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."
[...if Joe diGenova Esq. says Fitzgerald will need to drop the charges then my money's on diGenova!..]
No I did not go to law school, but I did read the indictment. My impression is the questioning was phrased to stumble Libby into lying. However, Libby used a lot of words like "may have", "could have", "not sure". Libby deliberately avoided validating Russerts assertion that Plame was an agent.
I'm with you. Next case!
Work with me here.
Can you imagine the White House (the people of the United States) bringing seditition charges against...
1. Rockefeller for warning Syria about our plans to invade Iraq?
2. The CIA for a trumped up leak scandal fabricated to bring down a sitting President?
Well, I was actually referring to Walter Pincus; he has said that he was surprised by Novak's article.
And, I didn't know that Wilson had spoken to Novak two days before the article came out. Do you have a source on that?
What drives me nuts is......Nobody called Joe!!!! Nobody from Dem Headquarters, Nobody from the media, Nobody from the CIA and he found out about Novak's column from his neighbor (his attorney). His phone should have been ringing off the hook at 6 am.
You are correct. I'm still confused about their role in the plame leak. Are they defense team?
According to her website bio, Toensing was "instrumental in winning passage" of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, under which the intentional disclosure of a covert agent's identity is illegal; she also claimed in a January 12 Washington Post op-ed that she was among those "who drafted and negotiated the scope of" the act.
I am not aware that they are part of Libby's defense team, it may be that they are just outraged how the law they helped write was used for such political purposes.
No doubt he has that duty
The question is does he have the ethics ?
There are quite a few statements around but you'll have to google. I believe Joe made some of the statements himself. I believe some of this was right from Joe's book.
Did you want Brit tonight. diGenova was on and pretty much said Fitz's case against Libby was toast. Also, Woodward told Pincus about Plame and now Pincus says he has no recollection. Sure, he's a lying slimeball. Funny how with all the lying reporters, Fitz picks on Libby as the only one with a faulty memory. I think this thing will unravel quickly and, well Fitzmas will be officially cancelled this year.
Yeah, and I also notice that the advertisers on that web site will sell you a BushHitler T-shirt, an Evil-Rove/Darth Vader poster, a Bill Frist/Tom Delay/Scooter Libby (looking mean and nasty) "are going to pollute the ozone layer" bumper sticker, a Save the Whales/No Nukes button, and an I love Cindy Sheehan doll, among other things.
Interesting to a left wing barking moonbat radical. No thanks.
[...Toensing/DiGenova outraged...]
They are often guests on Fox and see why they are called to comment. This is probably a dumb question, but who would represent the WH? Harriet Miers?
Bingo.
This disclosure does nothing to harm the case against Libby. That case is based on Libby's testimony, not the actual leak.
Now, Woodward may have just opened up some more perjury charges, but the case against Libby still stands. I imagine this will be introduced to defend Libby, however.
"It is very interesting that one of the "Three Sources" who spoke with Woodward was Andy Card."
When did Woodward say he spoke to Andy Card? In his statement issued today, the only Administration official he identified was Libby.
I seriously doubt Fitzgerald did much more with this case than the minimum required to earn his paycheck.
I couldn't live with myself if didn't at least mow someones yard, once for $1 Million a year
"This disclosure does nothing to harm the case against Libby. That case is based on Libby's testimony, not the actual leak."
You should have watched Joe diGenova on Hume tonight. He clearly pointed out how this does in fact screw Fitz's case. If you missed it, watch the return.
Wouldn't it be the attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez???
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.