line, the word "not" should read as "note" instead.

[Sue]

Okay. I need to hit preview just so I don't type things like the above. I meant make my own head "hurt". I don't really make my own head. Sheesh...

[Sue]

Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't Fitz want to know what Cooper told Dickerson on the afternoon of the same day Cooper had a phone conversation with Rove? That Fitz stayed away from Dickerson seems strange, in light of how much Dickerson was aware of.

[topsecretk9]

Hmmm.

...(Sources told us that the CIA had referred not only Novak’s column but our Newsday story to the Justice Department for investigation because we, too, had revealed new classified information — that Plame was working undercover.)...

...roughly two months after he empaneled a grand jury in Washington in December 2003, Patrick Fitzgerald called Newsday saying he wanted to talk to us. So far as I know, we were the first reporters he contacted, with the possible exception of Novak, whose interactions with Fitzgerald are still unknown.

Don’t worry, Fitzgerald assured us, he was not asking us to name our sources. He simply wanted some information about our discussions with the sources. Oh.

When it was announced in January that Fitzgerald would ask officials who could have talked to reporters to sign documents waiving their right to confidentiality, I scoffed. Surely no reporter would take such a document seriously. It seemed clear that these waivers were coerced, that they would not have been signed freely. The whole thing seemed like a joke.

But not to our lawyers. Fitzgerald’s call and subsequent follow-ups set off an anguished conversation within the paper about our rights under the First Amendment versus our responsibilities in a criminal case involving national security and the White House. Raymond Jansen, then Newsday’s publisher, wanted us to do our best to cooperate without violating fundamental principles.

In our case, Fitzgerald intimated that he might have a waiver from one or more of our sources. These exploratory conversations between a prosecutor and news organization usually involve quite a bit of shadow boxing. Neither side wants to give too much away, so things tend to be discussed in theoretical terms. But my impression was that Fitzgerald may have talked to or planned to talk to someone who had admitted talking to us. It seemed likely to us, however, that that person would deny having disclosed that Plame was undercover.

What Fitzgerald wanted us to do, among other things, was to differentiate between Source A, B, or C. Without giving up any names, would we simply outline which source had said what in our story?

To Royce and me, who have sixty-six years of journalism experience between us, this was out of the question. For one thing, it seemed that the waivers were not freely given and were therefore worthless. It was clear that a refusal to sign would lead to dismissal. We would have to talk personally to our sources and have them assure us convincingly they wanted us to talk. But more fundamentally, why would we want to do anything to help anyone track down our sources? Even if Source A did want us to talk, would not our participation help lead Fitzgerald to Source B? And finally, to ask a source to release us from a promise of anonymity may be, in a leak investigation, to ask for a favor he or she can’t refuse. A negative answer might be construed as an obstruction of justice....

...We were mindful of this slippage as we debated what to do about Fitzgerald. But Royce and I told our editors at Newsday that we would become pariahs in Washington if we agreed to testify — that no other Washington reporter would ever do so. Newsday backed us up, and told Fitzgerald in mid-April that we would not help in any way. He threatened a subpoena that for some reason never came.

of course, we were dead wrong about what the other reporters would do. But each reporter who has testified in the case has faced different circumstances. Glenn Kessler, a State Department reporter for The Washington Post (and a friend of mine), agreed to be interviewed by Fitzgerald last June about conversations he had with Libby the previous July. Kessler said in a statement that he testified because Libby wanted him to, and that he told Fitzgerald that Libby had not mentioned Wilson or Plame. (See clarification below.)

With somewhat more difficulty Kessler’s colleague, Walter Pincus, eventually reached a deal with Fitzgerald. (His source did not release Pincus from his promise of confidentiality, but eventually revealed himself to Fitzgerald.) Tim Russert of NBC reached a deal that limited the scope of the questions.

That left Cooper, the primary author of Time’s online follow-up to Novak’s column, and Judith Miller of The New York Times, who clearly attracted Fitzgerald’s interest when he learned of meetings between Miller and Libby around the time of the leak....

Sorry for the longish paste, but isn't it a little odd that Fitz also never really questioned let alone pursued 2 out of the only 3 reporters the CIA referred to Phelps link

Also the Kessler footnote is interesting.

[topsecretk9]

---I should say, It appears to me that they never actually talked to Fitz, it was discussions on what MIGHT be talked about

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

The genesis of the conspiracy has to come from the VP's office because the VP is the "prime mover". He rounded up Libby and Rove after calling Tenet to make sure that Val was absolutely positively covert and then called Libby and Rove into his office and laid it out for them.

"Fellas, this is a dangerous mission, and some of you aren't going to make it back..."

If Fitz could ignore SSCI/Butler he could ignore an elephant in the shower with him - unless the elephant knew Cheney...

He goes to sleep with visions of Watergate fame dancing through his head. If you read the affidavit carefully, it's there.

[MJW]

Suppose Plame hadn't been involved in selecting Wilson, but he'd still been sent by some low-level CIA employees, while implying he'd been sent by the VP. Wouldn't the administation still want reporters to look into the origins of Wilson's mission; and, especially prior to Tenet's statement that declassified some material related to the trip, might they still be reluctant to reveal too many details about a CIA operation, perferring that reporters dig them out for themselves?

The hostility of Cooper and Dickerson toward the Bush administation is evidenced by their reaction to finding out that Plame was involved in sending her husband on an intelligence mission. Their response isn't, "that seems very unusual," but rather, "those mean Bushies will do anything to attack truth-telling Joe!"

[Jeff]

TM - Evidence does matter, and you missed what is really new evidence from Dickerson. The information Dickerson gets from his two SAOs, and especially the second one, goes beyond the similar information that Mitchell reported getting on the July 8, 2003 Capital Report, what's in Reuters, as well as what Pincus reported was floated from mid-June on. Dickerson's SAOs, and again especially the second one, tell him that an individual at the CIA sent him, and the second one encourages him to pursue that angle. Not just some low level CIA folks, but an individual. That is a significant further push down the road by the administration.

And the fact that they get that close but don't actually identify Plame is circumstantial evidence at the least of the fact that the officials handling info about her knew it was sensitive. And that jibes perfectly with what we've learned Fleischer testified about what Libby told him. And it fits with knowledge of her being covert, but it also fits with non-knowledge of her being covert.

[noah]

Yep, Sue you are right...it was Appalled Moderate who said sayonara on the last thread after gratuitous insults of course. Sorry AL.

[Jeff]

polly - I believe that long, juicy quote about Bartlett you cited is actuall from 7-26-05 NYT Kornblut, not 7-27-05 WaPo Pincus. Gotcha.

Also, if what Kornblut reports is actually a complete account of what Bartlett told the grand jury on his background conversations in Africa, and we can assume that he is one of Dickerson's SAOs, I do suspect he'll be going back to the grand jury. But I more strongly suspect that what he told Kornblut is just an incomplete account, and what he told the grand jury matches what Dickerson tells us.

[topsecretk9]

BTW Sue, thank you

Firedogg says "During that same time period, Rove contacted Matt Cooper and planted the same seeds --"

Um, Cooper contacted Rove.

And Dickerson referred to her as a "sharp" blogger!

[JM Hanes]

TM

Putting the Mitchell & Reuters' quotes together -- brilliant, incredibly revealing!

"Well, at the time (July 8, 2003) Josh Marshall was imploring reporters to poke into this."

Josh Marshall, co-conspirator?

[noah]

Dickerson is a hack anyway. You can't trust his conclusions from even first hand knowledge. During the Alito hearings, he wrote a piece claiming that the Democrats were forced to act boorishly because Alito would not answer their questions!!

[larwyn]

Two questions:

1) How do we know that Dickerson and other LSMers did not follow up
the lead that Condi and Ari gave them?

Can't answer "they didn't write
about it" proves it.

They don't write about anything that would add hesitancy to the story they wanted to write.
Would they?

Will someone ask Dickerson this
question - and maybe Fitz knows the
answer and didn't want to call him
for that reason.

2) I beat a dead horse maybe, but:

ed wrote:
So are you guessing Russert knew her occupation and was wowed to see it in the press,

TM wrote:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that it's not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

I still get that 90's GoGo Clinton D.C. Society scene in my head -
and remember the pix of Joe and Val
at Clinton black tie event.

Bet Mr. and MRS. Greenspan also on
the A list.

And as the photo was published in the Vanity Fair article - was Mrs.
Russert also in attendance - all alone????

These people all know each other
and Joe's such a quiet unassuming
guy he'd never hint - would he?

[Dwilkers]

Sitting back, trying to view the forest rather than the individual trees, I'm finding myself more and more concerned about what exactly it is that Fitz thinks he's supposed to be doing with this assignment.

[maryrose]

are we agreed that if this case ever goes to trial most of the aforementioned reporters will in fact be hostile witnesses who feel put upon to finally tell the truth and clear up this whole kerfuffle. In every report and in the redacted papers we received this weekend there appear to be inconsistencies and untruths. Cooper called Rove , how does Dickerson get that detail wrong? Why doesn't Fitz rely on reports like the SScI/Butler papers in making his determinations. Instead of the real facts we get somebody's opinion or in the case of the Newsday men- no opinion. This whole case is like falling down the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland. My head is starting to hurt too.

[Sue]

Rick,

Dickerson says Rove didn't act like Libby. He didn't call anyone, they called him, he didn't reveal her name. Sounds to me like it is a conspiracy of 1, Libby.

[Rick Ballard]

Larwyn,

Better check on when Val and Joe tightened the noose. Remember - when they "first met" he was married, but not to her. There may be pictures of him with his wife at a Clinton event but it may not be Val.

[Rick Ballard]

Maryrose,

Dickerson did not say that Rove called Cooper. That particular derangement belongs to a blogger. Dickerson said that Rove talked to Cooper without stating which person initiated the conversation.

Sue,

So, it was a very, very small conspiracy. Fitz will bring in a pyschiatrist who wil diagnose Libby with schizophrenia and Fitz will charge both of him.

[larwyn]

Rick,
It is Val from the back - they don't show her face.

And what is even "funnier" is that one of the columnists wrote about the low key life they led -
like they were just stay at homes.

All I can think is the ambitious
Wilsons and if I were not disabled,
I would go to my library and look thru every Vanity Fair and any of the glossy D.C. mags that covered
D.C. "society" shindigs during the
Clinton years. Might be interesting who was partying with who at galas and fetes and charity
and political fund raisers.

I'll stop now on that - but what
about my first question:

Has anyone asked if any reporters, like Dickerson, followed up the lead and asked the CIA??

Looks like Andrea did.

They don't print information they
don't like - it if doesn't fit their meme or might hurt the Dems
it IS NOT NEWS!

Any insight on that?

[JM Hanes]

AnonLib

"That can ONLY mean that they knew they were not supposed to mention her. That is very strong circumstantial evidence that they knew or at least suspected that Plame worked in some sort of covert capacity."

Au contraire, it could mean any number of things. Dickerson's article more than suggests that there was no conspiracy to out Plame. The administration was outing the C.I.A. Dickerson emphasizes that this was a significant change in the Administration's response to critics -- a move they might reasonably be expected to handle with a a great deal of caution.

As an aside, it's also worth noting that the none of the reporters involved have posited revenge as a possible Administration motive for pointing them toward the circumstances surrounding the Wilson mission.

There's a simpler alternative which makes as much, or more, sense than your assumption. The administration wanted to point reporters to what they considered the "real" story without publicly lobbing accusations at the C.I.A.

[Syl]

jeff

tell him that an individual at the CIA sent him

Good catch.

Let the journalists investigate--that's their job. And if they press for an individual, they will discover that Wilson's wife OMIGOD was the one who recommended him for the job. Which, YES, discredits Wilson. This is even better.

Which is the point. NOT outing his wife, but showing in gory detail the fact that Wilson was blowing smoke about Cheney's behestedness, as Kim would say, and willful forgetfulness.

That journalists discover this information does not mean they will actually print it. But they will have the context.

Yes, sensitive information. The entire Niger affair at this point was classified and Val along with it.

[TM]

Polly, I'm kidding you - I had figured I might get a mention in his column (ans was only a bit surprised that I was not the sharp blogger), since I had pestered him with this last week1:

While we eagerly await word from Mr. May, let's see if John Dickerson, formerly a colleague of Matt Cooper's at TIME and now at Slate (and is emphatically a reporter) would like to take our suggestion for a column idea - tell us how your chat with the FBI went, or give us a real denial of same.

As to this - "Did you actually read Dickerson's article? It says Cooper told him about Plame. You got it exactly backwards.

I guess that depends on whether one construes source to be specifically about Plame, or about the Admin conduct about Wilson.

Since it should I have been obvious that in fact I had read the story, I thought my meaning would be clear. Guess not.

In any event - since folks have wondered what other names Cooper gave Fitzgerald, it looks like we can add Dickerson to the list. Hope thats clear enough.

And my current official editorial position:

Dickerson may or may not have chatted with the FBI in the fall; if he did, he told them that, of the four reporters with a byline in that story, he was not the one.

Eventually, Fitzgerald heard from Libby that he leaked to Cooper, and from Fleischer (and Rice?) that they did not quite leak to Dickerson.

Cooper's story jibed with that, so Dickerson got a pass. Save the taxpayers a court fight over nothing.

However, if Fleischer had been in the hot seat, it would have gone differently.

[Anonymous Liberal]

There's a simpler alternative which makes as much, or more, sense than your assumption. The administration wanted to point reporters to what they considered the "real" story without publicly lobbing accusations at the C.I.A.

JM Hanes, this makes absolutely no sense. They WERE publicly lobbying accusations at the CIA. They made Tenet take the fall for the uranium line. Rice and Fleischer were blaming the CIA openly. And Dickerson makes clear that his sources were telling him that a specific individual in the CIA was responsible for Wilson's trip. The only detail they left out was Plame's identity. How else can that be explained other than that they knew they were not supposed to mention her affilation with the agency?

I don't think the administration was trying to get revenge by outing Plame. I think they were trying to discredit Wilson by making him seem unimportant. But the way they treated the information about his wife is strong circumstantial evidence that they knew her job was sensitive, that they knew they were not supposed to be talking about her. To deny that obvious inference is silly.

[JM Hanes]

My two favorite Dickerson lines:

"Back when I was at Time, I co-wrote the July, 2003 story that has made the last two years of Matthew Cooper's life so difficult."

Made Cooper's life so difficult? From the tone of Cooper's articles, in which he manages to include a variety of extraneous personal detail -- about himself -- I got the distinct impression he's been enjoying the attention.

"Fitzgerald has the chronology mixed up."

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

[Sue]

I left a rambling message on my bureau chief's voicemail, which he would pick up several hours later and relay in an e-mail to my colleagues working on the story: "John reports that they've dimed out Tenet."

Are we supposed to believe that Matt Cooper didn't tell Michael Duffy and James Carney about Rove's revelation? He told Dickerson immediately.

[larwyn]

AL,
Are you implying that Republicans
cannot be "nuanced"?

If they don't blurt it out - they are hiding something. Cause we all
is yokels? Right?

NICE PORTION OF NSA TRANSCRIPT,
THANKS SEN. GRASSLEY:

Per Dr.Sanity:
"made up for having to watch and listen to the Democrats on this particular Senate Committee yet again:"

SENATOR GRASSLEY: I'm going to start with something that's just peripheral to the issues we're on, but it does deal with our national security, and it's the leak of this information to the New York Times. And I'm greatly concerned about this. And these leaks could be putting our nation's safety into serious jeopardy.
Could you tell us what is being done to investigate who leaked this national security information and whether the Department of Justice will initiate a prosecution of an individual leaking the information?

GONZALES: Senator, we have confirmed the department has initiated an investigation into possible crimes here. And consistent with department practice, I'm not going to talk much further about an ongoing investigation.

Obviously, we have to look at the evidence, and if the evidence shows that a crime has been committed, then obviously we'll have to make a decision about moving forward with a prosecution.

GRASSLEY: And I don't blame you for this, but I don't hear as much about public outcry about this leak as I did about Valerie Plame and the White House disclosures of her -- or presumed disclosures of her identify of a CIA agent. And to me that's a two-bit nothing compared to this sort of issue that we have before us of this information being leaked to the press.

[topsecretk9]

one mans leak is another mans problem...or as Lowry says
"The new rule apparently is that leaks are acceptable only when they actually compromise important national-security programs. If, in contrast, a leak does no real harm to national security, but can be used as a cudgel against President Bush, then it is an act of national betrayal."

"The problem is because it's classified, we can't detail just how damaging the NSA leaks have been," says a career Department of Justice attorney. "But they were, and the American public needs to understand what is at stake here."

According to other DOJ and FBI sources, the investigation into the leak has been focused on Capitol Hill, where a number of interviews have already taken place. In fact, the FBI is still considering asking the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staff to sign blanket waivers and releases that would allow a full investigation and disclosure of their interactions with reporters and others who might have used the NSA's activities for political purposes.

"There is no question that people are going to be looking at us," says a Senate Democratic Party leadership aide. "Never mind that it might be a Republican with a conscience who leaked it. People are going to assume that it was a Democratic staffer who did it for his or her boss, or that it was the Senator himself. The fact that in this case people assume that it was a Democrat shows how far we've slipped in the minds of the American public. That's our problem, and we can't really blame the Republicans."

[maryrose]

Larwyn:
" And to me that"s a two bit nothing compared to this sort of issue"
That sums up this Plame case in a nutshell.
Sorry A.L,

. Don't see the bona fide circumstantial evidence you keep referring to in this thread re: the way they treated information about her job? Who treated what info? The CIA ?who are you referring to in that sentence? I don't seeit- I guess I'm silly...

[Daddy]

I am trying hard to see a conspiracy here but somehow I just keep missing it. For the sake of clarity, I'm trying a little thought experiment wherein I hypothesize a single change in all the facts. I hypothesize that the wife, Valerie Plame/Wilson, never existed. That being posited, all the other facts in the case remain prcisely the same, especially the one where the rogue Ambasador Wilson says he was sent at Dick Cheney's "Behest". That being my scenario, I still see every member of the administration still legitimately saying virtually the same thing to the Press: " If you want to get to the bottom of Wilson's mission go find out whoever at the CIA sent him, and then ask them why they sent him."
Now when I plug Valerie Plame/Wilson back into the real world scenario, I still see the Administration offering the exact same legitimate advice to the Press: "If you want to get to the bottom of Wilson's mission go find whoever at the CIA sent him, and then ask them why they sent him." There may be a conspiracy there, but darned if I can find it.

[Patton]

Kind of off this subject, but much discussed in prior posts was the idea that Joe Wilson was a WHISTLEBLOWER.

That is an impossibility...well, let's say impossible unless Valerie is indicted for illegally passing classified information to her husband.

Joe Wislon, had no security clearance, he received no intelligence data. And according to the Senate Report the CIA didn't share any of its Africa and Uranium intelligence with Joe Wilson.

So if Joe Wilson was in fact Whistleblowing the Presidents SOTU remark that Britain had intelligence that Saddam had sought Uranium in Africa..and all Joe Wislon knew was what he learned in a week in Niger - -HE WAS IN NO POSITION TO BLOW THE WHISLTE ON THE PRESIDENTS REMARKS UNLESS SOMEONE HAD SHARED ALL THE CIA INTELLIGENCE ON AFRICAN COUNTRIES AND SADDAMS ATTEMPTS TO BUY URANIUM.

Joe Wilson would have only had this information if his wife broke the law and gave it to him.

So anyone who claims Joe Wilson is a Whisteblowing is accusing his wife of crimes against the country.

[Cecil Turner]

And Dickerson makes clear that his sources were telling him that a specific individual in the CIA was responsible for Wilson's trip. The only detail they left out was Plame's identity.

Hooey. He's jumping to conclusions and so are you. The first official said:

Some low-level person at the CIA was responsible for the mission. I was told I should go ask the CIA who sent Wilson.

The second official said:

This official also pointed out a few times that Wilson had been sent by a low-level CIA employee and encouraged me to follow that angle.

Later on the same day, Tenet said:

In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

It looks to me like the "individual" is the CPD chief; and if there's a conspiracy, it's to tell the truth. Not sure what Dickerson's point is, but it ain't exactly compelling.

[JM Hanes]

AnonLib

"To deny that obvious inference is silly."

To claim that's the only possible inference to be drawn is ... well, let's say wilfully myopic? Dickerson describes an Adminstration heretofore hinting at C.I.A. mistakes, and perhaps relevant in more ways than one, he notes that Condi specifically apprised Tenet himself! I'd be really interested in hearing more about that conversation, wouldn't you -- especially in light of the fact that it was the C.I.A. who confirmed Plame's employment to Novak?

Of course they were trying to discredit Wilson, and according to the Commission Report among other sources, not without good reason. His credibility remains questionable to this day. Outside of an explicit caveat from Tenet, however, what reason would anyone have had to assume Plame was covert, rather than assuming she was the mid-level Langley bureacrat she appeared to be, recommending her colorful husband for what turned out to be a high profile, seriously non-convert, probe which even the C.I.A. itself ignored in making its assessments? Why would they assume her job was any more sensitive than anyone else with a desk job at Langley?

Your inference requires believing that the Administration knew that the C.I.A. considered Plame's identity a top secret matter of importance to national security and yet proceeded to out her anyway. The alternative I've pointed out simply requires believing that the Administration, like almost everyone else in Washington, preferred to remain an anonymous source.

[larwyn]

daddy,
legitimate advice to the Press: "If you want to get to the bottom of Wilson's mission go find whoever at the CIA sent him, and then ask them why they sent him.

THE QUESTIONS THEN ARE:

1.Did any reporter go and ask the CIA?

2.What answer/answers did they get?

3.Why didn't they write about their
seeking of truth?
We asked the CIA who sent Amb.
Wilson, but they would not
respond or they confirmed it
was at a low level that Amb.
Wilson was requested to go
to Niger.

To believe that those "hard charging reporters" did not follow
up with the CIA leads to:

A.They already knew who sent Joe.

B.They asked the CIA but did not
like the answer so hid it.

C.They are not "hard charging reporters"

Can/will TM or Clarice
ASK DICKERSON or any of the others,
if any followed up the lead from
Condi and Ari?????

[pollyusa]

Syl,

All I can say is that you seem to be reading more into what I wrote than I intended.

I was just putting up my Bartlett links (I even messed that up...Jeff and EW caught me..Truthout posted two WaPo articles at the same link, I cited the wrong one)

The only comment beyond WaPo quotes I made was that I didn't believe the source in the WaPo article. I think that Barlett knew about Plame. I said that the fact the he was directing reporters to look into the origins of Wilson's trip is the reason I think he knew.

[larwyn]

So anyone who claims Joe Wilson is a Whisteblowing is accusing his wife of crimes against the country.

Patton, a very logical conclusion.

Sad that Philosophy 101 is no longer a required Freshman or graduation requirement.

Left knows LOGIC works against them.

[JM Hanes]

Rick

"any act involving two or more Republicans"

When two Republicans get together, it's a conspriracy. When two Democrats get together it's a grass roots movement.

[maryrose]

Reporters appear to only be printing what goes along with their narrative that some administration official {oh they soo wanted it to be Rove} outed Val Plame. At this juncture what appears to be the case is that Val wasouted by her husband the wily coyote Wilson or the hedging stalling evasive CIA. But that storyline is boring and uninteresting and doesn't hurt the Bush Administration, ergo they choose their own narrative which Fitz in his naivete swallows whole. I'm consoled by the fact that "what goes around comes around" Let the truth will out.

[Lew Clark]

We don't have to scratch our heads too long to determine why left-leaning reporters would play Bush and boys = bad; Bush bashers = patriots, and slant their view/curiosity accordingly. But why oh why is our intrepid, boy scout, straight as an arrow, prosecutor indistinguishable in his "pursuit of the truth".

[Sue]

Lew,

He bought into to the conspiracy early on. And there was a conspiracy to get the truth out. And to slime Joe Wilson, just as Wilson was sliming Cheney. But, he was afforded whistleblower status. I can't figure out why though. And nothing I've seen so far has cleared that up for me.

[TM]

When two Democrats get together it's a grass roots movement.

And when they get together on-line, its netroots.

[Rick Ballard]

"I can't figure out why though."

What?

You're going to take the word of the bi-partisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the blue ribbon Butler Commission over a two timing, dope smoking Clinton lackey and Gore contributor?

What in the world are you thinking of? Of course, he's a whistle blower. Ask Fitz and Judge 'All I know is what I read in the papers.' Tatel. They bought it hook, line and sinker. Why can't you?

[skinnydog]

Not a conspiracy to out an agent.

The main gist of the WH response was to deflect things back to the CIA. Saying essentially, hey you sent Wilson, you didn't have him sign a confidentiality agreement and you haven't tried to get him to stop running around town making speaches and writing op-eds filled with exagerations or lies about who sent him and what he found. So you we're telling reporters to ask you about it and you figure out how to explain it. The WH was tired of being asked all the questions and they were trying to deflect some heat over to the CIA where they legitimately thought it belonged. (and look what happens when you try to throw the CIA under the bus)

Also, remember Novak didn't write his infamous article as if the big revelation was that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. It was in fact a passing reference in the middle of his article.

Here's Novak's opening sentence:
"The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge."

HE DOESN'T EVEN MENTION OR HINT ABOUT VALERIE PLAME AS HE OPENS HIS ARTICLE. Talk about burying the lead. This was the white house spin (and Tenet's)--that Cheney was not involved in selecting Wilson but in fact it was done by the CIA at a low level, such a low level that Tenet didn't know about it either.

If Joe Wilson doesn't go to David Corn and get him to make the allegation that this was an illegal outing of a CIA covert agent, the Valerie Plame remains nothing more than one among several facts impacting on Joe's oveall credibility.

[Sue]

I guess I can't buy into it because a whistleblower seems to be someone who is doing something for non-political purposes. That doesn't fit Cool Joe.

[Sue]

The thing is, even if Valerie was not talked about, Joe was still going to be afforded whistleblower status. Anything the WH said or did would have been retaliation.

[topsecretk9]

If Joe Wilson doesn't go to David Corn and get him to make the allegation that this was an illegal outing of a CIA covert agent, the Valerie Plame remains nothing more than one among several facts impacting on Joe's oveall credibility. yep. bye bye talk shows.

What I can't figure out now...why the men in black show at the end? Think about it. Many reasons it doesn't make sense.

[topsecretk9]

Men in Black

Only thing that does make sense is it was just a show . It allowed Fitz to say "neighbors didn't know" to give the impression she was a covert secret.

[Sue]

Someone upthread said to take Val out of the equation and you would still have the same push-back by the WH. How about we take Joe out of it? What if Plame was outed by Libby and the whistleblower protection was not an option? How then would Fitz have conducted the investigation? Would he have merely run around talking to reporters that Libby spoke with? Or would he also try to find out if she had outed herself earlier?

I'm still trying figure out if Fitzgerald was investigating the outing of a covert operative (what the CIA tasked him to do) or the sliming of a whistleblower. Because if he wasn't investigating the sliming of a whistleblower, he would want to know, before he went to trial, if anyone else knew about her prior to Libby talking. He doesn't seem to care. His case was from the beginning about the sliming of a whistleblower. IMO, of course.

[Rick Ballard]

TS,

I think that Fitz finally started hearing a few negative whispers just prior to sending out the men in black. The part I can't quite figure out is his reiteration of the claims he had made in the Miller affidavit at the presser. To keep Tatel happy?

What was the flop sweat all about? He had been before cameras many times before.

[pollyusa]

Maybe there is something of interest in the Dickerson article.

Dickerson seems to imply here that a high-level administration official from the National Security Team was whispering to reporters.

Bartlett and Ari would not be considered part of the National Security Team.

All administrations discredit their critics through whispers to reporters, but we hadn't seen high-level Bush people do anything like this in the past. It suggested desperation and unsteadiness in a national security team that had often been heralded for its smooth competency.

Slate

[topsecretk9]

Wonder why Fitz wasn't a little curious about "the names were wrong, the dates were wrong" classified information divulgence?
Surely Fitz would want to know if his whistleblowers were guilty of the same crime as his investigation targets, no?

Like Rick points out, it wasn't until July 04 that Wilson said Pincus and Kristof lied about it him saying that.

[Sue]

I don't think Fitz was curious about much of anything. What if Libby hadn't 'misremembered'? What if Fitz had charged Libby with the IIPA? And Woodward popped up? Fitz didn't know and didn't care about Woodward. Which makes the whole investigation into the outing of a covert operative a farse.

[topsecretk9]

All administrations discredit their critics through whispers to reporters, but we hadn't seen high-level Bush people do anything like this in the past. It suggested desperation and unsteadiness in a national security team that had often been heralded for its smooth competency.

I love this. Because the Bush Admin. had never engaged in the age old, typical and expected behavior of Sidney Blumanthal, we became suspicious when they began pointing us to the CIA to answer the question of who sent WIlson!

[topsecretk9]

What Libby should have said was Wilson was a crazy Administration stalker so as not to confuse the reporters!

[topsecretk9]

you know...What if Fitz had charged Libby with the IIPA? And Woodward popped up? Fitz didn't know and didn't care about Woodward. ...it was floated that Woodward only stepped forward because he heard he was on a witness list. (remember he was trying to keep from getting involved for so long)

hmm. I'm sure there are others on the witness list that we and maybe they don't know about. I think this is why they might be pressing hard for all evidence of classified.