Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Bet you coulda mustered some suprise had you been Denny.

0 Replies

I imagine Denny was quite surprised ... things didn't turn out at all as he'd planned that morning.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

snood wrote:

Just curious. On what do you base your characterization of them as semi-literate and underemployed?

Quote:
Final Jury Composition

The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites

The Jury By Sex: 10 Women, 2 Men

The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

Enjoy

What gave it away was: "(3) all were Democrats."

0 Replies

Transcripts Reveal Reporter's Central Role in Plame Outing
Transcripts Reveal Reporter's Central Role in Plame Outing
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Thursday 06 July 2006

Notebooks belonging to former New York Times reporter Judith Miller indicate she may have been told about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson by another White House official before her first meeting in late June 2003 with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted last year related to his role in the Plame-Wilson leak, an attorney representing Libby claims.

According to a May 16, 2006, court transcript obtained by Truthout, Libby attorney William Jeffress told US District Court judge Reggie B. Walton that redacted versions of Miller's notebooks turned over to the defense during the discovery phase of the Libby criminal proceedings show that "Ms. Miller was investigating and focusing on [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson before the very first time that she met with Mr. Libby, that is before June 23, 2003."

"There are numerous entries throughout those notebooks to 'V.F.,' or 'Victoria Wilson,' or to 'Valerie Wilson,' all of which indicate that she [Miller] is talking to someone else about Mr. Wilson's wife," Jeffress said, according to a copy of the 128-page transcript. "What she learned and when she learned it about Mr. Wilson's wife is extremely - it is right at the heart of this case."

Jeffress claims that Miller's notes contain suspicious markings, such as the use of parentheses referring to Plame-Wilson's work at the "bureau." And in an entry dating to a meeting Libby and Miller had on July 8, 2003, Miller's notes indicate that Plame-Wilson works for "WINPAC" or Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control, and includes a question mark at the end of the entry.

Additionally, prior to Miller's interview with Libby, Jeffress claims, Miller had already written down Plame-Wilson's name in her notebook; however, it was inscribed in her notes as "Victoria Wilson," meaning that the disclosure came from someone other than Libby, Jeffress told Walton.

Countering allegations raised by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Libby and other White House officials were engaged in a "concerted effort" to discredit Wilson by leaking his wife's covert CIA status and identity to the media, Jeffress said Libby was only speaking to reporters to prove that Wilson's claims about flawed Iraqi intelligence had no merit.

"I think it is certainly more likely than not," Jeffress said, "that Mr. Libby, or others in the White House, would have developed this supposed plot to out his [Joseph Wilson's] wife to discredit Wilson if there weren't the fact that the response to Wilson was in the words recorded by another witness of the vice president, 'It would be a serious mistake to do anything less than full disclosure' ... that's what Mr. Libby was about, about getting out the truth."

The May 16th hearing involving Libby's attorneys and lawyers representing NBC News, the New York Times, Time magazine, and reporters including Miller, Andrea Mitchell, and Matthew Cooper of Time, was held to hear arguments about the media companies' refusal to turn over reporter's notes to Libby's defense team.

In a previously undisclosed development, Massimo Calabresi, a Time magazine reporter who shared a byline with Matthew Cooper on the second story printed about Wilson and his wife called Wilson prior to Novak's July 14, 2003, column and discussed with Wilson Cooper's conversation with Karl Rove in which Rove disclosed Plame-Wilson's CIA work to Cooper.

"Now that is a conversation that would be relevant to show what Mr. Massimo said to Mr. Wilson as to how many sources Cooper had," Jeffress told Judge Walton in arguing why Cooper's notes and drafts of his articles should be turned over to the defense.

"Mr. Cooper had said something to Mr. Massimo, at least about his conversation with Karl Rove, which caused Mr. Massimo to call Joe Wilson to ask about his wife and about what Cooper had heard from Karl Rove," Jeffress said.

Cooper "talked to Karl Rove on July 11 [2003]," Jeffress told Walton during the court hearing. "Karl Rove told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have sent Wilson on the [Niger] trip. There is an email by Mr. Cooper, again to his editor, on July 16 [2003], four days after his conversation with Mr. Libby and five days after his conversation with Mr. Rove about the article they are planning to write in which they are going to mention the wife. And the email says - talks about him having an administration source for the information about Ms. Wilson."

Jeffress said that the defense has obtained emails and notes written by Cooper that the reporter sent to his editor following a conversation he had with Libby on July 16, 2003, that prove Libby never mentioned Plame-Wilson to Cooper. Rather, Jeffress said, Cooper mentioned Plame-Wilson's work at the CIA to Libby. These emails, Jeffress maintains, may help prove to a jury that Libby did not intentionally lie to the grand jury when he testified that he found out about Plame-Wilson's work with the CIA from reporters.

Moreover, Jeffress argued that Time should be required to turn over drafts of Cooper's first person account of his grand jury testimony published in Time July 25, 2005, so the defense can determine if it reads differently from the final version of the article that appeared in the magazine and could subsequently help prove Cooper is not a credible prosecution witness.

Judge Walton agreed.

"Upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper," Walton wrote in his May 26 ruling. "This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to Truthout. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. EDIT (Moderator): Link Removed for a preview.

0 Replies

Well, if Jason Leopold is reporting it, it must be true.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:
Well, if Jason Leopold is reporting it, it must be true.

I agree.

0 Replies

Interesting development. Does that mean that the defense is going to finger Cooper to create reasonable doubt?

0 Replies

I wanted to check out the provenance of the story replicated by Bumble Bee Boogie but could not since the link has been removed but I do hope that the readers of these posts know that ANYTHING from Truthout cannot be trusted.

When you reference a TruthOut story,you can find a disclaimer which clearly states that the Truth Out story you are reading MAY NOT BE EXACTLY THE SAME STORY ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.

Therefore the Bumble Bee Boogie post referring to a Jason Leopold story is highly suspect.

and as long as Bumble Bee Boogie wishes to reference the Libby Case, here is a take which gives far more documented and believable material--

Source _Norman Podhoretz- "Who is Lying About Iraq?" from Commentary Magazine- December 2005

quote

Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.

The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted?-after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department?-into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

This is the "lie" Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President's idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:

My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . , both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.

More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the President's statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary?-for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the sixteen words at issue was true.

That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore?-and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited?-Britain's independent Butler commission concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing6), actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:

He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.

And again:

The report on [Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.

This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research?-which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons?-found support in Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it?-which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words.

The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report,

[t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].7

More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ?'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Wilson "confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President's office," thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flatout lie." Yet?-the mind reels?-if Cheney had actually been briefed on Wilson's oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book whose title alone?-The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity?-has set a new record for chutzpah.

But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Wilson?-who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated?-is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution.

And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq?-the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy?-have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.

?-November 7, 2005

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Interesting development. Does that mean that the defense is going to finger Cooper to create reasonable doubt?

Such an attempt could make for some real fireworks. It means the prosecution gets to call others, Rove for instance, to testify that they didn't say anything to Cooper in order to rebut the defense claims.

0 Replies

The reactions of BumbleBeeBooogie and Parados are not noted. It is clear that they cannot handle this evidence. Therefore, It stands:

Source _Norman Podhoretz- "Who is Lying About Iraq?" from Commentary Magazine- December 2005

quote

Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.

The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted?-after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department?-into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

This is the "lie" Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President's idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:

My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . , both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.

More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the President's statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary?-for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the sixteen words at issue was true.

That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore?-and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited?-Britain's independent Butler commission concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing6), actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:

He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.

And again:

The report on [Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.

This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research?-which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons?-found support in Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it?-which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words.

The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report,

[t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].7

More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ?'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Wilson "confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President's office," thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flatout lie." Yet?-the mind reels?-if Cheney had actually been briefed on Wilson's oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book whose title alone?-The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity?-has set a new record for chutzpah.

But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Wilson?-who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated?-is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution.

And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq?-the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy?-have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.

?-November 7, 2005

0 Replies

Quote:

Tonight on MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews revealed that Bob Novak's "confirming" source for Valerie Plame's undercover CIA identity was former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow

Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Bob Novak's going to go on television tomorrow and give away one of the sources in the infamous Valerie Plame leak story. It's going to be Bill Harlow, the spokesman for the CIA all those years. He's going to identify him as one of his sources, apparently the other source is still maintaining his deep background sourcing role here. Bob Novak's office has just now confirmed to Hardball that his confirming source ?- that's the one that said, "So you heard," and backed up the initial source ?- in learning about Valerie Plame's identity with the CIA, her undercover identity, was Bill Harlow, the former CIA Public Information Officer. Bill Harlow himself hasn't commented so far.

Recall, Bill Harlow was the former CIA spokesman who repeatedly urged Novak that he was not to use Plame's identity. From the Washington Post, 7/27/05:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used.

There has always been tension between Harlow's and Novak's accounts. Novak has claimed that while Harlow asked him not to publish the name, Harlow "never suggested to [Novak] that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered." (But Novak did acknowledge Harlow told him that Plame's outing would cause "difficulties.") Novak wrote, "If he had, I would not have used her name."

Quote:

On June 30, 2005, Robert Novak appeared on CNN with host Ed Henry and explained that while he could not answer questions about who in the administration gave him Plame's identity, he would soon "reveal all":

NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it doesI will reveal all in a column and on the air.

In an op-ed on Human Events Online, Novak writes that Fitzgerald has cleared him and that "frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry." But Novak fails to "reveal all," as he earlier pledged, in at least two respects.

1. Novak refuses to identify his primary administration source who revealed to him that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA as an undercover agent. He confirms Karl Rove was his second senior administration source, and that CIA official Bill Harlow served as a confirming source. But Novak writes his primary source's name "has not yet been revealed" and "has not come forward to identify himself."

2. Novak also did not explain why he earlier said he was given Plame's identity by the White House as part of an effort to intentionally out her. He said: "I didn't dig it out [Plame's identity], it was given to me. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." In his latest op-ed, Novak fails to address this issue, and states simply that Plame's "role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger."

UPDATE: John Aravosis notes Novak's interesting acknowledgement that his account differs from Rove's.

source

0 Replies

Is it Fitzmas?

Quote:

My Role in the Valerie Plame Leak Story

by Robert Novak
Posted Jul 12, 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.

I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.

The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.

In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

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

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Nope, no Fitzmas.

0 Replies

Why does it matter who might have leaked her name?

REmember,according to pachelbel...

Quote:

the public has every right to know what is going on.

0 Replies

denialistas
Just throwing in my two cents on the word usage "denialistas" from one of the first posts. It should be linked to the CEI, like this Denialistas, because of their denial of the existance of global warming. Shocked

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Why does it matter who might have leaked her name?

REmember,according to pachelbel...

Quote:
the public has every right to know what is going on.

In both cases you are dealing with the administration doing something wrong.

In the valerie plame case according to Harlow, the story that Novak repeated to him was wrong and that she was undercover and not to disclose her name.

Quote:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

source

Even Rove himself said the person responsible for leaking her name should be fired.

Quote:

Rove then said that after a "careful, thoughtful, aggressive investigation," then the person responsible should be fired.

source

In leaks concerning the administration spying stories, in both cases the administration went around the judicial system and in the latter did not even inform congress until after they knew the story was going to be published. Representative Peter Hoekstra, a strong supporter of bush is critical of these activities.

Quote:

"I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."

source

0 Replies

BTW regardless of the fact that Rove has, as of now, not been indicted. There is noting on record from Fitzgerald that Rove is in in the clear.

History will show that, assuming Rove ultimatley escapes prosecution, that he came within a hair's breath of being indicted.

0 Replies

Re: denialistas

my2cents wrote:

Just throwing in my two cents on the word usage "denialistas" from one of the first posts. It should be linked to the CEI, like this Denialistas, because of their denial of the existance of global warming.

I thought I coined that term. Smile

0 Replies

I thought Chrissee coined that term. Laughing

0 Replies

I wonder how the media will handle the observations made by Novak that Plame was NOT OUTED. If she was OUTED, that is a crime and must be prosecuted. Fitzgerald is viewed by all as a straight arrow and no one who would let a horrendous crime like OUTING a CIA agent go unpunished.

No one has been indicted for the crime of OUTING Plame.

Why not?????????

0 Replies

Mary Matalin continues to spin in the Plame matter.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607120003?src=other

Novak makes it clear that Rove was a "confirming source" in outing Plame. As such, he assisted in disclosing the ID of a covert CIA agent, a treasonous act.

Interestingly, Fitz has not closed the book on possibly charging someone with illegally disclosing classified information.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know