Posted on 11/16/2005 3:29:14 AM PST by thegreatbeast
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
STATEMENT OF BOB WOODWARD REGARDING DEPOSITION ON NOVEMBER 1.4, 2005
On Monday, November 14, I testified under oath in a sworn deposition to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for more than two hours about small portions of interviews 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 lead up 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 off-hand, 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.
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 times in 35 years as a reporter that I have been asked to provide information to a grand jury.
Uh, you go look at it, we are reading this one.
I've asked this same question but did not get a reply. - CAN ANYONE ELSE ANSWER THIS?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515133/posts?page=21#21
Novak: "After the case is concluded."
Understood. But I'll continue to post cross links when I figure other readers will find them helpful, your snotty intrusion notwithstanding.
My head hurts!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1522813/posts
I cannot believe the Libs are dragging out Woodward now. What's next? Alger Hiss? Or maybe Henry Wallace?
Was this person in a coma at the time?
Count on Woodward to get on the bandwagon.
LOL! The Dems have been demanding time-lines in Congress, well here is a time-line the Dems can choke on. Looks like Libby is going to walk out of court (If it ever gets that far) with a $hit eating grin on his face
I love this part. It's completely irrelevant, but it lets him scream "I'm the Watergate guy! Remember? Remember Watergate?
It strikes me that when a prosecutor indicts someone, he/she should be prepared to go to trial that same day (if the courts and the defendant wish it). That having been said, what in the name of all that's holy is anyone in a Republican Whitehouse doing talking to Bob Woodward, BOB FREAKING WOODWARD, for gosh sakes. Is there no institutional memory left in the GOP?
So it appears lots of people, including the press, knew "Wilson's wife" worked at the CIA, feverishly screwing up WMD assessments. All Novak had to do was consult "Who's Who" to get her name. There no "here" here. Release Libby!
The libs are correct, Fitzmas will eventually come for them if this is allowed to go on and on and on, and even take a turn in direction. The libs and the Senate Rats want Fitz to take a turn into the question of why GWB lied us into war. Forget that Fitz said in his press conference "Fitzgerald: "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 are--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."
"When there was a real security problem with Sandy Berger stuffing highly classified documents in his pants the MSM just yawned."
Yep, there was probably a Pulitzer prize just waiting for somebody there. How could you pass up the story of a former National Security Advisor going into the Archives and violating numerous security regulations, including taking documents? I guess the MSM takes care of its own.
Indeed. His pouting, baby-face probably helps to accomplish some of the latter.
Fitzgerald increasingly appears intent upon bringing down, through accusations and tainting if not convictions, as many members of the Administration as possible.
It is often noted, glowingly, that he is the son of a former doorman. That is surely admirable - unless he has inside him something of a residual, life-long inferiority complex which propels him to attempt to bring down and destroy, with little or no real cause, those of long-time high position and repute.
Why isn't Fitzgerald putting Joseph Wilson IV and Plame before a grand jury???
He feverishly proceeds no matter how much chaos this creates, and how it directly undermines this nation's national security - including placing our armed forces in Iraq and other places in greater peril.
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.
Sensible criticism of Wilson and the Democrats.
You responded to: "I think where Robert Novak wrote a column stating he would reveal what he knew after the special prosecutor wrapped up?
I've asked this same question but did not get a reply. - CAN ANYONE ELSE ANSWER THIS?"
by saying that Novak promised to do so "after the case was closed"
Isn't the likely reason Novak never went to jail etc. is because both of his sources were interviewed by Fitzgerald and admitted they had been Novak's sources? If so, then a) he has no need of finding this out directly from Novak; OR b) in light of his sources already revealing themselves, Novak may have felt comfortable confirmingg this for the grand jury: there would be no point in pulling a Miller-like
go-to-jail stunt to protect a source that was no longer hidden etc.
They probably figure it doesn't matter 'cos ol'Bob is gonna claim to have interviewed them anyway. You really think Casey gave him a deathbed interview and spilled his guts?
Heh-heh, Fitz must feel like a vice is tightening around those two tiny little raisins of his that everyone else calls b*lls when referring to theirs...if he goes ahead with the Libby trial now he'll come out looking like Jimmy Carter did after the Iran hostage rescue fiasco back in '80!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.