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."
Matthews is as obcessed as anyone I have ever seen on any subject. The truth is no impediment to his reporting or commenting. He is despicable.
I get your point that Libby's case, assuming it goes to court, will be narrowly defined, focused on the discrepancies between his interviews, under-oath-testimony and others' interviews and testimonies.
But it also seems that his lawyer will have a potent argument if he can show the court that many other witnesses, especially reporters, who make their living by collecting and dispersing 'accurate' information, have similar discrepancies in their interviews and testimonies.
All of this confusion and noise is going to make it very difficult to show wilfull obstruction or lying/perjury 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn once...
Pinz
I cannot remember the last time I watched Matthews' show -- it was a long time before the last election -- in fact, I cannot even remember what finally turned me off completely but I was so mad I vowed to never watch him again.
I will watch Hume later tonite. I've been reading every post in this thread.
By far, this is the biggest bombshell of this case, yet the number of responses wouldn't indicate this.
I guess people have moved on to other things.
How do you know that?
I've been saying for weeks that Fitz wasted tax payers' money, fattening his and his assistants' bank accounts "investigating" for two years what any "beat cop" in America could have concluded in 24 hours; Valerie Plame WAS NOT A COVERT AGENT! PERIOD!
next case...
(I think this is going to be fun to watch. :)
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?
THAT would be a dream come true....
Fitzgerald pretty much has to nail Woodward with an obstruction charge. Woodward basically said "I was too busy writing my book to be bothered with a subpoena, so I just stayed quiet" - talk about spitting in Fitz' face! If Fitz deosn't do something about this he looks like even more of a partisan hack than he already does.
Pincus stated that Woodward asked him to keep him out of this case. I wonder if Fitzgerald asked Pincus if he knew of anyone else who had information, and if he did, what did Pincus say?
I have always thought that bit of info was interesting. When you add everything up, it seems unlikely that all of this is simply coincidence. I think Walter Pincus has been aware of Valerie Wilson's occupation for years, not months.
Another thing that has been bugging me is whether Valerie's former boss at the CIA, Alan Foley, is related in any way to the former Speaker of the House, Tom Foley. Congressman Foley served on the Select Committee on Intelligence and was Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 1995-97.
I believe DeGenova is not just looking at the actual perjury charges, but the public statements made by Fitzgerald after the indictment.
My impression was this new information makes the press conference a big problem for Fitz. A BIG problem.
"Now, Woodward may have just opened up some more perjury charges, but the case against Libby still stands. "
Wishful thinking? If the underlying (lie?) case is based on faulty information, the Pros would look stupid because he would be brought back to the facts/lies EVERY time he questioned Libby. He would end up babbling. I have seen it happen.
There was a county prosecutor in Phoenix a few years ago. As I recall hearing she had been playing hide the salami with a guy in the "Dirty Dozen" MC gang in California. He dumped her and she became the county's big gun anti MC Gang prosecutor.
After her links and prosecutorial stretches were brought out, she disappeared or was transferred to another unit....I forget.
Is there a law compelling someone with information to approach a prosecutor on his own, without being called to testify?
I'n no lawyer, haven't slept in a Holiday Inn forever, but I don't think there is such a law.
I don't know myself, but you're probably right, there is no such law, and thus I just shot my argument to pieces. I still wonder, though, if Fitzgerald asked Pincus if there was anyone else privy to information about the case, and if Pincus lied to keep Woodward's name out of it? Now that would be a whole different kettle of fish.
The very INSTANT MSM started celebrating Fitzgerald as an "honest and straight shooting prosecutor", I become VERY doubtful of the man's ability and integrity....
Semper Fi
To me, it looks like Libby's off the hook. The details of his testimony may or may not be accurate, but I think the thrust of it is accurate, and you naturally don't remember details after a year or two.
I agree De Genova said the press conference was Fitzpatrick's undoing.
BTW Joe has credentials:
Joseph DiGenova is the former U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., during the Reagan administration. He was also an independent counsel investigating the Clinton passport file search matter.
I believe it would compel me to bait the hook, skin the fish and even cook it just to serve it up, LOL!
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.