Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

It will certainly be interesting to find out.

This type of situation is devastating for the Administration. I'm quite sure that they will attempt to delay LIbby's trial until after the '06 elections, probably successfully, but it seems like every single week a new piece of information comes to light on this issue; to date, none of it has been beneficial to the Admin. The slow and steady trickle of news on this issue will do as much damage to Bush as pretty much any other over the next year; and the media certainly isn't going to let go of this one.

And, that's all assuming that Fitz doesn't get the evidence he needs to go after anyone else, which could happen to devastating consequence.

Cycloptichorn

It is a gang trick. Someone leaks to one journalist and another member of the gang leaks to another journalist and so on. Then the guilty parties switch their "source" journalists and start dealing with this "musical chair" situation so they can rightly say the journalist gave the "leak news" to him/her.

Re: Tico


So what? This development does not bode well for the Libby prosecution ... just so you know.

And what "diversion tactics" are you referring to? Am I diverting away from your posting news articles ad nauseum? Talk about diverting a thread. Hey, I post news articles every now and then, but try a little moderation. You get a little extra energy and all that does is cause the rest of us to have to scroll more.

And since you're here .... you called me a hypocrite in the Bush Supporters thread. Were you planning on going back there to provide anything to support your charge? Or are you just hoping it will be forgotten?

I like reading BBB's articles posted in this thread; it helps to coalacte the information into one spot, and lets others know what they have missed in the news.

As for this development not boding well for the Libby prosecution, in what way?

Cycloptichorn

Tico
Tico, I learned a long time ago that you like to keep the nit picking going as long as possible, so don't count on me to help you in your sport. I said what I wanted to say and don't intend to add any more to encourage your tactic.

BBB

Re: Tico

Bravo, BBB!

Good for you. I don't. Doesn't that mean I get to complain?



In the sense that the defense is going to have a hey-day. They only need to creat a "reasonable doubt," as you know, in the minds of the jury. Fitzgerald, at his press conference, asserted that Libby "was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson." Woodward is now very likely to be listed as a defense witness. Why didn't Fitzgerald question him before now? Also, Woodward claims to have told Pincus about Wilson's wife, yet Pincus does not have this recollection. This means there is a discrepancy in the recollections. And isn't Libby getting charged with a crime for remembering matters differently than Russert?

Granted, there do still appear to be false statements from Libby as alleged in the indictment. All I'm saying is this latest development does not work in the favor of the prosecution in the Libby case.

Perhaps not in the Libby case, but in the over-arcing CIA leak investigation, it does work in the favor of the Prosecution.

Remember that Libby is nothing more than a road bump in the way of justice; it's only a matter of getting him out of the way, for he certainly is not the end of this case.

Cycloptichorn

Re: Tico


That's fine, BBB. You should have also learned a long time ago that I'm not likely to let you slide when you make misrepresentations in your posts. You can call it "nit picking" if you want, but I call it being accurate. In any case, I'd like to encourage you to say as little to me as possible.

But you shouldn't accuse someone of being a hypocrite when you got zilch. Otherwise you might be accused of being a liar by someone less genteel than myself.

Woodward Apologizes to Post for Withholding Plame Knowledge
Woodward Apologizes to Post for Withholding Knowledge of Plame
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 1:18 PM

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

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

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

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

Downie, who was informed by Woodward late last month, said in a separate interview that his most famous employee had "made a mistake." Despite Woodward's concerns about his confidential sources, Downie said, "he still should have come forward, which he now admits. We should have had that conversation . . . I'm concerned that people will get a misimpression about Bob's value to the newspaper and our readers because of this one instance in which he should have told us sooner."

The Post disclosed this morning that Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case. Woodward said today he had gotten permission from one of his sources, White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., to disclose that he had testified that their June 20, 2003 conversation did not involve Plame, the wife of administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV. He said he had "pushed" his other administration source, without success, to allow him to discuss that person's identity, but that the source has insisted that the waiver applies only to Woodward's testimony.

The abrupt revelation that Woodward has been sitting on information about the Plame controversy has reignited questions about his unique relationship with The Post while writing books with unparalleled access to high-level officials, and about why Woodward minimized the importance of the Fitzgerald probe in television and radio interviews while hiding his own involvement in the matter.

The disclosure has already prompted critics to compare Woodward to Judith Miller, the former New York Times reporter who left the paper last week--after serving 85 days in jail in the Plame case--amid questions about her lone-ranger style and why she had not told her editors sooner about her involvement in the matter. Miller discussed Plame with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was Vice President Cheney's chief of staff and has now been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Woodward said he testified that Libby did not discuss Plame with him.

Both Woodward and Downie said they are not sure that The Post could have done anything with Woodward's 2003 conversations because they were conducted on an off-the-record basis. Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame "in an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip" and that "I didn't attach any great significance to it."

Woodward said he had passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus, who was writing about Wilson in June 2003, but Pincus has said he does not recall any such conversation.

Woodward said he realized that his June 2003 conversation with the unnamed official had greater significance after Libby was portrayed in an indictment as having been the first administration official to tell a reporter, the Times's Miller, about Plame. Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak disclosed Plame's CIA role on July 14, 2003.

Woodward said he could not discuss why he decided to notify Downie about his role in the Plame matter last month. He said Downie had told him that there was "a breakdown in communications, but not a breakdown in trust." Downie said he has told Woodward he must be more communicative about sensitive matters in the future.

In past interviews, Woodward has repeatedly minimized the Fitzgerald probe, telling National Public Radio, for example, that when "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great." Downie said Woodward had violated the paper's guidelines in some instances by expressing his "personal views."

Woodward said today that he "had a lot of pent-up frustration" about watching Fitzgerald threatening reporters with jail for refusing to testify, while "I was trying to get the information out and couldn't" because of his agreement with his administration source.

Downie said he remains comfortable with the arrangement in which Woodward spends most of his time researching his books, such as "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack," while giving The Post the first excerpts and occasionally breaking off to do daily news stories or passing information to colleagues.

"Many, many times over the years, he has brought this newspaper many important stories he could not have gotten without these book projects," Downie said.

Woodward, who has had lengthy interviews with President Bush for his last two books, dismissed criticism that he has grown too close to White House officials. He said he prods them into providing a fuller picture of the administration's workings because of the time he devotes to the books.

"The net to readers," Woodward said, "is a voluminous amount of quality, balanced information that explains the hardest target in Washington," the Bush administration.

BBB
Bob Woodward should resign from the Washington Post. He has a conflict of interest re the Post and his primary book writing career. It is also misleading to the public that his Post title is Assistant Managing Editor. Does he actually do the work required by the title? Apparently not. Does the Post keep him on because of Woodward's past gravitas, which is now tainted?

BBB

Re: BBB


Why are you offering your opinion on whether Woodward should resign from the Post? Is that relevant to this thread?

yeah, and if such wet dreams like yours here came true, neither of us would need our gay internet porn either

Yes, kuvasz, we all know you are convinced Libby is guilty, and we shouldn't go through the hassle of a trial. I'm not saying Libby won't be convicted, I'm merely pointing out why I believe this Woodward development is not a positive for the Libby obstruction prosecution. You don't agree. Fine.

it is not that we disagree, simply i asked you to explain your stance and upon what evidence your claim is supported for how you think this recent woodward testimony lends itself to a defense based upon exploiting reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that libby did not commit perjury, lie, and obstruct justice.

btw: since you cannot post any remark where i said there should be no trial i will just chalk it up to another bout of tico-itis diarrhea of the mouth

I never said you said it. But you do think it's just a formality, don't you?

Woodward: From Watergate Hero to Plamegate Goat
Woodward: From Watergate Hero to Plamegate Goat
Arianna Huffington
11.16.2005

Bob Woodward. What a career arc. From exposing a presidential cover-up in Watergate to covering up his role in Plamegate. And being forced to apologize to his own paper. And asking a colleague, Walter Pincus, not to mention Woodward's role in the story. And failing to tell his editor that he had vital information about a major story.

And, to bottom it out, doing the TV and radio rounds, minimizing the scandal as "laughable," "an accident", "nothing to it" and denigrating Fitzgerald as "disgraceful" and "a junkyard dog" without ever once divulging that he was not just an observer of the CIA leak case but a recipient -- perhaps the first -- of the leak.

Hear that hissing noise? That's the sound of the air being let out of Woodward's reputation. Especially now that he's decided to challenge Pincus to a round of credibility one-on-one. My money's on Pincus, who was appropriately skeptical about the administration's WMD claims while Woodward was writing hagiography about the brave president and his fearless aides.

It's hard to know who's happier today, Scooter Libby or Bill Keller.

I called Carl Bernstein to ask what he thought of his old partner's behavior. He was loyal as ever but he did say something very revealing -- and unintentionally damning. "This investigation," he told me, "has cast a constant searchlight that the White House can't turn off the way it has succeeded in turning off the press. So their methodology and their dishonesty and their disingenuousness -- particularly about how we went to war -- as well as their willingness to attack and rough up people who don't agree with them are now there for all to see. They can't turn off this searchlight, which is shining on a group of thugs that makes the Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Ziegler press shop look like a small-time operation." And these are the very thugs that Woodward was protecting while attacking the guy operating the searchlight.

The question now is: how will the Post handle the story? The first indications are mixed. Howard Kurtz is diving in, but it's not a promising sign that in the Post article that broke the story, Executive Editor Len Downie "declined to say whether he was upset that Woodward withheld the information from him". Or that Post eminence gris Ben Bradlee defended his former star reporter's actions to Editor and Publisher.

Last month, Jay Rosen said that the New York Times was no longer the paper of record, having ceded that position to the Washington Post. Will the Post live up to that now or will we have to find another "great national newspaper"? Wonder how they're doing over at the Chattanooga Times Free Press or the Bucks County Courier Times?

However the Post deals with the Woodward story, we know that bloggers won't let it die. They are already all over it. Here is some of what's being said:

Steve Clemons:

Woodward's celebrity-status has seriously blinded him and affected his judgment about quality journalism and his responsibilities to the public. He should never have been making such comments on television about the Plame case if he was, in fact, involved. He should have RECUSED himself in such discussion.
Now, his revelations must become central to the Plame story -- and they threaten significantly the direction that Fitzgerald takes in the investigation. […]

Tomorrow, the Post -- in an editorial penned by Leonard Downie -- better make clear that Bob Woodward gets no "Judy Miller"-like protection or nod of support from the reporting staff of the paper. He has violated the public trust by both withholding information he had in a key investigation, while playing pundit on Larry King, and now upending things late in the process.

Armando at DailyKos:

Sorry Bob, your credibility is shot. Walter Pincus gets the nod in a big way here.
ReddHedd at Firedoglake:

Ah, Judy. You sure set a good standard, didn't you? Poor Downie and company were left to try and pick up the journalistic pieces, and salvage something of face at the back end -- with a colleague who has been sitting on a big scoop since June of 2003 because...well, why exactly? Only Woodward knows the answer to that one, and he's hiding behind his ego.
John at Americablog:

It's also beginning to sound a lot like Bob Woodward is becoming our next Judith Miller. His repeated rants in defense of this administration, and against the special prosecutor, certainly take on a very interesting edge considering Mr. Woodward didn't bother disclosing that he was quite involved in this story, and was hardly the impartial observer his silence suggested he was. Not to mention, he knew all along that HE TOO had received the leak, suggesting that a clear pattern of multiple leaks was developing, yet he still went on TV and said that all of these repeated leaks were just a slip of the tongue?
Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:

Bob Woodward sure as hell didn't volunteer to be a stand-up guy and give information because of his civic-mindedness. *snerk* Nope, he had his ass subpoened and he testified because his source cooperated and gave Fitz the information that he spoke with Woodward. (And I say "he" here, simply for a marker, not because I know the gender of Woodward's source.)
For everyone out there who has been saying that Fitz was going to fold up shop and go home, I say, "Nuh uh." Stay tuned on this one. Fitz and his staff are still digging -- and with this Administration, there is clearly a whole hell of a lot of dirt.

Josh Marshall:

t 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. […]
At a minimum…Woodward seems to have some explaining to do, at least for the fact that he became an aggressive commentator on the leak story without ever disclosing his own role in it, not even to his editors.

Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah:

Well, maybe the reason Fitzgerald didn't hit Libby with the full force of the Espionage Charges that are obviously just beneath the surface of Libby's perjury indictment is because he wanted to smoke out all the journalists that Libby would produce as evidence that, either he's an idiot, or he's an idiot. Libby's probably searching his contact files for discussions about Wilson he had before the tell-tale conversation with Ari Fleischer. So perhaps former kingkiller Bob Woodward won't be the only one who we hear of learning of Wilson's wife in June?
Who said irony was dead?

Jeralyn at TalkLeft:

My bet: Woodward's source is the State Department or CIA official mentioned in Paragraph 6 or 7 (and 33)of the Indictment against Libby. If it's the State Department official, it could be David Wurmser, John Hannah or Fred Fleitz. David Wurmser seems to me to be the most likely….
Atrios:

Booby's story just doesn't make any sense. Why would you grant confidentiality to something which is "almost gossip" and told to you in an "offhand manner." What ethical issue prevented you from telling the world that an administration source had given you that information as you could do so without revealing the identity of the source? Why could you not tell the world about this when you felt free to share the information with Pincus (denied by him).
Greg Anrig, Jr. at TPMCafe:

Woodward's peerless solicitousness toward his sources has made him rich and famous. But now that his deceit in attacking the Fitzgerald investigation without revealing his own role in the story has been unveiled, how can the Washington Post continue to assure its readers that they can trust him?

Woodward names Andy Card, Bush's chief of staff
CNN broadcast at 3 pm (MT) that Bob Woodward had received a release from Andrew Card, President Bush's Chief of Staff, to reveal that he was the source of the Plame info.

The print media has not yet picked up this breaking news.

BBB