I'm going to start this thread as a place to post all of the documents central to Fitzgerald's investigation. We have several threads that contain various documents related to this case but no thread that contains all of them in the same thread. With them all in the same thread it will make it easy for any of us to reference the documents should they be discussed at a later date.

Please feel free to add any documents that you think are key to following this investigation.

The original Novak column.

Mission to Niger

Jul 14, 2003
by Robert Novak ( bio | archive )

WASHINGTON -- The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.

Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.

Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.

That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wilson had taken a measured public position -- viewing weapons of mass destruction as a danger but considering military action as a last resort. He has seemed much more critical of the administration since revealing his role in Niger. In the Washington Post July 6, he talked about the Bush team "misrepresenting the facts," asking: "What else are they lying about?"

After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews. "The story was never me," he told me, "it was always the statement in (Bush's) speech." The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.

Robert Novak is a television personality and a columnist who writes Inside Report

Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

"What I Told the Grand Jury"

EXCLUSIVE Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him--and what the special counsel zeroed in on

By MATTHEW COOPER

Jul. 25, 2005

It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple "Hello" when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, "Cooper! I thought you'd be in jail by now." The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence, awaiting appeal--in large part, for protecting the confidence of someone in the West Wing. "What can I say, Mr. President," I replied, smiling. "The wheels of justice grind slowly."

After a fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the wheels of justice have stopped grinding--for me, anyway. Last week I testified before the federal grand jury investigating the leak. I did so after I received a specific last-minute waiver from one of my sources, Karl Rove, the President's top political adviser, releasing me from any claim of confidentiality he might have about our conversations in July 2003. Under federal law grand jurors and prosecutors are sworn to secrecy but those who testify, like me, are under no such obligation, which is why I'm able to tell you what happened in the grand jury room. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, told me that he would prefer that I not discuss the matter, and I suspect he said the same thing to White House officials who are now treating his request as a command and refusing to comment on the case. I don't know if I can illuminate this confounding investigation, but I can at least explain my small part in it. Like the blindfolded man and the elephant, all I know is what seems to be in front of me.

So here's what happened last Wednesday.

Before going into the grand jury room at 9:30 a.m., my lawyers and I met briefly with Fitzgerald, a couple of his attorneys and the lead FBI agent in the case. It was, to say the least, unsettling sitting there in the federal courthouse in Washington with the man who, for months, had tried to get me to testify or he would put me in jail. Fitzgerald counseled me that he wanted me to answer completely but didn't want to force any answers on me or have me act as if I remembered things more clearly than I did. "If I show you a picture of your kindergarten teacher and it really refreshes your memory, say so," he said. "If it doesn't, don't say yes just because I show you a photo of you and her sitting together."

Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and their docility is infamous. A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. But I didn't get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia. The majority were African American and were disproportionately women. Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor's, as is the custom. These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2 1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor's, although he posed them on their behalf. I began to take notes but then was told I had to stop, so I'm reliant on memory.

For my part, I sat at the end of an L-shaped table next to one of the prosecutor's lawyers, who handed me various documents to review while an overhead projector displayed the documents on a screen near me. Virtually all the questions centered on the week of July 6, 2003. I was new to covering the Bush White House, having been the deputy Washington bureau chief for TIME. As it happens, that week was a big one at the White House. On that Sunday, the New York Times had published former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's now infamous Op-Ed describing his mission to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium to make nuclear weapons. Wilson said he had found no evidence of that and was confounded as to why the President would claim otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. As a freshly minted White House correspondent, I told the grand jury, I was all over that story by midweek, especially because it emerged as a likely candidate for TIME's cover the following Monday.

The grand jurors wanted to know what was on my mind, and I told them. The White House had done something it hardly ever does: it admitted a mistake. Shortly after Wilson's piece appeared, the White House said that the African uranium claim, while probably still true, should not have been in the President's State of the Union address because it hadn't been proved well enough. That was big news as the media flocked to find out who had vetted the President's speech. But at the same time, I was interested in an ancillary question about why government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Wilson. It struck me, as I told the grand jury, as odd and unnecessary, especially after their saying the President's address should not have included the 16-word claim about Saddam and African uranium.

I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11. Rove was an obvious call for any White House correspondent, let alone someone trying to prove himself at a new beat. As I told the grand jury--which seemed very interested in my prior dealings with Rove--I don't think we had spoken more than a handful of times before that. I recalled that when I got the White House job a couple of weeks earlier, I left a message for him trying to introduce myself and announce my new posting.

As I told the grand jury--and we went over this in microscopic, excruciating detail, which may someday prove relevant--I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House switchboard and being transferred to his office. I believe a woman answered the phone and said words to the effect that Rove wasn't there or was busy before going on vacation. But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been.

The grand jury asked about one of the more interesting lines in that e-mail, in which I refer to my conversation with Rove as being on "double super secret background," a line that's raised a few eyebrows ever since it leaked into the public domain. I told the grand jury that the phrase is not a journalistic term of art but a reference to the film Animal House, in which John Belushi's wild Delta House fraternity is placed on "double secret probation." ("Super" was my own addition.) In fact, I told the grand jury, Rove told me the conversation was on "deep background." I explained to the grand jury that I take the term to mean that I can use the material but not quote it, and that I must keep the identity of my source confidential.

Rove went on to say that Wilson had not been sent to Niger by the director of the CIA and, I believe from my subsequent e-mails--although it's not in my notes--that Rove added that Dick Cheney didn't send him either. Indeed, the next day the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, told me Cheney had not been responsible for Wilson's mission.

Much of my grand jury session revolved around my notes and my e-mails. (Those e-mails and notes were given to the special counsel when Time Inc., over my objections, complied with a court order.) Owing to my typing, some words were a jumble. For instance, I wrote "don't get too war out on Wilson," when I clearly meant "far out." There were some words in my notes that I could not account for--at one point they read, "...notable..." I didn't know if that was Rove's word or mine, and one grand juror asked if it might mean "not able," as in "Wilson was not an able person." I said that was possible, but I just didn't recall that. The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings.

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.

This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversations with Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a specific waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recounted an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew about or played any role in the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated.

Did Fitzgerald's questions give me a sense of where the investigation is heading? Perhaps. He asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. (He did not, I told the grand jury.) Maybe Fitzgerald is interested in whether Rove knew her CIA ties through a person or through a document.

A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.

So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.


http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0...1083899,00.html

October 16, 2005
A Personal Account
My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room
By JUDITH MILLER
In July 2003, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, created a firestorm by publishing an essay in The New York Times that accused the Bush administration of using faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. The administration, he charged, ignored findings of a secret mission he had undertaken for the Central Intelligence Agency - findings, he said, that undermined claims that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear bomb.

It was the first time Mr. Wilson had gone public with his criticisms of the White House. Yet he had already become a focus of significant scrutiny at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Almost two weeks earlier, in an interview with me on June 23, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A. In later conversations with me, on July 8 and July 12, Mr. Libby, who is Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance.

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.

My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative," as the conservative columnist Robert D. Novak first described her in a syndicated column published on July 14, 2003. (Mr. Novak used her maiden name, Valerie Plame.)

This is what I told a federal grand jury and the special counsel investigating whether administration officials committed a crime by leaking Ms. Plame's identity and the nature of her job to reporters.

During my testimony on Sept. 30 and Oct. 12, the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, asked me whether Mr. Libby had shared classified information with me during our several encounters before Mr. Novak's article. He also asked whether I thought Mr. Libby had tried to shape my testimony through a letter he sent to me in jail last month. And Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Cheney had known what his chief aide was doing and saying.

My interview notes show that Mr. Libby sought from the beginning, before Mr. Wilson's name became public, to insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson's charges. According to my notes, he told me at our June meeting that Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program.

As I told the grand jury, I recalled Mr. Libby's frustration and anger about what he called "selective leaking" by the C.I.A. and other agencies to distance themselves from what he recalled as their unequivocal prewar intelligence assessments. The selective leaks trying to shift blame to the White House, he told me, were part of a "perverted war" over the war in Iraq. I testified about these conversations after spending 85 days in jail for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury inquiry. Having been summoned to testify before the grand jury, I went to jail instead, to protect my source - Mr. Libby - because he had not communicated to me his personal and voluntary permission to speak.

At the behest of President Bush and Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby had signed a blanket form waiver, which his lawyer signaled to my counsel was not really voluntary, even though Mr. Libby's lawyer also said it had enabled other reporters to cooperate with the grand jury. But I believed that nothing short of a personal letter and a telephone call would allow me to assess whether Mr. Libby truly wished to free me from the pledge of confidentiality I had given him. The letter and the telephone call came last month.

Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning.

Without both agreements, I would not have testified and would still be in jail.

I testified in Washington twice - most recently last Wednesday after finding a notebook in my office at The Times that contained my first interview with Mr. Libby. Mr. Fitzgerald told the grand jury that I was testifying as a witness and not as a subject or target of his inquiry.

This account is based on what I remember of my meetings with Mr. Fitzgerald and my testimony before the grand jury. I testified for almost four hours, much of that time taken by Mr. Fitzgerald asking me to decipher and explain my notes of my interviews with Mr. Libby, which I had provided to him.

I was not permitted to take notes of what I told the grand jury, and my interview notes on Mr. Libby are sketchy in places. It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses. On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.

I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him.

The First Libby Meeting

Early in my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to describe my history with Mr. Libby and explain how I came to interview him in 2003.

I said I had known Mr. Libby indirectly through my work as a co-author of "Germs," a book on biological weapons published in September 2001. Mr. Libby had assisted one of my co-authors, and the first time I met Mr. Libby he asked for an inscribed copy of "Germs."

In June 2003 I had just returned from Iraq, where I had been embedded with a special military unit charged with finding Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons. Now I was assigned to a team of reporters at The Times examining why no such weapons had been found.

On the afternoon of June 23, 2003, I arrived at the Old Executive Office Building to interview Mr. Libby, who was known to be an avid consumer of prewar intelligence assessments, which were already coming under fierce criticism. The first entry in my reporter's notebook from this interview neatly captured the question foremost in my mind.

"Was the intell slanted?" I wrote, referring to the intelligence assessments of Iraq and underlining the word "slanted."

I recall that Mr. Libby was displeased with what he described as "selective leaking" by the C.I.A. He told me that the agency was engaged in a "hedging strategy" to protect itself in case no weapons were found in Iraq. "If we find it, fine, if not, we hedged," is how he described the strategy, my notes show.

I recall that Mr. Libby was angry about reports suggesting that senior administration officials, including Mr. Cheney, had embraced skimpy intelligence about Iraq's alleged efforts to buy uranium in Africa while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Such reports, he said, according to my notes, were "highly distorted."

Mr. Libby said the vice president's office had indeed pressed the Pentagon and the State Department for more information about reports that Iraq had renewed efforts to buy uranium. And Mr. Cheney, he said, had asked about the potential ramifications of such a purchase. But he added that the C.I.A. "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" by sending a "clandestine guy" to Niger to investigate. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I thought "clandestine guy" was a reference to Mr. Wilson - Mr. Libby's first reference to him in my notes.

In May and in early June, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist at The Times, wrote of Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger without naming him. Mr. Kristof wrote that Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger "at the behest" of Mr. Cheney's office.

My notes indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson," I wrote, referring to the vice president. "Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us."

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.

What was evident, I told the grand jury, was Mr. Libby's anger that Mr. Bush might have made inaccurate statements because the C.I.A. failed to share doubts about the Iraq intelligence.

"No briefer came in and said, 'You got it wrong, Mr. President,' " he said, according to my notes.

The Second Libby Meeting

I interviewed Mr. Libby for a second time on July 8, two days after Mr. Wilson published his essay attacking the administration on the Op-Ed Page of The Times.

Our meeting, which lasted about two hours, took place over breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I almost certainly began this interview by asking about Mr. Wilson's essay, which appeared to have agitated Mr. Libby. As I recall, Mr. Libby asserted that the essay was inaccurate.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."

My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Libby then proceeded through a lengthy and sharp critique of Mr. Wilson and what Mr. Libby viewed as the C.I.A.'s backpedaling on the intelligence leading to war. According to my notes, he began with a chronology of what he described as credible evidence of Iraq's efforts to procure uranium. As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq's uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium.

My notes indicate that Mr. Libby told me the report on the 1999 delegation had been attributed to Joe Wilson.

Mr. Libby also told me that on the basis of these two reports and other intelligence, his office had asked the C.I.A. for more analysis and investigation of Iraq's dealings with Niger. According to my interview notes, Mr. Libby told me that the resulting cable - based on Mr. Wilson's fact-finding mission, as it turned out - barely made it out of the bowels of the C.I.A. He asserted that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, had never even heard of Mr. Wilson.

As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002, which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium.

An unclassified version of that estimate had been made public before my interviews with Mr. Libby. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I had pressed Mr. Libby to discuss additional information that was in the more detailed, classified version of the estimate. I said I had told Mr. Libby that if The Times was going to do an article, the newspaper needed more than a recap of the administration's weapons arguments. According to my interview notes, though, it appears that Mr. Libby said little more than that the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version.

Although I was interested primarily in my area of expertise - chemical and biological weapons - my notes show that Mr. Libby consistently steered our conversation back to the administration's nuclear claims. His main theme echoed that of other senior officials: that contrary to Mr. Wilson's criticism, the administration had had ample reason to be concerned about Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on the regime's history of weapons development, its use of unconventional weapons and fresh intelligence reports.

At that breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: "Wife works at Winpac." Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons.

I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me whether Mr. Libby had mentioned nepotism. I said no. And as I told the grand jury, I did not recall - and my interview notes do not show - that Mr. Libby suggested that Ms. Plame had helped arrange her husband's trip to Niger. My notes do suggest that our conversation about Ms. Plame was brief.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words "Valerie Flame," clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I could recall discussing the Wilson-Plame connection with other sources. I said I had, though I could not recall any by name or when those conversations occurred.

Before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked me questions about Mr. Cheney. He asked, for example, if Mr. Libby ever indicated whether Mr. Cheney had approved of his interviews with me or was aware of them. The answer was no.

In my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald repeatedly turned to the subject of how Mr. Libby handled classified information with me. He asked, for example, whether I had discussed my security status with Mr. Libby. During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment "embedded" with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to examine a series of documents. Though I could not identify them with certainty, I said that some seemed familiar, and that they might be excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq's weapons. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Libby had shown any of the documents to me. I said no, I didn't think so. I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq. At the same time, I told the grand jury I thought that at our July 8 meeting I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know.

The Third Libby Conversation

My third interview with Mr. Libby occurred on July 12, two days before Robert D. Novak's column identified Ms. Plame for the first time as a C.I.A. operative. I believe I spoke to Mr. Libby by telephone from my home in Sag Harbor, N.Y.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife. In my notebook I had written the words "Victoria Wilson" with a box around it, another apparent reference to Ms. Plame, who is also known as Valerie Wilson.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I was not sure whether Mr. Libby had used this name or whether I just made a mistake in writing it on my own. Another possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the wrong name on purpose to see whether he would correct me and confirm her identity.

I also told the grand jury I thought it was odd that I had written "Wilson" because my memory is that I had heard her referred to only as Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether this suggested that Mr. Libby had given me the name Wilson. I told him I didn't know and didn't want to guess.

My notes of this phone call show that Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report on his mission to Niger. He said it was unclear whether Mr. Wilson had spoken with any Niger officials who had dealt with Iraq's trade representatives.

With the understanding that I would attribute the information to an administration official, Mr. Libby also sought to explain why Mr. Bush included the disputed uranium allegation in his 2003 State of the Union address, a sentence of 16 words that his administration would later retract. Mr. Libby described it as the product of a simple miscommunication between the White House and the C.I.A.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether I ever pursued an article about Mr. Wilson and his wife. I told him I had not, though I considered her connection to the C.I.A. potentially newsworthy. I testified that I recalled recommending to editors that we pursue a story.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked my reaction to Mr. Novak's column. I told the grand jury I was annoyed at having been beaten on a story. I said I felt that since The Times had run Mr. Wilson's original essay, it had an obligation to explore any allegation that undercut his credibility. At the same time, I added, I also believed that the newspaper needed to pursue the possibility that the White House was unfairly attacking a critic of the administration.

Mr. Libby's Letter

When I was last before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald posed a series of questions about a letter I received in jail last month from Mr. Libby. The letter, two pages long, encouraged me to testify. "Your reporting, and you, are missed," it begins.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me," Mr. Libby wrote.

The prosecutor asked my reaction to those words. I replied that this portion of the letter had surprised me because it might be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby to suggest that I, too, would say we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity. Yet my notes suggested that we had discussed her job.

Mr. Fitzgerald also focused on the letter's closing lines. "Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning," Mr. Libby wrote. "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

How did I interpret that? Mr. Fitzgerald asked.

In answer, I told the grand jury about my last encounter with Mr. Libby. It came in August 2003, shortly after I attended a conference on national security issues held in Aspen, Colo. After the conference, I traveled to Jackson Hole, Wyo. At a rodeo one afternoon, a man in jeans, a cowboy hat and sunglasses approached me. He asked me how the Aspen conference had gone. I had no idea who he was.

"Judy," he said. "It's Scooter Libby."




[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html?pagewanted=print]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national...agewanted=print[/url

Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM



FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.

FITZGERALD: I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

There's another thing about a grand jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public.

And as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't.

FITZGERALD: And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date.

But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.

It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.

And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time.

FITZGERALD: Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.

FITZGERALD: The focus of the interview was what it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.

What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, "Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?"

And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times.

FITZGERALD: And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter; that he didn't even know if it was true.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

FITZGERALD: When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.

It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

FITZGERALD: Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.

Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

FITZGERALD: It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.

So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as "Wilson's wife," working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.

It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

FITZGERALD: It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

FITZGERALD: So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

FITZGERALD: The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.

During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.

During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA -- and then, finally, again, on July 12th.

In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying;" Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true;" Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."

FITZGERALD: At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

FITZGERALD: We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.

But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.

So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.

Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system.

I would be remiss at this point if I didn't thank the team of investigators and prosecutors who worked on it, led by Agent Eckenrode, or particularly the staff under John Dial (ph) from the Counterespionage Section in the Department of Justice; Mr. Zidenberg (ph) from Public Integrity, as well as the agents from the Washington field office and my close friends in the Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office, all of whom contributed to a joint effort.

And with that, I'll take questions.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have evidence that the vice president of the United States, one of Mr. Libby's original sources for this information, encouraged him to leak it or encouraged him to lie about leaking?

FITZGERALD: I'm not making allegations about anyone not charged in the indictment.

Now, let me back up, because I know what that sounds like to people if they're sitting at home.

We don't talk about people that are not charged with a crime in the indictment.

FITZGERALD: I would say that about anyone in this room who has nothing to do with the offenses.

We make no allegation that the vice president committed any criminal act. We make no allegation that any other people who provided or discussed with Mr. Libby committed any criminal act.

But as to any person you asked me a question about other than Mr. Libby, I'm not going to comment on anything.

Please don't take that as any indication that someone has done something wrong. That's a standard practice. If you followed me in Chicago, I say that a thousand times a year. And we just don't comment on people because we could start telling, "Well, this person did nothing wrong, this person did nothing wrong," and then if we stop commenting, then you'll start jumping to conclusions. So please take no more.

QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A, who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged?

FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "I'm want to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years."

We just can't do that. It's not because we enjoy holding back information from you; that's the law.

And one of the things we do with a grand jury is we gather information. And the explicit requirement is if we're not going to charge someone with a crime; if we decide that a person did not commit a crime, we cannot prove a crime, doesn't merit prosecution, we do not stand up and say, "We gathered all this information on the commitment that we're going to follow the rules of grand jury secrecy, which say we don't talk about people not charged with a crime, and then at the end say, well, it's a little inconvenient not to give answers out, so I'll give it out anyway."

FITZGERALD: I can't give you answers on what we know and don't know, other than what's charged in the indictment.

It's not because I enjoy being in that position. It's because the law is that way. I actually think the law should be that way.

We can't talk about information not contained in the four corners of the indictment.

QUESTION: Is Karl Rove off the hook? And are there any other individuals who might be charged? You say you're not quite finished.

FITZGERALD: What I can say is the same answer I gave before: If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named, because we either charged someone or we don't talk about them. And don't read that answer in the context of the name you gave me.

QUESTION: What can you say about what you're still working on then?

FITZGERALD: I can't. I don't mean that fliply, but the grand jury doesn't give an announcement about what they're doing, what they're looking at, unless they charge an indictment.

FITZGERALD: I can tell you that no one wants this thing to be over as quickly as I do, as quickly as Mr. Eckenrode does. I'd like to wake up in my bed in Chicago, he'd like to wake up in his bed in Philadelphia, and we recognize that we want to get this thing done.

I will not end the investigation until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility sufficiently to be sure that we've done what we could to make intelligent decisions about when to end the investigation. We hope to do that as soon as possible. I just hope that people will take a deep breath and just allow us to continue to do what we have to do.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, you've said that there was damage done to all of us, damage to the entire nation. Can you be any more specific about what kind of damage you're talking about?

FITZGERALD: The short answer is no. But I can just say this: I'm not going to comment on things beyond what's said in the indictment.

FITZGERALD: I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their jobs, that information about whether or not they are affiliated with the CIA will be protected.

And they run a risk when they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow government employees.

But getting to the specifics of the damage, I won't.

QUESTION: You mentioned the importance to you of grand jury secrecy and you have been leak-free.

But I want to know what your thoughts are about a series of leaks about your investigation. What was your interpretation of what some people have described as manipulative, selective leaking about your investigation by people close to your witnesses?

FITZGERALD: And all I can say is -- well, I'll just say this: I'm not going to comment on why certain things were leaked or any speculation I might have where was the leak from.

I think the average person does not understand that the rule of grand jury secrecy binds the prosecutors and the grand jury, it binds the agents who come across the grand jury information, it binds the grand jurors. Any one of us could go to jail if we leak that information.

It does not bind witnesses. Witnesses can decide to tell their testimony or not. So if this were a bank robbery and we put a witness in the grand jury about the bank robbery, I would go to jail, he would go to jail, and the grand jurors would go to jail if they walked out and told you about it. But the person who went into the grand jury could walk out and hold a press conference on the front steps.

So they're not breaking the law by discussing their grand jury information. I would prefer for the integrity of the investigation it not be discussed. But I just think people may not understand that certain people are not restricted in talking about grand jury information and certain are.

FITZGERALD: All I can do is make sure that myself and everyone on our team follows those rules.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, you said that it was OK for government officials to be discussing among themselves Mrs. Wilson's identity. Were you troubled, though, that at least a half dozen people outside the CIA seemed to be talking about this in the weeks before her name was disclosed?

FITZGERALD: My job is to investigate whether or not a crime is committed, can be proved and should be charged. I'm not going to comment on what to make beyond that. You know, it's not my jurisdiction, not my job, not my judgment.

QUESTION: I know you just talked about having sand in your eyes when you have the obstruction charge here. Can you give us any sense of how you think you might and how long it might take you now to determine if there was this underlying crime that occurred dealing with alleged unauthorized disclosure?

FITZGERALD: I can't and I wouldn't. And if I predicted two years ago when it started when it would be done, I would have been done a year ago.

FITZGERALD: So all I can tell you is as soon as we can get it done, we will.

QUESTION: You identified Mr. Fleischer as one of the people that Mr. Libby spoke with. Can you say who the counsel to the V.P. was, and also the undersecretary of state that he spoke with?

FITZGERALD: We've referred to people by their titles in the indictment just because that's a practice. We don't allege they did anything wrong. But we said the White House press secretary and we talked about counsel for the vice president. And I generally don't identify people beyond the indictment.

And I'll talk to Randy Samborn, who tells me what I'm allowed to do, at the break.

If we can provide you those names, we will. I'm not so sure we can, so I better not do it in front of a microphone.

QUESTION: In the end, was it worth keeping Judy Miller in jail for 85 days in this case? And can you say how important her testimony was in producing this indictment?

FITZGERALD: Let me just say this: No one wanted to have a dispute with the New York Times or anyone else. We can't talk generally about witnesses. There's much said in the public record.

FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.

I didn't have a vested interest in litigating it. I was not looking for a First Amendment showdown. I also have to say my job was to find out what happened here, make reasoned judgments about what testimony was necessary, and then pursue it.

And we couldn't walk away from that. I could have not have told you a year ago that we think that there may be evidence that a crime is being committed here of obstruction, that there may be a crime behind it and we're just going to walk away from it.

Our job was to find the information responsibly.

We then, when we issued the subpoenas, we thought long and hard before we did that. And I can tell you, there's a lot of reporters whose reporting and contacts have touched upon this case that we never even talked to.

We didn't bluff people. And what we decided to do was to make sure before we subpoenaed any reporter that we really needed that testimony.

In addition to that, we scrubbed it thoroughly within ourselves. And we also, when we went to court, we could have taken the position that it's our decision whether to issued a subpoena, but we made sure that put a detailed, classified, sealed filing before the district court judge, the chief judge -- Hogan -- in the District of Columbia.

FITZGERALD: So we wanted to make sure that if he thought our efforts were off base, if what we were saying -- representing to him was the case was off, that he would have those facts when he made the decision.

Judge Hogan agreed and felt that we met whatever standard there might be for issuing a subpoena.

Then went up to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals with that same filing and they found the same results. And then it went to the Supreme Court.

So I think what we did in seeking that testimony was borne out by how the judges ruled.

At the end of the day, I don't know how you could ever resolve this case, to walk into you a year ago and say, "You know what? Forget the reporters; we have someone telling us that they told Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller that they didn't know if this information were true, they just heard it from other reporters, they didn't even know if he had a wife," and charge a person with perjury only to find out that's what happened, that would be reckless.

FITZGERALD: On the other hand, if we walked away and said, "Well, there are indications that, in fact, this is not how the conversation would happen, there are indications that there might be perjury or obstruction of justice here," but I were to fold up my tent and go home, that would not fulfill our mandate.

I tell you, I will say this: I do not think that a reporter should be subpoenaed anything close to routinely. It should be an extraordinary case.

But if you're dealing with a crime and what's different here is the transaction is between a person and a reporter, they're the eyewitness to the crime; if you walk away from that and don't talk to the eyewitness, you are doing a reckless job of either charging someone with a crime that may not turn out to have been committed -- and that frightens me, because there are things that you can learn from a reporter that would show you the crime wasn't committed.

What if, in fact, the allegations turned out to be true that he said, "Hey, I sourced it to other reporters, I don't know if it's true"?

FITZGERALD: So I think the only way you can do an investigation like this is to hear from all the witnesses.

I wish Ms. Miller spent not a second in jail. I wish we didn't have to spend time arguing very, very important issues and just got down to the brass tacks and made the call of where we were. But I think it had to be done.

QUESTION: You said earlier in your statement here that Mr. Libby was the first person to leak this information outside of the government. Now, first of all, that implies that there might have been other people inside the government who made such leaks.

Secondly, in paragraph 21, the one about "Official A," you imply that Novak might have heard this information about the woman, Mrs. Wilson, from another source. But you don't actually say that.

What can you tell us about the existence that you know of or don't know of or whatever of other leakers? Are there definitely other leakers? Is "Official A" a leaker or just a facilitator? Are you continuing to investigate other possible leakers?

FITZGERALD: I'm afraid I'm going to have to find a polite way of repeating my answer to Mr. Isikoff's question, which is to simply say I can't go beyond the four corners of the indictment. And I'll probably just say -- I'll repeat it so I don't misstep and give you anything more than I should.

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.

QUESTION: Would you oppose a congressional investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity? And if not, would you be willing to cooperate with such an investigation by handing over the work product of your investigation?

FITZGERALD: I guess that's two questions, and I know I can answer the second part, turning over the work product.

There are strict rules about grand jury secrecy if there were an investigation. And, frankly, I have to pull the book out and get the people smarter than me about grand jury rules in Chicago and sit down and tell me how it works.

My gut instinct is that we do not -- very, very rarely is grand jury information shared with the Congress.

And I also think I'd have to be careful about what my charter is here. I don't think it's my role to opine on whether the Justice Department would oppose or not oppose some other investigation. So I'm certainly not going to figure that out standing up here with a bunch of cameras pointing at me.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, your critics are charging that you are a partisan who was conducting what, in essence, was a...

(UNKNOWN): In which government (ph)?

(LAUGHTER)

FITZGERALD: You tell me.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) witch hunt. I mean, how do you respond to (inaudible) since you are in Washington...

FITZGERALD: I don't know -- you know, it's sort of, "When'd you stop beating your wife?"

One day I read that I was a Republican hack, another day I read that I was a Democratic hack, and the only thing I did between those two nights was sleep.

I'm not partisan. I'm not registered as part of a party. And I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: You noted earlier that the grand jury's term expired but you said something about holding it open. Or will you be working with a new grand jury?

FITZGERALD: The grand jury, by its terms, can serve -- was an 18-month grand jury. By its statute, to my understanding, can only be extended six months.

FITZGERALD: That six months expired.

It's routine in long investigations that you would have available a new grand jury if you needed to go back to them. And that's nothing unusual. I don't want to raise any expectations by that; that's an ordinary practice.

QUESTION: I think you, kind of, answered this but I assume that you have no plans and don't even think you'd be allowed to issue a final report of any sort.

FITZGERALD: You're correct. But let me explain that.

I think what people may be confused about is that reports used to be issued by independent counsels. And one of the complaints about the independent counsel statute was that an ordinary citizen, when investigated, they're charged with a crime or they're not; they're not charged with a crime, people don't talk about it.

Because of the interest in making sure that -- well, there's an interest in independent counsels to making sure those investigations were done thoroughly but then people ended up issuing reports for people not charged. And one of the criticisms leveled was that you should not issue reports about people who are not charged with a crime.

That statute lapsed. I'm not an independent counsel, and I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don't think I should have that authority. I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet.

QUESTION: Isn't it kind of true that Mr. Comey's letter to you makes you in essence almost a de facto attorney general and you can abide or not abide by the CFRs or the regulations as to whether or not to write -- to write a report or not to write a report?

And the follow-up is, every special counsel prior to you has in fact written a report and turned it over to Congress, and they've gotten around the grand jury issue as well.

FITZGERALD: Let me say this. I think any prior special counsel may have been special counsel appointed to -- certain regulations for people outside the Department of Justice, which I do not fit into. I'm not an independent counsel. I may be unique in this sense. I can tell you, I'm very comfortable, very clear that I do not have that authority.

And the extent that I was given sort of the acting attorney general hat for this case, it's the acting attorney general, but the attorney general can't violate the law. And the law on grand jury secrecy is the law.

So I may have a lot of power for this one case in the acting attorney general hat, but I followed the Code of Federal Regulations in this case, and I certainly would follow the law.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, the Republicans previewed some talking points in anticipation of your indictment and they said that if you didn't indict on the underlying crimes and you indicted on things exactly like you did indict -- false statements, perjury, obstruction -- these were, quote/unquote, "technicalities," and that it really was over reaching and excessive.

And since, when and if they make those claims, now that you have indicted, you won't respond, I want to give you an opportunity now to respond to that allegation which they may make. It seems like that's the road they're going down.

FITZGERALD: And I don't know who provided those talking points. I assume...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: I'm not asking -- OK.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: I'll be blunt.

That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.

FITZGERALD: And I'd say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.

When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.

In Philadelphia, where Jack works, they prosecute false statements and obstruction of justice.

When I got to Chicago, I knew the people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases.

FITZGERALD: And we do it all the time. And if a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something where they go into a grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time.

Any notion that anyone might have that there's a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.

If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it's a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.

QUESTION: This doesn't relate to the charges, so I'm hoping maybe you can shed some light on this.

In your investigation, have you determined how it was that Ambassador Wilson became the person to be sent to Niger to investigate this situation, how directly involved was his wife in this selection, how much pressure she may have put on officials?

QUESTION: And also I'm wondering about the cooperation you've received from the CIA.

FITZGERALD: I think all government agencies that we have turned to for cooperation have cooperated.

I might have a comment on the circumstances of the trip. I think the only thing that's relevant, frankly, is the belief in the mind of some people that she was involved in the trip or responsible for sending the trip. The dispute as to whether, in fact, she was is irrelevant to the charge before us.

What we're talking about is why -- the investigation was why someone compromised her identity. And the issue in this indictment is whether or not Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally lied about the facts.

And whatever happened in that trip and what role, if any, the wife played is really irrelevant and not our focus.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: What is set forth is a belief on his part that she played a role in the trip, and that is set forth in the indictment.

Whether that belief is 100 percent, 100 percent false, or a mixture of both, is, sort of, irrelevant. But it does set forth in there that he had that belief that she was involved in the trip.

QUESTION: Are you at all concerned that Mr. Libby or his counsel sought to affect or discourage the testimony of Judy Miller by withholding a so-called personal waiver allowing her to testify notwithstanding a pledge of confidentiality or (inaudible) letter to her that she reportedly received when was in jail?

by withholding a so-called personal waiver allowing her to testify notwithstanding a pledge of confidentiality or (inaudible) letter to her that she reportedly received when was in jail?

FITZGERALD: And I'm not going to comment on anything that's not in the indictment, but I can tell you that we're not relying upon anything other than the indictment, which the obstruction of justice charges set forth, the statements by Mr. Libby to the FBI, and the testimony under oath to the grand jury as being the basis of the obstruction charge and nothing else.

QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That's a good question. And I think, knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government, not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified, is not enough.

FITZGERALD: You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness.

And that is sort of what gets back to my point. In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is.

So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.

But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable.

It's not as if you say, "Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute."

FITZGERALD: I think -- but I will say this: The whole point here is that we're going to make fine distinctions and make sure that before we charge someone with a knowing, intentional crime, we want to focus on why they did it, what they knew and what they appreciated; we need to know the truth about what they said and what they knew.

QUESTION: Does that mean you don't feel that you know the truth about whether he intentionally did this and he knew and appreciated it? Or does that mean you are exercising your prosecutorial discretion and being conservative?

FITZGERALD: Well, I don't want to -- look, a person is charged with a crime, they are presumed innocent, and I haven't charged him with any other crime.

And all I'm saying is the harm and the obstruction crime is it shields us from knowing the full truth.

I won't go beyond that.

QUESTION: First, will you actually prosecute this case individually yourself? And, second, have you learned anything about the way the inside of Washington works that surprises you through this investigation?

(LAUGHTER)

FITZGERALD: The latter, yes.

(LAUGHTER)

And the former, yes and no.

I will be involved in the prosecution.

But if you meant individually, if I will personally participate, yes.

FITZGERALD: If we met individually -- I haven't done this individually. I have a great team from D.C., main Justice, FBI in Chicago and it will be a team effort.

QUESTION: If during the course of the public trial information comes out with regard to other people who have leaked the source of the leak or other people who exposed Ms. Plame's identity, will this then reverberate back to you since you had been studying this, if new information is forthcoming during the course of the trial?

FITZGERALD: If I could answer your question with a bucket of cold water and say, "Let's not read too much into it," any new information that would ever come to light while the investigation is open would be handled by our investigative team concerning these facts.

So if there's there's anything that we haven't learned yet that we learn that should be addressed, we will address it. But I don't want to create any great expectations out there by giving, sort of, a general answer.

QUESTION: Just to be clear -- you did touch on this earlier -- with the grand jury time being done, you have no plans to file another grand jury related to this case at all, is that correct?

FITZGERALD: No. I think what I said is we could use any other grand jury or avail of another grand jury. We couldn't use the grand jurors whose term has expired today any further.

QUESTION: Can you clarify for us, this is not just the word of three reporters versus the vice president's chief of staff? And I ask that in the sense of how it may be difficult to proceed at trial with memories about something that happened long ago.

FITZGERALD: I can't comment on the trial evidence, and I won't tell you the witnesses. I can't. Sorry. The rules are you don't discuss criminal...

QUESTION: But I guess, to put it another way, why are you confident that this is the right thing to do, given that you're dealing with memories of people from something long ago?

FITZGERALD: What I can tell you is a prosecutor is allowed to lay out the charges, and a prosecutor is not allowed to vouch for the charges. And what I'll say is we're comfortable proceeding.

FITZGERALD: But you're right: Let's go to a trial. Let's reserve judgment. And our burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. By indicting him, we're committing to doing that. But he is presumed innocent, and let's let the process play out.

QUESTION: Can you explain in general terms why a subject or witness would be given multiple opportunities to come back before the grand jury? Are there times that you've given the opportunity to set the record straight?

FITZGERALD: I don't want to answer that in this context because I think people will read too much into it. So I'm not going to give a hypothetical answer to something where I think your based upon beliefs that are not hypothetical. Sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

I don't want to comment on generally what happens in grand jury investigations when you're here. After we've just returned an indictment from a particular grand jury investigation, there's no way that people would read my answer as other than commenting on this grand jury investigation. That's what I'm trying to say.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) last minute that you would allow a defense lawyer to come in and see you one more time and to make the case -- it was very curious at the last minute there was considerable FBI activity. Wilson's neighbors were interviewed, witnesses were contacted at the last minute.

QUESTION: What are we supposed to read into that, you were just buttoning up your case, you know, crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s? There was a considerable flurry of activity.

FITZGERALD: I think -- with all respect I think someone interviewed the person who shined my shoes the other day. We've been doing lots of interests, but if suddenly you put a camera on everyone working on the case and follow them when they have coffee and have lunch, anything we do in the ordinary course of business looks like a flurry of activity.

There was a flurry of attention. I won't go beyond that. Look, when we investigate things we're always going out and doing things. I'm not going to do a time line. We obviously wanted to get as much done before October 28th as we could. I would have loved to have finished the case completely by October 28th. This grand jury served long and hard and was very, very attentive. We're grateful for their service.

So I wanted to get as much accomplished before October 28th, but I wouldn't read anything beyond that. I'm not going to comment on any discussions we had with any counsel.

QUESTION: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.

Does this indictment do that?

FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

FITZGERALD: They will be frustrated and, frankly, it would just -- it wouldn't be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.

QUESTION: Have you sought any expansion of your authority since February of 2004?

FITZGERALD: No.

I do know there was a letter, and I haven't looked back. There was a clarified letter...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: Yes. I think there were two letters in early 2004, and that's it. There's nothing changed since then.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) further issues that you want to look into or anything like that?

FITZGERALD: I'm not looking to expand my authority or mandate and haven't -- I think the second letter is a clarification of the first. Nothing has changed since February 2004 at all.

QUESTION: There's a saying in Washington that it's not the crime, it's the cover up.

Can you just tell us whether if Mr. Libby had testified truthfully, would he be being charged in this crime today?

Also, how do you decide if whether or not to charge Official A?

And also, it's a little hazy I think for many of us -- you say that Valerie Plame's identity was classified, but you're making no statement as to whether she was covert.

QUESTION: Was the leaking of her identity in and of itself a crime?

FITZGERALD: OK. I think you have three questions there. I'm trying to remember them in order. I'll go backwards.

And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.

That is a difficult statute to interpret. It's a statute you ought to carefully apply.

I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.

Let me back up. The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that's specifically just says, "If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."

There may be an Official Secrets Act in England. There are some narrow statutes, and there is this one statute that has some flexibility in it.

So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act.

FITZGERALD: I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.

That actually feeds into the other question. When you decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime, you want to know as many facts as possible. You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts.

Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.

We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight.

And our commitment on the other end is to use our judgment as to what we prosecute.

FITZGERALD: And if we don't prosecute, we keep quiet.

And we're simply saying in here, we didn't get the straight story, and we had to -- had to take action.

(CROSSTALK)

FITZGERALD: I would refer you to Isikoff who took great notes on his question about people not charged, which I cannot answer.

QUESTION: I have four questions.

FITZGERALD: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Now, can you clarify the business question of keeping the grand jury open, which won't be the same grand jury -- I mean, you said you've done the essential bulk of your investigation is finished. Does that mean, in layman's terms, that you're just, kind of, in the mopping up phase, or are there things that you're actively pursuing?

And if so, can you explain to us lay people, bringing this to a grand jury that hasn't been involved for 24 years -- or 24 months -- what does that -- it feels like 24 years -- what does that entail? Do you have to, sort of, start from zero then bring them up to speed?

FITZGERALD: I think it varies on what you need to do, but I just -- you could probably talk to lots of people who don't know the case who could tell you what the general experience is. But if I try to opine on how that happens, there's no way you're not going to look at my answer as telling what's going on with this grand jury investigation, and I can't do that.

QUESTION: Do you feel that Judge Tadall's (ph), Tetogin (ph), other circuit judge's references to evidence of important potential breach of public trust that was carried in your ex parte submissions last year -- do you feel that the charges that you brought now are in line with the submissions you made then and what you said you had potential evidence of?

FITZGERALD: I think there's two questions in that, which I'll say: Is our charge -- does that line up with the secret classified filing? I can't talk about, so I won't comment because I don't want to give you an idea of what's in there.

However, you're asking do these charges vindicate a serious breach of the public trust? Absolutely.

If you're going to have a grand jury investigation into the improper disclosure of national security information and you're going to have someone in the position Mr. Libby is lying to the FBI on two occasions and going before a grand jury on two occasions and telling false testimony and obstructing the investigation, that, to me, defines a serious breach of the public trust.

QUESTION: You had said that the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is completed. A lot of the players, some of the lawyers, some of the people involved (inaudible) through Watergate, through Iran-Contra, through Monica Lewinsky.

Does this case, based on what you know now, remotely compare to the specter of any of those cases?

FITZGERALD: I don't even know how to answer that. I'm just going to take a dive.

(LAUGHTER)

Sorry.

QUESTION: Did you seek any counts that the grand jury did not return?

FITZGERALD: I don't know if I'm allowed to say that.

(LAUGHTER)

Someone gave me a big shake of a head no, that I'm not allowed to say it, so I better not do it.

QUESTION: Can you characterize for us at all the dynamic of the grand jury? Were the members tired? Were they particularly active or involved?

QUESTION: Were they worried that this involves such high-ranking officials? Is there anything you can tell us about that?

FITZGERALD: I can only say this. I can't comment on their emotions or reactions, but I'll say this.

They were a very, very hard-working grand jury, very, very dedicated. And I don't think people fully appreciate how an investigative grand jury can be different.

You know, sometimes you can -- fairly routine to go into a grand jury and say, "Mr. Eckenrode is going to testify about a bank robbery. Here's a picture of the guy with the gun in his hand, with a note. Here's his fingerprint on the note. And here's his confession. You know, how do you vote?"

This grand jury is very, very different.

And what struck me, the one thing that's in the public record, which I hadn't realized would be there, but if you look at the indictment, the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby is charged with perjury in response to a grand juror's question. And it's phrased in there that the grand jury would like to know.

And I just think it shows that the grand jury people take their obligation seriously, they ask questions. And in this country, we have people who probably got notices who thought, "What a pain in the neck this is going to be." And it was a pain in the neck for them for two years, but they worked very, very hard, and if they asked a question and someone lied to them, that was vindicated.

QUESTION: Did Bob Novak cooperate with your investigation?

FITZGERALD: I can't comment.

QUESTION: Anything that would prevent anyone who was a witness from telling of their experience, in grand jury rules, I mean?

FITZGERALD: The grand jury rules limit the prosecutors. They don't limit the witnesses.

I know there's a debate out there from people as to who should say what about what, and I'm not wading into that, other than I have asked people, as a request, not to compromise the investigation by talking. And I'll just leave it at that.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate needing to empanel a new grand jury in order to wrap up?

FITZGERALD: I'm not going to comment.

QUESTION: Do you need a new grand jury? Would you need to empanel a new one if you needed to bring further charges?

FITZGERALD: I can't charge myself, so if we wanted to bring charges we'd need a grand jury to do that. But I don't want to comment beyond that.

Here's what I'm trying to convey: We're not quite done, but I don't want to add to a feverish pitch. It's very, very routine that you keep a grand jury available for what you might need.

And that's all I can say because of the rules of grand jury secrecy, and that's it.

QUESTION: Is there any possibility of anybody else being charged?

FITZGERALD: I'm not going to -- I can't go beyond that. Sorry.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) legal jeopardy right now?

(LAUGHTER)

FITZGERALD: That one -- that didn't get any better.

(LAUGHTER)

You're getting cold, not hot.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: You said you couldn't comment outside the four corners of the indictment, but you did make a general statement when you said that all government agencies cooperated.

There were some deferred e-mails that were produced by the White House very late in the investigation that, in fact, in part, triggered the expansion and, earlier, the appointment of the counsel, as I understand.

Do you stand by the statement that all government agencies cooperated? And was the delay of the e-mails inadvertent or purposeful, something you looked at...

FITZGERALD: You built some facts into the question that I'm not going to adopt, and so I'm not going to get into reports in the newspaper that certain things happened, and then if I'm not allowed to confirm it, deny them, build it into a question.

All I'll tell you is I'll stand behind that every agency cooperated with us.

QUESTION: Can you tell just us in laymen's terms -- because I don't know a lot about this -- what is the maximum sentence that Mr. Libby could receive -- that he's charged with all...

FITZGERALD: I believe the obstruction count has a maximum penalty of 10 years. The perjury counts and the false statements counts each have a maximum penalty of five years.

FITZGERALD: So there's four five-year counts and one 10-year count.

Now, for a layman, I would step back under these guidelines called the sentencing guidelines that take certain offenses and they are now nonbinding on the federal judges. But they would take into account all sorts of factors about the offense, the circumstances, the person who committed it, if the person were convicted.

And I don't want to jump past -- there's a trial there. But if they were convicted, the judge would look to the sentencing guidelines for guidance as to what actual sentence would be imposed.

So plenty of room, but there's no mandatory minimum. It's zero to 50 years, and that would be a judge's decision.

QUESTION: Does Mr. Libby have any say, now that he has resigned -- and, of course, you brought this indictment today -- to then come to you and say, "Well, this is" -- in other words, break open some of these facts?

And are there ramifications, both at the State Department and DOD, that you're then able to also investigate?

And what has gone on -- to what degree has that shaped the speech that Secretary Powell gave at the United Nations that many people have criticized him for?

FITZGERALD: And I don't think I can answer any of that. I'm not going to speculate what Mr. Libby would do, and I haven't been tracking the ramifications at the various agencies. We've had our hands full.

QUESTION: Just to go back to your comments about the damage that was done by disclosing Valerie Wilson's identify, there are some critics who have suggested that she was not your traditional covert agent in harm's way, that she was working, essentially, a desk job at Langley.

Just to answer those critics, can you elaborate on, aside from the fact that some of her neighbors may now know that she was -- and the country, for that matter -- that she was a CIA officer, what jeopardy, what harm was there by disclosing her identity?

FITZGERALD: I will say this. I won't touch the specific damage assessment of what specific damage was caused by her compromise -- I won't touch that with a 10-foot pole. I'll let the CIA speak to that, if they wish or not.

I will say this: To the CIA people who are going out at a time that we need more human intelligence, I think everyone agrees with that, at a time when we need our spy agencies to have people work there, I think just the notion that someone's identity could be compromised lightly, to me compromises the ability to recruit people and say, "Come work for us, come work for the government, come be trained, come invest your time, come work anonymously here or wherever else, go do jobs for the benefit of the country for which people will not thank you, because they will not know," they need to know that we will not cast their anonymity aside lightly.

FITZGERALD: And that's damage. But I'm not going to go beyond that.

QUESTION: What happens to Mr. Libby now? What's your understanding? Is he going to be arrested or will he just have to appear at the first hearing? What's your agreement with his attorneys on that?

FITZGERALD: My understanding is we will not be arresting Mr. Libby. We will arrange for him to appear before whatever judge was assigned. You may know who the judge was assigned, but I don't because I came from there to here. And whatever the judge tells us do, we will do.

QUESTION: A federal shield law has been discussed in the wake of your arrest of -- your holding of Judy Miller and other issues in this trial. If there had been a federal shield law, and there may be in the future, how would that have affected your work? Are you for or against a federal shield law protecting reporters' confidentiality of sources?

FITZGERALD: I see there's three questions. Am I for or against the shield law? And I don't think I should, in my capacity, opine for the Department of Justice on the shield law. I know Mr. Comey gave some testimony recently about one proposed shield law. Mr. Rosenberg, the U.S. attorney in Texas, gave written and oral testimony in the Department of Justice. I'm not schooled to tell you what the Department of Justice's position is on the shield law.

I will also tell you there are many people -- and a shield law can be a very generic description.

FITZGERALD: Does it mean an absolute shield, is it a qualified shield? What are the exceptions?

And I've heard lots of people comment that many versions of the shield law would still have allowed us to subpoena the testimony we did in this case.

And I can tell you that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Hogan, who said if there was any qualified privilege, whatever the hurdle was, no matter how high, it was exceeded in this case.

And I think what people don't understand -- I understand why it is that newspapers want sources. And I read newspapers and I'm glad you have sources.

This is different. This was a situation where the conversations between the official and the reporter may have been a crime itself. It wasn't someone saying, "Hey, so and so is doing something really, really awful down the hall, but I'm going to get fired if I tell you."

If you're transmitting classified information, it's the crime itself.

But also the reporter is the eyewitness, and what I think people don't appreciate is we interviewed lots of people, very high officials, before we ever went to the reporters.

And if it is apparent the grand jury was investigating to find out whether Mr. Libby lied under oath about his conversations with reporters, how could you ever resolve it without talking to the reporter?

FITZGERALD: You couldn't walk in and responsibly charge someone for lying about a conversation when there were only two witnesses to it and you talked to one. That would be insane.

On the other hand, if you walked away from it with a belief that that conversation may have been falsely described under oath, you were walking away from your responsibility.

And that's why, when the subpoenas were challenged, we put forward what it is that we knew and we let judges pass on it.

So I think people shouldn't read this exceptional case as being something more than it's not.

And I think there's a pendulum that shifts. I'm not recommending that reporters be subpoenaed to my colleagues. I don't -- you know this is not -- we have to maintain a balance. And I think what people will recognize is that this was narrow grounds, that they were justified, that we followed attorney general guidelines, that the court found that we satisfied those guidelines, the court found that we met any bar.

FITZGERALD: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed unanimously. The Supreme Court declined certiorari.

I think we ought to step back, take a deep breath and appreciate what the facts were here that are not the ordinary case before we rush into debates about balancing two very important things: the First Amendment and national security. And I don't take either lightly.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, can you say, does your request to witnesses that they not discuss the case publicly continue beyond this point through the trial? If so, how long will it continue for?

And is there a point at which that request conceivably could impede Mr. Libby's right to gather witnesses and facts in his own behalf?

FITZGERALD: I'll be perfectly frank: I haven't even thought about that. It's been a long day, and maybe I need to sleep on that.

QUESTION: Well, but are you continuing to request -- what about the first half of that? You're not sure if you think witnesses should remain silent?

FITZGERALD: I probably need to take a step back and figure out what requests we're going to make or not. I don't want to wing it from here if I haven't thought it through.

QUESTION: You used the phase, "not quite done." There will be lots of speculation on what you mean.

QUESTION: Can you help us by being any more specific?

FITZGERALD: No, because I probably -- if I choose other words -- you're reading tea leaves, and don't, because I don't draw a very good tea leaf.

So if you're not quite trying to figure out what's going on, on the grand jury, sorry, but that's a good thing. We're not supposed to tell you what's going on in the grand jury.

I'm trying to let the public know that we're trying to do our job responsibly, we're trying to do things as quickly as we can, and we want to get things wrapped up.

I've got plenty of other cases. I've got a full-time job. Jack has a full-time job in Philadelphia. My full-time job is in Chicago. Everyone working on this case has another full-time job.

So we want to get this resolved, but I'm trying to give you just a brief read out on where we are without compromising anything on the grand jury.

QUESTION: How confident are you that there will be a trial?

FITZGERALD: That's not for me to determine and I'm not going to...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: That's not a conversation that I have through a camera. And in all seriousness, if any case when I have been asked about people charged with other crimes, when people talk about plea bargains, you have to say, "Look, we brought a serious charge. The person's presumed innocent."

FITZGERALD: I'm not going to have a conversation about a plea bargain that assumes a person's willing to admit their guilt when they haven't been proven guilty.

So that's for Mr. Libby and his counsel to decide. And I'm not going to be presumptuous and I'm not going to discuss anything like that on national television.

QUESTION: Maybe we can hone this down just a little bit.

We know that there could not be a conspiracy of one -- and he has not been charged with conspiracy. Considering that with which he is charged at this point, do you believe that Mr. Libby acted alone?

FITZGERALD: I'm going to comment beyond the indictment. Don't read anything into that. But I just -- the indictment sets forth a charge. We're not going to go there.

I've been told two more...

QUESTION: Let's assume we're winding down (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: OK.

I hope we're winding down.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: You said you're eager to go back to Chicago. How long do you think the second phase, the trial phase might last, years, a year?

FITZGERALD: I thought I ducked that question several times.

But if I didn't, I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- as quickly as we can.

QUESTION: And secondly, if you empanel a second grand jury, is it always 18 months or is it 12 months?

FITZGERALD: I don't know. They vary.

And I'm just -- I'm not going to give you any time frame questions because I'll be as vague as I have been already and just waste time.

QUESTION: In the absence of an independent counsel statute, there's been no suggestion here of political interference and the attorney general and the previous attorney general both recused themselves.

But I'm wondering after what you've been through, whether you think the special counsel rules under which you conducted this investigation gave you the absolute assurances that you needed throughout the whole process that there could not possibly be political interference for your team by this or any future Justice Department?

FITZGERALD: Let me put it even more starkly.

There was no political interference whatsoever with my team or our work on this case. That's all I can vouch for.

QUESTION: Did Harriet Miers' withdrawal yesterday have anything to do with the timing of your indictment today?

(LAUGHTER)

FITZGERALD: No. You did confuse me.

Thank you.

FDCH e-MEDIA

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340_pf.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2801340_pf.html[/url

On the Record Comments by Rove's Attorney

July 12, 2005, 4:26 p.m.
Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove
Rove’s attorney talks to NRO.


The lawyer for top White House adviser Karl Rove says that Time reporter Matthew Cooper "burned" Rove after a conversation between the two men concerning former ambassador Joseph Wilson's fact-finding mission to Niger and the role Wilson's wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, played in arranging that trip. Nevertheless, attorney Robert Luskin says Rove long ago gave his permission for all reporters, including Cooper, to tell prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about their conversations with Rove.

In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..."

A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps."

The story continued:

Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.

Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.

Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."

"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."

Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."

Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.

A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail."

Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe. "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming term," Luskin says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a very broad view of what a subject is."

Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp

This transcript of on the record comments by Joe Wilson is courtesy of Concerned Observer.

Joseph Wilson: 'Karl Rove should be fired'
Wilson says 'justice' was served by Libby's indictment

Editor's Note: CNN Access is a regular feature on CNN.com providing interviews with newsmakers from around the world.

(CNN) -- Retired career diplomat and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson has been a prominent figure throughout special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked the secret identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife.

Three days after a federal grand jury indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, in the CIA leak investigation, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer talked Monday with Wilson.

BLITZER: Do you have confidence in Patrick Fitzgerald?

WILSON: Absolutely. In fact, I think the one thing that the indictment showed the other day is that our system of justice works; that in a nation that is based upon the rule of law, no man is above the law. And that's what Pat Fitzgerald said and made very clear.

BLITZER: Are you, though, disappointed that he didn't charge anyone with outing your wife as an undercover CIA operative?

WILSON: Well, I think it's important to remember two things.

One, he was unable to indict on anything other than the charges because, as he said, his investigation into this was impeded by the obstruction of justice and perjury.

And two, as he said, the state's interests were vindicated by the indictments that were handed down.

And three, finally, this is not a crime against Joe Wilson or Valerie Wilson, it's a crime against the country, against the national security of the country.

So we have no vote in whether or not we're disappointed or not disappointed.

BLITZER: But you were hoping that someone would actually -- that you'd get to the bottom of this: Who decided to out your wife as a CIA operative?

WILSON: Well, I think we pretty much are at the bottom. We now know, both from Mr. [Matthew] Cooper's testimony, the Time reporter testimony, that Mr. Rove gave him Valerie's name; and we know from the indictment that Mr. Libby was going around giving ...

BLITZER: But you understand why that's not a crime -- that wasn't deemed a crime by Patrick Fitzgerald?

WILSON: Well, again, it has not been indicted as a crime yet because, as Mr. Fitzgerald said, his investigation into the bottom of this was impeded by the obstruction of justice -- and the investigation is ongoing.

BLITZER: So you're still looking toward that.

On August 21, 2003, at a forum, you were quoted as saying this -- and I believe you did say this because we've talked about it: "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

He's still working at the White House. He's the deputy White House chief of staff.

WILSON: And I think that Karl Rove should be fired. I think that this idea that you can, with impunity, call journalists and leak national security information is repugnant.

It is not fitting for a senior White House official. It is below any standard of ethical comportment, even if it is not technically illegal, because of the high standard of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

But nonetheless, there's now clear evidence that Mr. Rove was leaking classified information. Mr. Fitzgerald made it very clear.

My wife was a covert officer at the time that these people were leaking her name.

I believe it's an abuse of the public trust. And even if he can't be convicted of it, I see no reason why somebody like that, why the president would want to have somebody like that working on his staff.

BLITZER: Well, forget about conviction. He hasn't even been charged with a crime.

WILSON: Again, it's now very clear that he leaked it. Mr. Cooper's sworn testimony indicates that. The e-mails indicate that.

BLITZER: Let's go through some of the criticism that's been leveled at you, afresh over these past several days since this whole leak investigation was coming to a boil last Friday.

A lot of your critics blame you for the eventual disclosure of your wife as a CIA operative, and they go back to that early May 2003 column by The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who first reported about an unnamed U.S. ambassador making this trip to Africa.

Were you the source, Nicholas Kristof's source, for that column?

WILSON: Well, I was a source for that column.

But let me just say two things. One, this has never been about Valerie or me. This has always been about the 16 words in the [2003] State of the Union address, first and foremost -- and then, second, about who leaked Valerie's name.

And I would point out to you that the indictment does not name Joe Wilson as somebody who leaked Valerie's name.

BLITZER: Well, the indictment doesn't name anyone necessarily as a crime in terms of leaking ...

WILSON: The testimony that has been made public indicates that Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove leaked Valerie's name to the members of the press. There's nothing in any of the testimony to suggest that Joe Wilson did -- unlike what Mr. [Joseph] diGenova [a former U.S. attorney who was a special prosecutor during the Clinton administration] said on this program last week.

BLITZER: Why didn't you tell Nicholas Kristof about your trip to Africa?

WILSON: I had attempted to talk directly to the State Department and to a number of Democratic senators and to get the record corrected. I felt that after it was clear that what the president was referring to in the State of the Union address was Niger, and that the trip that I went on was based upon a transcription of these documents that later were shown to be forgeries.

It was important for the administration to correct the record.

BLITZER: Because, as you know, this was two months before the Robert Novak column appeared.

WILSON: It is an act of civic duty, it is what citizens across this country do every day in our democracy -- you hold your government to account for what your government says and does in the name of the American people.

This happened to be an area where I had certain expertise and experience.

BLITZER: Former CIA officer Robert Behr was quoted in Saturday's Washington Post as saying this: "The fact is, once your husband writes an op-ed piece and goes political, you have no immunity and that's the way Washington works."

In other words, he's one of those suggesting that by your going public in various ways, your wife's identity was eventually going to be made known.

WILSON: Again, my name didn't appear in the indictment. There are instances of -- and you go to the Spy Museum here, you can see a number of high-profile people who served their country even though they had high-profile positions in different professions.

BLITZER: Even though some of your supporters were on this program last week -- Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer; Pat Lang, a former DIA intelligence analyst. They say your decision and your wife's decision to let her be photographed represented a major mistake because, if there were people out there who may have been endangered by her name, certainly when people might have seen her picture, they could have been further endangered.

WILSON: Her contacts and her network was endangered the minute that Bob Novak wrote the article. The photograph of her did not identify her in any way anybody could identify.

Now you asked me this question -- you've asked me this question three or four times ...

BLITZER: About the photograph?

WILSON: About the photograph.

Now, I have never heard you ask the president about the layout in the Oval Office when they did the war layout. I've never heard you ask Mr. Wolfowitz about the layout in Vanity Fair. But you ask me all the time.

So let me just get this very clear: When one is faced with adversity, one of the ways one acts in the face of adversity is to try and bring a certain amount of humor to the situation. It's called irony.

And if people have no sense of humor or no sense of perspective on that, my response is: It's about time to get a life.

But in no way did that picture endanger anybody. What endangered people was the outing of her name -- her maiden name -- and, subsequently, the outing of the corporation that she worked for.

BLITZER: So you don't have any regrets about the Vanity Fair picture?

WILSON: I think it's a great picture. I think someday you will, too.

BLITZER: It's a great picture. But I mean the fact that ...

WILSON: I think someday it, too, will be in the International Spy Museum.

BLITZER: But you don't think it was a mistake to do that?

WILSON: No.

BLITZER: OK.

Let's talk about Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, Republican. He was on this program, as you well know -- he among others suggesting: Well, she had a desk job, she was an analyst in the Counterproliferation Division at the CIA. She was no longer really what they call a NOC, someone working nonofficial cover overseas, and that it was really no big deal.

WILSON: Well, I don't think Mr. diGenova knows what he's talking about in this particular matter. I would go back to the indictment and Mr. Fitzgerald's preamble in which he's made it clear: She was a classified officer. She was covered by the various statutes related to the handling of classified information.

It's as simple as that.

BLITZER: Did you ever go around in cocktail parties -- because this has been alleged against you as well -- before the Robert Novak column and boast "my wife, the CIA agent," "my wife works for the CIA"?

WILSON: Of course not.

First of all, [we have] 5-year-old twins and so we don't go to very many cocktail parties. You've seen me at precisely one in the many years that we've been in Washington together. And that was actually a book party. And you did not see my wife there and you didn't hear me say anything about my wife at that.

BLITZER: How well known was it that she worked for the CIA before the Novak column?

WILSON: It was not known outside the intelligence community.

The day after the Novak article appeared, my sister-in-law, my brother's wife, turned to him and asked him: "Do you think Joe knows this?"

BLITZER: Your trip to Niger -- there's been some suggestion that she came up with the idea of sending you to Niger. And the Senate -- we've gone through this, but I'll let you respond since it keeps coming up over and over again -- the Select Committee on Intelligence that came out July 7, 2004, last year said this:

"Interviews and documents provided to the committee" -- the Senate committee -- "indicated that his wife, a CPD" -- Counterproliferation Division -- "employee suggested his name for the trip."

Did she come up with the idea?

WILSON: No, that is not accurate. It doesn't reflect what happened. I was invited to a meeting. She conveyed that invitation from her superiors.

She also, at the request of superiors, provided them with sort of a list of my bona fides because they were doing contingency planning as to what they might want to do as a consequence of the outcome of the meeting, which was two days later after she wrote the report.

The reports officer, who apparently was quoted as saying that she offered up my name -- that's a quote -- came into her office subsequently and said that that was a misquote and he wanted to be re-interviewed by them.

That was contained in my letter back to Senator [Pat] Roberts and Senator [Orrin] Hatch and Senator [Kit] Bond after their additional views were published.

BLITZER: Larry Johnson, on this program last week, the former CIA officer, said your wife has been threatened by al Qaeda. Is that true?

WILSON: I won't go into specific threats. I'll tell you that there have been threats. And as a consequence, we've been working closely with the appropriate law enforcement agencies. We've changed our phone number and taken other security measures.

BLITZER: You don't want to go into details on that?

WILSON: Absolutely not.

BLITZER: If you had to do it all over again, looking backward, any changes you would have done?

WILSON: I would have written the article as I did because I believe -- I believe firmly -- that it is a civic responsibility to hold your government to account in a strong democracy.

And I can't think of much I would have changed. I suspect that, given the two-year character assassination campaign which was really designed to divert attention from the two key issues -- the 16 words in the State of the Union address and who leaked Valerie's name -- that there may have been some things I might have done differently, such as perhaps not getting engaged in a political campaign.

Although I will say this about that, and that is that I resent deeply the idea that others would try and deny me my right to participate fully in the selection of this country's leaders.

BLITZER: Because your wife is a CIA operative.

But let me ask a final question: Are you going to file any civil lawsuits against Libby, Cheney, anyone else?

WILSON: We're keeping all of our options open. There's a very complicated procedure for this, even though the case itself is relatively simple. And we have not come to any decision yet.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/wilson.interview/index.html

Here is the Washington Post article referenced above that appeared on that very important day of June 12, 2003.

CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data
Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01


A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.

The CIA's failure to share what it knew, which has not been disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated evidence.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more."

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

As the controversy over Iraq intelligence has expanded with the failure so far of U.S. teams in Iraq to uncover proscribed weapons, intelligence officials have accused senior administration policymakers of pressuring the CIA or exaggerating intelligence information to make the case for war. The story involving the CIA's uranium-purchase probe, however, suggests that the agency also was shaping intelligence on Iraq to meet the administration's policy goals.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and a candidate for president, yesterday described the case as "part of the agency's standard operating procedure when it wants to advance the information that supported their [the administration's] position and bury that which didn't."

Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador's report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken place, a senior administration said.

"This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends," a senior intelligence official said, describing the agency's view of the mission. "He relayed back to us that they said it was not true and that he believed them."

Thirteen months later, on March 8, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, informed the U.N. Security Council that after careful scrutiny of the Niger documents, his agency had reached the same conclusion as the CIA's envoy. ElBaradei deemed the documents "not authentic," an assessment that U.S. officials did not dispute.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation have described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in Niger. The documents had been sought by U.N. inspectors since September 2002 and they were delivered by the United States and Britain last February.

The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of nongovernment experts that is reviewing the handling of Iraq intelligence, is planning to study the Niger story and how it made its way into Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28. In making the case that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, Bush declared that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That same month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice also mentioned Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium, and the story made its way into a State Department "fact sheet" as well.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee and a leading administration critic, wrote the president June 2 asking why Bush had included the Niger case as part of the evidence he cited against Iraq. "Given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended -- that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa -- was simply false," Waxman said.

The CIA's decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney's staff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetus for a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.

Cheney and his staff continued to get intelligence on the matter, but the vice president, unlike other senior administration officials, never mentioned it in a public speech. He and his staff did not learn of its role in spurring the mission until it was disclosed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on May 6, according to an administration official.

When the British government published an intelligence document on Iraq in September 2002 claiming that Baghdad had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the former ambassador called the CIA officers who sent him to Niger and was told they were looking into new information about the claim, sources said. The former envoy later called the CIA and State Department after Bush's State of the Union speech and was told "not to worry," according to one U.S. official.

Later it was disclosed that the United States and Britain were basing their reports on common information that originated with forged documents provided originally by Italian intelligence officials.

CIA Director George J. Tenet, on Sept. 24, 2002, cited the Niger evidence in a closed-door briefing to the Senate intelligence committee on a national intelligence estimate of Iraq's weapons programs, sources said. Although Tenet told the panel that some questions had been raised about the evidence, he did not mention that the agency had sent an envoy to Niger and that the former ambassador had concluded that the claims were false.

The Niger evidence was not included in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Feb. 5 address to the Security Council in which he disclosed some intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs and links to al Qaeda because it was considered inaccurate, sources said.

Even so, the Voice of America on Feb. 20 broadcast a story that said: "U.S. officials tell VOA [that] Iraq and Niger signed an agreement in the summer of 2000 to resume shipments for an additional 500 tons of yellow cake," a reference to the uranium. The VOA, which is financed by the government but has an official policy of editorial independence, went on to say that there was no evidence such shipments had taken place.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Committee on Government Reform- Minority Office
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member

Report June, 2003


http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Docu...75040-89232.pdf

Dow Jones Seeks Access To Documents In Libby Case

By Pete Yost

The prosecutor in the CIA leak case has sparked another fight with the news media, this time over access to material that prosecutors will turn over to attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is seeking a protective court order that would bar Libby and his legal team from publicly disclosing "all materials produced by the government."

Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, went to court yesterday to fight the proposal.

"As the Supreme Court has recognized," Dow Jones said in court papers, " 'The criminal justice system exists in a larger context of a government ultimately of the people, who wish to be informed about happenings in the criminal justice system.' "

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not yet ruled.

Dow Jones cited a case in which a judge entered a similar broadly worded protective order that was subsequently overturned by a federal appeals court as unjustified.

"The fact that . . . this is a criminal case heightens the public interest in disclosure," Dow Jones argued in court papers. "The need for openness is heightened in cases such as this one, which involve issues of great national importance that have already generated considerable media coverage."

The news organization said any asserted need for secrecy in the Libby case is further undercut by the fact that Fitzgerald conducted a news conference to discuss the facts in the case.

"Moreover, many of the likely witnesses in the case have already disclosed the substance of their grand jury testimony to the public," lawyers for Dow Jones argued.

Dow Jones referred to first-person accounts of testimony in the investigation by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller, NBC reporter Tim Russert and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus.

Denying a blanket protective order does not necessarily mean that documents produced by prosecutors will be publicly disclosed, nor does it prevent prosecutors or defense lawyers from seeking more limited protection regarding documents "for which there is a legitimate need for secrecy," Dow Jones said.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111501857.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; Page A01

Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case 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.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, is at the center of an investigation into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

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. He based that testimony on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby in an interview that included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward said in his statement, however, that "I had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby. He also said that his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as "Wilson's wife."

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.

William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby's lawyers, said yesterday that Woodward's testimony undermines Fitzgerald's public claims about his client and raises questions about what else the prosecutor may not know. Libby has said he learned Plame's identity from NBC journalist Tim Russert.

"If what Woodward says is so, will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to a reporter?" Jeffress said last night. "The second question I would have is: Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?"

Fitzgerald has spent nearly two years investigating whether senior Bush administration officials illegally leaked classified information -- Plame's identity as a CIA operative -- to reporters to discredit allegations made by Wilson. Plame's name was revealed in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak, eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment yesterday.

Woodward is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and author best known for exposing the Watergate scandal and keeping secret for 30 years the identity of his government source "Deep Throat."


Bob Woodward is not naming his source, citing confidentiality.

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

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.

According to his statement, Woodward also testified about a third unnamed source. He told Fitzgerald that he does not recall discussing Plame with this person when they spoke on June 20, 2003.

It is unclear what prompted Woodward's original unnamed source to alert Fitzgerald to the mid-June 2003 mention of Plame to Woodward. Once he did, Fitzgerald sought Woodward's testimony, and three officials released him to testify about conversations he had with them. Downie, Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month.

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.

Woodward's statement said he testified: "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 said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson.

"Are you kidding?" Pincus said. "I certainly would have remembered that."

Pincus said Woodward may be confused about the timing and the exact nature of the conversation. He said he remembers Woodward making a vague mention to him in October 2003. That month, Pincus had written a story explaining how an administration source had contacted him about Wilson. He recalled Woodward telling him that Pincus was not the only person who had been contacted.

Woodward, who is preparing a third book on the Bush administration, has called Fitzgerald "a junkyard-dog prosecutor" who turns over every rock looking for evidence. The night before Fitzgerald announced Libby's indictment, Woodward said he did not see evidence of criminal intent or of a substantial crime behind the leak.

"When the story comes out, I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter," he told CNN's Larry King.

Woodward also said in interviews this summer and fall that the damage done by Plame's name being revealed in the media was "quite minimal."

"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," he told National Public Radio this summer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...rd.plameCIA.pdf

Statement of Bob Woodward Regarding Deposition on November 14, 2005

Here is the Larry King transcript referenced above

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Miers Withdraws; CIA Leak Investigation Nears Completion

Aired October 27, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, an extraordinary day for the White House. The president's embattled Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is out.
What will happen tomorrow? Will the CIA leak prosecutor have bad news for two major White House players?

We'll ask legendary reporter Bob Woodward, his remarkable access to the Bush White House has produced two best sellers; David Gergen, a former White House adviser to president's Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton; "Newsweek" investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff; Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina; and, Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut; and, in a little while, Judge Robert Bork a leading opponent of the Miers nomination knowing firsthand how ugly Supreme Court nominations can get. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

OK, let's get right to it, Bob Woodward. The White House says it's clear the Senators would not be satisfied until they gained internal documents concerning advice provided by her tenure at the White House. The president is not going to give them, so she's gone. Is that the reason?

BOB WOODWARD, "WASHINGTON POST" AUTHOR: No, obviously it's a realization of the politically weak position the president is in now because of other problems and also I think they did some practice sessions with her.

She's not a constitutional scholar and you can't learn constitutional law overnight and I think they realized that she was going to be quizzed in a way at these hearings that just would not have looked good. It probably would have been embarrassing.

KING: Senator Graham, did the right wing get her?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM ®, SOUTH CAROLINA: I think the truth is the tipping point came today when they got a letter from Senator Specter and Leahy saying that if you come over we need to know about your role in Guantanamo Bay and the legal advice you gave on some pretty sensitive matters and I think that was a reasonable position for the Senate to take.

And, they didn't want to disclose some of these documents and at the end of the day her personal performance when it came to individual Senators was short of where it should have been. That got her more than anything else. KING: David Gergen, was she doomed from the get-go?

DAVID GERGEN, WHITE HOUSE ADVISER TO PRESIDENTS NIXON, FORD, REAGAN AND CLINTON: Those words were just on my mind, Larry. I think that -- we were here the first night, as you recall, and we talked about the fact that she had the thinnest credentials of anybody who has been nominated for the court in a long, long time.

And, of course, those credentials not only caused problems among people to the middle and the left but among conservatives it caused enormous problems because they didn't know what her judicial philosophy was.

So, I think she had no chance at all. I think she did gracefully withdraw. I feel sorry for her because I think it was unfair to put her into this position. I think the people made a mistake who selected her and it was a mistake to ask her to do this and she withdrew before what would have been really excruciating hearings. Good for her to do that but we should continue to respect her as a person because I do think this must have been horribly painful for her.

KING: Michael, ironic that now she goes back to helping pick the next nominee?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK" INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Right and it's actually going to be a very difficult choice for the White House. You had two things going on that sunk her. One was the stature gap, particularly compared to the way, to John Roberts and how well he performed and his credentials.

But also you did have the conservative base of the president that was very much turned against her that didn't feel that she was a reliable vote for the issues they care about on the Supreme Court and they're emboldened by this. I think they will feel that now the president must return to his base and come up with a reliably conservative nominee and that, of course, can be -- is going to only inflame the Democrats.

KING: Senator Dodd, must he go to the base?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: Not necessarily and let me just underscore David Gergen's points. I don't know Harriet Miers. I didn't meet her. I wasn't one of the Senators that had a meeting with her but I feel for her and I think she was at the outset badly treated by the White House. They should have vetted her far more carefully in terms of all the issues that you've already heard expressed here this evening.

But this was the far right who did her in. Let's not kid ourselves here. I think had it gone to a vote, gone through the committee. Lindsey can answer better than I since he sits on the committee. I suspect she probably would have had the votes of the committee, at least the Republicans on the committee.

But this was a -- she never got a chance to even make a case. This crowd did her in. If this had been Democrats they'd be screaming out it today. She was absolutely I think undercut terribly, the president was by people of his own party.

I think the president just might, particularly if he makes a choice in the next few days, I think he might just go back to that crowd and say "I gave you a choice that was actually going to be pretty good for you people. You didn't listen to me and I'm now going to go to Gonzales or someone else that may be even more questionable for some of the people on the right." That could very well happen in my view.

KING: Now, Bob, you're doing a book on this second term. Is this one of the things that's going to be surprisingly flawful (ph) about this president, if there's such a word as flawful, a man who makes...

WOODWARD: It's a new word, Larry.

KING: It's sort of Jewish like (INAUDIBLE), a goof, this kind of goof?

WOODWARD: It depends. You know politics is a game of recovery and if they come up with a good nomination she will be forgotten but I want to take a little bit of a contrarian view here.

Bush was onto something by trying to select somebody who was not a professional judge. We've got all of these people on the Supreme Court who sit around -- who came there from the federal appeals courts and on the federal appeals courts what you do all day is look at legal paper and talk to lawyers and there is nothing more divorced from the real world than legal paper and lawyers. It also tends to numb the mind.

Bush was trying to put somebody from the outer world here, somebody who had some connections to real problems, now all those difficulties have been highlighted here but I think that instinct of putting somebody with different human experience is exactly the right one.

And there have been great people on the Supreme Court. William O. Douglas, Rehnquist, Justice Powell, who did not come from the federal judiciary. It's not necessary.

KING: Do you think he might go again Lindsey to -- away from...

GRAHAM: I hope he picks another woman because he's not required to do so but it would be good to have diversity on the court and there are a lot of great women conservative lawyers and judges. And, you're absolutely right, Bob. I thought it was a calculated decision to pick someone who doesn't come from the judge monastery. It would be good for the court.

And, I hang out with the right wing far more than ya'll do and let me tell you, let me tell you when I went home last week nobody was saying Harriet Miers has got to go. What got her I think is the debate was real with the White House when we were asking and insisting on some sensitive stuff because we don't have the paper trail and quite honestly the meetings didn't go well.

KING: David, what effect on the who he chooses, what effect will tomorrow have assuming there are indictments tomorrow?

GERGEN: That's a really interesting question whether it's going to -- if in fact a lot of his people get taken out and we have no idea which was this is going to go, then I think he may have even more reason to go to his base to nominate a conservative to rally his base because he's going to be in deep, deep trouble if he loses Karl Rove and Scooter Libby together over this. If he doesn't, then he'll have more leeway but I think if he's in a deep hole, he may decide to go back to his base.

Whether he would then look for someone who does not have a lot of judicial experience, I think that's possible and one name that occurs to me if he'd do it is Senator Cornyn from Texas, who did serve on the Texas Supreme Court for a number of years but is also a U.S. Senator and would be, you know, a certifiable conservative that would please a lot of people and I think the Senate would give him a lot of deference.

KING: We'll take a break and come back. We'll talk with Robert Bork, get the thoughts further of Michael Isikoff and Senator Dodd and then discuss the issue at hand what's going to happen tomorrow and why have there been no leaks about what's going to happen tomorrow? I came into Washington today and this is like assassination eve.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Judge Robert Bork, the former judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court by President Reagan was rejected by the Senate has been against Ms. Miers from the start. Were you surprised at the action today Judge Bork?

JUDGE ROBERT BORK, FORMER SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: A little bit. I thought maybe they would try to tough it out but I guess when they got word that she hadn't impressed the Senators on their one-on-one meetings and that it was doubtful they had the votes, I think that's when it turned.

KING: Do you think you and others on the right led this fight?

BORK: No, I don't think so. Well, we did complain about it considerably but the fact is the Democrats shouldn't be allowed to get away with the idea that it was only the conservatives who did her in.

There were lots of Democratic Senators who were saying very unpleasant things about her, so it's not a conservative triumph in any sense. It's a broad-based feeling that she didn't simply have the qualifications.

KING: And that was your reason?

BORK: Yes, it was. You know, she's undoubtedly a woman who has many talents and succeeded in many things but it was quite clear that she didn't have any particular familiarity with the Constitution or constitutional reasoning and that, of course, is the big game in the Supreme Court right now.

KING: Politics aside what makes a good Supreme Court judge?

BORK: A willingness to apply the Constitution according to the principles that are actually in it rather than what they call the evolving or the living Constitution, which simply means the judges begin to make it up.

If we have a -- you know my few favorites on the court are those same ones Bush named originally, that is Scalia and Thomas and we were all expecting a nomination of somebody in that mold and that's why the great sense of disappointment came when we didn't get that.

KING: Can you be a good Supreme Court justice and not agree with Scalia and Thomas? I'm trying to get do you want nine Scalias?

BORK: Yes. Now Scalia and I were on the court together, the Court of Appeals together and we agreed most of the time but we did differ now and then. You can have people who are trying to apply the original principles of the Constitution who may disagree from time to time about how they apply. It's not a mechanical process but I want somebody who is looking at the original meaning and not somebody who is making it up.

KING: Do you have a candidate in mind?

BORK: I have several but, you know, I suppose if I'd name them that would be the kiss of death but I don't mind giving them the kiss of death.

KING: Who do you -- what kind of person do you think he will nominate?

BORK: Pardon me? Well, I think the point that he has to rally his conservative base and therefore may nominate somebody acceptable to that base is a good point because he is sinking in the polls and I think it would do a lot of good for his poll numbers if he chose a tough, good candidate and went to the mat and argued in public about what kind of a Supreme Court justice should be appointed. I think that would be educational for the American public and I think it would show that he's a man of principle.

KING: Expect it to come soon?

BORK: I don't know about that. Sandra Day O'Connor...

KING: Thank you, Judge Bork. I'm sorry, what were you going to say?

BORK: I was going to say Sandra Day O'Connor agreed to stay on until her successor is confirmed. That may be a while yet so she may be staying longer than she thought.

KING: In fact, the National Review lead editorial said "Don't go." Thank you Judge Robert Bork, former judge.

What do you make of what he had to say Michael?

ISIKOFF: Well, it is actually a reminder that this is an enormously consequential selection because this is what's going to tip the balance of the courts. Sandra O'Connor was the swing vote on a court. Once Rehnquist resigned and Roberts took his place you have a split down the middle 4-4 court with O'Connor in the middle.

And so, whoever gets chosen is going to be the swing vote in the court and that raises the stakes on this one in a way that weren't there for the Roberts selection, so I think that makes both the interest groups on both sides more emboldened, more determined to fight this.

KING: You looking for a fight Senator Dodd?

DODD: No. I would think the president would be careful about looking for one here. I disagree with Judge Bork. I don't think he helps his politics. That's one of the criteria here and I'm sure it probably is at the White House. I think by going with a more moderate choice helps his politics. I think there's a misreading here.

Jack Danforth, who was certainly a very conservative member of the United States Senator when I served with him, said today in commenting about what's happened here that his fear is that the Republican Party has been taken over by the extreme right and I think that's a legitimate concern and worry and I think that the president seeks out that fight here.

There are a lot of Senators up, incumbents for reelection this year. This battle may not come until after January with a nominee. You're in a -- you're in a sort of a swing state here. You don't necessarily want this fight to have someone who appeals to Judge Bork and that wing of the Republican Party. That could be very damaging, so I'd be careful about that if I were you.

KING: And Danforth, Senator Graham, was the principal supporter of Thomas.

GRAHAM: Well, Scalia and Thomas are fine in my book but politics are intriguing. Roberts was probably the choice of the ages. I've never seen a more intellectually gifted person who happened to be a solid conservative and our numbers haven't moved an inch.

I would argue that our numbers are not tied to the Supreme Court choice but the nation's future is and if you want a fight we've got one in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've lost 2,000 young men and women over there. I want the Senate to give respect to the nominee. I expect a conservative.

But the politics of filibuster is bad for this country. It's bad for the Senate. It's bad for the presidency and I hope the president will pick who he believes in and we can't turn over the nominating process to the extreme to the right or the left because the law protects us all. KING: We'll take a break and when we come back we'll begin with Mr. Woodward. We'll go around the bend and ask what they think is going to happen tomorrow. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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 Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.

KING: (INAUDIBLE).

WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the "Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it."

KING: So now the rumors are about you.

WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.

KING: What do you think will happen?

WOODWARD: 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.

And, there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the "Washington Post" the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.

KING: And doesn't leak.

WOODWARD: And it doesn't leak and I think it's quite possible that though probably unlikely that he will say, you know, there was no malice or criminal intent at the start of this. Some people kind of had convenient memories before the grand jury. Technically they might be able to be charged with perjury.

But 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.

KING: David Gergen?

GERGEN: I don't know, Larry, either. To me the most important question is whether Karl Rove will be indicted. He's the president's right arm, as we all know, and the president is in a deep hole and it's very hard to climb out of a hole without your right arm. And so, I think that's what we need to know.

I saw Karl Rove by chance today in Washington and he seemed very chipper, focused, remarkably, I thought gutsy but he certainly conveyed the idea that he didn't know. He had no idea which way this was going to go.

After that if it's only Scooter Libby I think the White House politically escapes with a lot less damage if Karl Rove is not indicted and if it's only Scooter Libby.

If it were Scooter Libby, plus two or three others in the vice president's office that's going to cause a lot of problems for the White House because it's going to surround the vice president with lots and lots of questions for the remainder of the term and that is very damaging. So, I think we've got a range of possibilities. And Bob Woodward is absolutely right. There may be no indictments.

KING: Senator Graham what do you hear?

GRAHAM: It's not a good time for my president or my party and I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow but we'll get through it. Losing Karl Rove, if that happens, would be a blow to this president because Karl Rove is an instrumental figure in the success of the president. I think Bob is very much right. If it was who is Joe Wilson and why is he saying these things is a different story than let's go get Joe Wilson and destroy his life. I think it will be perceived as different.

And let me tell you this. If it's a violation of the Espionage Act everybody at this table is in trouble because the rules of the game have changed in this town because we talk a lot to each other off the record, on the record and background.

If it's a technical violation of the law that would I don't think serve the country well. If it's perjury, well then, you know, I've been pretty consistent. You can't do that.

KING: Senator Dodd?

DODD: Well, I don't know that it's going to meet the standards of complying with any of the criteria under the '82 law. That law is not well crafted in my view. It was a -- you could drive a Mack truck through it on the intent issue and so I'm not sure that the prosecutor is going to be able to -- I think Bob may be right, it may be hard legally.

But I don't think this was idle stuff. I mean there's a pattern of behavior here going back in those days. There's people like Richard Clarke and others. The administration took it very seriously. This wasn't some U.N. arms inspector.

This was a highly respected diplomat who was chosen to go over to determine whether or not there was any program between Niger and Iraq on nuclear weapons. He could, if he was credible he could blow a hole in the very argument the administration was making on why we ought to go to war. This is about Iraq.

It's not just a question -- this isn't about Joe Wilson (INAUDIBLE). That's a minor side to it. It's almost like Frank Wilson on the Watergate story, Bob. Frank Wilson is a minor figure in all of this.

WOODWARD: Frank Willis.

DODD: Willis.

WOODWARD: Yes.

DODD: The policeman who found the tapes on the door.

WOODWARD: Right.

DODD: I'm not suggesting Joe Wilson is quite in that category but close to it. But for the Iraq story this story is a minor section B story in Washington. The Iraq story is the story. That's what was going on here.

WOODWARD: I agree but there is some factual problems here. When Wilson went to Niger before all this blew up, in fact before there was a war, he came back and reported and Michael and others who have read the Senate Intelligence Committee on this know his report was very ambiguous.

In fact, most of the analysts at the CIA said that Wilson's findings when he went to Niger supported the conclusion that there was some deal with Iraq. Now that's, I mean the Democrats -- the Democrats and the Republicans all signed that report. That is a fact. And, you know, there are other facts and speculation.

DODD: That report didn't go into all of that. The report was about other issues. I mean...

WOODWARD: No, but it did. I've got it in my pocket. I'll read it if you want.

DODD: (INAUDIBLE) the mood here was to sell this and we now know because it was false. The information was false and to suggest that there weren't weapons of mass destruction on the nuclear program there was going to be a major blow to that argument. It's a very important issue.

KING: You walk around with this in your pocket?

WOODWARD: Yes, yes, I do because I knew I might be challenged.

ISIKOFF: Actually, we don't know exactly what Joe Wilson said when he came back because he didn't actually write a written report. You know it was an oral debriefing so you have CIA analysts who might have interpreted it in different ways.

But, the point -- there's a lot here we don't know but there's some that we've learned in recent weeks that does suggest that they really were out to get Wilson or criticize him or tear him down a bit.

If you read Judy Miller's account of her conversations with Scooter Libby, she talks about how angry Libby was about what Wilson was saying publicly and perhaps for understandable reasons. He was challenging the nuclear claim made by the vice president, which was central to the argument, the case for war, the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.

That was the dramatic metaphor that helped the administration sell the war in Iraq and here was, you know the first internal critic or somebody who had been working for the CIA to come out and challenge that. And so there was a pushback. Whether it rose to the level of criminality we simply don't know. The evidence is (INAUDIBLE).

KING: I got to get a break in. We'll pick right up with more. We'll also include some of your phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back in Washington. Let's remeet the panel.

Bob Woodward, editor and Pulitzer prize winning journalist of the "Washington Post." He's number one New York Times best-selling author as well. And most recent book "The Secret Man."

David Gergen in Boston. The White House adviser to several presidents. Editor-at-large, "U.S. News and World Report."

In Washington, Michael Isikoff, the famed investigative journalist for "Newsweek."

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, member of Judiciary Committee.

And Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, ranking member of Rules and Administration Committee on a member of Foreign Relations.

Poll just in, we polled 512 adult, CNN, USA Today and Gallup poll about Harriet Miers' removal. 42 percent, pleased, 35 percent disappointed, 23 percent with no opinion.

Back to the conversation. We'll be taking your calls in a little white. Senator Graham?

GRAHAM: Well, I'm at 35 percent is disappointed. I thought she was a great role model for women lawyers. But back to the last topic. One, I've enjoyed the show. Let's don't rewrite history. The fact is that every intelligence agency in the world thought he had a program of weapons of mass destruction in various degrees, and they were all apparently wrong.

But the Joe Wilson article was not why we went to war. His attack on the Niger yellow cake. I really do believe people were trying to rebut the idea he was sent there by the vice president and maybe this thing got out of hand.

KING: Bob, is the war turning? Are people turning -- is this about the war?

WOODWARD: Yes, yes, it is. And I've been able to travel a little bit. And I'm trying to do a book on the Bush second term. And I think it's going to be a multivolume of work. Because...

KING: Changing daily.

WOODWARD: There is much here. But one thing's very clear, emotionally, the war in Iraq is at the center of where the country is. Not Valerie Plame, not the Supreme Court, because you go out into the country and the senators know this, and there are people everywhere who have family member, sons, daughters, who were there, some -- and people are on edge about this. And let's face it, the defining decision that George W. Bush made as president is to start that war.

KING: Senator Dodd, you were just in Iraq.

DODD: I was. And it's -- first of all, great respect about from the young pilots to the E1s, E2s, they're terrific. The senior officials are very impressed with our senior military commanders there. But I think there's a lot of work to be done here. This is not going well. You had a situation the other day where people got lost for five minutes. It wasn't a planned assault on them. They were brutally murdered by people in the street.

We're not as welcomed in Iraq as some people want to believe. They've got a huge division between the Shi'as and the Sunnis. We've got some really serious questions. The cost has been phenomenal. We're hollowing out our military. The National Guard in this country is desperately lacking in equipment because of the expenditure.

This -- we need a course correction here. Ought to be some discussion about it. We had the secretary of state appear for the first time since her confirmation hearing since February before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There is no oversight going on at all here. In fact, very few of my Republican colleagues in the Foreign Relations even showed up for the hearing. Which is an indication to me that they are uneasy about this as well.

KING: And you are saying that will not change no matter what happens tomorrow?

DODD: Well, it could. Again, I think again here, because what's going on here is when you end up with Washington, whether it's in the House or the Senate or the White House, preoccupied with itself, because of its own internal problems. Then matters like Harriet Miers, Iraq, health care, energy costs all take a secondary position, because you're preoccupied whether or not you're going to survive. And I think there's a preoccupation in the House, and the Senate and the White House with their all individual futures and all these other issues seems to be sitting in limbo right now. That's dangerous from the country.

KING: Davis, if people are going to be indicted tomorrow, do you think they will know tonight? Is sometimes warning given, told by the prosecutor

GERGEN: Absolutely. Yes, letters should have gone out. They should know more tonight than they do this afternoon. And certainly the judge -- I guess we all know tomorrow.

But Larry, I want to come back to this. I think if there are indictments, it's going to have an enormous impact on the war. Because if there are indictments it will not only be people have close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether -- criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war.

In other words, were -- were dissenters quelched by criminal means in the leadup to you war? And this is going to revive all of those arguments. And we're going to have trials of people inside of White House of who said what to whom in the build-up to the war. It's going to put the whole build-up of the war on trial.

And so I think this has enormous ramifications for trying to maintain public support for a war.

WOODWARD: I think factually, David, I'm sorry. I don't know how this is about the build-up to the war, the Valerie Plame-Wilson issue.

GERGEN: You don't think they're going after -- Bob?

WOODWARD: Yes.

GERGEN: This may have started as gossip. And I totally agree with that. But I also believe that Michael Isikoff is right, whatever started out as gossip turned out to be an effort to discredit Joe Wilson over that article in the "New York Times" and other things he was saying.

WOODWARD: That's right. And after the war was launched.

GERGEN: Right.

WOODWARD: So it's not about the build-up, I don't think.

GERGEN: But it goes back into the arguments that were used to get us into war with. And just to pursue that, I see no evidence that Karl Rove broke any law in what we know so far. I just don't see it. But whether he committed perjury or not, if it opens a floodgate to a trial about the war itself, in effect, and a lot people put on the stand who have to testify, that is a real mess to have on your hands in the midst of trying to maintain support in a delicate time of war.

WOODWARD: Oh, clearly, clearly.

KING: Michael Isikoff, do you have a thought on this little dispute?

ISIKOFF: Well, just to underscore that we don't know exactly what evidence Pat Fitzgerald has. I think if you look at what the available -- the evidence we know for certain, it's hard to know exactly what the criminal case is.

You know, Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it requires a knowledge that she was a covert agent and then a deliberate attempt to leak it to somebody, to out her. We don't know. There's not enough evidence to conclude that happened.

In which case you could say he's not going to bring a case at all except that except that Patrick Fitzgerald is a serious prosecutor. He knows what's a criminal case, and what's not a criminal case. And he's been at this for two years. He's dragged Karl Rove before the grand jury four times. He put Judy Miller jail for 85 days. It's hard for me to imagine that a seasoned prosecutor would do that if he didn't believe that underlying it all, there was a serious federal crime. And if it turns out he doesn't have it, I think he's got a lot of explaining to do.

KING: We'll take a break and we'll be right back, include some of your phone calls. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: More of the same tomorrow night, no matter what happens. I think everybody's back tomorrow.

Elk River, Minnesota, hello.

CALLER: Yes, I'd like to ask for an explanations, with President Bush down in the polls now, why doesn't he take this opportunity to reach out to the majority of people in mainstream America, instead of trying to repeatedly appeal to this far right base? Thank you.

KING: Have a thought on that, Bob?

WOODWARD: I guess in terms of a Supreme Court nominee, he may do that. Who knows. I mean, there is -- no one has really any clue on that. I think this closed very fast for the White House in the last couple of days, where Harriet Miers withdrew. So they're back at square one.

KING: Who is mainstream America?

GRAHAM: Mainstream America is the people you like, and the people you don't like are not mainstream America. But, what did Clinton do when he had two picks...

DODD: People who like you, that's the main thing.

GRAHAM: That's right. My good buddy over here, he's in the mainstream.

What did Clinton do when he had two picks? The picked the general counsel of the ACLU. She got 96 votes. He picked a former Democratic staffer in Justice Breyer. He got 87, 88 votes. What did we do? We picked Scalia. He got 98 votes. Roberts, maybe the best of the bunch, got 78. What's going on in America is the special interest groups are beginning to erode the independence of the Senate.

So when he picks, I hope he will fulfill his campaign promise, which was, I am going to send a solid, strict constructionist to the court. He did it with Roberts. Expect it again, because we're not going to nullify an election here.

KING: Have you changed your mind about Judy Miller?

WOODWARD: About Judy Miller and what? I mean, she...

KING: You defended her strongly on this show?

WOODWARD: Yeah, because I thought she was defending the principle. She's being criticized. Her newspaper's turned against her. I'm for the underdog, so she's really the underdog, and I think we are going to find out. There are so many facts in all of this we don't know that it will go up and down.

KING: New York City, hello.

CALLER: Hello. Is it possible that Harriet Miers' withdrawal could benefit President Bush? Because if officials in the White House are indicted and the case goes to trial, the president may have to answer some tough questions, and he may need the council of Ms. Miers?

KING: What do you -- interesting point. Counsel is counsel.

ISIKOFF: Well, I mean, Harriet Miers was his personal attorney before he was elected president. He's obviously relied a great deal on her advice while he's president. But, look, the president has a lot of legal advisers he can turn to in a situation like this. So I don't know that anyone would be indispensable.

KING: David Gergen, you've worked in four White Houses, right?

GERGEN: Right.

WOODWARD: So far.

KING: OK. Before they call you tomorrow...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: What is going on tonight on Pennsylvania Avenue?

GERGEN: Oh, golly. It's gut-check time there, Larry. This is the time -- you just don't know what's going to happen. The worst feeling in the White House is when your fate is in the hands of someone else, especially someone who you think may be out to get you. You know, if you think this is a junkyard prosecutor who's going to leave no stone unturned, that spreads fear in the White House.

Because what this White House in particular likes to do is to be in control. They like -- their discipline comes from a desire to control. That can sometimes get you into trouble if you go too far. You can discredit somebody, perhaps go over the line of the law. We will have to wait and see.

But I can tell you what brought down Richard Nixon in part, was an excessive desire to control the environment. Bob Woodward knows this better than anybody else. And the Nixon people, and I'm sure the Bush people, just hate it, they hate it when you're in a situation when your political fate, and maybe even your personal fate, is beyond your control. It's just a very uncomfortable position.

KING: Are they all talking to each other?

WOODWARD: I don't know. I think they have to worry about a new conspiracy. So that forces them to not talk to each other in many cases. And I think there are a lot of people passing in the halls of the White House, not speaking to each other, not because -- but because they're angry.

KING: That must be strange, Michael?

ISIKOFF: Sure. And I think that you can argue that the president was -- may have been ill-served by the legal advice he got early on, to treat this exactly that way, don't ask any questions, so we can't be accused of conspiring. But as a result, he didn't do what he could have done from the very beginning, which says, this is a distraction, I want to know exactly what happened right now. If somebody did something wrong, I will fire them, or punish them. You know, come in, tell me exactly what you did. They were so fearful that, if they did that, that they could be accused somehow of covering up or of conspiring, that they let it drag -- that it has dragged on for two years, and now we're at D-Day, one day away from, you know, a decision made by Pat Fitzgerald that is going to determine their fate.

KING: When we come back, I will ask our distinguished panel, why does something always happen in the second term? Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. All right, Lindsey Graham, what happens in second terms?

GRAHAM: I don't know. Never been...

(CROSSTALK)

GRAHAM: I don't know. Just sometimes, things just don't go as well as they should.

What's happened here is we're defined by the war. Tomorrow will be a dramatic, traumatic day maybe for individuals. But the country will survive. But the Republican Party's fate is tied to the outcome of this war. And if you want to get Republicans excited about Republicans being in charge in Washington, Larry -- Supreme Court picks are important, but controlling spending, that's what I hear everywhere. So I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow.

KING: Senator Dodd, why do second terms go awry?

DODD: Term limits for president, in my view. They let down their guard. They relax. They're never going to face the electorate again. I don't have to be worried about necessarily listening to people as carefully as I should. People begin to think about what they are going to do a few months from now.

I think that same intensity that a White House staff and a president brings to the first term drops on election night. And I think that pattern is shown over and over again in the White Houses. I think term limits to presidents, which I've always opposed. I think it's ridiculous as an idea. We haven't had anymore than Roosevelt who did two terms. It was Republicans who insisted on term limiting the presidents back in the early 1950s, early 1950s. I think that's the major reason why, they get too relaxed.

KING: Bob Woodward?

WOODWARD: I think a lot of people are tired. And I think they have good reason to be tired to the point of exhaustion. And Senator Graham's quite right, I mean the war is not only out in the country, it's in the White House. It's in the national security counsel. The president knows this is his decision. It is on his head. And the negative turn of events has taken its toll.

And also I agree with David Gergen on one thing, that a lot of this Plame investigation, CIA leak investigation, has to do with control. This White House loves to control everything. And before it was a criminal investigation, it was kind of just a standard media problem.

And Michael Isikoff's right, it was about criticizing, tearing down somebody. And then you get before a grand jury. And it's like Clinton. There's something you did that maybe is embarrassing, but not illegal. So you conveniently don't remember it. And that leads to all of the potential perjury problems.

ISIKOFF: I would say that it's worth remembering that each of the major second-term scandals, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Clinton had its roots in the first term. They all begin in the first term. They all just get discovered in second term, and that's when the chickens come home to roost.

KING: And David, do you have a thought?

GERGEN: Well, I think burnout is a big, big issue. Jimmy Becker was Reagan's first chief of staff, in my judgment the best chief of staff in the last few decades. I always believed his job and several others were burn out after a couple of years, four years was absolutely the limit. And so fresh blood is -- I think this White House would have benefited from more flesh blood.

Right now, they've got a bunker mentality, frankly. And I think they a little in denial of facing reality. They have got to get over that to move on.

But the other thing -- and Michael Isikoff is right, in this particular case, also paying a price for some decision-making about the Iraq war way back in the first term, especially on trying to secure the peace. In fact, the failure to put more troops early on has come back it haunt them in the second term.

KING: We'll take a break, and come back with some more moments. And get another call or two this. I'll be in New York tomorrow, but most of this panel if not all will reassemble and we'll discuss the events of tomorrow. Today, don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: That's the White House right now. The lights are on. And I get the impression that some people are up.

Charleston, West Virginia. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. I would like to ask your esteemed panel, if even if indictments are not brought tomorrow, should there still be a discussion about whether or not we should have gone to war based on the intelligence, about the Saddam having nuclear weapons?

KING: Senator Dodd, should the discussion continue? DODD: Well, I think it's worth while. Obviously it's important to go back and examine those issues. I think most of us believe we ought to be trying to figure out how to this thing to closure and achieve the desired results. We all want this to work. I think most people do. They would love to see Iraq get on its feet, become stable so our troops can come home. And that's the important part of this debate, where do we go from here?

And that's a troublesome issue, because the answer the president gives is, we'll stand down when they stand up. We're going stay there, however long that takes. That's not a very good answer to the American public. Not that they are looking for a date certain. But they want a better answer that than that. That kind of commitment over many, many years to come.

We're spending $6 billion every month. We've lost 2000 troops, another 14,000 have permanent scars and injuries as a result of this conflict. They need a better answer for why their children, fathers, daughters suffered the way they have and will continue, than just stand there as long as they can stay on their own. That debate has to occur.

KING: And now the impossible question. Start with Mr. Gergen, what's going to happen tomorrow?

GERGEN: What's going to -- I don't know. I think we're -- I think it's anywhere from 0 to 5 indictments.

KING: 0 to 5?

GERGEN: 0 to 5.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: A little latitude there.

GERGEN: Plus or minus four.

KING: With that answer, you cannot be wrong.

GERGEN: I hope not. Who the hell knows?

WOODWARD: I think one of the things that's fact that hasn't come out is we talk about...

KING: Uh-oh, here it comes!

WOODWARD: No, no. And this is not even a firecracker, but it's true. They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge James or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage. KING: You're saying tomorrow nothing?

WOODWARD: I don't know. I mean, I don't think anyone knows, even Gergen could be wrong.

GERGEN: Only the shadow knows.

KING: Michael?

ISIKOFF: I don't know either. I do think that Fitzgerald will...

KING: You're a distinguished panel, know something.

ISIKOFF: I think Fitzgerald's going to announce something tomorrow afternoon. Tomorrow afternoon, yes.

KING: Not in the morning?

ISIKOFF: Yes, afternoon. And he'll do it himself. You know...

KING: It'll be his announcement.

Senator Graham?

GRAHAM: I don't know who's involved or what they will be charged with, but if it's a technical violation of the espionage act, then the culture of this town has changed. I hope it's not that.

KING: Senator Dodd?

DODD: I think at least one. I think at least one indictment. Possibly two, but at least one. I agree with Michael. I don't think went through all of this. I think -- conviction's going to be hard, but I think there's enough there to -- that warrant's go forward. So I think we're going to have at least one.

KING: Where will the announcement be made?

ISIKOFF: I don't know. We're waiting.

KING: He's in Chicago, right?

ISIKOFF: He said -- or his office said he's going to make it here in Washington. And that's the first thing. I'm going to be wanting to find out tomorrow morning.

WOODWARD: I mean, he's covered it. He most likely is right but I think -- and you know, again, these are human beings. And what distresses me, is you know, so and so might be indicted, so and so is facing...

(CROSSTALK)

DODD: This president's father said, look, this is the most hideous form of treason. Trying -- damage control to mention publicly to a reporter the name of an overt or covert agent is terrible business.

WOODWARD: And it is not yet proven. I think Michael would agree...

(CROSSTALK)

DODD: They did it. Whether or not they were legally criminal...

KING: No time.

Thank you all very much.

And we'll reassemble. Tomorrow, I'll be in New York, but most of the panel -- I think the panel will be back. And one or two additions.

And right now, let's check with New York. Anderson Cooper has another night off, so once again our prince Aaron Brown, the host of "NEWSNIGHT," carries on -- Mr. Brown.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/27/lkl.01.html

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 other story at top of E&P site). 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.
*

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....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1001480714

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1001523544

Downie Talks Run-Up to Woodward Apology Today

By Joe Strupp

Published: November 16, 2005 4:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Bob Woodward of the Washington Post said this afternoon that he had apologized to his editor, Leonard Downie, Jr., for not telling him much earlier that he had a long-kept secret: a June 2003 conversation with a confidential White House source in which he learned about the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

"I expect that he will communicate more freely with me," Downie told E&P this afternoon, two days after Woodward testified before a federal grand jury. "I told him I want better communication on what he's working on and he agreed to that."


But what happened before gettingn\ to this point? It was just a few days before the indictment of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was announced on Oct. 28 that Downie learned from Woodward that the Watergate legend had his own connection to the Valerie Plame case.

"It was getting near the time of the (Libby) indictments and he came to me because he thought I should know," Downie told E&P today, adding that he did not initially show his disappointment in not knowing the information earlier because he had to decide how to proceed. "This was important information to have and we needed to decide ho to use it. The important thing was to decide what to do. There were all sorts of journalistic questions - whether this affected our reporting and what we should be doing as a result."

Downie said he immediately put Woodward in touch with Post attorneys so that they would know about his information in case any subpoenas were forthcoming. None ever materialized, but Fitzgerald did request Woodward's testimony shortly afterward, although Downie does not recall exactly when.

"We had to decide what to do as a result," Downie added, saying he was told at the time the identity of the source. "We looked at the circumstances under which he had been told and if we were still bounded by the confidentiality agreement, which we were."

Downie said the paper eventually asked the source, which Woodward later revealed was one of three people he has now testified about. He asked him or her to lift the confidentiality agreement, but the person declined. Since then, Libby and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card have given permission for their identities as two of the sources to be disclosed, but the main source for Plame's identity has not.

"When the request was made for Woodward to testify in the deposition, releases were sought from the sources for him to be able to testify and for us to be able to write about it as well," Downie said. The editor said he knew last week that Woodward had planned to testify on Monday, but that none of his sources had given permission for their identities to be published, so nothing was written.

After Woodward testified Monday afternoon, the Post still had no gotten any releases from any of the sources to identify them in the newspaper. It was not until Tuesday that Libby provided permission, Downie said. "At the end of the day Monday, we wanted to keep trying (to get all)," Downie said, adding that the paper also was working on the statement Woodward wrote about his testimony, which appeared in today's paper.

After today's story was published, Downie said he then approached Woodward this morning for the first time about his failure to disclose to Downie the conversation he had had with the White House official about Plame. "He told me his reasons, why he had not told me sooner, he definitely should have informed me sooner," Downie said. "Even if he had told me sooner, we may not have been able to publish anything about it because it was part of a confidential source interview."

Downie said Woodward told him he had not disclosed the conversation because "he wanted to protect the confidentiality of his source and wanted to avoid being caught up in the leak investigation because he was working hard to finish his book. He also thought what had been said to him was relatively minor. But, he should have still told me about it and we would have made a joint decision to proceed."

A similar disclosure occurred earlier this year when, Downie said several months ago, Woodward had revealed to the editor the identity of Watergate source Deep Throat, who was later found to be former FBI official W. Mark Felt.

Woodward apologized this morning to Downie for withholding the information on his Plame conversation for so long, Downie said, which Downie accepted. He also said Woodward agreed to be more open in the future about such information.

This incident has highlighted what many at the Post view as a difficult relationship between Woodward and the paper, in which Woodward is an assistant managing editor, but also an author of books. Sometimes, staffers have said, that arrangement causes Woodward to keep information and sources out of the paper and used instead for his books.

Downie acknowledged the negative impact of the relationship, saying, "there are issues that always need to be managed for the purpose of his books. In many cases, sources remain anonymous." But, he said it also offers positive results.

"Most of the time, he has alerted us to what he is doing, to significant information he has found to produce his own front page stories, and enabled other people to produce front page stories." He also noted Woodward's willingness, after the Sept. 11 attacks, to put aside a book project and work with the paper on coverage that "earned us a Pulitzer Prize or national reporting."






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Sec...ource_1116.html

National Security Adviser was Woodward's source, attorneys say

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.

Testifying under oath Monday to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Woodward recounted a casual conversation he had with Hadley, these sources say. Hadley did not return a call seeking comment.

Woodward said he was told that it was “no big deal” that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate the veracity of the Bush Administration’s claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. According to the attorneys, he said Hadley dismissed the trip by saying his wife, a CIA officer who worked on WMD issues, had recommended him.

At the time, Hadley was working under then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

“We think that Mr. Woodward was going to write a story about it, but discussed it with some other people within the Bush Administration and was told that it wasn’t anything big,” one attorney told RAW STORY.

Woodward did not return a call for this article. He did not identify his source in an article in today’s Washington Post, instead dubbing him a “senior administration official.” The veteran Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter made his name investigating the Watergate burglary which eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Woodward got access to classified information

In his most recent book, Bush at War, Woodward says he was given access to classified minutes of National Security Council meetings. Both Rice and Hadley were major players in these meetings.

President Bush sat for lengthy interviews for his book, often speaking about classified information, Woodward later said. The Post editor added that he was surprised by Bush’s frankness.

"Certainly Richard Nixon would not have allowed reporters to question him like that,” he said. “Bush's father wouldn't allow it. Clinton wouldn't allow it.”

Hadley served as Deputy National Security Advisor during the first term of the Bush presidency under then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who is now under indictment in Fitzgerald’s case for obstruction of justice and perjury, along with Rice and Hadley, were members of the National Security Council and of the White House Iraq Group, which was tasked with selling the war in Iraq to the public.

In March 2003, the White House Iraq Group began doing a work-up on Joseph Wilson. Hadley was present at some of these meetings.

Hadley has previously drawn fire for a meeting in September 2002 with the head of Italian intelligence Nicollo Pollari, who was implicated in pushing bogus claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Hadley denies they discussed uranium.

“Nobody participating in that meeting or asked about that meeting has any recollection of a discussion of natural uranium, or any recollection of any documents being passed,” he told reporters earlier this month.

Pollari had been trying to provide the CIA with evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, citing the now debunked documents. The CIA had previously rebuffed his claims, asserting they were unfounded.

Prior to the Iraq Niger claims, a strange meeting in late 2001 whose purpose is unknown links a former Iran Contra figure and Iranian arms dealer with Michael Ledeen, then an alleged consultant to the Under-Secretary of Defense, Douglas Feith. Feith informs Hadley (Hadley later claims that Ghorbanifar was not involved).

CIA director George Tenet later intervenes, and Hadley asks Ledeen to end the meetings. The agency believed Ghorbanifar was a serial liar and barred its officers from engaging him; the meetings continue regardless.

Timeline of events

On Jan. 28, 2003, Bush claimed that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa in his State of the Union address. It is the very claim that Hadley had seen from Pollari and the very claim that the CIA rejected.

Two days later, the Washington Post reports that Hadley is acting as liaison between the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee in helping to “sift through intelligence with the help of the CIA, and trying to determine what can be released without damaging the agency’s ability to gather similar information.”

In March 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discredits these documents as forgeries. It is also in March that the US begins combat operations in Iraq.

According to sources, Woodward’s meeting with Hadley occurs in mid-June of 2003, around the same time that Libby begins to meet with New York Times’ Judith Miller, who has since left the paper.

In early July, Wilson writes his New York Times op-ed, entitled “What I did not find in Niger.” The White House responds on two fronts, according to an article published at the time in the Washington Post.

“Behind the scenes, the White House responded with twin attacks: one on Wilson and the other on the CIA, which it wanted to take the blame for allowing the 16 words [on uranium] to have remained in Bush's speech. As part of this effort, then-national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley spoke with Tenet during the week about clearing up CIA responsibility for the 16 words, even though both knew the agency did not believe Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

A former senior CIA official said yesterday that Tenet's statement was drafted within the agency and was shown only to Hadley on July 10 to get White House input. Only a few minor changes were accepted before it was released on July 11, this former official said. He took issue with a New York Times report last week that said Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, had a role in Tenet's statement.”

Several days later, columnist Robert Novak outs Valerie Plame as a CIA operative.

On July 22, Hadley takes full responsibility for the Niger claims in the President’s State of the Union, even though Tenet had already done so on July 11.

The same day, Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, calls Hadley to testify in closed door hearings.

“The chairman of a key congressional committee says he will look closely at new evidence that aides in the White House mishandled communications from the CIA casting doubts on information used by President George Bush to support his case for military action in Iraq,” Voice of America reported.

Roberts has yet to complete the second stage of his investigation into prewar intelligence.

Clarification: Due to an editing error, the first edition of this article was unclear about whether Woodward was told Plame was covert. Woodward was only told she was a CIA analyst.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/de...t_id=1001480643
Shocker: Bob Woodward Now Embroiled in Plame Scandal

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 (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/de...t_id=1001522373
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

Text of Bob Woodward's Statement

The Washington Post
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...tatement15.html

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.

advertising
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. I 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.

The Scoop on Woodward

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 12:57 PM

In a startling development reported in today's Washington Post, it now appears that Bob Woodward was the first reporter to whom a senior administration official leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Woodward is an assistant managing editor at The Post and the best-selling author of insider accounts of the Bush White House. He is best known as part of the team of journalists that broke the Watergate story that ended Richard Nixon's presidency three decades ago.


About White House Briefing
Check here weekdays at midday for my read on the most interesting items about the president and his staff from major newspaper, magazine and broadcast Web sites and Web logs.

More About White House Briefing
E-mail Dan Froomkin Suggestions? Comments? Please include your name and home town. I may publish all or parts of your e-mail unless you specify "not for publication."
Live Online: White House Talk
WH Briefing Reader Forum


White House Briefing Permalinks
The Scoop on Woodward
Republicans Want Answers, Too
Bush's Third Campaign
Much Ado About Tuesday
An Important Indictment
More Stories

Inside the White House
Who's Who in the White House
West Wing Floor Plan
White House Staff List and Salaries
White House Correspondents


White House Coverage
Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago
Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy
Rice Negotiates Deal to Open Gaza Crossings
More News

More White House Links
Select a Source____________Associated PressReutersAgence France-PresseNew York TimesLos Angeles TimesUSA TodayGoogle NewsYahoo News Full CoverageLatest Job Approval PollsWhite House Web SiteWhite House Press ReleasesWhite House Press BriefingsLive White House Video FeedGlobal Message of the DayCompilation of DocumentsAppointee DirectoryThe Complete Bushisms

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Cracks in the Facade
MYSPOT
Intelligent Discontent


Full List of Blogs (10 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

More recently Woodward -- who is working on his third book about the Bush administration -- had been publicly scornful of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation.

Today's shocker adds a whole new prologue to the story as we knew it and once again thrusts the issue of journalistic conduct into a debate that many journalists would prefer was solely about White House conduct. It also calls new attention to Woodward's unique relationship with the Bush White House.

Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig write in The Washington Post: "Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case 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. . . .

"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."

Here is the text of Woodward's public statement about his testimony.

Woodward's source was apparently neither Libby nor presidential adviser Karl Rove, widely seen as Fitzgerald's most likely next target. And Woodward wouldn't specify the date of the disclosure any further than to say it was in "mid-June." Nevertheless, that definitely pre-dates Libby's first mention of Plame's identity during his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on June 23.

Fitzgerald's indictment says Libby found out about Plame's identity on June 11 from a CIA official, and then again on June 12 from Vice President Cheney. It doesn't say how Cheney knew, how long he knew, or who else he might have told.

ABC News's The Note reports that "a senior Administration official, speaking to ABC News' Jessica Yellin, 'laughed' at the suggestion that Cheney was Woodward's source."

VandeHei and Leonnig write that Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until sometime last month.

Fitzgerald obviously didn't know about it at his October 28 press conference , where he asserted that "Mr. 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 on the Record



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


Woodward spoke about the Plame investigation at some length with Larry King on CNN on October 27, the day before Fitzgerald indicted Libby. One of Woodward's fellow panelists was Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, who asked whether Woodward knew the identity of "Mr. X," the still-unidentified senior administration official who was columnist Robert Novak's first source for Plame's identity. Rove was Novak's second source.

"KING: 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 Times' reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell. . . .

"Finally, this went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the 'Washington Post' called me and said, 'I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it.'

"KING: So now the rumors are about you.

"WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.

"KING: What do you think will happen?

"WOODWARD: 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.

"And, there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the 'Washington Post' the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth."

Bloglust



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


Kevin Drum writes in his Washington Monthly blog: "I can't begin to make sense of this. The only thing that's clear is that Mr. X [Woodward's source] 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."

Howard Kurtz writes in his washingtonpost.com blog: "Hmmm . . . Who was this Shallow Throat, and why is this the first we're hearing about it?"

Blogger Josh Marshall writes: "[I]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. . . .

"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."

Firedoglake blogger Jane Hamsher , who may have been the first to dub Woodward "Mr. Run Amok," writes: "Woodward isn't just reluctant to criticize the Administration -- he's become the water carrier of choice. . . .

"Woodward stopped being a 'journalist' in the true sense of the word long ago -- when he decided celebrity status and book sales meant more than the truth. He has gone from being -- well, whatever he was, to something much worse: an official peddler of lies told by powerful people to whitewash their criminal activities."

John Aravosis of Americablog writes: "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?"

You can find the growing blog chorus here.

Woodward and the White House



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


For years, Woodward has literally been the only reporter top White House officials feel comfortable opening up to. His books have been generally favorable to the administration. He promises to keep his sources' secrets until he's ready to publish, rather than report them in the newspaper.

Not surprisingly, that's been known to create some resentment among other reporters, particularly those in the White House press corps who spend their days scratching away for crumbs and generally getting nothing but spin.

Village Voice press critic Sydney H. Schanberg , somewhat presciently, wrote about Woodward yesterday.

"Bob Woodward rightly became a beacon in the journalism world for the groundbreaking shoe-leather reporting he and Carl Bernstein did on the Watergate scandal in 1972 for The Washington Post. Since then he has become known for his books gleaned from rarely given interviews with presidents and other powerful people in Washington's high places. He appears often on television talk shows, giving inside looks at major stories as well as orotund comments on the practice of good journalism. . . .

"I wish I were wrong, but to me Woodward sounds as if he has come a long way from those shoe-leather days -- and maybe on a path that does not become him. He sounds, I think, like those detractors in 1972, as they pooh-poohed the scandal that unraveled the Nixon presidency -- the scandal that Woodward and Bernstein doggedly uncovered. . . .

"His remarks about the Fitzgerald investigation convey the attitude of a sometime insider reluctant to offend -- and that is hardly a definition of what a serious, independent reporter is supposed to be. It's a far piece from Watergate."

Libby Watch



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


Eric Lichtblau writes in the New York Times: "Lawyers for I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former White House official indicted on perjury charges, plan to seek testimony from journalists beyond those cited in the indictment and will probably challenge government agreements limiting their grand jury testimony, people involved in the case said Tuesday.

" 'That's clearly going to be part of the strategy - to get access to all the relevant records and determine what did the media really know,' said a lawyer close to the defense who spoke on condition of anonymity. . . .

"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.

"Defense lawyers plan to seek notes not only from the three reporters cited in the indictment - Tim Russert of NBC News, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine and Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times - but also from other journalists who have been tied to the case."

Cheney and Big Oil



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


Dana Milbank and Justin Blum write in The Washington Post: "A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

"The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated. . . .

"The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. . . .

"Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld 'the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality.' "

Jolt to the White House



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


Dan Balz writes in The Washington Post: "For the past three years, President Bush has set the course on U.S. policy in Iraq, and Republicans in Congress -- and many Democrats, too -- have dutifully followed his lead. Yesterday the Senate, responding to growing public frustration with the administration's war policy, signaled that those days are coming to an end.

"The rebuff to the White House was muffled in the modulated language of a bipartisan amendment, but the message could not have been more clear. With their constituents increasingly unhappy with the U.S. mission in Iraq, Democrats and now Republicans are demanding that the administration show that it has a strategy to turn the conflict over to the Iraqis and eventually bring U.S. troops home. . . .

"The jolt to the White House came just as the administration was attempting to beat back perceptions that the president misled the country before the war by overstating the strength of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That fight pits Democrats against Republicans."

Carl Hulse writes in the New York Times: "While the practical consequences of the bipartisan vote on the Republican proposal may be limited and largely symbolic, the willingness of most Senate Republicans to join with most Democrats to prod the Bush administration on the war represented new determination to distance themselves from the White House in the face of dwindling public support for operations in Iraq."

Maura Reynolds and Mark Mazzetti , in the Los Angeles Times, call it the Senate's "first direct challenge to President Bush on the war in Iraq."

Bryan Bender , in the Boston Globe, calls it a "stinging rebuke to President Bush's war strategy."

Spin Watch



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


But what does the White House think? Or rather, what does it say it thinks?

Pool reporter Ken Herman of Cox Newspapers related this response from presidential counselor Dan Bartlett: " 'This was a strong repudiation of Democratic efforts to pass legislation calling for immediate, premature withdrawal from Iraq before the mission was complete. It was defeated with bipartisan support. We were pleased to see the principled, articulate stand presented by Sen. Joe Lieberman. They then passed a resolution that reaffirms what the administration is putting forward as a strategy, which is to train Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible to continue down the road to transition based on a conditions-based strategy of more responsibility for the Iraqi people. It requires us, as we have already been doing, to provide consultation and reports to be provided to the congress on a regular basis, which is an affirmation of what we were doing as well. We were very pleased to see the repudiation of what Sen. Frist called a cut and run strategy provided by the Democrats.' "

And here's what Bush, who gets a lot of his news directly from Bartlett, had to say in his press availability at mid-day Wednesday, Kyoto time:

" Q Thank you, sir. Sir, as you probably know, the Senate rejected earlier today measures that would have required a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, but a Republican resolution was overwhelmingly passed that called for more information from your information to clarify and recommend changes to U.S. policy in Iraq. So is that evidence that your party is increasingly splitting with you, sir, on Iraq? And is it an open challenge to you -- is that open challenge to you embarrassing while you're traveling abroad?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: I, first of all, appreciated the fact that the Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, rejected an amendment that would have taken our troops out of Iraq before the mission was complete. To me that was a positive step by the United States Senate.

"Secondly, the Senate did ask that we report on progress being made in Iraq, which we're more than willing to do. That's to be expected. That's what the Congress expects. They expect us to keep them abreast of a plan that is going to work. It's a plan that we have made very clear to the Senate and the House, and that is the plan that we will train Iraqis, Iraqi troops to be able to take the fight to the enemy. And as I have consistently said, as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

"I view this as a -- as an amendment consistent with our strategy, and look forward to continue to work with the Congress. It is important that we succeed in Iraq. A democracy in Iraq will bring peace for generations to come. And we're going to. The Iraqi people want us to succeed. The only reason we won't succeed is if we lose our nerve, and the terrorists are able to drive us out of Iraq by killing innocent lives. But I view this as positive developments on the Hill."

Spin This



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


Glenn Kessler writes in The Washington Post: "Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that 'the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.'

"With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics 'are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.'

"Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War 'was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late.'"

Here is the text of Hagel's speech.

Backfire Potential



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


Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush's efforts to paint Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after they once warned that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat could backfire on Republicans.

"Polls show marked declines in support for the war, notably among moderate Republicans, especially Republican women, and independents -- voting blocs that the GOP needs to woo or keep in their camp.

"If Bush castigates Democrats for changing their minds on the war, he might wind up alienating Republicans who have done so, too."

Why Did We Go to War Again?



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


J.D. Crouch , the deputy national security adviser, writes in a USA Today op-ed: "Some administration critics believe Operation Iraqi Freedom was strictly about weapons of mass destruction. The reality is that Saddam Hussein's WMD programs were only one reason for the liberation of Iraq. We went to war for several reasons." He lists several.

But right next door, the USA Today editorial board isn't having any of it: "If any success is to come from Iraq now -- and that remains a possibility -- it depends on staying until a stable government is elected and Iraqi forces can manage for themselves. This is what Bush wants, but that commitment will require time and lives, which demands public support. Bush's only chance of gaining that support is to admit what's obvious beyond the White House walls: That the war was a mistake. Only then can he credibly redefine the mission and earn broad support."

The CPB and the EOP



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


Matea Gold writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting broke federal law and repeatedly violated the organization's rules and code of ethics in his efforts to promote conservatives in the system, an endeavor that included consultation with White House officials, according to the findings of an internal investigation made public Tuesday. . . .

"According to the report, [Kenneth Y.] Tomlinson consulted with Bush administration officials -- including Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove -- about his efforts, even though the former chairman told The Times in May that he had had 'absolutely no contact from anyone at the White House saying we need to do this or that with public broadcasting.'

"However, Konz discovered that in late 2003 and again this year, Tomlinson exchanged e-mails with White House officials about possible candidates to serve as the corporation's president. Some of the notes discussed Tomlinson's desire to hire Patricia Harrison, a former Republican Party co-chairwoman, whom the board appointed to the post in June.

" 'While cryptic in nature, their timing and subject matter give the appearance that the former chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/CEO position,' Konz wrote."

Here is the text of the inspector general's report.

The actual White House e-mails are not included, although they were given to the full board in a separate report.

Record Setting



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


The White House yesterday released its third straight memo "Setting the Record Straight." The target this time: Yesterday's New York Times editorial : "Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials."

This one, like the first one , disputes the charge that Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The White House argues at length that the Presidential Daily Briefs didn't contain any more intelligence than the National Intelligence Estimate that Congress received.

But it's not just the PDBs that Congress didn't get to see; it's countless other memos and a whole stream of data and conversations and information requests between the White House and the intelligence agencies -- much of it emanating from the vice president's office.

Asia Trip



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


Peter Baker and Anthony Faiola write in The Washington Post: "President Bush issued a carefully calibrated call for greater liberty throughout Asia on Wednesday, implicitly comparing the 'free and democratic Chinese society' in Taiwan with repression in mainland China. . . .

"The president's address was designed to strike a delicate balance between honoring his second-term inaugural vow to promote freedom around the world and maintaining harmonious relations with one of the United States' most important trading partners. Delivering the speech in Japan rather than in China, and gently pushing the one-party government in China to open up its autocratic society, Bush couched his words in the tone of friendly advice."

Here's the text of Bush's speech.

Safavian Watch



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


We haven't heard much about David H. Safavian since he hurriedly quit his White House job just in time to get indicted on five felony counts of lying to investigators.

But Thomas B. Edsall profiles Safavian in The Washington Post today: "Just 38, he was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the president's Office of Management and Budget, with the authority to make the rules governing $300 billion in annual expenditures, including those in response to Hurricane Katrina.

"But that was before federal agents appeared at his home on Sept. 19 and arrested Safavian in connection with the investigation of Jack Abramoff, charging that Safavian lied about his dealings with the onetime powerhouse lobbyist and misled investigators from the General Services Administration and the Senate."

Check out the accompanying photo of Safavian by Melina Mara of The Post.

Bush Gets Back on the Segway



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


Pool reporter George Condon of Copley News Service reported today: "Yes, the Leader of the Free World did, indeed, hop onto a Segway scooter and cruised for an undetermined distance at the Guest House under the no-doubt admiring gaze of his Japanese host. . . . [T]he new Segway was a gift from the president to the prime minister. One has to use one's imagination as to how fast the President guided the Segway or whether he managed a more graceful dismount than the last time he was seen on one of these scooters."

Condon dubbed the Segway "Scooter One." Reuters photographer James Bourg dramatically captured Bush's last Segway dismount in 2003 at Kennebunkport. Segways use gyroscopes and sophisticated computer technology to stay balanced at all times. But Bush hadn't turned his on first.

Woodward Apologizes to Post for Withholding Knowledge of Plame

By Howard Kurtz

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.


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

TRANSCRIPT ERROR

Keith Olberman pointed out tonight on his show that Fitzgerald was being misquoted about Libby being the 1st to make a disclosure to reporters. He actually played the tape of Fitzgerald where Fitz clearly states that Libby was the 1st known official to disclose.

Here is what Fitz actually said at his press conference



Olberman also mentioned on his show that ABC had essentially taken what Scooter's lawyers said and reported it as fact. He implied that it was another instance of lazy reporting - they didn't check to see what Fitz really said they just repeated "talking points" by Libby's lawyer.

Olberman may be right on this but there is also another explanation. The fact is that the transcript from FDCH e-Media that everyone seems to be relying on is wrong. The transcript actually left out the word "known". I discovered this when I looked at the transcript we have on our website. I also saw that the Washington Post and others had posted the very same transcript that we did.

So is Libby's lawyer trying to mislead? Maybe. Is the press lazy in doing their job in checking the facts? Maybe. But it could just be that these people were relying on an inaccurate transcript.

Evidently the AP was still relying on that transcript earlier tonight. This AP article was posted by AP at 9:47 p.m. tonight. When I went back to retrieve the url I could no longer find it so I guess someone finally clued them in that they were wrong.



Two NYT articles posted later today have the right information so are they using a different transcript, did they actually watch the video or did they watch Olberman?

It kind of makes you wonder if there is anything else wrong in the transcript?

Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 17, 2005; A15



The revelation that The Washington Post's Bob Woodward may have been the first reporter to learn about CIA operative Valerie Plame could provide a boost to the only person indicted in the leak case: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Legal experts said Woodward provided two pieces of new information that cast at least a shadow of doubt on the public case against Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, who has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's public statements, a senior government official -- not Libby -- was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA. Woodward also said that Libby never mentioned Plame in conversations they had on June 23 and June 27, 2003, about the Iraq war, a time when the indictment alleges Libby was eagerly passing information about Plame to reporters and colleagues.

While neither statement appears to factually change Fitzgerald's contention that Libby lied and impeded the leak investigation, the Libby legal team plans to use Woodward's testimony to try to show that Libby was not obsessed with unmasking Plame and to raise questions about the prosecutor's full understanding of events. Until now, few outside of Libby's legal team have challenged the facts and chronology of Fitzgerald's case.

"I think it's a considerable boost to the defendant's case," said John Moustakas, a former federal prosecutor who has no role in the case. "It casts doubt about whether Fitzgerald knew everything as he charged someone with very serious offenses." Other legal experts agreed.

Moustakas said Woodward also has considerable credibility because he has been granted "unprecedented access" to the inner workings of the Bush White House. "When Woodward says this information was disclosed to me in a nonchalant and casual way -- not as if it was classified -- it helps corroborate Libby's account about himself and about the administration," Moustakas said.

According to the statement Woodward released Tuesday, he did not appear to provide any testimony that goes specifically to the question of whether Libby is guilty of two counts of perjury, two counts of providing false statements and one count of obstructing justice. The indictment outlines what many legal experts describe as a very strong case against Libby, because it shows the former Cheney aide learned about Plame from at least four government sources, including the vice president -- and not a reporter, as he testified before the grand jury.

Randall D. Eliason, former head of the public corruption unit for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District,said he doubts the Woodward account would have much effect on Libby's case, and dismissed such theories as "defense spin."

"Libby was not charged with being the first to talk to a reporter, and that is not part of the indictment," he said. "Whether or not some other officials were talking to Woodward doesn't really tell us anything about the central issue in Libby's case: What was his state of mind and intent when he was talking to the FBI and testifying in the grand jury?" Eliason added: "What this does suggest, though, is that the investigation is still very active. Hard to see how that is good news for [White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl] Rove or for anyone else in the prosecutor's cross hairs."

Since December 2003, Fitzgerald has been probing whether senior Bush administration officials illegally leaked classified information -- Plame's identity as a CIA operative -- to reporters to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Plame's name was revealed in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak, eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Rove is still under investigation.

Libby's lawyers have asked whether Fitzgerald will correct his statement that Libby was the first administration official to leak information about Plame to a reporter. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment. But a source close to the probe said there is no reason for the prosecutor to correct the record, because he specifically said at his news conference Oct. 28 that Libby was the "first official known" at that time to have provided such information to a reporter.

Still, the Libby legal team seized on Woodward's testimony, calling it a "bombshell" with the potential to upend Fitzgerald's case. After spending yesterday at the courthouse reviewing documents for the case, Libby emerged with one of this lawyers, Theodore V. Wells Jr., by his side. Wells said Libby is "very grateful to Bob Woodward for coming forward and telling the truth."

A few hours earlier Wells issued a markedly more pointed statement, saying, "Woodward's disclosures are a bombshell to Mr. Fitzgerald's case" that show at least one accusation to be "totally inaccurate." The Libby legal team plans to call a number of journalists to testify in part to show Libby was not determined to blow Plame's cover.

In an interview, Woodward said his testimony was not designed to help or hurt Libby. "My reporting and writing is as neutral as it can be," he said. "Fitzgerald asked me questions . . . I answered them."

Rove's defense team also believes he could benefit tangentially from the Woodward disclosure because it shows other officials were discussing Plame in casual ways and that others have foggy recollections of the period as well, according to a Republican close to Rove.

"It definitely raises the plausibility of Karl Rove's simple and honest lapses of memory, because it shows that there were other people discussing the matter in what Mr. Woodward described as very offhanded, casual way," a source close to Rove said. "Let's face it, we don't all remember every conversation we have about significant issues, much less those about those that are less significant."

Rove is under scrutiny for not initially disclosing his conversation about Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. Rove's defense is he simply forgot the conversation took place. Sources close to Rove said they expect a decision on whether he will be charged soon.

Staff writer Henri E. Cauvin contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111602147.html

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....S-BUSH-LEAK.xml

Washington Post urged to probe Woodward's role in CIA case
Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:28 PM ET



By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized the leak investigation without disclosing his own involvement.

"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.

Woodward testified under oath on Monday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official casually told him in mid-June 2003 about Plame's position at the CIA.

The surprise testimony appeared to contradict Fitzgerald's assertion that Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was the first government official to divulge information to reporters about Plame. The disclosure could prolong the leak investigation as Fitzgerald pursues new leads in the case, lawyers said.

Libby's defense team contended Woodward's story undercut Fitzgerald's case against Libby, who was indicted in late October on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the criminal probe, which was launched two years ago.

Wilson, a former ambassador turned White House critic, told Reuters that The Washington Post should reveal the name of Woodward's source, and conduct an inquiry to determine why he withheld the information for more than two years from his editors and the federal prosecutor.

Before publicly disclosing his involvement in the leak case on Wednesday, Woodward was a frequent critic of Fitzgerald's investigation in television and radio appearances. Woodward has described the case as laughable and Fitzgerald's behavior as "disgraceful" and has referred to him as "a junkyard dog."

One day before Libby was charged, Woodward said he saw no evidence of criminal intent.

One of the two Post reporters who led the newspaper's coverage of the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon, Woodward apologized to Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie on Wednesday for failing to tell him for more than two years about his involvement in the Plame matter.

Plame's cover at the CIA was blown after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to support military action against Iraq. Wilson said it was done deliberately to undercut his credibility.

Libby, who resigned from the White House after he was indicted, faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison if convicted. He has pleaded not guilty and his lawyers have promised to mount a vigorous defense.

On Friday, Fitzgerald and news organizations will face off in court over Fitzgerald's efforts to keep documents in the Libby case secret.

Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press have asked Judge Reggie Walton to deny Fitzgerald's blanket protective order, which would bar public access to grand jury transcripts, witness statements and a wide range of other evidence in the case. Any leaks could result in civil and criminal fines, the order warns.

Libby's attorneys said in court filings that the proposed protective order was "a legitimate effort by the government to maintain the secrecy of grand jury proceedings."

Court officials said a hearing on the issue was scheduled for 1:30 p.m.



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

© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...1,1907694.story
Bob Woodward's belated disclosure raises troubling questions



By Jonathan Turley

November 17, 2005

WASHINGTON // A new and unexpected name was added yesterday to the rogue's gallery of leading government officials and journalists involved in the CIA leak scandal - that of Bob Woodward, the famed Watergate reporter and Washington Post editor.
The Post revealed that Mr. Woodward was told the identity of Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003 by an unidentified White House official. Ms. Plame was a CIA operative who was "outed" in a column by Robert Novak in apparent retaliation against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for discrediting one of President Bush's justifications for the war concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The Post reported that Mr. Woodward is the earliest known reporter to receive this information and that his source in the White House was not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff after he was indicted in the scandal.

The disclosure adds to questions over special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's vigor in investigating the scandal. It undermines the account given in the Libby indictment and highlights gaps in the investigation.

But it is the media that should be most concerned about the disclosure. Mr. Woodward now joins Judith Miller, a former reporter for The New York Times, and Mr. Novak as journalists who have engaged in highly questionable conduct. This was no momentary lapse of judgment by Mr. Woodward but a serious ethical breach that was premeditated and prolonged.

Walter Pincus, a Post reporter who testified in the Plame case, said yesterday he believed in 2003 that Mr. Woodward was involved in it but that he did not pursue the information because Mr. Woodward asked him not to, according to Editor & Publisher, the trade magazine.

With a long line of journalists going before the grand jury and fighting subpoenas, Mr. Woodward appeared on countless TV shows as a neutral observer. He must have known then that he could be accused of the very same involvement. Indeed, he knew that he was given the information earlier than any of the reported meetings but never told his readers or his editors.

Even more troubling, Mr. Woodward used these TV and radio appearances to criticize the investigation and insist that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity was no big deal. He insisted that "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 somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA."

That somebody now turns out to be Mr. Woodward. He also repeatedly challenged as "laughable" the idea that a crime was committed by officials or the journalists involved in the matter.

In one interview, Mr. Woodward was asked by Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff if it was true that he had information about who was the original source for Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Woodward acknowledged that his editor, Len Downie, had called to ask if he had such a "bombshell" and he assured him that he had no such information.

Mr. Woodward defends himself in part by saying that he was protecting a source. It is spin, and not a particularly good one. He could have revealed, as did other journalists, that he heard this information from an unidentified official. He then could have refused to disclose the name of his source until released by the source, as did other journalists. He remained silent even as Ms. Miller was booted from the Times.

Indeed, Mr. Woodward, in an interview with CNN's Larry King, dramatically offered himself as a surrogate to serve part of Ms. Miller's jail time as a matter of principle. When he made this grand gesture, Mr. Woodward must have known that he was avoiding that same test of principle by simply not informing his readers or his editors of his involvement.

There may be more to this story and some exculpatory explanation from Mr. Woodward. At a minimum, he should have recused himself from discussing this scandal in his TV appearances. Instead, he chose to hide his involvement and portray himself as neutral. He also continued to serve as an assistant managing editor at the Post as the paper dealt with the investigation and subpoenas to testify without ever revealing his conflict of interest.

If the media are going to cover this scandal, they should do a better job in covering themselves.



Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University. His e-mail is jturley@law.gwu.edu.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...280,print.story

You can submit questions now for this online chat.

Wednesday, Nov. 18, at 10 a.m. ET
Post Executive Editor Discusses Woodward
Reporter's Silence in CIA Leak Case Scrutinized

Leonard Downie Jr.
Washington Post Executive Editor
Friday, November 18, 2005; 10:00 AM



Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. will be online Friday, Nov. 18, at 10 a.m. ET to discuss Bob Woodward's revelation that he may have been the first reporter told of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Woodward, whose testimony may cast doubt on the case against I. Lewis Libby, apologized to The Washington Post Wednesday for withholding that information for over two years.

Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.

____________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111700936.html

For other politcal stories you may want to participate in this 11:00 a.m. chat

Dana Milbank
Washington Post National Political Reporter/Washington Sketch Columnist
Friday, November 18, 2005; 11:00 AM

Don't want to miss out on the latest buzz in politics? Start each day at wonk central: The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post national political reporter and Washington Sketch columnist Dana Milbank will be online Friday, Nov. 18, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.

____________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111101072.html

Here is the emptywheel piece that Jane Hamsher refers to above.

The Leonard Downie chat starts in 20 minutes. It should be very interesting.

Post Executive Editor Discusses Woodward
Reporter's Silence in CIA Leak Case Scrutinized

Leonard Downie Jr.
Washington Post Executive Editor
Friday, November 18, 2005; 10:00 AM



Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. was online Friday, Nov. 18, at 10 a.m. ET to discuss Bob Woodward 's revelation that he may have been the first reporter told of Valerie Plame 's identity as a CIA operative. Woodward apologized to The Washington Post Wednesday for withholding that information for over two years.

The transcript follows.

Video: Downie Discusses Woodward on MSNBC

Woodward Apologizes to Post For Silence on Role in Leak Case , ( Post, Nov. 17 )

The Woodward Bombshell , ( Post, Nov. 17 )

Text of Woodward's Statement , ( Post, Nov. 16 )

____________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Going online like this is a very stand-up thing to do. I wish more people in powerful positions stepped up like you are doing here.

Do you think Woodward and other members of the media involved in the Plame investigation understand how they were used by the Bush White House? Not unlike the way Mark Felt used Woodward thirty years ago to get back at the Nixon White House. But Felt's leaks uncovered malfeasance in the administration, but here it appears the leaks were used to discredit a person revealing mistakes made by the Bush administration. This I think is a significant difference. Do you agree?

Leonard Downie Jr.: Many officials, when they talk to reporters, are trying to use them to get their point of view or version of events into print. The job of reporters and editors is to sift through everything we are told to produce the most accurate, full and fair account of reality possible.

_______________________

Sarlat La Caneda, France: One cannot help but think that Bob Woodward in this instance either deliberately held back this information for his own purpose - he does after all need to have access to the President and his cabinet to complete research on his new book.

Leonard Downie Jr.: His reasons were that he wanted to avoid being subpoenaed in the Fitzgerald investigation and being forced to reveal his source. I understand that, but he nevertheless should have come to me and we would have decided together how to proceed. It is quite possible that if he had come to me, as he should have, we still would not have been able to publish anything if his source had refused to release Woodward from their confidentiality agreement, as indeed the source has so far.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: If Woodward lied about this issue. What makes you think he has not lied before or will continue to lie? Do you think Woodward was covering up for the Vice President?

Leonard Downie Jr.: Bob Woodward never lied. He failed to come to me sooner and tell me something he should have told me. Once he did tell me last month, he told me everything about it. I've worked with Bob for 33 years, and he has always been truthful in person and in his work. He is also one of the most careful, accurate and fair journalists I have every worked with.

_______________________

Oak Park, Ill.: What message do you think it sends to your newsroom when there is one set of rules for "stars" and another for the worker bees? And how would you describe the newsroom morale in the wake of the Woodward's statement published in The Post? Is it "upbeat," as Sultzberger described newsroom morale following Judith Miller's statement in the Times?

Leonard Downie Jr.: There is only one of set of rules for everyone working in our newsroom. In this one instance, Bob two mistakes -- not telling me sooner about his conversation with this source and expressing opinions on television about the Fitzgerald investigation. He has acknowledged both mistakes and apologized. In the future, I expect him to work within our newsroom's standards, as he always has except for these two mistakes. I also expect him to continue the outstanding reporting that he has provided our readers for more than three decades in this newspaper and his books.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: Mr. Downie, thank you for taking the time to speak with us, the public. Can you give us any insight as to why Mr. Woodward would say that he didn't tell you about his role or his sources because he was worried about being subpoenaed in 2003 when press subpoenas were not issued until 2004?

To my knowledge no one was even talking about subpoenas at that time. Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't even appointed as special prosecutor until December 2003, and the first journalists, from NBC and Time, weren't subpoenaed until May 2004. Judy Miller wasn't subpoenaed until August 2004, and she didn't do jail time until summer 2005.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Initially, Bob didn't tell me about this brief conversation, which was part of a long interview on other subjects, because it seemed unimportant. It was before the Novak column about Valerie Plame and before anyone knew about her covert CIA status. It was later, after the Fitzgerald investigation was underway, that Bob became concerned about being subpoenaed. In the meantime, however, once the relevance of his conversation became clear because of the controversy over the Novak column, Bob should have told me about his conversation, even if we would have been unable to publish anything about it because of his confidentiality agreement with his source.

_______________________

Worcester, Mass.: Maybe you can shed some light on the 'bombshell' Woodward was rumored to be working on which was to be published in The Post the day of Libby's indictment? Woodward himself suggested this week that he was working on a story related to the Plame case. If true what happened to it. And why was there a plan to come out with the story on Fitzgerald's big day?

Thanks.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Along with several other Post reporters, Bob was trying to find out what he could about the Plame investigation because Fitzgerald announced indictments. But he not landed any bombshell story -- or any story at all. It was just a rumor.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Good morning,

I want to know if Mr. Woodward it going to publicly apologize to Mr. Fitzgerald for his public, personal attacks over the course of the investigation. It is obvious now he was doing so for his own personal gain, and he needs to make amends publicly.

Leonard Downie Jr.: As Bob has said, he objected in principle to having reporters forced by Fitzgerald to testify about confidential source relationships and about the chilling effect he feared it would have on reporting. Nevertheless, as Bob has acknowledged, he should not have been expressing his personal views about the investigation on television.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Should Bob Woodward resign or be separated from The Washington Post for withholding valuable information for two years from The Post staff and the American public?

Leonard Downie Jr.: Absolutely not. This is one mistake that Bob has made in over three decades of extraordinary reporting, beginning with Watergate, that has performed a great public service for our readers and all Americans by revealing more about how our government works -- and holding it accountable -- than any other journalist. And, as I've said, even though he should have told me about this information much sooner, we may well not have been able to publish it at the time because of his confidentiality agreement with his source.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Dear Mr. Downie,

I understand you were likely dismayed at Mr. Woodward's revelation about his knowledge in the Plame case, but I hope it will not affect his position at The Post or his relationship with the paper. Is it not true that keeping your word with an unnamed source is what's most important, and Mr. Woodward did just that? In some regards, I think Mr. Woodward should have come forward sooner but on the other hand doesn't a reporter have any privacy in their own lives? Is a reporter always morally obligated to tell everything he/she knows about a subject to his/her employer? I do hope Mr. Woodward is not punished for this one mistake.

Leonard Downie Jr.: I agree with you, except that reporters should share with their editors significant information of his kind, even in a confidential source relationship, so that the editors can help the reporter decide what to do with it in the best interests of our readers, as well as making certain we do violate a confidential source agreement.

_______________________

Pasadena, Calif.: Why has Mr. Woodward been kept on the payroll, even though most of his work the past several years has gone into research for his books?

How is this justified when he admits that he has worked closely with the administration in order to do his research?

Leonard Downie Jr.: While researching his books, Bob has often produced stories for the newspaper from that reporting or, as he did after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, dropped his book research to use his access and reporting skills to produce important stories about aspects of the war on terror that no other reporter produced. In addition, our readers have benefited from Bob's book research in the extensive excerpts and series of articles by him that we have published in the paper in advance of the publication of each of his books.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I am less troubled by the internal shoulda-told-the-boss and journalism issues than I am by Woodward's very public criticisms of the special prosecutor. Calling Fitzgerald a "junk-yard dog" while withholding information that now has stood the investigation on its head was simply inexcusable. The next time I hear Woodward say anything, I will have to wonder what he's hiding.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Bob has acknowledged that he should not have done that and has apologized for it.

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: Fitzgerald's reasoning to hold Miller for 85 days was that rather than protecting confidential sources she was in fact witness to a crime when she received the information about Valerie Plame - what is the difference in Woodward's situation? Why would Fitzgerald let Woodward off the hook (like Novak) if Woodward hadn't really traded something in exchange? Just thinking out loud, but this thing stinks and just doesn't flow with any logic - and the timing is plain awful.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Both Woodward and Miller, as did several other reporters, testified in Fitzgerald's investigation only after being specifically released by their sources from confidentiality agreements for the purpose of their testimony.

_______________________

Cleveland, Ohio: You say Woodward should have come to you when the Novak piece broke. Isn't this unrealistic. Reporters live by their sources. Increase the number of people in the know (i.e. editors) and you increase the risk of exposure. The time to come to you is when the reporter thinks he has a printable story. Comment?

Leonard Downie Jr.: All of our reporters must tell an editor the names of any confidential sources for information or quotations in stories we publish. In addition, reporters must tell an appropriate editor about anything that occurs in their reporting that could be important to the newspaper, as this information was.

_______________________

Branford, Conn.: I used to regard Mr. Woodward as a hero, of sorts, for his valuable contributions during Watergate. The recent revelations make me think he may be less than honorable and self-serving.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Like all of us, Bob Woodward is human and makes mistakes. On top of that, he has dealt with an unusual amount of fame and the scrutiny that comes with that. If you judge Bob by the journalism he has produced in this newspaper and his books, you will find that it has stood the test of time -- groundbreaking, accurate and fair accountability journalism that has served our readers and other Americans well.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: My impression is that reporters are becoming increasingly "players" rather than observers. Reporters identify more with the elites they follow around and go to dinner with, than the rabble they write for. Woodward's reporting for example, looks more and more like insiders' stories. Where can we outsiders turn for real investigative reporting?

Leonard Downie Jr.: On the one hand, the increasing celebrity of many journalists -- thanks to television, the movies, the Internet, etc. -- and the temptations that come with that celebrity constitute a serious issue for journalism today. On the other hand, Bob Woodward's access to the inner corridors of power has steadily produced much real and impactful investigative reporting. You can see it in the stories he produced for this paper after 9-11. You can see it in his revelations about the origins of the Iraq War in his most recent book, Plan of Attack. And you will see more in the future.

_______________________

Buffalo, N.Y.: It seems with the advent of television talk shows using journalists and the number of book deals out there, journalists are much more independent from the newspapers than they used to be and are almost promoting themselves. Some might argue they are trying to become part of the news and influence/sell government policy. What are editors doing to about this? Isn't that why you have news sections and a separate editorial page?

Leonard Downie Jr.: You raise many good issues. First, there is complete separation at the Washington Post between the news content, which I supervise, and the editorial page, which is overseen by Fred Hiatt, the editor of the editorial page. Second, we have put in place rules governing outside work, including books, and television appearances, although we think there is value in having our best journalism reach as many people as possible through our newspaper, this web site, television and radio appearances and books. In their outside work and appearances, our journalists (except our opinion journalists) are not supposed to express personal opinions.

_______________________

Monrovia, Calif.: Woodward has said that Plame's CIA employment was passed to him "casually," and believes that the source contemporaneously believed that it was unimportant.

In light of these characterizations by Woodward, how is it that he also thought the information was sufficiently important that his source wanted it to remain on "deep background?"

This appears to be a disconnect. What are your thoughts?

Leonard Downie Jr.: This casual part of a long interview for Bob's book was part of an overall confidential source agreement that cannot be broken or taken apart in any way without the source's permission. So far, the source has agreed only to Bob testifying about their conversation in the Fitzgerald investigation.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Why did Washington Post allow Woodward as a Washington Post reporter to criticize the CIA leak investigation?

Leonard Downie Jr.: We did not allow it. Bob did it without careful thought in live television appearances. He should not have done so. It was a violation of our rules for television appearances by our journalists. Bob has acknowledged that and apologized.

_______________________

Bel Air, Md.: Do you know if Mr. Woodward ever ask his source to release him from his confidentiality agreement? And if he hadn't then would you have recommended he try doing that?

Leonard Downie Jr.: He has asked his source to do so.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Obviously, either Pincus or Woodward is lying. When you find out which one, will you fire him?

Leonard Downie Jr.: After talking to both of them at length about this, I and they believe they each have honestly different recollections of conversations two years ago. There are a lot of such quick conversations among reporters in a busy newsroom, not all of which are going to be accurately remembered years later.

______________________

Richmond, Va.: I don't object to Woodward expressing his opinion. What I object to is him doing so while he was involved in the matter without making it clear that he was involved in the matter. This is dishonest in the extreme, and in my view has probably destroyed his credibility. From now on, anybody can question the motives behind anything he says or writes. No one has made such a claim, but any claim that he didn't know better would not be credible. The Post will not even publish a letter to the editor without the writer making known their interest in the matter.

All of this is very unfortunate given his exceptional record.

Leonard Downie Jr.: You are correct in what you say, and this mistake must be measured against what you rightly refer to as Bob's exceptional record.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: To many of us Post readers, Mr. Woodward appeared to be more interested in protecting his book than reporting the news. I imagine he makes a lot more money writing books than working for The Post. What can he and the Post do to restore our trust the next time I read something on The Post by Mr. Woodward, that he is telling all and not withholding some information for his own profitability?

Leonard Downie Jr.: This was not information that Bob was withholding for a book. It was an aside to the reporting he was doing for his book. What Bob has published in the Post has stood the test of time for accuracy and trustworthiness. And significant contents of his books have regularly appeared first in the Post in news stories by Bob and excerpts from his books before their publication.

_______________________

Broomfield, Colo.: Greetings, will any of the info Woodward has given you affect the Libby case?

Leonard Downie Jr.: I don't know. You can see from one of our stories earlier this week that lawyers are speculating both that it might affect it or that it won't.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Will Libby's defense lawyers be able to call Woodward and other journalists to testify at his trial? Can you limit their questioning to the parameters agreed upon by Fitzgerald?

Leonard Downie Jr.: That is an interesting question for all the journalists caught up in the Plame investigation and their news organizations. We will have to see what happens.

_______________________

Omaha, Neb.: Does Woodward always decide for us which information he feels we need to know?

Does The Post approve of his filtering of information to your readers?

Leonard Downie Jr.: No. His editors ultimately decide. That is why he should have told me sooner about this piece of information, whether or not we would have been able to report it because of the confidential source agreement.

_______________________

Bel Air, Md.: If you had known about Woodward's role two years ago, would that have had an impact on how you would have evaluated the stories that other Post journalists were writing? Stories about the CIA leak case.

Should Mr. Woodward apologize to the other journalists at The Post?

Leonard Downie Jr.: Perhaps it would have had an impact, so long as the confidential source agreement was not violated. As to your second question, Bob's very public apology is to everyone.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: Do you think much of the criticism of Woodward is from liberals upset that he has written favorably of the President and criticized the special prosecutor?

Leonard Downie Jr.: Bob wrongly expressed opinions about the Fitzgerald investigation. But he has not, in my view, written favorably or unfavorably about the President. He has impartially reported much important information about the President's policies and actions and left readers to decide how to view the President.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thanks for doing this exchange. I don't understand why there is an issue of confidentiality if the exchange between a reporter is "gossip" rather than "gathering info" for a story....does that mean the default position is that everything is off the record when talking with a reporter? That was not the case in the mid 80s when I was a reporter/editor. Also, at the time the "gossip" comment was made, there was no Fitzgerald (nor was there one on the horizon), so those explanations for keeping quiet seem somewhat constructed after the fact. Thanks.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Excellent question. The interview that was taking place when the gossipy exchange took place was entirely covered by a confidential source agreement. Therefore, the gossipy exchange was, too. It wasn't as though it had occurred in some other casual conversation outside the confidential source agreement.

_______________________

South Hadley, Mass.: There seems to be a lot of speculation about journalists' cozy ties to the administration -- especially Bob Woodward with his three books on this administration. Have you given any thought to publishing a piece by one of your investigative reporters on the process by which journalists cultivate and access government officials and all of the implications of this process regarding the ethics of journalism and the public's right to know?

Leonard Downie Jr.: Another good question. Our media reporter, Howard Kurtz, writes frequently in our pages of about this important issue and will continue to do so.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Does The Post see a distinction between info from confidential sources, where the purpose is to shed light on government mal or misfeasance, and info that is part of a coordinated campaign to silence critics?

Matt cooper of Time, when he was given the info, wrote a story on the coordinated campaign against Ambassador Wilson. Others merely dutifully reported the information, allowing the "leakers" to hide behind the confidentiality granted by the reporters.

While there is much about Mr. Woodward's conduct that is disturbing, if the Post and its brethren would adopt a policy that sources understood would result in disclosure of info under these circumstances, perhaps sunlight into government would be furthered rather than lessened.

To quote another, better source: "Here's a good rule of thumb. Don't shield powerful government officials who use the press for partisan activity they know the public would disapprove of. And, write the real story, not the partisan smear your valued "sources" are feeding you for the privilege of future access.

It will pay off in the long run. You'll find yourself facing subpoenas and jail time far less often. "

Leonard Downie Jr.: I've gone overtime because there are so many questions, many of which I just can't get to, so this will be the last. Any time a reporter enters into a confidential source relationship, it must not be violated, no matter what the source's motive may be. That is why it is important that reporters enter into them carefully and keep their editors informed when necessary. It is a difficult and important tool of journalism that we must work to use properly every day, which is not always easy.

Thank you all for your interest and good questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1700936_pf.html

Prosecutor in Leak Case Calls for New Grand Jury

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: November 19, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - The special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case said on Friday that he would use a new grand jury in his continuing investigation, a development that seemed certain to extend the political cloud hanging over the Bush administration and could draw new players into the investigation.

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told a federal judge in a court filing that he would begin additional proceedings before a grand jury different from the one that brought an indictment last month against I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The 18-month term of the previous grand jury expired last month. In his previous statements, Mr. Fitzgerald had left the door open to using a new grand jury in the case.

The prosecutor also made clear in the new court filing that "the investigation is ongoing," after saying last month that "the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded."

Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment on his decision to go before a new grand jury, but legal analysts and law enforcement officials said the development suggested that he might be considering calling new witnesses to look at fresh evidence.

The case generated even greater scrutiny and speculation this week after the disclosure by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that a confidential source told him in June 2003 that the wife of the former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, who became a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraqi intelligence, worked at the C.I.A. Mr. Woodward said he gave sworn testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald on Monday after his source went to the prosecutor, for reasons still unexplained, to disclose their 2-year-old conversation.

Legal experts said it was possible that Mr. Fitzgerald might want to take Mr. Woodward and his source before a grand jury to explore the episode, which alters the timeline of events that the prosecutor laid out last month against Mr. Libby.

The identity of Mr. Woodward's source remains a mystery. More than a dozen top Bush administration officials, including the president and vice president, have directly or indirectly denied telling Mr. Woodward of Mr. Wilson's wife's role at the C.I.A. On Friday, Anna Perez, who served in 2003 as the top communications strategist on the staff of the National Security Council, joined those who had issued denials.

But a handful of officials have declined to comment, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is traveling in Asia with President Bush. Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, has not replied to messages.

On Friday, Time magazine reported new details about dealings between Mr. Woodward and the current or former administration official who first told him about the role of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, at the C.I.A. The magazine reported on its Web site that Mr. Woodward sought on three occasions to persuade his source to release him from his pledge of confidentiality, once in 2004 and twice this year.

The final effort, Mr. Woodward told the magazine, occurred after Mr. Fitzgerald's Oct. 28 news conference announcing the indictment of Mr. Libby, when the prosecutor said Mr. Libby was the first administration official known to have discussed Ms. Wilson's identity with a reporter when he spoke to Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, on June 23, 2003.

According to the magazine, Mr. Woodward recognized then that his source had told him about Ms. Wilson earlier, sometime in mid-June. Mr. Woodward said he had made that point in a call to his source, and the source told him that "he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor." The prosecutor contacted Mr. Woodward on Nov. 3, and Mr. Woodward testified on Nov. 14.

The use of a new grand jury, perhaps to explore the Woodward issue, does not necessarily indicate that Mr. Fitzgerald plans to bring additional charges against anyone. But current and former prosecutors noted that the process was time-consuming - the new grand jury will probably have to be read at length from the transcript from the last grand jury on any relevant issues-and that the prosecutor would be unlikely to take such a step lightly.

"If he's taking the affirmative step of going before a new grand jury, he clearly has more evidence he wants to present," said Nicholas Gess, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. "That's not just a fishing expedition."

E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., a former federal prosecutor who is now a prominent defense lawyer in Washington, said the development "means a little bit of jeopardy to everyone" who had been connected to the investigation because Mr. Fitzgerald might be exploring new avenues and revisiting old ones.

"Just when the White House thought it was over the indictment hump with Libby, now all of a sudden you have an active investigation back on the front burner," Mr. Barcella said.

The prospect of a prolonged investigation seems likely to focus increased attention on Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser who has acknowledged having conversations with reporters about Ms. Wilson.

Some of Mr. Rove's supporters had expressed hope that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision last month to allow the previous grand jury to expire without charging Mr. Rove signaled he was no longer in jeopardy. But lawyers involved in the case said Mr. Rove remained under scrutiny, and the prosecutor could use the new grand jury to review his case.

The White House declined to comment on the issue Friday, as did Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, who has said he believes his client will ultimately be exonerated.

Friday's hearing centered on how journalists and the public would be allowed to hear about developments that were likely to touch on both classified material and secret grand jury testimony.

Mr. Fitzgerald initially sought a broad order that would have severely restricted the flow of public information during the pre-trial discovery process. But after objections from several news organizations, he agreed Friday to a more limited order that would allow material to be discussed publicly so long as it does not relate to classified documents, grand jury material or private, personal White House information.

David Johnston and Douglas Jehl contributed reporting for this article.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Sources_who_...wards_1118.html

Sources who identified Hadley as Woodward's source dismiss denials
Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna

Despite news reports Thursday asserting National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was not the source who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA agent, sources with direct knowledge of the case still maintain that Hadley was the “senior administration official” who met with Woodward.

The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Reuters published stories late Thursday in which anonymous officials denied that Hadley was Woodward’s source. Asked Friday if he was the source, Hadley remarked, "I've also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources." Leaving the room, he refused to answer directly.

“It is what it is,” he quipped.

Earlier this week, Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter whose investigative stories on the Watergate scandal forced the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said he had first learned about Plame’s identity in June 2003. The name was divulged in a period when Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides had sought to find out who she was in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who had called into question the veracity of the administration’s prewar intelligence.

Attorneys close to the CIA leak investigation reasserted late Thursday that Hadley approached Fitzgerald after Libby’s indictment and alerted him to the June 2003 conversation he had with Woodward, and that he subsequently told Woodward he could testify.

When pressed further, the sources told RAW STORY there is a record at the National Security Council of Hadley’s meeting with Woodward.

A National Security Council spokesperson denied Friday that Hadley was Woodward’s source. The individual declined to go on the record by name, saying the issue is sensitive, but denied categorically that the National Security Adviser had told Woodward of Plame.

The official asked that RAW STORY not use direct quotes, and said they had given similar instructions to other reporters. When asked about Hadley's comments to the press Friday, the official said ambiguity was not intended.

Lawyers familiar with the case said that Hadley spoke to Woodward in June 2003 about Plame and had revealed her identity in an off-handed manner during an interview Woodward was conducting for his book, “Plan of Attack.”

The sources did not, however, have information as to what prompted Hadley to suddenly come forward.

The individuals said Hadley was the senior Bush official who met with Woodward Wednesday. They previously identified Cheney aides John Hannah and David Wurmser as individuals cooperating in Fitzgerald’s probe; said that Libby and senior Bush advisor Karl Rove were targets; and were the first to reveal that the grand jury was probing Cheney’s role.

Hadley was privy to a June 10, 2003 Intelligence and Research memo prepared by INR head Carl Ford for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements related to his role in the leak.

Reporters at the Times and Reuters told RAW STORY their sources were anonymous White House officials. The Wall Street Journal cited an NSC aide. None acquired denial directly from Hadley’s office.

Leonard Downie, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, declined to comment on the Hadley report.

"There's no discussion of confidential sources," he said.

There have been a couple of documents added to the OSC web site regarding this. Although I'm not a legal eagle, it looks like Fitzgerald is telling Dow Jones that they can't have access to the documents.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/20/cia.leak.reut/

Washington Post rebukes Bob Woodward

Sunday, November 20, 2005; Posted: 3:38 p.m. EST (20:38 GMT)

Programming Note: Bob Woodward discusses the CIA leak probe and his silence, Monday on Larry King Live at 9 p.m. ET


Bob Woodward's source has yet to be made public in the leak. WATCH Browse/Search


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Washington Post's ombudsman rebuked journalist Bob Woodward on Sunday for withholding what he knew about the CIA leak probe from his editor and for making public statements that were dismissive of the investigation without disclosing his own involvement.

One of the best-known investigative reporters in the United States, Woodward revealed last week that he testified under oath to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame's position at the agency.

Fitzgerald announced a few days later in court papers that his two-year criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's identity would be going back before a federal grand jury, a sign he may seek new or revised charges.

The name of Woodward's source has yet to be made public and so far more than a dozen senior administration officials have denied any involvement in the leak.

Asked on "Fox News Sunday" if he ever spoke to Woodward about Plame, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "No, of course not." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a similar denial through a spokesman on Saturday.

In a column highly critical of Woodward's conduct, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell said the newspaper took a "hit to its credibility" and called for more oversight of Woodward's work.

"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff -- even if he's rich and famous," Howell wrote of Woodward, one of the two Washington Post reporters famed for coverage of the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon.

Howell said Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.

"He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and (CNN's) "Larry King Live" about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge of Plame's identity," Howell wrote.

In a series of television and radio interviews before publicly disclosing his involvement in the leak case, Woodward described the leak case as laughable and Fitzgerald's behavior as "disgraceful."

One day before Fitzgerald brought charges against Vice President Dick Cheney's long-time chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Woodward said he saw no evidence of criminal intent.

Woodward has apologized to Downie, who said "Bob made a mistake" by not informing him sooner of his source on Plame.

"He made a mistake going on television, giving his opinions about the investigation. ... He shouldn't have been expressing those opinions," Downie added on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, has called for an inquiry by The Washington Post into Woodward's conduct, citing a similar investigation by The New York Times into the conduct of reporter Judith Miller, who resigned from The Times earlier this month.

Miller, who spent 85 days in jail for initially refusing to testify to Fitzgerald about her conversations with Libby, resigned after Times Executive Editor Bill Keller suggested she had misled the paper, a charge Miller denied

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Woodward Talks of Admission, Apology
Author Says He Realized He Would Be 'Dragged Into This'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 22, 2005; A09



Bob Woodward said yesterday that he notified his editor at The Washington Post of his involvement in the CIA leak case because he realized he "was going to be dragged into this."

In an interview with CNN's Larry King, Woodward, a Post assistant managing editor and best-selling author, detailed the events that led him to apologize to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. for not notifying him earlier that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame in June 2003.

In late October, Woodward said, he "learned another piece of this puzzle," which prompted him to go into "incredibly aggressive reporting mode." He said he called the source and asked about their earlier conversation involving Plame, the wife of White House critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. According to Woodward, the source said: "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

At that point, Woodward told King, "I realized I was going to be dragged into this, that I was the catalyst. And then I asked the source, 'If you go to the prosecutor, am I released to testify?' And the source told me, 'Yes.' "

Woodward testified before Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald last week but said the source would not release him from his pledge of confidentiality on the question of publicly discussing their off-the-record conversation.

He added: "Remember, the investigation and the allegations that people have printed about this story is that there's some vast conspiracy to slime Joe Wilson and his wife, really attack him in an ugly way that is outside of the boundaries of political hardball. The evidence I had firsthand -- a small piece of the puzzle, I acknowledge -- is that that was not the case."

He said the source told him Plame was a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction. In his experience, Woodward said, such analysts are not undercover. Fitzgerald has said Plame had covert status.

Asked how he could have discussed the Fitzgerald probe, on King's show among others, without revealing his involvement, Woodward said: "I try to give as much information as I can, but it is inevitable -- if I'm doing my job trying to dig into what's going on in the Bush administration, what is the nature of this war, what is the CIA up to -- that there are going to be things I know that we can't talk about, or I'm not going to bring up, most certainly."

Downie has said Woodward made a "mistake" in not informing him about the Plame conversation and should not have been voicing his opinions about Fitzgerald. Woodward told King he had to "find ways of expressing myself that don't look like I'm making a judgment or voicing an opinion, but offering analysis or, hopefully, some new facts."

Woodward said he was not trying to denigrate Fitzgerald by calling him a "junkyard dog." Woodward said he had often used the term to describe Michael Isikoff, a Newsweek correspondent who once worked at The Post and who was on a CNN panel last month when Woodward offered the description.

In an MSNBC interview in June, Woodward said of Fitzgerald, "His behavior in my view has been disgraceful." He said yesterday that he meant "it is disgraceful that we have an investigation where reporters are being subpoenaed." He also said Fitzgerald was "quite respectful of the First Amendment" during last week's deposition.

Asked if the episode has hurt his reputation, Woodward said, "That's for other people to judge."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2101378_pf.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview With Bob Woodward

Aired November 21, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, exclusive Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Bob Woodward, caught up in the CIA leak controversy. What did he know about Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame? When did he know it and why didn't he tell his boss for more than two years; Bob Woodward for the hour next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Good evening. Tonight, we welcome Bob Woodward for one of his many appearances to LARRY KING LIVE at our request and he did accept almost immediately.

The assistant managing editor, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, has two number one "New York Times" best sellers. His books have included "The Secret Man," the story of Watergate's Deep Throat and "Plan of Attack." He's currently writing another book.

A little background on November 14th Bob Woodward gave a sworn deposition to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in connection with the public disclosure of the identity of the CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The deposition focused on small portions of interviews that Woodward had done with what he characterizes as three current or former Bush administration officials.

The interviews in question were conducted in June of 2003. Woodward says it was in mid-June that one of those officials told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

The hottest parlor game in Washington is trying to guess the identity of the still confidential source. That source has released Woodward to talk to Special Counsel Fitzgerald but not to publicly disclose his or her identity.

This program has come into question because on the night of October 27th in response to rumors that he'd have a bombshell he was on this program. Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek" said the following, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, "NEWSWEEK": 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 was behind the whole thing. So, I don't know maybe this Bob's opportunity.

KING: Come clean.

BOB 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 what's the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.

KING: And you (INAUDIBLE) tonight right?

WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie who is the editor of "The Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on that?"

KING: So now the rumors are about you?

WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Okay, Robert, what were you not telling us that night?

WOODWARD: Well, first of all, I was telling you the exact truth that I did not have a bombshell or any story for the next day's paper. I did know that back, you know, over two years ago at the end of a very long interview, substantive interview for my book "Plan of Attack" a source had, when I asked about Joe Wilson, told me that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst. At that point and on your show I didn't know what that meant at all because it was such a casual offhand remark.

KING: But should you -- you later apologized. Should you have told your editor?

WOODWARD: Yes. I have a great relationship with Len Downie, the editor of the Post and I was trying to avoid being subpoenaed and I should have, as I have many, many times, taken him into my confidence and I did not.

KING: But did you also know when you came on and these may be difficult things for investigative journalists that you had to talk about the Plame case and yet you knew you couldn't say certain things about it or wouldn't say certain things about it?

WOODWARD: That's true. But every time somebody appears on your show talking about the news or giving some sort of analysis there are going to be things that they can't talk about. It's not at all unusual. There are all kinds of things.

I'm working on a book, "Bush's Second Term." I'm trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are things I know that I'm just not going to talk about involving that research.

So, it's an ongoing process and to take a snapshot, which is fair, when that was asked of me I knew in the back of my mind how offhand and casual this was and I was trying to make the underlying point, which I think is very important that it seemed to me there was no crime, underlying crime in this investigation.

In fact, the very next day when the Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced he was indicting Libby for perjury, he did not indict anybody for the underlying crime, so he seems to at least at this point agree with that point.

So, I don't find it unusual. I don't find it uncomfortable going back to the Clinton years or all kinds of things we've talked about. I try to give as much information as I can but it is inevitable, if I'm doing my job trying to dig into what's going on in the Bush administration, what is the nature of this war, what is the CIA up to that there are going to be things I know that we can't talk about or I'm not going to bring up most certainly.

KING: In retrospect, Bob, could you have said on the show that night, well to you and your viewers I do have some information, I'm working on it, something was said to me but I can't reveal it? That would have covered this whole thing.

WOODWARD: But that's always the case. That's always the case and that would be, you know, well what is it? You would have asked me what are you working on? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Is it a bombshell? Is it a firecracker? Is it a stick of dynamite and so forth?

That is the nature of this kind of reporting. Remember, I'm trying to figure out what goes on in a very closed secretive White House and have had some success at doing that because of the process, "The Washington Post" giving me time to do these in-depth examinations or books.

KING: Last week the Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, said "Last week we found out that he (Woodward) kept the kind of information from Downie, the editor that it is a deeply serious sin not to disclose to a boss. That kind can get a good reporter in the dog house for a long time." Why didn't you tell him?

WOODWARD: Because I, you know, I was focused on getting the book done. You know the significance of this is yet to be determined and what's the good news in all of this is when it all comes out, and hopefully it will come out, people will see how casual and offhand this was.

Remember, the investigation and the allegations that people have printed about this story is that there's some vast conspiracy to slime Joe Wilson and his wife, really attack him in an ugly way that is outside of the boundaries of political hardball.

The evidence I had firsthand, small piece of the puzzle I acknowledge, is that that was not the case. So, I'm trying to find out and focus on immense questions about are we going to go to war in Iraq? How are we going to do it? What is the nature of Powell's position? What did Cheney do? What was the CIA's role? How good was the intelligence on all of this?

I think at this point I was learning things like that the CIA Director George Tenet went in and told the president the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. That was new. That was the basis of this incredibly critical decision the president and his war cabinet were making on do we invade Iraq?

KING: When and why did you finally decide to disclose it to your editor?

WOODWARD: An excellent question. The week of the indictment I was working on something and learned another piece of this puzzle and I told Len Downie about it and I told him about the source and what had been disclosed to me and there was a sense before the indictment, well, this is kind of interesting but it's not clear what it means.

Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.

I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.

KING: Did you also ask -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. Did you ask the source...

WOODWARD: No.

KING: ...then in view of that why can't I announce your name to the public?

WOODWARD: I did later in the week and the source said no.

KING: We'll take a break.

WOODWARD: And I would love to. OK.

KING: We'll take a break. We'll come right back with Bob Woodward.

As we go to break here is the editor of "The Washington Post" Len Downie. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD KURTZ, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Deborah Howell, the Post ombudsman writes this morning that the paper took a hit to its credibility and that the Woodward episode put the Post in a terrible light. Do you disagree with that?

LEN DOWNIE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Oh, I think that's for other people to judge and for time to tell but certainly Bob made a mistake and a mistake that he's apologized for and also he made a mistake going on television giving his opinions about the investigation. Whether or not he was holding this secret he shouldn't have been expressing those opinions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK FITZGERALD, SPECIAL COUNSEL IN CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION: Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July, 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14, 2003 but Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA.

Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And that, Bob, is when you jumped right?

WOODWARD: Yes, exactly and this is where reporting, just like this prosecutor here every bit of information I have he's trying to find out what happened. A reporter, it's not always a straight line from A to B to C and I did jump and I thought what is the significance of this? What is my obligation to get information out to the public?

And that's why I went to my source. And also in that press conference Patrick Fitzgerald said something that really kind of struck me. He said that truth is the engine of the judicial system. And when I testified to him under oath this came up and I said "I like to think that in my business journalism that truth is also one of the engines. At least it's what we aspire to."

And so there is this moment when I realized I have a piece of something. I truly don't know what it means but then I go in a mode where actually some people said, you know, why did you do this? Why not stay out of it? Why get involved?

And all of the juices, my wife Elsa told me this is you could almost just almost hear it the reporting news juices running. And so, I started talking to people and I talked to the source and that process now led us, you know, what a couple of weeks later we know a lot more about this case. And that's what we do in journalism. We try to get more out and this has happened in this case.

KING: Mr. Downie said you should not have given your opinion. Was he correct?

WOODWARD: Yes. I think I was a little hyper and a lot of pent up frustrations that night. And as you have pointed out a number of times, I tend to be very neutral, overly neutral and I think I should find ways of expressing myself that don't look like I'm making a judgment or voicing an opinion but offering analysis or hopefully some new facts.

KING: Do you have concerns about why this source doesn't want he or her to be known for us to know him or her? Wouldn't that concern you?

WOODWARD: Sure, always.

KING: In this truth and nothing to hide government?

WOODWARD: I would love it but here is the issue. The public rightly and passionately wants to know what's going on in government behind the scenes. What's the real story?

I've spent my life trying to find out what's really hidden, what's in the bottom of the barrel? To get what's in the bottom of the barrel you have to establish relationships of confidentiality with people at all levels of government.

You have to establish relationships of trust and then those people will provide you with information and evidence so you can get to the better version, what Carl Bernstein and I used to call the best obtainable version of the truth.

KING: But when you are in that position it's obvious you can also be used for example.

WOODWARD: Sure.

KING: Bob, I'll tell you this and what you release don't mention me will be beneficial to me and you like it because I'm telling you something I didn't tell him, so it's quid pro quo.

WOODWARD: (INAUDIBLE). No it's not quid pro quo. That's what's nice about the process and the method of going to everybody else involved. And in these matters in the Bush administration I've been able to do two books.

I've been able to interview President Bush for the last book "Plan of Attack" for three and a half hours over two days, no limitations on questions, no practical limitation on time.

It was like -- people who have read the transcript said it's like a deposition. Why did you do this? Cheney said this. How about this intelligence? So, all the stuff, all the material I've gained from confidential sources and documents and notes and so forth can be tested in this case with the president who is on the record and if he wants to say, oh, that's not true or offer his point of view, as he does, then that will be included.

So, everyone in the end, you can't do this for a daily newspaper story, pretty much gets their point of view out.

KING: But don't you have to in that sense sort of like him? He's given you three hours. He'll help you with the next book. Doesn't that give him an edge with you?

WOODWARD: He is giving his position. You know an edge in what sense do you mean an edge?

KING: Well he's not going to come out looking terrible because you want him for your next book and you'd like to have that in.

WOODWARD: But, you know, I would never compromise. You know, if I may, I brought some headlines in "The Washington Post." Do these make any sense?

KING: I think so. Hold them up a little.

WOODWARD: Yes, OK.

KING: Or you can read them.

WOODWARD: Yes, OK, this is November, 2002 before -- as the book "Bush at War" came out about the war in Afghanistan, "A struggle for the president's heart and mind" -- struggle. It explains in great detail how Powell had different positions. There was immense tension and difficulties in the war council.

Let's see this is the second part of that series, "Doubts and Debate Before Victory Over the Taliban," doubts and debate. Now, anyone who knows anything about the Bush administration they'd rather keep doubts and debate off stage. I bring them on stage in this book.

You know I don't want to go on but "The New York Times" front page when the book "Plan of Attack" came out last year, "Airing of Powell's Misgivings Tests Cabinet Ties" and says the book jolted the White House and aggravated long festering tensions in the Bush cabinet.

So, I'm not compromising anything and anyone who looks at the books or the coverage will see that it has some pretty tough stuff in it. At the same time, the president or others get to express their point of view.

KING: Let me get a break.

WOODWARD: I believe that's journalism.

KING: We'll come right back with a man who some think when they see journalism in the dictionary get his picture, Bob Woodward. Don't go away. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If during the course of the public trial information comes out with regard to other people who have leaked, the source of the leak or other people who have disclosed Ms. Plame's identity, would this then reverberate back to you since you have been studying this if new information is forthcoming during the course of the trial?

FITZGERALD: If I can take it with -- answer your question with a bucket of cold water and say let's not read too much into it. Any new information that would ever come to light while the investigation open -- is open would be handled by our investigative team concerning these facts.

So, if there's anything that we haven't learned yet that we learn that should be addressed we will address it but I don't want to create any great expectations out there by giving sort of a general answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOODWARD: There's a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at "The Washington Post" the junkyard dog. Well, this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And, Bob, adding to that on NPR this summer you said, "I think when all the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great." Have you changed your mind?

WOODWARD: You know it's an ongoing story but just let me take what I said to you on the eve of these indictments of Scooter Libby. I called him the junkyard prosecutor. I think that's a term I shouldn't use because it's easily ripped out of context.

Mike Isikoff was there. Mike Isikoff I hired at "The Washington Post" many years ago. I used to laugh and call him a junkyard dog reporter as a compliment because he never gives up. And here on the eve of this indictment I'm saying this prosecutor looks everywhere, looks under every rock.

Well the irony is the next day I learned that he was missing a significant piece that -- or it might be a significant piece and it involved me so I'm one of the rocks he never turned over in an interesting way. And, as people have rightly written, so, you know, what do we know about this? It went on for two years. A piece was missed.

KING: But you still wouldn't -- you still wouldn't say you think the consequences are not great.

WOODWARD: Could be that the consequences are not great. Certainly the charge against Scooter Libby is about as serious as you can get.

KING: Sure.

WOODWARD: But the issue was there some sort of conspiracy or organized effort or effort by one person to out, to disclose publicly that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover operative I haven't yet seen evidence of that. Now, in this case we all get surprised me at the top of the list.

KING: Doesn't it appear a little that way though when your other source won't let it be public who he or she is? That sounds conspiratorial.

WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.

And what does that mean just in the practical world? That I can go around and get information from people and they know they're going to be protected. I'm not going to go out and risk that and do something.

You know I am protecting not a person but a relationship and the information I get for my newspaper and books and that's the vital lifeline. Now, if we want to come up with a system that prevents people from providing that information, you know, what are we going to do? I mean take the yard off junkyard, it will be junk because our portrait of government will be false.

KING: Didn't you once call Fitzgerald though disgraceful?

WOODWARD: No. I said it is disgraceful that we have an investigation where reporters are being subpoenaed and jailed.

KING: Oh.

WOODWARD: And again I should find words that say I hate it. I don't like it. I think it is not good public policy. I think people really do need to know what's going on in government and if this is going to become a habit watch out.

KING: We'll be right back with Bob Woodward on this edition of LARRY KING LIVE.

Jerry Seinfeld will be with us tomorrow night and Wednesday night Judge Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Bob Woodward of the "Washington Post," who's currently writing another book on this administration.

You got a working title yet, by the way?

WOODWARD: I do not. Have to see, you know, what's the -- a lot of it's about Iraq, obviously. But it's not even a year into this second term.

KING: OK. Your source, did the source indicate whether Mrs. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?

WOODWARD: Good question. And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I've been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except -- in fact, I don't even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they're not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it.

And so -- and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

KING: How did it even come up?

WOODWARD: Came up because I asked about Joe Wilson, because a few days before, my colleague at the "Washington Post," Walter Pincus, had a front-page story, saying there was an unnamed envoy -- there was no name given -- who had gone to Niger the year before to investigate for the CIA if there was some Niger-Iraq uranium deal or yellow cake deal.

I learned that that ambassador's name was Joe Wilson, which was, you know, Wilson eventually surfaced...

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: Most kind of off-hand.

KING: All right.

WOODWARD: One of those things. And so I -- I didn't think much of it.

KING: What did Libby say when you were with him? Was that a more complete discussion?

WOODWARD: No. Now this is what's interesting. And I had two -- one phone conversation and one long interview with Libby during this period. I had questioned lists that had hundreds of questions, one of them Joe Wilson's wife. I had no recollection at all that I asked about Joe Wilson's wife. I'm taking extensive notes. Libby said nothing about Joe Wilson's wife or about this in any way at that time.

So if he was involved in something like this, at least he decided -- when I say this, somehow outing her -- he decided not to converse with me about it. But because it's on a question list, and this is why Fitzgerald was turning over every rock.

He said, "Well, is it possible you asked -- in other words, that you conveyed to Libby that you knew Joe Wilson's wife worked in the CIA? Because it's on a question list."

And my sworn testimony is that it's possible. I certainly don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to.

KING: There's been some criticism as to why you agreed to submit written questions to Vice President Cheney, which is normally not your bag. Why?

WOODWARD: Yes, I don't -- somebody has questioned that. In my book, "Plan of Attack," I outline how I sent a 21-page memo to President Bush with the chronology and some of the questions I wanted to ask, in no sense limiting the questions. And I've done that with Cheney, and I've done that with other people.

It is an aid and a way to say, "This is the period of time I want to cover, some of the issues, some of the, quite frankly, things I've learned that you may not be comfortable with or some of the secrets in all of this," and then let the person respond. But no one has ever said, OK, that's not on the list, you can't ask that question. So...

KING: ... did you meet with Cheney?

WOODWARD: Not in this period.

KING: Did you meet with him for the other book, though? It wasn't just rigid questions, or was it?

WOODWARD: The people who are on record for the second book, for "Plan of Attack," are the president and Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. All the other interviews are on background. So again, I'm not going to go parading a list of people I talked to.

KING: We'll be right back with more of Bob Woodward. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED WELLS, LEWIS LIBBY'S ATTORNEY: Mr. Libby is very grateful to Bob Woodward for coming forth and telling the truth. We are also very grateful for Mr. Woodward's source, who permitted Mr. Woodward to come forward. All we want in this case is for the truth to come out.

And we urge all reporters who have relevant information to do like Mr. Woodward did today and come forward with the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That was Scooter Libby's attorney, Ted Wells.

Two questions. What do you feel like, being involved in a story, rather than covering it? Because that's what this is. And number two does Libby know who your source is?

WOODWARD: I don't know the answer to the second question, what Libby knows about this. You know, you get gratitude from people, and from strange places, and then there is the same, beware of what you wish for.

And sometimes -- that's a lawyer defending Libby, and that's our system. And, you know, don't be surprised if I get denounced by them at some point in this. That happens in journalism, but I am strictly in the middle. I don't wear a uniform. I'm not red state or blue state in this.

I did provide information in this case about Libby.

KING: What was that like, by the way? What was it like to be deposed?

WOODWARD: No, that's a good question. I guess it was just a week ago. It was in the offices of Wilmer Cutler, a law firm here in Washington, and my lawyer, Howard Shapiro, a former FBI general counsel, somebody I would turn to again, a superb lawyer.

And it was in a conference room, court reporter. I'm sworn. This is like the grand jury. Patrick Fitzgerald is there.

The head FBI agent, and one of Fitzgerald's deputies. Howard Shapiro on my right, Eric Lieberman, one of "The Post" attorneys, Bill Murphy, my assistant who happens to be a lawyer, an old army JAG lawyer, and a woman, named Jacqueline Moyer (ph) from Wilmer Cutler.

So, we're there. It's Patrick Fitzgerald is a very direct questioner. He had lots of--he questioned. He would check it off.

KING: Any you refused to answer?

WOODWARD: No, nothing. I was able to answer every question. And I'm grateful that Howard Shapiro and he -- you know, this is a classic awful situation that has sent one reporter to jail, and lots of hand wringing, and doubts within news organizations, "New York Times" and Time Magazine."

In a way I think, because they went first, we were able to learn some lessons here. Namely, get releases from everyone. I got specific releases directed to me waving all confidentiality, and not just saying you can testify, saying, we request you testify.

This is from the unnamed source, this is from White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and from Scooter Libby.

KING: What would you have done if the source had said don't tell them, and you were subpoenaed to deposition. Would you refuse?

WOODWARD: That is a situation I have not had to deal with in this case. But of course, when I went into my aggressive reporting mode, I didn't know exactly what was going to happen.

Now, if I hadn't done that, and the source had said, keep quiet, it's confidential. Then the special counsel in this case, Fitzgerald, wouldn't have known, I guess, and I would have stayed out of it.

You know, I don't like this is a mighty uncomfortable situation, but think how much more we now know about this story, just in the last week.

And yes, some people are unhappy, and angry about my role, but you know, you keep running into situations as a reporter, where you're going to go. And it may be a little rough for awhile, but you're still doing your job.

KING: Back with more of Bob Woodward of "The Washington Post" don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back with Bob Woodward.

With all those people at the deposition, do you feel that one of them might leak? Hey, it's Washington.

WOODWARD: Yes. That's quite possible. And that's something you have to deal with. My lawyers aren't going to, and I'm not going to do it. You know, we --the publisher of "The Post," Bo Jones, talked to recently and as we were going through this.

He's the one who as publisher in representing the business side and the news side reports to him, he raised the flag highest in our internal discussions about protecting confidential sources. He used to be "The Post" general counsel. He's a lawyer, and he knows that you have to protect those sources, at all costs.

KING: Does Mr. Downey know your new source? The source not yet named?

WOODWARD: Does he know who it is? Yes, he does.

KING: As Ben Bradlee knew in the Watergate.

WOODWARD: That's exactly right.

KING: If you had...

WOODWARD: Hopefully, this isn't going...

KING: I'm sorry go ahead.

WOODWARD: Hopefully, this isn't going to be 33 years until we find out exactly what happened.

KING: What if someone else finds it out? Fair game?

WOODWARD: That's fair game.

KING: If you had to do it all over, what would you change? Obviously you would tell Downey.

WOODWARD: Yes.

KING: What else?

WOODWARD: And then as he has said, as Len has said, we would have worked. And, you know, it's a matter of record, and it's a matter of my sworn testimony.

I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.

So, Len has acknowledged if he knew, there would have been nothing different in all of this. Len is not--Ben Bradlee's predecessor was a very colorful figure well know. Len is less so, but is--and it's not my nature, but I'll say this. He's the best newspaper person in the country. And he was one of our editors on Watergate 30 years ago.

And so I've known him through, you know, presidencies, Iran- Contra, all the Clinton scandals, you name it. And somebody I totally trust. He's a busy man. And I should have made the contact and told him about this.

KING: Would he...

WOODWARD: But I'm not sure anything would be different.

KING: What happens if another "Post" reporter finds out who it is? Would Downie prevent him from printing it?

WOODWARD: You know, he -- I think Len has said he would not, if it was independently established. People spent -- I hate to keep going back to this -- 33 years trying to figure out who Deep Throat was. They wrote articles, books, TV specials about it, and so forth.

And I was never delighted that people were trying to chase down that source; I'm not delighted in this case. But it's part of the process. KING: Doesn't it, just emotionally -- I've known you a long time -- give you any inertia? Don't you want to say it? I mean, isn't there...

(LAUGHTER)

No, no, I'm not kidding.

WOODWARD: Good try. Good try.

KING: No, no, everybody wants to say over the back fence, "Did you hear?" Who doesn't want to do that?

WOODWARD: Yes. But this isn't a back fence issue. This is about -- you know, if I treated it that way, no one would trust me. And I'm not treating it that way. I'm treating it with the utmost seriousness.

And what I was going to say about the special counsel, Fitzgerald, is that he and Howard Shapiro found a path through all of this where I could answer all the questions, provide what information and evidence I had to the special counsel, and he never asked about something that had to do with confidential conversations on other issues, on matters unrelated to this investigation.

So, quite frankly, I was astounded that we were able to do this, because other people got in this confrontation with him. He was quite respectful of the First Amendment. And he has said publicly he's not looking for a First Amendment showdown. Well, he demonstrated that.

So his -- there was a balancing that went on here, quite frankly. And this is -- this is part of the learning for me, that I did not think was possible. But in this case, it worked.

KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments with Bob Woodward right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEONARD DOWNIE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WASHINGTON POST: Bob has become very famous, and it's difficult to cope with that kind of fame, I think, for anybody. But also give him extraordinary access. I think if you just look at his books and look at his work product in the newspaper, you'll see that he plays it straight. He reveals things about the inner workings of the administration that people need to know that no other reporter reveals, and he does it in a straight and accurate and fair way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: In our remaining moments, do you think your reputation's been harmed?

WOODWARD: I mean, that's for other people to judge. KING: Do you think so?

WOODWARD: You know, I -- I think the biggest mistake you can make in this sort of situation as a reporter is to worry about yourself. And the issue here is what happened, what can I aggressively push to get in the newspaper or a book, and then in the end, you can deal with this.

Thirty-three years ago during Nixon and Watergate, I was 29- years-old. And there was a daily drumbeat denouncing Carl Bernstein and myself and saying the stories are lies, they're fabrications, they're untrue. That we're using anonymous sources and that there's some political motive and so forth. And that was -- that's how I got into this business, and -- and Ben Bradlee, the editor just, you know, "Be cool. Stick to it."

KING: And by the way, have you talked to him?

WOODWARD: Pardon? Yes.

KING: Was he supportive?

WOODWARD: He takes -- I mean, I'm going to quote him. This is the way Ben talks. He said, "Woodward doesn't have to tell anyone every goddamn thing he knows." And the -- you know, I -- I disagree with that. If Ben were around and I would have told him, and I should have told Len in this case.

But the -- you know, the issue of what's this about looms really large. And I remember, because it's seared in my head, going back to Watergate. Katharine Graham once asked about when are we going to find out the truth? When is everything going to come out?

And I said, "Never."

And she looked at me with this glare and this sense of pain. And she said, "Never? Don't tell me never."

And that was not a threat. That was a statement of purpose.

KING: And I'll ask it. When is this whole thing going to end?

WOODWARD: I don't know. We'll keep chipping at it and running at it. And people will write things, and there will be controversy. And welcome to American journalism.

KING: Do you still feel sorry about Judy Miller?

WOODWARD: Sure. I mean, she -- I don't know all the facts in that case. And so I'm -- you know, and there's more that have come out, and so forth. And I'm -- you know, the reporters -- and when I say, "Don't think about yourself," I mean the other reporters, also. What's the story? What can we tell people about this?

And then I go back to Bradlee again. He said, "The truth emerges." KING: Thanks very much, Bob, as always. Always good having you with us.

WOODWARD: Thanks.

KING: And we appreciate your coming here tonight.

Bob Woodward of the "Washington Post." Still lots more to learn. And we're going to do our best to try to find out all we can. And Woodward will be on the scene, as well. Bob Woodward.

Tomorrow night, Jerry Seinfeld is our special guest. And on Wednesday night, Judge Stephen Breyer, justice, United States Supreme Court.

Right now, our supreme pleasure to turn the podium over to Anderson Cooper and "ANDERSON COOPER 360." See you tomorrow.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/21/lkl.01.html

This is what Howard Kurtz said about what Woodward said in the Larry King interivew in the article above:



This is what Woodward actually said on Larry King:



I think I will send a transcript to Howie. There is no excuse for covering up for Woodward's false statement on King's show.

More Questions for Bob Woodward

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 27, 2005; B06



Most of the hundreds of readers who wrote and called after my column on Bob Woodward ran last week said I was way too soft on him and on The Post. I think their concerns and questions deserve to be answered.

One of those readers, Bob Woodward, thinks that some of his critics have "pigeonholed" him unfairly. "For 34 years of reporting for The Post and 13 best-selling books, I have tried to focus on the reader and provide detailed, reliable, fair-minded inside accounts of the American presidency," he said. "My books are regularly quoted in newspapers and magazines, on television during the presidential debates, and by Democrats, Republicans, Bush supporters and Bush critics."

Many readers started their e-mails by writing about what a hero Woodward has been to them since his reporting on the Watergate scandal and how much they appreciated his work. But they said they were disturbed by his reporting methods.

"Woodward has commented that his 'Job Number One' is to protect his sources," wrote Craig Fischer of Takoma Park. "All these years that I've been subscribing to the Post, I assumed that your Job Number One was to keep your readers informed about things. Woodward also said, 'I'm in the habit of keeping secrets.' Does that seem like the oddest thing for a newspaper reporter to say? Why bother gathering information if you're just going to keep it secret?"

Most of Woodward's reporting is done with confidential sources, whom he protects even under intense criticism, because he believes that is the only way he can dig out inside information. When he feels he has the complete story from interviews and documents, he usually writes without identifying his sources, though he quotes directly from on-the-record interviews. The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

Another reader wrote: "You and your colleagues are not yet grasping the full extent of the damage done. The sad fact is that Bob Woodward, and by extension The Washington Post, has an enormous vested interest in maintaining cozy relationships with the White House. Has that vested interest now compromised his integrity? More foxes guarding the henhouse does nothing for us hens."

Sources and reporters have to trust each other for there to be truthful journalism. Woodward does not have a reputation as being partisan. The access he has built over more than 30 years has gotten him both behind the closed doors of power -- and pilloried by some who believe he was sympathetic to Bush in "Plan of Attack," his book about how the Bush administration decided to go to war, although Democrats have also used the book for their attacks.

Woodward says some people ask, " 'Why don't you get Bush the way you got Nixon?' I'm not reporting to bring down a president or to build up a president. I ask the tough questions. I want to establish the facts in the most direct way I can." He says he believes that the question should be: "Do the readers get information that they didn't have before? I believe that I have added to what was known, and this is valuable."

Another frequent question is: Just what does Woodward do for The Post? Does he have a contract? And is he paid big bucks? Woodward, like most Post employees, does not have a contract. While his pay is confidential, I'm told by Executive Editor Len Downie that it is in the range of other senior reporters. Woodward holds the title of assistant managing editor, which he has retained since he was AME of the Metro section and of investigative projects. Reporters often call him to tap his expertise and to ask him to contact his sources for leads or other information. He has written 49 news stories since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and his byline was on six of the 10 stories that won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on terrorism.

Leo Rennert of Bethesda, a journalist and former bureau chief, asks a common question: "Woodward already has apologized to his editor. When will he and the Post have the grace to apologize, as they should, to their readers?" Woodward says he considered his apology to be to the newspaper and its readers.

Michael Doheny of Arlington writes, "What journalistic principle is Woodward upholding by not revealing the source of the leak . . . since he has revealed the identity to [Special Counsel Patrick] Fitzgerald?" The source requested that Woodward talk to Fitzgerald, but specifically forbade Woodward to release the name publicly.

Some of you asked why he was afraid of being subpoenaed, since he found out about Plame months before the leak investigation began. He said he was not concerned until after her name was published and the investigation began.

In a statement about his deposition, Woodward said that he submitted an 18-page list of questions to Vice President Cheney before he interviewed him for "Plan of Attack." Many readers were surprised that Woodward would tell a source what he intended to ask and said they thought he was going easy on a source. It is not uncommon in journalism, especially in highly complex stories, to let sources know what questions or issues will be asked. That doesn't mean that a reporter won't ask questions not on the list.

When the Plame case ends, I for one will be looking forward to knowing the whole story. I hope The Post and Woodward will pull no punches in telling us what went on in the rarefied levels of government and journalism.

Deborah Howell can be reached by phone at 202-334-7582 or by e-mail atombudsman@washpost.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2600741_pf.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_...s/cia_leak_time

Thanks Buster. Here is a recent story that Viveca Novak wrote about Woodward.



There is a brief mention of Viveca below.

Broder, Others on "Meet the Press" Wonder About Woodward

By E&P Staff

Published: November 27, 2005 5:30 PM ET

NEW YORK The final section of NBC's "Meet the Press" today briefly took up the fallout from Bob Woodward's sudden involvement in the Plame scandal.

Here is the transcript from that part, featuring the Washington Post's David Broder and Eugene Robinson, and Judy Woodruff.
*

TIM RUSSERT: Let me turn to the CIA leak investigation. Time magazine reports that Viveca Novak of Time magazine has now been subpoenaed to testify. David Broder, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, as you know, has testified before Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel. What's going on at The Post, in light of that?

MR. BRODER: Consternation, to be honest with you. I think none of us can really understand Bob's silence for two years about his own role in the case. He's explained it by saying he did not want to become involved and did not want to face a subpoena, but he left his editor, our editor, blindsided for two years and he went out and talked disparagingly about the significance of the investigation without disclosing his role in it. Those are hard things to reconcile.

MR. RUSSERT: Gene Robinson?

MR. ROBINSON: I agree with David. Consternation, a certain amount of embarrassment. And, you know, the fact that we can't understand why Bob did what he did. You know, I think that's a very interesting question in this whole incident about confidential sources, about access, about the tradeoffs that we all make for access in granting anonymity for sources. And, you know, I think that's going to continue. I think people are looking at us skeptically.

MR. RUSSERT: And every source I believe is going to want complete assurance that if I give you this information, will you refuse to testify even if it means going to prison.

MR. ROBINSON: But are we going to have to give sources a form to...

MR. RUSSERT: Well...

MR. ROBINSON: ...you know, is there going to be a form? Well, check off yes for, you know, grand jury testimony, no for public disclosure, yes...

MR. RUSSERT: We've only got a few seconds left. David Gregory, the White House thought that perhaps this thing was coming to closure. Now, there's a new grand jury. More reporters being brought in. What's the attitude, what's the mood about Karl Rove and the...

MR. GREGORY: Just a sense of malaise. The president can't get out from under it. He can't make a public statement about whether any top officials acted inappropriately until this is resolved.

MS. WOODRUFF: And, Tim, the blogs are suggesting that maybe Scooter Libby confused you and Bob Woodward. I've known you both for a quarter of a century. I don't know of anybody who could possibly make that mistake unless they just think all middle-aged white guys look alike.

MR. RUSSERT: Judy, you're a good friend of mine, but I'm no Bob Woodward.

We'll leave it there. We'll be right back.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1001571113

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/politics...artner=homepage


By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: December 2, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - A conversation between Karl Rove's lawyer and a journalist for Time magazine led Mr. Rove to change his testimony last year to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case, people knowledgeable about the sequence of events said Thursday.

Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak, a reporter for Time. In that conversation, Mr. Luskin heard from Ms. Novak that a colleague at the magazine, Matthew Cooper, might have interviewed Mr. Rove about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the case, the people said.

Time reported this week that the prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has summoned Ms. Novak to testify about a conversation she had with Mr. Luskin, but provided no explanation of what Mr. Fitzgerald might be looking for. The account provided Thursday by people with knowledge of the discussions between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is still trying to determine whether Mr. Rove was fully forthcoming with investigators and whether he altered his grand jury testimony about his dealings with reporters only after learning that one, Mr. Cooper, might identify him as a source.

Ms. Novak declined to comment, as did Mr. Luskin and Randall Samborn, Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman. Jim Kelly, Time's managing editor, said he would not comment on the matter. Mr. Cooper and James Carney, the magazine's Washington bureau chief, also declined to comment.

The people who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and could face reprisals if they did so. Ms. Novak's involvement is the latest twist in a case that has cast light on the close relationships between journalists, lawyers and government officials in Washington. I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only person who has been charged with a crime, in an indictment that says he misled a grand jury and investigators about his conversations in 2003 with journalists about the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie Wilson.

Lawyers in the case have said that Mr. Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, remains in legal jeopardy because his initial statements to investigators and to the grand jury were not accurate.

Months before the conversation between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove testified to the grand jury that he had held a conversation about the C.I.A. officer with only one journalist, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Rove did not disclose that he had also spoken to Mr. Cooper either in his first grand jury testimony, in February 2004, or in an earlier interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

But after his conversation with Ms. Novak, who is not related to the columnist, Mr. Luskin asked Mr. Rove to have the White House search for any record of a discussion between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper around the time that Ms. Wilson's identity became public in July 2003.

The search turned up an e-mail message from Mr. Rove to another senior White House official, Stephen J. Hadley, who was the deputy national security adviser, that recounted a conversation between Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper. On Oct. 14, 2004, Mr. Rove went before the grand jury again to alter his earlier account, by saying he had also discussed the C.I.A. officer with Mr. Cooper.

Associates of Mr. Rove said that he did not initially recall the conversation with Mr. Cooper amid the hundreds of calls and e-mail messages he deals with each day, and that once the message to Mr. Hadley was uncovered he took it to prosecutors and testified fully.

They have said that Mr. Rove had signed a waiver to allow reporters to testify about their confidential discussions with him and that he testified about his conversation with Mr. Cooper long before Mr. Cooper did.

But Mr. Fitzgerald appears to be evaluating whether Mr. Rove came forward with the e-mail and his new testimony only after it became apparent that Mr. Cooper might be compelled to testify about it. It is not clear precisely what Ms. Novak told Mr. Luskin, or what the context for their conversation had been.

People involved in the case said that at a minimum Ms. Novak communicated to Mr. Luskin that Mr. Rove might face legal problems because of potential testimony from Mr. Cooper, her colleague. They said Ms. Novak had told Mr. Luskin that Mr. Cooper might have been in contact with Mr. Rove about Ms. Wilson in the days before her identity became public. Mr. Cooper helped write an article on Time's Web site in July 2003 that was among the first, after Mr. Novak's column, to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity, using her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

The article said "some administration officials" had told Time and the syndicated columnist Robert Novak that "Valerie Plame is a C.I.A. official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

The article also noted that she was the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who had recently written an article in the Op-Ed page of The New York Times questioning one of the rationales, on Iraq's weapons program, offered by the Bush administration for the Iraq war. Mr. Wilson based his criticism on a trip he had taken to Niger for the C.I.A.

More than a month after he indicted Mr. Libby, Mr. Fitzgerald continues to weigh whether to indict Mr. Rove on charges related to lying or misleading investigators. He appears to be focused most intently on two months in the late summer and fall of 2004 and the events leading up to Mr. Rove's altering his testimony.

This is from Jane Hamsher at firedoglake blog.

This sounds about right. From Media Matters:

Recent revelations in the CIA leak investigation indicate that Time magazine Washington correspondent Viveca Novak may have injected herself in the investigation by alerting a lawyer for White House senior adviser Karl Rove in mid-2004 that her colleague, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, might be forced to disclose to a grand jury what Rove had told him about then-undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak reportedly warned Rove attorney Robert Luskin that Rove could face legal scrutiny over omitting mention of the conversation with Cooper in his own grand jury testimony, thereby providing Luskin with information that might prove crucial to Rove's defense in the case. Novak never disclosed her conversation with Luskin or her knowledge of Rove's conversation with Cooper to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald or to Time readers, despite working on several articles about the case after her reported conversation with Luskin.

There are rumors that Vivac may have been questioned in the matter already. If true it does not bode exceptionally well for her that she is being hauled into Principal Fitz's office once again.

Novak, an experienced journalist working for a prestigious publication, disclosed to Rove's lawyer information that she did not give to her readers and that Cooper would zealously try to withhold for more than a year on the basis of the purportedly sacrosanct anonymity agreement between a reporter and a source. Second, Novak may have affirmatively helped Rove -- a source the magazine covers and will continue to cover -- beat a perjury rap, not by exonerating him through a story in the course of her job, but by providing his lawyer with information in a private conversation.

She's really bucking for that Judith Miller Excellence in Journalism Award, eh?
Whether Rove is guilty of intentionally hiding his conversation with Cooper, Viveca Novak undoubtedly aided Rove's defense by telling his lawyer that inaccuracies in Rove's testimony would likely become apparent to Fitzgerald.

They will most certainly have to invent some new circle of hell just for her if it turns out Rover skates because of her actions.

Novak's alleged involvement in the case did not prevent her from continuing her reporting on it, though she wrote no reports on the key information she gave Luskin.

As recently as October 24, Novak co-wrote an article with Time White House correspondent Mike Allen, which reported that "Fitzgerald appears to be seriously weighing a perjury charge for Rove's failure to tell grand jurors that he talked to Time correspondent Matthew Cooper about Plame, according to a person close to Rove." Novak wrote more generally on the Plame case for Time as recently as November 18.

Before everyone breaks out the kazoos and starts screaming partisanship, I just want to mention the fact that ViVac wrote a scathing book about Guantanamo Bay and Luskin himself is a Democrat. People who want to divide this drama into black/white, liberal/conservative, us/them dramaturgy fail to see that these players are at the very least triangulated -- at a certain point money, access and power trump politics and it is the failure of people in the media to maintain appropriate boundaries with their subject matter just such as this that has compromised their ability to play the role of ethics watchdogs.

As Wolcott recently said of Bob Woodward, "he's got a heavy lineup of Christmas parties to attend. Those cocktail wieners don't eat themselves, you know." If there's a failure in this particular instance it probably comes not from an apparachik's desire to preserve BushCo. hegemony as much as it is a base desire to keep one's seat on that free weenie train.

posted by Jane Hamsher @ 7:30 PM

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

December 3, 2005

Leak Ruling Has Mystery, 8 Blank Pages

By ADAM LIPTAK

There are eight blank pages in the public version of a decision the federal appeals court in Washington issued in February. The decision ordered two reporters to be jailed unless they agreed to testify before a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. What is in those pages is one of the enduring mysteries in the investigation.

In a filing yesterday, the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told the court that he had no objection to the unsealing of parts of those pages, and he gave hints about what they say.

The pages, in a concurring opinion by Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, analyze secret submissions by Mr. Fitzgerald. Judge Tatel suggested, in a terse and cryptic public summary of what he wrote in the withheld pages, that testimony from the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, was needed to determine whether a government official committed a crime in identifying Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Cooper avoided jail after his source, Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, gave him permission to testify. Ms. Miller spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify after receiving permission from I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Mr. Libby resigned after he was indicted in October on charges of obstructing the investigation and related crimes.

Yesterday's filing, in response to a motion by Dow Jones & Company, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, seemed at odds with Judge Tatel's summary. It made clear that the case against at least Mr. Libby had for some time concerned obstruction of justice rather than the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity.

Mr. Fitzgerald told the court yesterday that he did not object to the unsealing of the parts of Judge Tatel's analysis concerning Mr. Libby because most of the facts in it had become public through the indictment and statements from grand jury witnesses.

Mr. Fitzgerald said he did object to unsealing other parts of the analysis. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for Dow Jones, said, "We are hopeful we can persuade the court to release the rest."

Floyd Abrams, who represented Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper before the appeals court, said Mr. Fitzgerald's filing was significant for the light it shed on the inquiry's progress.

"The revelation," Mr. Abrams said, "that Mr. Fitzgerald advised the court as early as the spring and fall of 2004 that his focus on Mr. Libby related not to potential threats to national security but to possible violations of perjury and related laws raises anew the question of whether the need for the testimony of Judy Miller and Matt Cooper was at all as critical as had been suggested."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/politics...agewanted=print

Government's Response to Motion of Dow Jones & Co. to unseal the redacted portion of Court's opinion (12/2/05)


http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/document...tion_unseal.pdf

Rove Team Cites Warning From Reporter
Talk With Time's Novak Figures in Effort to Show Bush Adviser Did Not Lie

By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 3, 2005; A11



A reporter for Time magazine told Karl Rove's attorney in early 2004 that the White House deputy chief of staff might be in more legal trouble than he originally thought, according to sources familiar with the conversation. Now, Rove is relying on that casual exchange as part of a broad effort to convince a prosecutor he did not lie about his role in the CIA leak case, the sources said.

A conversation between longtime friends -- Viveca Novak, who has helped cover the case for Time, and Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney -- is at the heart of the latest legal maneuvering in the two-year-old case.

Over drinks, Novak told Luskin that Time employees were buzzing that Rove had talked to her colleague Matthew Cooper about CIA operative Valerie Plame in July 2003, sources familiar with the conversation said.

Rove, the president's top political aide, remains under investigation into whether he made false statements for initially failing to tell the FBI and the grand jury that he had spoken to Cooper for a story Cooper wrote on the case.

It is not clear why, or if, the information from Novak could help clear Rove, but Luskin used it and other information to persuade Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to rethink indicting Rove in late October, according to a source briefed on the matter. Now, Fitzgerald is preparing to question Novak about the conversation as early as next week.

One person familiar with the case said the Novak-Luskin conversation is not what prompted Rove to change his testimony in the case. In fact, this person said, Novak told Luskin about the Rove-Cooper connection before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004. In that appearance, Rove testified that he did not recall talking to Cooper about Plame. It was not until October 2004 that Rove told the grand jury he recalled the Cooper chat.

New details emerged yesterday of Rove's version of how and when he came to remember the Cooper conversation. Shortly before his client's second appearance before the grand jury in October, Luskin personally conducted a review of thousands of e-mails Rove had sent during the crucial weeks in 2003, including those from accounts reserved for personal and political correspondence, a source familiar with the situation said.

Amid the e-mails, Luskin found one sent from Rove to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Rove mentioned his conversation with Cooper. The e-mail was written from Rove's government account, which investigators searched early in the inquiry. It is unclear why the e-mail was not discovered at that time.

Once found by Luskin, the e-mail was shared with Rove and then quickly turned over to Fitzgerald, the source said. Rove then testified that the e-mail "established that he had in fact had a conversation with Cooper," the source said.

Legal sources involved in the probe said Rove's timing in ultimately recalling -- or finally revealing -- his conversation with Cooper is certainly significant to Fitzgerald as he considers whether to charge the White House adviser. Rove provided the information on Oct. 15, 2004, to the grand jury. That new testimony came exactly one month after Fitzgerald issued a new subpoena to Cooper calling upon him to testify before the grand jury about Rove.

It also came two days after Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan issued a contempt citation that ordered Cooper to testify.

Fitzgerald has spent the past two years investigating whether White House officials leaked Plame's name to the media to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

A grand jury indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, on Oct. 28 for lying and obstructing justice in the investigation of whether any Bush administration officials knowingly disclosed Plame's CIA identity to the media.

According to a source familiar with Novak's conversation with Luskin, the two were having a casual conversation over drinks sometime in early 2004 when Luskin insisted that his client, Rove, faced no danger in the leak investigation. Novak, described as fishing for information or trying to test Luskin's statement, begged to differ. She said she had heard at the magazine that Rove had been a key source for Cooper on information he published about Plame.

Jim Kelly, Time's managing editor, said Novak's conversation with Luskin took place as part of her normal reporting assignment to keep tabs on the Fitzgerald investigation. He said it is inaccurate to suggest that Novak revealed Cooper's source.

"There's no way that Viveca Novak knowingly, wittingly gave up a confidential source to Robert Luskin," Kelly said.

A source familiar with the exchange said the fact that Rove was Cooper's source was known by only a few at the magazine, including Cooper, his Washington bureau editor and Kelly, but it was not as closely guarded a secret as Time editors now believe it should have been.

Novak did not definitively know that Rove had spoken to Cooper about Plame, the source said, but may have heard gossip from colleagues who had reason to know. Kelly said it is unfair and premature to judge Novak's decision to discuss a colleague's possible confidential source with someone outside the news organization.

"I think to be fair to everyone involved here, we're going to wait until after Viveca testifies under oath to address all the issues presented by this new development," he said. "After that happens, we're going to fully review exactly what transpired here. We want to know exactly how this came to be."

Kelly declined to comment on when Novak notified the magazine that Luskin planned to seek her testimony before Fitzgerald.

Media ethics experts said Novak's decision to discuss Cooper's source with someone outside her news organization raises new questions about reporters' willingness to casually trade information with sources. Cooper had promised anonymity to Rove in their telephone call, and Time fought a year-long legal battle to keep him from being forced to break that promise, before ultimately giving in.

Randall Eliason, the former chief of public integrity prosecution at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, and another former prosecutor, David Schertler, speculated that Fitzgerald would not have considered charging Rove unless he had significant evidence from other witnesses that Rove mentioned the Cooper conversation to them. Now the prosecutor must check out the Novak conversation and weigh it against his other evidence.

"If you're going to bring charges against the White House deputy chief of staff, you want to be absolutely convinced it was an intentional lie," Schertler said. "I think Fitzgerald is looking at this so at the end of the day he can say, 'I explored everything.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0201816_pf.html

Here is Jane Hamsher's take on the WaPo article above.

In a new WaPo article, the Rovians further engage in what Pachacutec so aptly describes as the octopus ink strategy: swim fast and try to cloud the waters:
Now, Rove is relying on that casual exchange [between Vivica Novak and Robert Luskin] as part of a broad effort to convince a prosecutor he did not lie about his role in the CIA leak case, the sources said.

V. Novak is now providing the backbone of Rover's defense. Nice.

According to a source familiar with Novak's conversation with Luskin, the two were having a casual conversation over drinks sometime in early 2004 when Luskin insisted that his client, Rove, faced no danger in the leak investigation. Novak, described as fishing for information or trying to test Luskin's statement, begged to differ. She said she had heard at the magazine that Rove had been a key source for Cooper on information he published about Plame.

What, no cocktail weenies?

One person familiar with the case said the Novak-Luskin conversation is not what prompted Rove to change his testimony in the case. In fact, this person said, Novak told Luskin about the Rove-Cooper connection before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004.

Well that's certainly a new spin. I guess the story has changed now that the earlier saga was greeted by such thundering rounds of derisive laughter. Someone should tell Mr. Fitzgerald that the conversation took place in or before February. He had requested her testimony for any conversation with Luskin after May 2004. Oddly, this is never addressed. A small quibble I guess in an article otherwise stunning for its unquestioning stenographic excellence.

Shortly before his client's second appearance before the grand jury in October, Luskin personally conducted a review of thousands of e-mails Rove had sent during the crucial weeks in 2003, including those from accounts reserved for personal and political correspondence, a source familiar with the situation said.

Amid the e-mails, Luskin found one sent from Rove to Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, in which Rove mentioned his conversation with Cooper. The e-mail was written from Rove's government account, which investigators searched early in the inquiry. It is unclear why the e-mail was not discovered at that time.

What happened to the "bad search parameters?" I thought it was the computer's fault?

"There's no way that Viveca Novak knowingly, wittingly gave up a confidential source to Robert Luskin," [Time's managing editor Jim] Kelly said.

Did he slip her a couple of roofies? I'm not getting that one.

A source familiar with the exchange said the fact that Rove was Cooper's source was known by only a few at the magazine, including Cooper, his Washington bureau editor and Kelly, but it was not as closely guarded a secret as Time editors now believe it should have been.

I guess not.

Kelly declined to comment on when Novak notified the magazine that Luskin planned to seek her testimony before Fitzgerald.

Matt Cooper quite nearly went to jail. Karl Rove never intended to give him any kind of waiver, it happened by pure "expletive deleted"ing big-mouth Luskin accident. Do you think Karl Rove lost one minute of sleep thinking he was provoking a constitutional crisis? And can you imagine? Going to jail to protect Karl Rove? Think about that. You think V. Novak might have wandered into her editors at some point over the past year and a half and said "you know, I don't know how this might fit into anything, but before they send Matt to Romania for waterboarding maybe I should mention..."

Karl Rove would be quite happily driving around in his Jaguar scarfing White Castles with no remorse whatsoever for all of this. Even if you accept that stuff like this travels around newsrooms with more freedom than it should -- and it does -- once the stakes become clear you have to decide what team you're on. And it is not entirely apparent at the moment to what team Ms. Luskin Novak thinks she owes her allegiance.

posted by Jane Hamsher @ 10:12 AM
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/