Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago

Washington Post ^ | November 15, 20005 | Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig

[atomicweeder]

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 . . .

[Cboldt]

And you are going to convict a man on testimony from reporters -- a tribe which is self-evidently incapable to telling the truth?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the question about Libby's truthfullness is gaged by comparing the word of investigators with the word of Libby. The issue is NOT whter or not Libby outed Plame, that issue is not before you today. The only issue before you is whether Libby mislead investigators by pointing to reporters as his source for Plame identity, when in fact, Libby called the CIA himself to find out Plame's function there. The evidence shows that Libby deliberately misled investigators by not telling them that he had personal authoritative knowledge in June of 2003.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, you need not confront or settle the question of reporter's testimony, as Libby's counsel would have you believe. The question is do you believe that Libby forgot that he called the CIA, or whether he mislead investigators.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually though, I appreciate Woodward's approach to this. He was released to testify to the prosecuter, and he did, but otherwise is keeping his mouth shut.

The other reporters wouldn't testify to the prosecuter until the sources came back with blanket releases, which allowed them to go public with the names. I am pretty sure now that the previous releases, which the reporters said weren't good enough, released them to testify but not to talk publicly.

Novak also was released to testify, but wouldn't publicly reveal his source.

Cooper and Miller betrayed their "sacred" journalistic standards by going public with names when all they needed to do was testify in secret to the grand jury.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Woodward says that he called him a "current of former" administration official. Of course, that would include Libby.

[Raycpa]

Interesting that two reporters, Miller and Woodword are running around with notes on Plame at the same time, but never recall asking the questions about her. Was Woodword Plames source through Pincus or someone else Woodword told? Common source?

[Hildy]

Woodward just HAS to get into the act...now...which high-ranking official might that be?

[Timeout]

...but the question is irrelevant in the context of the indictment. It is a smokescreen.

Please enlighten me. As I recall, Libby's crucial mistake was saying he heard Plame's ID from a reporter, specifically Tim Russert. Russert denied it.

Doesn't this add the possibility that Libby heard it from Woodward but mistakenly attributed it to Russert?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Maybe Libby told Fitz that Woodward mentioned Plame to him. One of the questions Woodward was asked was whether he could have mentioned Plame to Libby, and he said he simply couldn't remember. He said (read his release about his testimony) that he had with him a questionaire which included a question about Plame and Wilson, but he doesn't have a record of asking the question or getting a response.

He also said that if Libby had said anything to HIM about it, woodward is sure he would have put it in his notes. So it is clear that Libby didn't tell Woodward, but Woodward simply can't remember if woodward told Libby.

If Libby can say that he simply got confused over WHICH reporter told him, and that it was Woodward, not the others, and Woodward can't say he didn't, that might help Libby.

[js1138]

The fact that at least one WAPO reporter has testified falsely under oath adds to the possibility that one or more other reporters have lied. Russert?

Not to mention the self-contradictions of the TV chick.

[Cboldt]

As I recall, Libby's crucial mistake was saying he heard Plame's ID from a reporter, specifically Tim Russert. Russert denied it.

That's one way to put it, but I submit that it misses the crux of the case. A better way to put it is that Libby did not disclose to investigators that he (Libby) had called the CIA himself and KNEW Plame's identity as a matter of authoritative fact. To admit that would make it difficlut for Libby to convince investigators that reporters were the source of Libby's hearing of Plame.

Have you read the indictment? http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

[Raycpa]

The question is do you believe that Libby forgot that he called the CIA, or whether he mislead investigators.

If both are true, then he didn't lie. I often have confidetntial information on clients that when it becomes public, I site the public source as my souce. Would I be lying if I site my public source rather than my private source when both are true statements? What if later I forget my private source gave me the info first, is that deliberate?

[freema]

Off subject, I know, but for me it wasn't lying about infidelity...it was it was about 'spilled milk' and the stains left in the Oval Office and leads me to want to celebrate Impeachment Day by proclaiming it National Cigar Day.

[sauropod]

mark

[Cboldt]

The question is do you believe that Libby forgot that he called the CIA, or whether he mislead investigators.

If both are true, then he didn't lie. I often have confidetntial information on clients that when it becomes public, I site the public source as my souce. Would I be lying if I site my public source rather than my private source when both are true statements? What if later I forget my private source gave me the info first, is that deliberate?

That's the question. Whether or not Libby confused (or forgot, as it appears to be per evidence in the indictment) his "private source," his initiative to call the CIA and obtain an authoritive answer, with his "public source," reporters.

Did he deliberately mislead investigators? Or was the lapse in informing investigators of his repeated calls to the CIA mere forgetfulness on his part?

[mosquitobite]

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.

Well isn't THAT special...

Sounds to me like a CYA!! Woodward wasn't Pincus' source and they know it! Wilson himself was!

[hawkaw]

I agree with your assessment. There is now evidence that demonstrates Libby was not leaking her name like what Libby stated to the GJ and unlike what the other reporters suggested in the indictment. It demonstrates that other media knew her name unlike what is in the indictment.

I also agree that Libby could argue that he made a mistake with the reporters' names. It was Woodworth instead of Tiny Tim etc. he could argue.

I think Fitz could still go ahead with the evidence he has to trial but at least Libby will possibly have a pretty good defence.

[showme_the_Glory]

BREAKING!!! Just in! Geraldo finds secret chamber, contents to be disclosed on national TV!

[YaYa123]

My initial take here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1522897/posts?page=70#70

On its face, I think this is good news for Libby. If Woodward is only now being drawn into this, you have to wonder how many other MSM superstars were "in the know" on Valerie. None of what I read in this article seems damaging to the White House.


But I think we need to consider which "official" went to Fitzgerald with the information and why.

[js1138]

I think you are ignoring the psychology of this thing. No one can predict how a jury would react, but the defense will be able to make mincemeat of the witnesses. Once you demonstrate that national reporters have lied about this, or have incredibly faulty memories, how are you going to get a jury to convict?

As for the call to the CIA, I don't know. Since the CIA was busy telling reporters about Plame, I don't see them being credible witnesses either. Did the CIA tell Fitz about Woodward? Did they cover anything else up?

[bagman]

I suspect that the official is Colin Powell. He's always been a good source for Woodward. Also, when Plame's name was first being bandied about, it was on Air Force 1 and she was mentioned in a State Department briefing book on that flight.

Novak has been quoted as saying that the identity of the identifier of Plame would surprise everyone. Not me - I already know that it's General Powell.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Not directly. But one reason for BELIEVING that Libby is wrong and the reporters are right, is that up till now the reporters were all on record saying they did NOT tell Libby.

But now Woodward is on record, with this statement:

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"

There is a reason Fitzgerald asked that question, and it seems it has to be to eliminate Woodward as the possible "source" of truth for Libby's statements to other reporter that he had heard her name from a reporter. But Woodward said it was possible he told Libby, and he has testified that woodward DID know her name, and had it on his desk, when he was asking Libby.

Now it's much more of a "he-said/she-said". Libby has a reporter who might have told him, and Libby says he told other reporters he HEARD it from a reporter. Those reporters don't REMEMBER Libby telling him that.

But, Pinkus says he doesn't REMEMBER Woodward telling him it either, and WOODWARD testified under oath that he DID tell Pinkus.

So Libby has an involved reporter (Pinkus) who says Woodward didn't tell him, and Woodward saying he did. Which is EXACTLY what Libby is saying about himself -- that LIBBY told two reporters, but they both say he didn't.

In other words, The Woodward/Pinkus situation is exactly like the Libby/Miller and Libby/Cooper situation -- a difference of recollection. Now that Libby can establish reasonable doubt that he DID hear the information from a reporter, things look better for him.