Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Pretty good summation. You could just punch that in every time you get into a dogfight with the "Wild Bunch"

Maybe I should make that my new signature?

I'm a moderate republican leaning centrist! It depends on what the indictment is about as to whether the boot needs to wait for a conviction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html

Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago

By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A01

Bob Woodward's statement re Testimony in the CIA Leak Case
Three things surprise me about Woodward's statement re his testimony, not his actual testimony. The first is that he said he did not inform his editor of the name of his source at the time the information was received according to the story published by the Post on 11/16/05: "Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony. Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place." I don't find any statement from Woodward with regard to notifying his editor."Strange?

The second issue is that I can't believe that Post reporter Walter Pinkus would not remember Woodward telling him about his interview re Plane because Pinkus was working on the story. I'm sure he would remember and make notes of such a conversation---if, in fact, Woodward did tell him.

Third, I'm always suspicious when a testifier says "I have no recollection." It's just a way to avoid lying in many cases. The average person might not be precise in memory and notes, but not journalists. Why would Woodward be evasive and want to help Libby?

---BBB
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Woodward's statement re Testimony in the CIA Leak Case
Washington Post
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A08

On Monday, November 14, I testified under oath in a sworn deposition to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for more than two hours about small portions of interviews I conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials that relate to the investigation of the public disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The interviews were mostly confidential background interviews for my 2004 book "Plan of Attack" about the leadup to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for The Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006. The testimony was given under an agreement with Fitzgerald that he would only ask about specific matters directly relating to his investigation.

All three persons provided written statements waiving the previous agreements of confidentiality on the issues being investigated by Fitzgerald. Each confirmed those releases verbally this month, and requested that I testify.

Plame is the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to Niger to determine if there was any substance to intelligence reports that Niger had made a deal to sell "yellowcake" or raw uranium to Iraq. Wilson later emerged as an outspoken critic of the Bush administration.

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.

I have not been released to disclose the source's name publicly.

Fitzgerald asked for my impression about the context in which Mrs. Wilson was mentioned. 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. I testified that according to my understanding an analyst in the CIA is not normally an undercover position.

I testified that after the mid-June 2003 interview, I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. Pincus does not recall that I passed this information on.

Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed Wilson's wife with any other government officials before Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003. I testified that I had no recollection of doing so.

He asked if I had possibly planned to ask questions about what I had learned about Wilson's wife with any other government official.

I testified that on June 20, 2003, I interviewed a second administration official for my book "Plan of Attack" and that one of the lists of questions I believe I brought to the interview included on a single line the phrase "Joe Wilson's wife." I testified that I have no recollection of asking about her, and that the tape-recorded interview contains no indication that the subject arose.

I also testified that I had a conversation with a third person on June 23, 2003. The person was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and we talked on the phone. I told him I was sending to him an 18-page list of questions I wanted to ask Vice President Cheney. On page 5 of that list there was a question about "yellowcake" and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's weapons programs. I testified that I believed I had both the 18-page question list and the question list from the June 20 interview with the phrase "Joe Wilson's wife" on my desk during this discussion. I testified that I have no recollection that Wilson or his wife was discussed, and I have no notes of the conversation.

Though neither Wilson nor Wilson's wife's name had surfaced publicly at this point, Pincus had published a story the day before, Sunday, June 22, about the Iraq intelligence before the war. I testified that I had read the story, which referred to the CIA mission by "a former senior American diplomat to visit Niger." Although his name was not used in the story, I knew that referred to Wilson.

I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list of questions with the Page-5 reference to "yellowcake" to this interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June 20, which had the "Joe Wilson's wife" reference.

I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an "effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02." This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger.

When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.

My testimony was given in a sworn deposition at the law office of Howard Shapiro of the firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr instead of appearing under subpoena before a grand jury.

I testified after consulting with the Post's executive and managing editors, the publisher, and our lawyers. We determined that I could testify based on the specific releases obtained from these three people. answered all of Fitzgerald's questions during my testimony without breaking promises to sources or infringing on conversations I had on unrelated matters for books or news reporting -- past, present or future.

It was the first time in 35 years as a reporter that I have been asked to provide information to a grand jury.

It appears Fitzgerald didn't know the truth after all at the time of the Libby indictment.

At the time of the Libby indictment Fitzgerald knew that Libby had lied to the FBI and Grand Jury.

Well, that kind of shoots a few holes in your theories about the Fifth, doesn't it, Tico? I always thought they were kind of specious anyways.

At this rate, tt won't be long before 'official A' gets his, hee ehe

Cycloptichorn

Ben Bradlee Defends Woodward's Actions in Plame Case
Ben Bradlee Defends Woodward's Actions in Plame Case
Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post
Ben Bradlee
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 16, 2005 11:35 AM ET
NEW YORK

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."

He also revealed that Woodward had shown him a copy of the story on Tuesday before it was published. And he explained: "Woodward never has 'no involvement' because he is who he is."

Bradlee, who retired in 1991, but still maintains an office at the paper, made his comments following a story in today's Post about Woodward's recent testimony before special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The story revealed that Woodward testified Monday in a two-hour deposition before Fitzgerald, in which he disclosed 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." The story also revealed, however, that Woodward did not disclose this conversation to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., until last month.

"People are surprised that they didn't know this information sooner," a Post newsroom staffer told E&P today. The person also said Woodward's failure to reveal the conversation earlier is the result of his unusual relationship with the paper, as an assistant managing editor who spends most of his time writing books.

"There is this constant tension in the newsroom about Woodward's role and that he does reporting for his books and has agreements with sources to use information for his books," the staffer said.

Woodward did not return a call seeking comment this morning. Downie also could not be reached.

Bradlee, however, said it should not surprise people that Woodward had such a conversation about Plame with a White House official. "He's got his finger in a lot of pies," he said, adding, "Woodward never has 'no involvement' because he is who he is. He's always poking around the White House because he's always writing a book about the White House. So it doesn't surprise me that he knows a lot about that."

Bradlee also said Woodward had showed him the story about his testimony yesterday. "I felt it was interesting. He wanted me to read it and I read it," Bradlee said. "He was showing it to the lawyers in the next office and he showed it to me."

Glenn Kessler, another Post reporter who testified in the Plame case in 2004 about a conversation he had with White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, said those seeking to pounce on Woodward for his action should be careful. "People shouldn't jump to any kind of conclusions. From my own experience in this matter, you don't know the whole story unless you are right in the middle of it and have all of the facts in front of you," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp ([email protected]) is senior editor at E&P.

Links referenced within this article

story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html
[email protected]
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:[email protected]

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001522433

Shocker: Bob Woodward Now Embroiled in Plame Scandal
Shocker: Bob Woodward Now Embroiled in Plame Scandal
Bob Woodward
By E&P Staff
Published: November 15, 2005 10:35 PM ET
NEW YORK

"Plamegate" got a jolt of "Watergate" early Wednesday with a surprising report in The Washington Post that the paper's famed reporter and assistant managing editor Bob Woodward had testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case. He testified then 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.

"Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 -- one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, was indicted in the investigation.

"Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony. Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place.

"Woodward said he also testified that he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and discussed Iraq policy as part of his research for a book on President Bush's march to war. He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame.

"He also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV," but had no recollection of it.

"Woodward's testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official -- not Libby -- the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. It would also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.

"The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether Libby is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly two-year-old probe or provide new insight into the role of senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, who remains under investigation.

"Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said that Rove is not the unnamed official who told Woodward about Plame and that he did not discuss Plame with Woodward."

"Downie said The Post waited until late yesterday to disclose Woodward's deposition in the case in hopes of persuading his sources to allow him to speak publicly. Woodward declined to elaborate on the statement he released to The Post late yesterday afternoon and publicly last night. He would not answer any questions, including those not governed by his confidentiality agreement with sources....

"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. He declined to say whether he was upset that Woodward withheld the information from him.

"Downie said he could not explain why Woodward provided a tip about Wilson's wife to Walter Pincus, a Post reporter writing about the subject, but did not pursue the matter when the CIA leak investigation began. He said Woodward has often worked under ground rules while doing research for his books that prevent him from naming sources or even using the information they provide until much later."

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports on Wednesday that skies may grow even darker for the media in the Plame/CIA leak case, if lawyers for Libby get their way. According to The Times, they plan to seek testimony from journalists beyond those cited in the indictment--Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper and Tim Russert. And they will probably challenge government agreements limiting their grand jury testimony.

"In interviews, lawyers close to the case made clear that the defense team plans to pursue aggressively access to reporters' notes beyond the material cited in the indictment and plans to go to the trial judge, Reggie B. Walton of United States District Court, to compel disclosure as one of their first steps," the Times revealed.

Among the many reporters defense lawyers have targeted: Robert Novak, who first disclosed that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The prospect of another legal battle over access to reporters' records "could be worse for the media" than the Judith Miller showdown, Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press told the Times. "You now have a situation where you have a government investigation hung completely on testimony from journalists, with journalists turned into witnesses, and that is a scary notion....

"This is a very unsettling case, and it could take years in the courts to resolve," she said.

Fitzgerald, to secure the cooperation of some journalists, agreed to limit the scope of his questioning but the Libby defense is likely to challenge that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

Links referenced within this article

[email protected]
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:[email protected]

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001480643

How does it blow any holes in my theory? Explain how you think it's "specious," and specifically how this new development impacts my theory.

Your theory, at least as presented here, was that Fitz already knew the truth before charging Libby and therefore Libby's ObJustice couldn't possibly be holding any other investigation back due to the Fifth amendment rights that Libby could invoke.

You went on to state today that Fitz 'didn't know the truth' at the time of the Libby indictment; this changes reasoning, motivation, and mean behind the indictment of Libby and the further investigation, wouldn't you agree, given that Fitz doesn't know the whole story yet?

Cycloptichorn

ps. it would seem to me, that we now have good evidence of several different reporters being told by several different people about Plame; my bets are now shifting to conspiracy charges.

Cyclo,
Without the specifics of who Woodward talked to it is hard to say much.

There may be an argument that Woodward then talked to Libby after he was first told about it. Or the defense could be that Pincus may have been the source for Libby via Woodward.

The interesting bull in the china shop was that Woodward had unfettered access to Bush in order to write his book. What if the source was Bush himself? or Cheney? We don't know yet.

Blogs Abuzz About 'WoodwardGate'
Looks like the Bloggers picked up on the same issues I posted earlier on this thread.

It's beginning to appear to me that the Managing Editor of the Post, Bob Woodward, doesn't have to abide by the same rules as the Post's other journalists---because he mainly writes books. That's a really thin cover that may raise a big stink. If Woodward is, in fact, the managing editor, does that not require him to comply with the journalistic rules? If not, and he wants to mainly write books, then perhaps he should resign from the paper's editorship and just write books freelance.---BBB

Blogs Abuzz About 'WoodwardGate'
By Greg Mitchell
Published: November 16, 2005 10:35 AM ET
NEW YORK

The Washington Post broke the news so late last night that few mainstream sources were able to weigh in quickly on Bob Woodward's unexpected testimony before the Plame grand jury this week. That left the field pretty clear for the blogosphere, and they have responded enthusiastically, as usual.

Herewith a few samples from among the most popular blogs

*
From Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points memo:

The details still seem sketchy and I suspect we're going to find out a lot more in the next few days. But it now seems that Woodward -- who has long been publicly critical of the Fitzgerald investigation -- has been part of it from the beginning. Literally, the beginning.

From the Post account it appears that Woodward was told of Valerie Plame's identity before any other journalist by an as-yet-unnamed senior administration official who is not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby.

More problematically for Woodward, he didn't tell his own Post editors about any of this until last month and then only after the unnamed senior administration official came forward to Fitzgerald and told him about it. That apparently led Fitzgerald to subpoena Woodward

Woodward claims that he told Post reporter Walter Pincus about it at the time. But Pincus says he has no recollection of such a conversation.

*

From Vaughn Ververs at CBS News' "Public Eye" blog:

The man who helped make "anonymous sources" famous appears to now be smack dab in the middle of the investigation that is helping make the phrase infamous. ...

In a statement, Woodward says he discussed "potions of interviews" he conducted with three separate administration officials. "All three persons provided written statements waiving the previous agreements of confidentiality on the issues being investigated by Fitzgerald. Each confirmed those releases verbally this month, and requested that I testify," Woodward says. We've come a long way from the days of flower pots on the patio and clandestine meetings in a parking garage.

Whatever differences Woodward's testimony may make in the Plame investigation, it is further evidence of something gone terribly wrong with how reporters treat their sources. On the heels of Judith Miller's "entanglements" with Libby, consumers of news are justified in asking tough questions of those who purport to be seeking the truth. Former CBS correspondent Eric Engberg last week divulged to us some of his "sources," indicating the absurdity of the practice at times. But it is clear there can be real consequences attached when you read some of Miller's pre-war stories.

Don't think the discussion over sourcing will end anytime soon. Indications in The New York Times this morning are that Libby's defense team will seek testimony from journalists, including some not named in the indictment, and may want information that goes beyond agreements made between reporters and prosecutors. That could mean more battles ahead for reporters. Of course, the Times story is based on "people involved in the case" and quotes "a lawyer close to the defense who spoke on condition of anonymity."

We look to be heading for more showdowns on anonymous sourcing. Who knows, perhaps Woodward can re-write the rules of journalism once again.

*

From Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly:

So who is this mysterious Mr. X that blabbed to Woodward? We don't know. It's not Libby, and Karl Rove's spokesman says it's not Rove. No other names were mentioned.

And why do we suddenly know all this? Because Woodward testified about it on Monday to Patrick Fitzgerald.

Why did he do that? Because Mr. X fessed up to Fitzgerald about the conversation a couple of weeks ago, and Fitzgerald subsequently asked Woodward to testify about it.

And why did Mr. X suddenly confess? No one knows.

Did Woodward tell anyone about this conversation back when it happened? He didn't tell his editor, but he says he did tell fellow Post reporter Walter Pincus. Pincus, however, says Woodward is delusional: "Are you kidding?" he says. "I certainly would have remembered that."

I can't begin to make sense of this. The only thing that's clear is that Mr. X must have had some reason to suddenly come clean, and that reason must have had something to do with Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation. Perhaps Mr. X is a cooperating witness, or perhaps he's someone who started to feel some heat and decided to come forward because he got scared. Who knows?

But what this does tell us is that the Plame investigation is alive and well and continuing to make progress. Fasten your seatbelts.

*
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has only linked to the Post story. Meanwhile, Atrios at Eschaton has been feverishly pulling lengthy Woodward quotes on the Plame case from earlier this year on CNN, MSNBC and NPR.

*
From Armando at DailyKos:

What does it mean about Plamegate? Not clear. The unnamed Administration official who told Fitzgerald on November 3, 2005 that he told Woodward about Plame may face jeopardy, or not, depending on whether his failure to tell Fitzgerald about the conversation came under oath, whether he was ever asked relevant questions at all and whether or not he is a cooperating witness.

What does it mean about Bob Woodward? That his reputation is shot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mitchell ([email protected]) is editor of E&P.

Links referenced within this article

[email protected]
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:[email protected]

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001522395

I guess the timeline of what Libby knew when and the date Woodward states he would have talked to Libby don't provide any alibi for Libby.

Libby was told about Plame by Cheney on June 12, met with CIA to discuss Plame on June 14th. Libby told Miller about Plame on June 23

Woodward met with Libby on June 27

Woodward Had Offered to Serve Part of Miller's Jail Time
Woodward Had Offered to Serve Part of Miller's Jail Time for Refusing to Testify
By E&P Staff
Published: November 16, 2005
NEW YORK

In the wake of his newly-revealed appearance before the Plame federal grand jury, some of Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's past statements on the CIA leak case can be seen a new light, as shown in another article on the E&P site today.

One interesting twist is looking back at his offer on July 11, 2005, to serve part of New York Times reporter Judith Miller's jail sentence in going to maximum lengths to protect a source and refuse to testify in this matter. Here is part of the transcript from Woodward speaking on Larry King's CNN show that night

*
WOODWARD: But the idea of having a kind of dragnet for all reporters who apparently showed up on phone logs or something like that, and, you know, suppose you had heard about this, Larry, and talking to somebody at lunch, and your name was in a phone record and then they called you before the grand jury. What do you do in a case like that?

KING: Are reporters -- and when Time magazine turned over the papers, their editor said, "we're not above the law." When it comes down it to, this is what the law said, we comply. Are you above the law?

WOODWARD: No. Clearly, we're not above the law. But frequently, people disobey the law. And when you do so, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. And in this case, the consequences, I guess, are a four-month jail sentence, and Judy Miller's willing to do that, to stand on this principle of trust. You know, I...

KING: You said you would have done it, too?

WOODWARD: I would have done it, too. And in fact, you know, maybe I shouldn't say this, but I will ...

KING: Go ahead.

WOODWARD: ... because it came to mind. If the judge would permit it, I would go serve some of her jail time, because I think the principle is that important, and it should be underscored. It's not a casual idea that we have confidential sources. It is absolutely vital. And I'll bet there are all kinds of reporters out there, if we could divvy up this four-month jail sentence -- I suspect the judge would not permit that, but if he would, I'll be first in line.

It's that important to our business.

***

Appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews on July, 11, 2005, the exchange went like this:

MATTHEWS: So, let`s talk about what`s going on right now. Judy Miller sits in D.C. jail tonight, apparently sleeping on the floor, according to a report I read in one of the papers today.... In the leak case involving Joe Wilson and that trip to Niger.

WOODWARD: And that case, when I think it is all told, there is going to be nothing to it. And it is a shame. And the special prosecutor in that case, his behavior, in my view, has been disgraceful.

MATTHEWS: Well, how does he prove...

WOODWARD: That he has not...

MATTHEWS: How does he catch the bad guy?

WOODWARD: Well, he can keep trying. But I think -- look, she didn`t even write a story. Come on. What are you going to do?

I mean, did you ever talk to anybody about this case? Why don`t we just take the whole damn press corps and line them up and everyone can go to the grand jury or jail, because somebody might have talked to somebody about this?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, was this, then, a crime? We`re talking about a crime.

WOODWARD: I don`t think there`s any crime.

MATTHEWS: There is a crime on the books now. Just so we know what -- there is a statute that punishes someone who gives away the undercover identity of an FBI agent.

WOODWARD: Intentionally, and a law written because Philip Agee back in the `80s was listing all the people who were undercover agents.

Novak has explained this, Bob Novak, who wrote the original story, and said, he was told this woman, Joe Wilson`s wife, was a weapons of mass destruction analyst in the CIA. He called her an operative because that`s one of the terms he uses in his column. He didn`t know. And...so, it turned out she was an operative. This is an accident. I think the judge in the case also should have found some way to balance...

And we need, in my business, confidential sources. And you`re going to freeze everyone from telling us the truth if you send reporters to jail.

***

From Woodward on NPR's "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross on July 7, 2005 (courtesy of Eschaton blog):

Mr. WOODWARD: In this case involving Judy Miller, the woman who was the CIA undercover operative was working in CIA headquarters. There was no national security threat. There was no jeopardy to her life. There was no nothing. 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. If it involves some source in a terrorist organization where the government was trying to find out who was plotting the next attack in America and so forth, you would have a very different set of conditions, and I think probably in those cases, reporters would want to assist the government.

GROSS: Matt Cooper said that, you know, his source released him from the confidentiality agreement at the last minute, so Cooper's going to testify to the grand jury. But both Judy Miller and Matt Cooper said they wouldn't respect the waiver of confidentiality forms that investigators had given out, and they considered those forms coercive. What do you know about those forms and do you think we've entered into a new era with these waivers of confidentiality forms?

WOODWARD: Well, I can't tell you how terrible it is to have the government running around saying, `Oh, we want you to sign this waiver of confidentiality to reporters so we can get at not just who their sources are but try to figure out who was talking in the government and who reporters are talking to.' It's almost worse than the jailing of a reporter, because the sweep and scope of it is so large. You know, again, it's one of these things, it kind of starts in a small way, and then it becomes a very large issue, and you're going to choke off the flow of good information, particularly the kinds of information that the government doesn't want out, and that's often what needs to be published first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff

Links referenced within this article

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001522373

Woodward Had Recently Denied He Had 'Bombshell'
Woodward Had Recently Denied He Had 'Bombshell' and Downplayed Plame Probe
By E&P Staff
Published: November 16, 2005 12:45 AM ET
NEW YORK

Bob Woodward and The Washington Post revealed late Tuesday that he had testified before the federal grand jury probing the Plame/leak scandal on Monday, saying that he, indeed, had talked to an unnamed official about the CIA operative in June 2003, among other revelations (see Bob Woodward Now Embroiled in Plame Scandal). This came as a surprise to most, including his editor, Leonard Downie Jr., particularly since Woodward had downplayed the scandal in numerous TV appearances.

He has called Patrick J. Fitzgerald a "junkyard dog prosecutor" and said in interviews this year that the damage done by Plame's name being revealed in the media was "quite minimal." He told NPR this past summer, "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."

Here are excerpts from his recent appearance on Larry King's CNN show, with Mike Isikoff of Newsweek, just before the Libby indictments came down. The date was Oct. 27, 2005. Woodward also revealed there, "I'm trying to do a book on the Bush second term."

*

KING: We're in Washington where things are hopping and we're going to follow up again tomorrow night. We're going to lead this round with Bob Woodward as we turn to tomorrow.

But, Michael Isikoff whispered to me during the break that he has a key question he'd like to ask Mr. Woodward, so I don't know what this is about.

ISIKOFF: No, look, this is the biggest mystery in Washington, has been really for two years and now as we come down to the deadline of tomorrow the city is awash with rumors. There's a new one every 15 minutes and nobody really knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Nobody knows what Fitzgerald's got.

I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who is behind the whole thing. So, I don't know, maybe this is Bob's opportunity.

KING: Come clean.

WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best New York Timesreporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell....

But Michael's point is exactly right. There is deep mystery here. It only grows with time and people are speculating and there are -- there is so little that people really know.

Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually -- when the story comes out I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal....

I don't see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with.

KING: You're saying this is a maybe.

WOODWARD: A maybe, only a maybe....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

Links referenced within this article

Bob Woodward Now Embroiled in Plame Scandal
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001480643
[email protected]
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:[email protected]

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001480714

Pincus: Woodward 'Asked Me to Keep Him Out' of Plame Reporti
It's beginning to appear that Bob Woodward is trying to protect the integrity of his new book awaiting publishing. ---BBB

Pincus: Woodward 'Asked Me to Keep Him Out' of Plame Reporting
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 16, 2005 12:45 PM ET
NEW YORK

Walter Pincus, the longtime Washington Post reporter and one of several journalists who testified in the Valerie Plame case, said he believed as far back as 2003 that Bob Woodward had some involvement in the case but he did not pursue the information because Woodward asked him not to.

"He asked me to keep him out of the reporting and I agreed to do that," Pincus said today. His comments followed a Post story today about Woodward's testimony on Monday before special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in which Woodward reportedly disclosed that a senior White House official told him about Plame's identity as a CIA operative a month before her identity was disclosed publicly.

In today's Post story, by reporters Jim VandeHei and Carol Leonnig, Woodward is quoted as saying he told Pincus that he knew about Plame's true identity as a CIA operative in 2003. Pincus said, in the same story, that he did not recall Woodward telling him that, but believed he might have confused the conversation with one they had in October 2003 after Pincus wrote a story about being called to testify.

"In October, I think he did come by after I had written about being called and said I wasn't the only one who would be called," Pincus said, adding that he believed Woodward was talking about himself, but did not press him on it. "Bob and I have an odd relationship because he is doing books and I am writing about the same subject."

Pincus said he did not believe Woodward had purposely lied about their conversation, saying, "I think he thought he told me something." Pincus declined to comment on the other revelation in today's story, namely that Woodward had waited until last month before revealing his conversation with the White House official to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. "I don't talk about what other people do, other reporters," he said. "Everybody does in this business what they think is the right thing to do."

Pincus also declined to comment on what reaction there has been in the Post newsroom to Woodward's testimony. "I'm not listening," he said.

Woodward did not return calls seeking comment.

Pincus gave his deposition to Fitzgerald in September 2004, in which he spoke about a conversation with a source related to the Plame case, but has never disclosed the identity of the source.

When asked if Woodward's unusual arrangement with the paper, in which he often withholds information and source identities for use in his books, is a problem for the Post, Pincus defended Woodward and said the situation is often a help.

He cited as an example a story Pincus wrote in 2003 just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which doubted the existence of weapons of mass destruction. "Bob helped to get it in the paper," Pincus said. "He had been hearing the same thing and actually wrote a couple of paragraphs that I adapted into the story."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp ([email protected]) is a senior editor at E&P.

Links referenced within this article

[email protected]
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/mailto:[email protected]

Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001523334

Let me correct your paraphrasing of my theory. I did not say Libby's alleged obstruction "couldn't possibly be holding any other investigation back." I asked for clarification from those who claimed it did as to exactly how it was doing so. The response I received was along the lines of, Well Fitzgerald couldn't have known Libby's intent. I agree, but the point I furthered at that juncture was to point out that Libby would not have been required to testify because of the 5th Amendment protection.




Yes, I certainly agree that's a possibility. At his press conference Fitzgerald said:



Apparently he was not the first official after all.

And what else did Fitzgerald not know, and when did he not know it?

Tico
So what? Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice and lying to the grand jury. He was not charged with anything about the Plame revelation.

You are just trying your diversion tactics once again. Won't work.

BBB