Posted on 11/16/2005 11:20:59 AM PST by Pikamax
Pincus: Woodward 'Asked Me to Keep Him Out' of Plame Reporting
By Joe Strupp
Published: November 16, 2005 12:45 PM ET
NEW YORK Walter Pincus, the longtime Washington Post reporter and one of several journalists who testified in the Valerie Plame case, said he believed as far back as 2003 that Bob Woodward had some involvement in the case but he did not pursue the information because Woodward asked him not to.
"He asked me to keep him out of the reporting and I agreed to do that," Pincus said today. His comments followed a Post story today about Woodward's testimony on Monday before special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in which Woodward reportedly disclosed that a senior White House official told him about Plame's identity as a CIA operative a month before her identity was disclosed publicly.
In today's Post story, by reporters Jim VandeHei and Carol Leonnig, Woodward is quoted as saying he told Pincus that he knew about Plame's true identity as a CIA operative in 2003. Pincus said, in the same story, that he did not recall Woodward telling him that, but believed he might have confused the conversation with one they had in October 2003 after Pincus wrote a story about being called to testify.
"In October, I think he did come by after I had written about being called and said I wasn't the only one who would be called," Pincus said, adding that he believed Woodward was talking about himself, but did not press him on it. "Bob and I have an odd relationship because he is doing books and I am writing about the same subject."
Pincus said he did not believe Woodward had purposely lied about their conversation, saying, "I think he thought he told me something." Pincus declined to comment on the other revelation in today's story, namely that Woodward had waited until last month before revealing his conversation with the White House official to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. "I don't talk about what other people do, other reporters," he said. "Everybody does in this business what they think is the right thing to do."
Pincus also declined to comment on what reaction there has been in the Post newsroom to Woodward's testimony. "I'm not listening," he said.
Woodward did not return calls seeking comment.
Pincus gave his deposition to Fitzgerald in September 2004, in which he spoke about a conversation with a source related to the Plame case, but has never disclosed the identity of the source.
When asked if Woodward's unusual arrangement with the paper, in which he often withholds information and source identities for use in his books, is a problem for the Post, Pincus defended Woodward and said the situation is often a help.
He cited as an example a story Pincus wrote in 2003 just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which doubted the existence of weapons of mass destruction. "Bob helped to get it in the paper," Pincus said. "He had been hearing the same thing and actually wrote a couple of paragraphs that I adapted into the story."
Wow. What a concept - Libby is just pretending to be indicted(the bait) and Fitz is playing along and issued a fake indictment to trick the Dems?
Am I reading this right?
Yeah - that would be funny!
While those statements are not in the indictment, they will be brought into the trial, further mudding the already muddy waters.
It also helps in that Libby can claim that the perjury charges against him hold him to a higher standard of memory infallibility than all the other witnesses in the case.
Thank you, mattdono. That's very kind of you to say. The real tragedy in all of this is that Fitzgerald has shown himself to be totally uninterested in what we "pajamadeen" were able to figure out on our own. Fitzgerald continues the witch hunt into Libby, Rove, etc., but lets the real crime go without so much as a shrug.
It seems that a lot of reporters have a fuzzy recollection about their involvement in the Plame affair.
I still have trouble remembering who knew what, who said what, who talked to whom, when this or that happened. The reporters' accounts keep changing.
Why is it so important about Mrs. Wilson? She is of no significance in the CIA or anywhere else. No secrets were/are compromised, no agents endangered, no law broken or even nicked. There is nothing there. This is another case of the crats making an emotional lipquivering accusation that the president puts sugar in his coffee. The accusation has zero significance to anything but repeat it enough times in righteous indignation and the press sells the emotion and takes no thought for the substance. It is the intensity of the accusation and the identities of the accuser and accused that matter. It could all be done in nonsense syllables to the same effect.
Come on, now. Who doesn't love a major conspiracy within a conspiracy plot?
Who will investigate the prosecutor? The answer, no one, because these special prosecutors are unaccountable to anyone. I seriously doubt Fitzgerald did much more with this case than the minimum required to earn his paycheck.
TFB Liberals. Oh and that goes for your MSM too.
I think the Berger case is over - I think he got 6 months probation and a small fine - for overtly stealing top secret government documents - then destroying them.
What good do you know, and what makes you think he is going to tell on Bill and Hill?
You've got it. The Plame-Wilsons are small fish in a big pond, now out of jobs. Their media buddies are promoting this bull$it so the Plame-Wilsons can sell their book/movie/whatever, and try to remain Washington insiders.
When all is said and done, the Plame-Wilsons will be as beloved and popular in DC as John and Maureen Dean.
"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."
So, did Pincus testify to the Grand Jury that Woodward had revealed Plame's identity to him? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."
Well you are kinda right. Libby really did get indicted, knowing all along that it was bogus and would never stick. Also knowing he would be totally vindicated when the truth does come out. Not so much is it a fake indictment as it is one that would lead to more evidence coming out of the wood work and eventually withdrawn.
"Not just probation, but also $50,000 fine, losing his security clearance for 2 years, and something like 100 hours community service - I think Libby would take that deal in a heartbeat."
Are you kidding me? What Berger did was obstruction of justice - obstruction of a congressional inquiry into the 911 disaster - on 3 different occasions, he deliberatly hid top secret documents that he knew the committe would uncover - and destroyed them.
And you think what he got was tough? I'll bet he didn't pay a cent of the $50,000 fine - and for losing his security clearance - that is about as bad as Clinton losing his license to practice law in Arkansas -
Just think of you or I would have done something like that. Libby has so much more to lose - Berger was already gone - Libby still has his job to do
I still wonder about your original theory.....Tenet. Has he even testified?
"That is not what Woodward said .. he said she knew she was a CIA ANALYSIS"
You're correct. The Post can't even get straight what Bob Woodward said. All they have to do is read his statement.
"Not so much is it a fake indictment as it is one that would lead to more evidence coming out of the wood work and eventually withdrawn."
Kind of like Rathergate...
In response to a direct question from fisherManFitz on Monday, Bob did not deny he knew Valarie Plame was CIA.
That link is very interesting!
Thanks!
Maybe someone can explain the basis of this "case" to me. Fitzgerald is investigating the leaking of an undercover CIA agent's name. Plame is clearly not undercover and therefore the law doesn't apply. He should have immediately ceased the investigation. Any lying done in the course of this investigation should not be a crime as there should have been no investigation to begin with. Why would this not be "fruit from a poisonous tree" - like an illegal search?
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.