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."
Fyi.....our boy Pincus is caught in the media spotlight..
The question to ask is if Woodward knew, who else knew? Who else will be stepping forth? And who is sweating bullets?
It puts a smile on my face everytime.
It's my understanding Woodward's testimony was a sworn deposition, not testimony before a grand jury.
I was thinking of that same thing and sitting here chuckling as the spider RATs spin the web. Ever since they didn't indict Rove and the President chose Alito, I have been chuckling at the RATs and now that the Administration is striking back, it is getting even funnier.
In his book, ironically titled The Politics of Truth, the discredited former Ambassador Joseph Wilson describes his contacts with MoveOn.org and Win Without War, a group also represented by Fenton. He says he joined with these groups in the unsuccessful effort to block the $87-billion appropriation bill to fund U.S. troops in combat. For over a year, the media echoed Wilson's charge that President Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa—a charge that was disproved by a Senate Intelligence Committee and a British report directed by Lord Butler in July 2004.
In his book, written when he was a media darling, Wilson named those who bought into his story. They included Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Walter Pincus and David Broder of the Washington Post, David Corn of The Nation magazine, Bill Moyers of the Public Broadcasting Service, filmmaker Robert Greenwald, and CNN's Lou Dobbs.
Add to that the immediate statements by one of Libby's attorneys and I have to believe you are correct. IIRC, a statement just after the indictment by Libby's atty said something to the effect the case would not be tried in the media. I thought he was perhaps giving a dig to the SP for his flamboyant indictment speech at that time.
Rove must be having the time of his life with this. :)
"And this really makes Fitzy look like an inept, bumbling idiot."
Not surprisingly because he is one. But he's stepped in it big time now and this could be a career-ender for this POS.
diGenova is absolutely right. Woodward's revelations directly undermine Fizzy's reliance on statements Pincus made to investigators, and statements others made to the GJ, that are the underpinning of Fizzy's Counts 1 and 3 in the Indictment.
Count 1
- 8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.
- 19. Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official [ed. note: Hadley? If so, from Woodward!!!] that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.
- 29. During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:
i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;
"They included Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Walter Pincus and David Broder of the Washington Post, David Corn of The Nation magazine, Bill Moyers of the Public Broadcasting Service, filmmaker Robert Greenwald, and CNN's Lou Dobbs"
Every last one of these treasonous bastards should be whipped to within an inch of their lives. A hate-America crowd of pimps for the Democraps.
Actually, your first sentence indicates you either didn't read it or understand it. It is quite specific, unlike many indictments. What evidence Fitzgerald may present to prove Libby's guilt remains to be seen. However, nowhere in the indictment does it allege that Libby was the first to divulge Plame's identity. The indictment deals with 3 very specific conversations in which Libby claims ignorance of Plame's status of his own knowledge when, Fitzgerald claims, documentation demonstrates that Libby indeed was well aware of her status.
I am saying that it has no bearing on the case with reference to what Libby is charged with. The Washington Post article on it also admits now that it doesn't materially change the case against Libby but that the defense will try to use it to cast doubt. It may work or it may not, but the perjury and obstruction charges deal with Libby's conduct during the investigation, not with the underlying investigation of who disclosed Plame's identity first. So, whether or not Woodward knew or not doesn't help Libby's case especially since Libby claimed he didn't know for sure what Plame's status was at the time. How does it help him that other people may have known? It does nothing to change the contradictory statements he gave to the Grand Jury regarding his own knowledge of her status.
"Rove must be having the time of his life with this. :)"
Hey Dems, Freddy... er I mean Rove is back and he's gonna get you.
Thanks for conversing.
-PJ
In the indictment, Libby is being charge mainly with claiming Russert mentioned Plame to him first. Then, according to Libby, he mentioned it to Cooper and to Miller, but said he personally wasn't sure of her status. White House documents apparently show that to be false. Also, the specificity of the rebuttal of the Russert claim hints that either Russert recorded the conversation which would probably be inadmissable, or that someone else was listening in and confirmed the testimony. That would seem to be the strongest part of the indictment just from simple reading of it. The material part of the perjury would seem to stem from Libby claiming that he didn't know Plame's status for sure when apparently multiple sources demonstrate he was well aware of it since he had been investigating Wilson and Plame as part of his duties as the VP's Chief of Staff since people were making claims against Cheney.
Then we agree to disagree. You've got your pet lawyer, while I read the indictment.
LOL!
"Apparently Novak has said that "We'll all laugh" when we hear who it was."
Deep Throat?
Bill Clinton?
Paulie Shore?
"Gotta be Wilson. Or some prominent Dem."
But why would they be talking to Novak?
Did you see this late breaking story: Plame Learned Covert Status from Woodward.
Check it out at http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2072
Only if their discrepencies occurred under oath. It remains to be seen how it will play out in court, but my original point was that Woodward's admission of his knowledge does not change in any way Libby's alleged discrepencies about his conversations with Russert, Miller or Cooper. I think the central point will probably be that White House documents contradict his claim of uncertainty about Plame's status. Now, if Libby had been actually charged with outing her, then, yes, Woodward's testimony would have collapsed the case.
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.