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."
Reporters covering each other butts...
Those must be some pretty big covers. :-o
At last--the rest of the story.
Fitzgerald has been set up and duped by the leftist media.
Say goodbye to your judicial career, Fitz!
Yea... but how many people knew she would put out?
Since its not welcome on Free Republic you can draw your own conclusions by clicking on the link National Security Adviser was Woodward's source, attorneys say .
Could it be possible that fitzy has pulled a rovian type coup against the Dems and the MSM with the indictment of
Libby? Knowing that media types would be the central focus of the Dems charge to hang Libby? Is it possible that Libby decided to be that 'bait', knowing that the charges against him are as bogus as they come?
Andrea mitchel said many in her 'group' knew about this prior to the novak article.
I wouldoffer that the Libby indictment may be the biggest event that turns out to hang the leftist attack machine in our day.
Maybe, just maybe, fitzy allowed these folks to THINK they were duping him when he was about to hatch something even Rove and W themselves would be proud of?
I just wanna hear Chris Mathews was called to testify yesterday. Let's Play Hardball.
You may be right. All this intrigue beolngs in a Tom Clancy novel--or in Mad Magazine's "Spy versus Spy."
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.
If Matthews testifies, please give the poor court stenographer an umbrella and raincoat.
As my husband always says: "Don't you like chick fights?"
(LOL!)
What do you think they'll make him do, be a docent at the National Archives?
-PJ
I will go along with that.
This is totally confusing to me. Fitzgerald took two years, spent X million dollars and this is just now coming out? I am not sure exactly what this means either. Is it that Woodward knew sometime before Rove that Plame was CIA? If that is the case why didn't he step forward and tell that to Fitzgerald. Gosh I followed this pretty easily till now. Now it has turned to stew;/
I agree. Fitzgerald is now getting the first down payment on his reward, too. He was just named as one of the "Sexiest Men Alive" in People Magazine.
Katie Couric interviewed the People Mag rep on The Today Show this morning. The segment was supposed to be about who the #1 "Sexiest Man Alive" is, but Katie made sure to work into the segment some gushy little thing about Fitzgerald being named and how she was "sure" he would be embarrassed. How could Katie know the way Fitzgerald would react unless she's socialized with him?
Wouldn't make a difference to the prosecutor, and in fact, trying to get witnesses to lie under oath is standard practice. The police are also allowed and even encouraged to lie to you during questioning.
No, read the indictment. He apparently (again, according to the indictment) gave two conflicting statements under oath. And the indictment rather strongly states that they have the evidence to prove it. Whether or not Libby was the first to disclose has nothing to do with what he is charged with doing. And the issue isn't whether or not he was correct in saying he heard it from a reporter. It is the contradictory nature of at least two sworn statements that is at issue and his lawyer will have to try to convince a jury (assuming there's no plea agreement) that he simply got confused and misstated since counsel isn't permitted in the Grand Jury room.
-PJ
Re#86 That would be a dream come true, but not likely. Too many players. I would be happy if Fitz got gamed by the press and now knows it, is p*ssed and is going to reexamine who told the truth and who did not...
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.