1
   

Whatever will the liberals bunch up their panties about now?

 
 
paull
 
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 04:53 pm
Quote:
My Leak Case Testimony

by Robert Novak
Posted Jul 11, 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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,426 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 05:20 pm
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/

Fair coverage there......... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 10:02 pm
littlek wrote:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/

Fair coverage there......... Rolling Eyes


It's Novak's column where he discusses his sources. What's not fair about it?





"I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." -- Robert Novak
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 10:19 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
littlek wrote:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/

Fair coverage there......... Rolling Eyes


It's Novak's column where he discusses his sources. What's not fair about it?





"I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." -- Robert Novak


And in the above column:

"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."

So Novak learned about Valerie Plame from the CIA public information officer and from "Who's Who in America."

Amazing!

Why is Fitzgerald continuing this investigation? This is worse than I thought. Has Fitz lost his marbles? We all know he wanted to make a name for himself, and he was known to be stubbornly relentless in pursuit of investigations......blah, blah, blah. But can this be for real? Parados, where are you?

Dang, another scandal bites the dust. Never got traction, just like all the rest. Man, there has to be something, has to be...........????? Democrats you better come up with something good before the election. Keep trying, maybe its Abramoff, yes that has to be it? Or wheres Dan Rather when you need him?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 10:36 pm
okie wrote:
So Novak learned about Valerie Plame from the CIA public information officer and from "Who's Who in America."

Amazing!


Well, he's not claiming "Who's Who in America" was his primary source; he hasn't yet named his primary source. But after it was disclosed to him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, he simply looked "Joe Wilson" up in the WWIA book to find out her name. If Plame's name was really a secret (because she was a Covert Agent, for instance), Bill Harlowe shouldn't have confirmed she worked at the CIA.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 10:45 pm
Tico, regardless of who is the primary source, the fact that the public relations office of the CIA confirmed her identity, doesn't that pretty much blow the case of anyone thinking her identity was covert? Whatever her status, it would seem the public relations office of the CIA would be the ultimate authority and would act accordingly.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 10:53 pm
I remember Novak, he used to write for Glamour magazine.


I know I seem to have a bias, but my views doen't always land that way. Back later to follow the thread.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 10:53 pm
okie wrote:
Tico, regardless of who is the primary source, the fact that the public relations office of the CIA confirmed her identity, doesn't that pretty much blow the case of anyone thinking her identity was covert? Whatever her status, it would seem the public relations office of the CIA would be the ultimate authority and would act accordingly.


Yep.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 11:36 pm
Here's CNN's lead:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House political adviser Karl Rove was one of Robert Novak's sources for the 2003 disclosure of a CIA operative's identity, the syndicated columnist wrote Tuesday.


LINK

And nary a mention of "Who's Who in America." Laughing
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:37 am
Even on Fox News web site, the lead of the story reads: "Robert Novak: Karl Rove Was One of My Sources."

Of course this is accurate, but why not lead with "Robert Novak: Whos Who in America was one of my sources" or "Robert Novak: CIA Public Information Office was one of my sources?"

Just an observation, liberals love to label Fox as some sort of right wing news agency. Perhaps there are a few moderate or conservative commentators there, as well as liberal I might add, but I suspect a few underlings that have a hand in formulating news stories and headlines habitually inject a liberal spin into stories. This one is an example of that. I've seen many.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:41 am
A hilarious . . . a conservative bait thread . . . so far, you've gotten all the sound and fury from other conservatives . . . hope you all have a good time in your circle jerk . . .
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:01 am
Setanta wrote:
A hilarious . . . a conservative bait thread . . . so far, you've gotten all the sound and fury from other conservatives . . . hope you all have a good time in your circle jerk . . .


Sooooo, is that all you have to say? I thought all you liberals could not wait for the rubber to meet the road with this investigation. You aren't interested now?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 10:09 am
I never was interested. Don't make assumptions.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:31 am
Setanta wrote:
I never was interested. Don't make assumptions.


That's because your object is simply to attack or bait those with whom you disagree politically. You have not made a single comment in this thread which addresses the topic. That's par for the course.



Might I add that you are one big, fat hypocrite.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 11:36 am
No one is better qualified to comment on just attacking members without making relevant comments than you, that much is certain.

I have reported your post. You don't know me personally, so you are not in a position to say if i am overweight or not.

My comment was relevant to the thread, if not to the intended topic, though--because it was a comment on the intent of the thread. It intends to bait--but it hasn't succeeded so far. All that has happened is that conservatives have come crawling out of the woodwork attempting to pile on--but they've got no one to pile on.

Too bad, so sad . . .
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:07 pm
Tico wrote:
Might I add that you are one big, fat hypocrite.

Setanta wrote:
I have reported your post. You don't know me personally, so you are not in a position to say if i am overweight or not.


Shocked Laughing

Correct, I'm not in a position to say if you are overweight, nor did I call you overweight. Yet another incorrect assumption on your part? You seem to be making a lot of these recently.

Here's a clue: type "big fact hypocrite" into google and see what you come up with:

    "[i]Lou Dobbs is a big fat hypocrite" "Rush Limbaugh: Big Fat Hypocrite" "Rick Santorum, You're A Big Fat Hypocrite!" "Scalia is a big, fat, hypocrite" "Vodafone a big fat hypocrite" "Blogs, Women Bloggers, and Why I'ma Big Fat Hypocrite" "Now I live in Washington, DC, where everyone is in fact a big, fat hypocrite" "So what's the rationale for you not being a big, fat hypocrite?" "PAUL KRUGMAN IS A BIG FAT HYPOCRITE" "But what if he's a big fat hypocrite?" "He admitted that he was gonna speak at Charis's convention(can anyone say big fat hypocrite?)[/i]"

Setanta wrote:
My comment was relevant to the thread, if not to the intended topic, though--because it was a comment on the intent of the thread. It intends to bait--but it hasn't succeeded so far. All that has happened is that conservatives have come crawling out of the woodwork attempting to pile on--but they've got no one to pile on.

Too bad, so sad . . .


You remain a hypocrite, and you know why I called you a hypocrite ... because you said nearly the same thing about me on the Nazi Skinheads thread.

Only you know why you jumped to the conclusion that I was calling you overweight.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:13 pm
So in your bizarre little world, fat does not mean overweight?

I don't give rat's ass what kind of drivel you found online. It is a violation of the terms of service to call other members names.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:15 pm
By the way, still no bites for the bait . . .

hehehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
So in your bizarre little world, fat does not mean overweight?


In your bizarre little world, is a "bald-faced liar" someone who does not tell the truth and has no facial hair?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 12:26 pm
Certainly not . . . you're the one who is confused about the meanings of words, not i . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Whatever will the liberals bunch up their panties about now?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:37:17