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.
The Dinosaur press will begin attacking Novak as a Rove flak and this is no big deal. Meanwhile they leak national secrets about Swift Bank as if we needed to know for some unknown reason.
Motto of The Old York Times: If Bush Bleeds, It Leads.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
You have it almost right. Wilson's trip to Niger did convince him that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake and he told the CIA that when he returned. This was an oral debriefing. Later Wilson wrote this big op-ed article about there being no attempt by Iraq to obtain uranium. A Senate committee later found unanimously that Wilson lied in his op-ed, that he did orally report that he found paydirt in Niger. But the media routinely ignores this established fact. Very frustrating. The American MSM is simply not reliable anymore. Makes room for the blogosphere and pajamhadeen.
Novak is trying to be cute. He still will not release the name of the primary source. The only thing he got from Wilsons entry in who's who is his wife's name, not her occupation.
AP writer is Pete Yost.
BTW, tune in to Rush Limbaugh today: I'll be on, 2nd hour.
That was my thought from the beginning and there was briefly some talk about learning who approved it and the process involved. Unless that is in the Commission Report I never heard anymore about it. The MSM would certainly bury it because it is their guys, leftist traitors, who would be exposed.
Plame is having an affair now with James Bond.
Fitzgerald has been trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I predict that he will not convict anyone.
Yes, after squinting at the article for a while, that's what I get, too. There were three sources, the primary source (not named), Rove and the CIA guy who signed a waver. After Novak heard Joe's wife was CIA, he used Who's Who to get her name.
1. The "Primary Source" is a Whitehouse official.
2. The "Primary Source" is NOT a political "gunslinger".
3. The "fact" that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was "inadvertantly" revealed in a conversation. I.E, "Hey, you know his wife works for the CIA."
4. Novak looked up the name of the wife in Who's Who. ...........
He says he did in the article.
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.
"using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source."
Yeah, I missed that.
He's still not disclosing to his readers.
> I knew the second I saw his labeling of Wilson's wife
> as a CIA operative that he'd screwed up. That factoid
> was not needed for his story.
Novak has said, the term "operative" is his own long-standing political-reporter lingo (which I've heard him use on CNN's Capitol Gang as well) and wasn't used in the spy-operative sense. Admits that using the word was misleading. But Novak tends to call everyone in Washington an "operative" because everyone he comes across seems to be working an angle, pushing an agenda--pols, bureaucrats, campaign workers, lobbyists, almost everyone. It’s the way of life in Washington. Wilson and Plame no different as it turns out.
What person in the White House is not a political "gunslinger"? The chef? The doorman?
That's DC pundit talk that simply means the person is not a paid political "advisor" like Rove or Carville in the Klintoon era. IOW, the person is a Staff member, like Press Secretary, Chief of Staff, et al.....
The Bush administration, through the creation of the special prosecutor's office, has spent millions on this stupid case and enabled its near death by a thousand cuts from its enemies.
Will it at least provide similar resources and effort in tracking down the government-paid traitors responsible for the devastating serial disclosures in the New York Times?
Just another example of how much of a bumbling ash hole Mr. No-facts is. He screwed up from the get go.
Thank You.
You must not have read the article. It's obvious Carl Rove leaked the name of a triple-top-secret agent (the one who liked to send her husband on trips to Africa). Just read the AP, Reuters, and AOL headlines this morning.
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.