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."
Joe was "surprised". Really?? He talked to Novak two days before about it and knew what Novak was going to say more or less.
Wouldn't that be a trip if Woodward said, "Yeah, I might have told Libby she was CIA."
http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/pincus.html
Hans Blix? hmmmm....
Yep, and even Novak would think that is funny. Woodward is the guy who was spreading the rumors.
And the funniest part about it is that Woodward was Deep Throat in the Pflame outting. ROTFLMAO.
Again, it wouldn't apply in this case since it is independent of the original allegations. Libby is indicted with nothing other than giving conflicting statements. It doesn't matter to the prosecution whether or not they were in regard to Valerie Plame or to what he had for breakfast. That's why whether or not, or rather, exactly when Woodward knew about Plame is irrelevant to Libby's charges. It IS relevant in regard to whether or not Libby or Rove or whomever actually outed her, but again, that isn't what Libby is charged with doing.
Please forgive a dumb question here. But, if this case ends up getting thrown out soon or if Libby is exonerated soon, is there any chance Libby will get his job back? Or would that not be the right thing to do to the guy who replaced him? This whole thing just sickens me.
Status quo...IMO.
I might also point out than Ann Pincus was an official in the Clinton State Department......Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
In order to make that claim, he'd have to be able to demonstrate that other people not only made contradictory claims but did it under oath. Doing it in the press doesn't count for diddly. If he did make such a claim, I assume he'd have to demonstrate where others made similar contradictions under oath - which he couldn't do since the Grand Jury testimony would presumably still be sealed. Also you're assuming that the judge would let him try to even make the argument in the first place.
now wait a second here. Fitzy said Libby WAS the beinging of the issue. That he in fact was the FIRST to "leak" the indentity to journalists.
If what Woodward is saying is true, sure looks like he got that wrong. In regards to the 'lie' Libby told is it not possible that he said Russert when it was Woodward that said something to him and he simply erred in memory?
When is Andrea Mitchell gonna speak up?
Oh, the irony! Woodward is the Deeper Throat!
Joe diGenova just ripped Fitzgerald a new a-hole. Joe stated that Justice Department rules require that if a key fact that a Prosecutor bases his case on proves out to be false, the Prosecutor is required to determine if it causes a reasonable doubt on the case...and if so, the charges must be withdrawn. In Fitz's press conference, he states as a key fact that Libby was the first one to discuss Plame to a reporter. So Fitz was saying there was no way Libby could have heard of Plame from a reporter. Now, with Woodward's testimony, we know that at least one reporter knew of Plame before Libby spoke with a reporter about it. In fact Woodward had on a question list for Libby in June to ask about Wilson's wife. Woodward can not recall if he asked Libby, but Woodward's notes show that Libby did NOT bring up Plame with him.
Woodward's testimony has a huge impact on Fitzgerald's claims and case.
But he isn't charged with anything relating to the link. He is only being charged with giving contradictory statements under oath and that is what the trial will be limited to. Many FReepers were also assuming that Plame and Wilson would be called to the stand, but unless they are the ones providing the evidence that he gave contradictory statements under oath, their testimony (and for that matter, Plame's covert status) is irrelevant. That was one reason for the outrage about these particular charges - i.e. they do not address the original issues that Fitzgerald was investigating but only stem from Libby possibly trying to cover himself during Grand Jury testimony.
"Well, Joseph diGenova was just on with Brit Hume saying the exact same thing I did. He said Fitzgerald has a duty under DOJ rules to go back and "recalibrate" all the indictments because their "underpinning" is destroyed with the Woodward revelation."
AMEN!
And Joe diGenova also stated that Fitz will have to drop the charges against Libby!
HOOOOOORAAAAAAAAY!
Sigh....you all really have to actually read the indictment and not just press accounts of it. It is independent of whether or not Plame was or was not covert. It all deals with contradictory statements under oath. Even if both claims were false he still has a case.
Actually, she was no longer covered because she had not been undercover for 5 years which is why Libby was not indicted for breaking that particular law.
But a central claim made by fitzy was that libby was lying cuz he WAS the first to 'leak' it. That being proven false (providing Woodward Already knew and it wasn't libby that told him) What exactly did he "lie" about?
I would offer that this new tidbit (along with others since indictment day by vallale and mitchel) out to be further investigated. I think it will be.....kinda goes to the statement by Fitzy that the investigation was still open.
Novak's source would help things out alot! I wish that would be 'leaked' ;)
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.