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 . . .

[Seattle Conservative]

"I believe Woodward's source is probably Colin Powell."

I'm thinking it might be Powell's chief of staff - Col. Lawrence Wilkerson. Here's one article/thread on him and a couple of quotes from same:

Mr Wilkerson said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out with Mr Powell, whom he served for 16 years at the Pentagon and the State Department.

"He's not happy with my speaking out because, and I admire this in him, he is the world's most loyal soldier."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505773/posts

[Cboldt]

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 a prosecutior, it's the integrity of the investigators that I am concerned with. The reporters are a sideshow, as is the CIA to be honest.

This is a question of whether Libby told investigaotrs that he called CIA to check Plame's status for himself. Do you believe Libby "forgot" to mention that to investigators? Or do you believe the prosecution, that Libby intentionally withheld that fact.

The challenge to the prosecution will be to diminish the "was she outed" question; and the strategy of the defense is to keep raising the "was she outed" question.

[js1138]

In other words, The Woodward/Pinkus situation is exactly like the Libby/Miller and Libby/Cooper situation -- a difference of recollection.

I suspect there will be a lot more corrections of recollection before this is over. Fitz didn't do the most basic homework before extending his investigation. He failed to determine if the Plame identity was widely known.

We now know of two WAPO reporters who knew, plus the TV reporter who knew before she didn't know.

[Raycpa]

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

As the potential sources mount up they task for Fitz gets harder. The defense will argue that even today Fitz has no idea who the source was and how it evolved. Everyone is just as confused today as they were 2 years before this was intensely investigated. Is it any wonder that Libby was confused?

[Cboldt]

up till now the reporters were all on record saying they did NOT tell Libby.

Cooper says and testified that he brought it up to Libby.

And IMO, even if all of the reporters knew of Plame independently from discussions with Libby, the indcitment still stands. That's my recollection, having read the indictment with exactly that fact pattern (reporters knew before Libby did) in mind.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I would love to be a fly on trhe wall at the WP.
Hee-hee-hee (evil laugh)

[CharlesWayneCT]

But NOT giving information to an investigator is not a crime. The question is if he lied about what he TOLD them. If he told them he heard if from reporters, and did not REMEMBER hearing it from other sources, how do you prove he's lying if there is a reporter that knew about it when he talked to Libby and testified under oath that he could have told Libby.

The indictments are based on the two conversations recollected with reporters. In both cases the primary source of them being "lies" are the reporters telling a different story. And the "background" support for them being lies are that 1) There is direct testimony that Libby had government sources for the information, and 2) every reporter testified that they did NOT tell Libby the information.

The 1st is necessary to show that Libby had a way to get the info. The 2nd is NECESSARY to show that Libby's claim is false. But now Woodward might be that source.

You still could say Libby lied because he testified that Russert was the source. But that would be a rather weak case.

[Cboldt]

The defense will argue that even today Fitz has no idea who the source was and how it evolved.

Yep. The defense strategy will be to distract the jury from the allegation embodied in the indictment. The defense want's a verdict on the question "was Plame outed," or in the alternative "who outed Plame."

But that is not the question.

[js1138]

The defense strategy will be to discredit the prosecution witnesses. Looks like a cakewalk to me, and we haven't even started.

When reporters with notes have memories that are as bad as these guys, I find it difficult to convict a man who didn't take notes.

Now there is an interesting psychological point here. Libbey didn't plead the fifth. He had to know that things like phone calls left records. Why would he intentionally lie about a phone call which was on record. Failure to mention the call is not a crime unless it was deliberate. What sense does it make to lie about something that everyone can see?

[kabar]

To me, the significance of the Woodward testimony is that there was no concerted campaign by the WH to punish Wilson by outing his wife. Woodward seems to confirm Libby's assertion that many reporters knew Plame's identity and role in the Wilson trip to Niger.

The WH did not seek out Woodward to give him this information, rather, it was divulged as a result of his ongoing research on a book. Once you start adding Kristof, Pincus, Corn, and Woodward to the mix, maybe this was common knowledge after all as Andrea Mitchell said.

[freema]

Excellent!!!

I can't understand why some would think ANY of this is boring !)

Could you 're-do' the timeline posted earlier and insert this?

[Cboldt]

But NOT giving information to an investigator is not a crime.

Not true, but I'll play along ...

The question is if he lied about what he TOLD them.

Did he give false testimony if he says "I did know Plame's status with the CIA on July 1, 2003."?

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Very good reasoning....I wish I had thought of it, LOL!

[freema]

I disagree that Woodward is just a totally irrelevant figure in journalism. Don't you find it AMAZING that Deep Throat upchucked his identity in the middle of all of THIS?!

That was typed with AMAZING holding an amazing amount of sarcasm ! )

[Raycpa]

But that is not the question.

Confusion is a defense. If even today we all remain confused about who did and said what, is it right to hold Libby to that standard? If its common knowledge about Plame, then the context of any of his conversations would be different. Just because he talks to someone about that which is common knowledge may not have been in his mind important. The more folks we find out that knew, the harder it will be to make anything out of Libby's conversations and lack of disclosure.

[Cboldt]

But NOT giving information to an investigator is not a crime.

Not true, but I'll play along ...

The question is if he lied about what he TOLD them.

Did he give false testimony if he says "I did know Plame's status with the CIA on July 1, 2003."?

-CORRECTION-

Make that "did NOT know of Plame on July 1, 2003." (except what I heard from reporters)

[Cboldt]

If even today we all remain confused about who did and said what, is it right to hold Libby to that standard?

Nice talking with y'all. I have to stifle inserting my point of view in the Libby case. Have fun!

[Raycpa]

-CORRECTION-

See? Confusing isn't it.

[Raycpa]

I have to stifle inserting my point of view in the Libby case

Please don't stop.

[kabar]

"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."

WP 11/16/05