Posted on 07/12/2006 3:55:19 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
WASHINGTON -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after 2-1/2 years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.
I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.
For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove talks with columnist Robert Novak at a party celebrating the 40th anniversary of Novak’s column in June 2003. Rove’s button reads, “I’m a source, not a target.” (AP)
Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.
The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.
The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.
Sources signed waivers
I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices on Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.
On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.
That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.
However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
Testified before grand jury
I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.
In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.
Primary source not revealed
I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.
When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.
In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.
Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation.
I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who in America.
I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.
..... or IOW someone like (former) Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who fits the bill as Novak's "primary source" very well.........
My money is on Rove's statement being "I heard that too." Rove is too smart politically and that is a good non-confirming confirmation. In addition, having been previously misquoted by journalists before (amazingly even with a tape recorder running AND taking notes) I don't believe for a second that a journalist can get a quote right if they even tried.
Yes, I believe the Primary Source is someone who has left the Administration recently........
Good point
But Novak is quite aware that the general public will not see that as a real confirmation. So he has to twist Rove's words a bit. But it is also true that Novak apparently had to twist CIA public relations person Bill Harlow's statement too. How did what Harlow has said differ from what Novak testified.
I think that Harlow may have done some CMA as well. And in public relatins terms ... Novak only had one real source.
Note that Novak says he outed Rove and Harlow because of what their lawyers have said. It would seem that giving Novak permission to reveal a name is is not enough. YOU have to have a mouthy lawyer.
Betcha Novak needs to save primary source name for his book.
I believe the issue of reappointing Fitzgerald as U. S. Attorney for Chicago is a red herring. The Chicago reporter made a big deal challenging Dubya to have the guts to reappoint him. I don't think Dubya has to do anything. These guys serve at the pleasure of the AG. AG should let Fitz twist in the wind. Fitz did allow grand jury leaks, did grand standing, did have an indictment press conference where he exaggerated the proof he could produce, did waste a lot of time and money after it became obvious that he had no substantive case, and did disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch with his exhaustive investigation and records requests. He does not deserve to be a federal prosecutor. He does not follow their ethics or guidelines.
Precisely. Novak nailed the CIA ploy and Plame's name never was a secret -- Novak just did some old-time fact-checking and proved a CIA rebellion against the Administration. He also proved Joe Wilson is a major league liar and in the process, that he and his wife are Democrat operatives. Rove shouldn't have confirmed Novak's inquiry about Wilson's CIA wife -- that's Press Relations 101. But he did and that involved him in the fallout.
As for Novak protecting his main source, it would be repertorial suicide to reveal that name without permission. Novak's had a 40-year career as a top investigative reporter because his sources know they'll be protected. I think that person will have to come out into the open soon anyhow.
"But is it news that Wilson outed his own wife? I've been hearing this for a while." He only "outed" her in the sense that her name was listed in his entry of Who's Who. Other than that, it is a little misleading to suggested he "outed" his wife, based on what is in this article.
RB, Novak has stated explicitly that this person was not, repeat, was not, at the White House.
But was in the Administration.
Andrew Card was totally at the White House, I mean totally!
Methinks Colin Powell, Rich Armitage, George Tenet. Or someone of their ilk (oh and don't forget, not known as a partisan gunslinger). Fits all three of them. But Andrew Card while not exactly a gunslinger certainly did and does bleed partisan blood for George W Bush.
Well done!
Hey, Fitz, indict THIS!!!
George Tenet! That's the name I couldn't think of. He probably wasn't PS because the CIA person was already named.......
Powell? Possibly, but not likely. Armitage? more likely and possible. Tenet? Unnecessary........
Valerie Plame investigation Journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that a "a government official with no ax to grind" leaked him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. On March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that "Richard Armitage" fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak.[1] Two journalists (Eric Umansky and David Corn) homed in on Richard Armitage as the source of the information; according to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption," though Bradlee later told the Post that he "[did] not recall making that precise statement" in the interview. Others later suggested that Armitage discouraged Novak from writing about Plame,[2] and has been a cooperative witness in the investigation.[1]
I KNOW I heard or read that in one interview Novak said "not White House but Administration official". I've been googling to find such a quote and cannot. However, google is a left wing site and is overrun with left wing sources. Very few that are not.
I did find many, many quotes in which Novak was careful to say "Senior Administration official", which should be read differently from "White House official".
He also says that it was a conversation about the CONTENT OF WILSON'S "REPORT", which was quite lengthy and this (Wilson's wife sending him to Niger and being CIA) was almost an aside or a throwaway kind of line the person said and that later the source told him the statement was inadvertent...that is, it slipped out but he hadn't even thought or intended to say it when he and Novak sat down to talk.
Novak has stated that the reason this person wasn't indicted is that what he said wasn't a crime, that Fitzgerald knows who the person is and that he, Novak, believes Bush knows who the person is. Said he would be surprised if Bush didn't know. Didn't say why he believes the President knows, that I can find.
I think it could be Tenet simply because it wasn't something the person was intentionally revealing as if for the first time (your point that Tenet was CIA and Plame was already outed) but just blurted out in conversation.
Have you ever said something to someone that might have already been known, but you said it anyway for some reason? As an aside or to make a point or something. I certainly have. Not arguing for Tenet, just saying it COULD have been.
But most fingers are pointing at Armitage from what I can tell.
Well OK, then.
Novak gives a summary of what he views as the key points in an email newsletter he sent out today (don't have a web link because I received this in his regular email bulletin). He makes it explicit that he has nothing to do with the Scooter Libby case, that it is clear that the Prosecutor knew from early on there was no violation of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" -- and that no law at all was broken in regard to his sources..........
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.