Posted on 07/12/2006 3:55:19 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
WASHINGTON -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after 2-1/2 years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.
I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.
For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove talks with columnist Robert Novak at a party celebrating the 40th anniversary of Novak’s column in June 2003. Rove’s button reads, “I’m a source, not a target.” (AP)
Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.
The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.
The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.
Sources signed waivers
I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices on Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.
On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.
That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.
However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
Testified before grand jury
I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.
In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.
Primary source not revealed
I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.
When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.
In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.
Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation.
I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who in America.
I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.
I agree with you 100%, but I don't think this necessarily applies to Novak. The item below clearly indicates that he knew exactly what the legal ramifications would be if he refused to cooperate with the prosecutor (highlight is mine):
My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.
Sounds about right; they have to stay on the offensive in Iraq, Iran, NK, UN, etc. and we need to cover their back as best we can against the fifth column.
I should think the administration has the smarts to do both. It's not like trying to rub your head and pat your tummy at the same time.
All indications are the Administration has the smarts and the means, but not the will.
We peons have the will AND the smarts, but not the means that the Administration has (if it would chose to get out of the fetal position and use it).
Leni
Think about what a typical conversation would be like when Novak calls Karl Rove. His object is to get Karl to either confirm or deny that Vallery Plame got Joe Wilson hired to investigate if Saddam tried to purchase yellow cake from Niger.
Reporters don't pussy foot around. Here is very likely what Novak asked.
Hello Bob... Hello Karl.
Novak: Karl, I've been told that Joe Wilson's wife works at the CIA. My source says she got him the job of going to Niger. Wilson's wife's name is Vallery Plame. Can you confirm it?
The response of "Oh you know that too!" makes no sense.
Novak did not call discuss something he knew to be a fact. He called to confirm something that he did not know was a fact. Rove had to be quite aware that Novak was looking for a second source to confirm the primary source.
Rove: "I've heard that. too!" makes a lot more sense.
What would be NOVAKS response to the "Oh you know that too!"? Would he just say thanks, and hang up, or would Novak have said.. "No Karl, I don't know it. I heard it. I am asking you to confirm or deny it."
Rove : "I've heard the same story, Bob, that is all I can say."
What would Novaks response be to "I've heard that too!"?
Would he again just hang up? Or would he persue the matter further by asking.
Novak: Can you confirm or deny the story.
Rove: "I don't know any more than you do Bob. I can't confirm or deny it. It is just a story I have heard!"
I think there may be more to this conversation than what we now know. Reporters don't normally take a comment as the answer to a question with out at least asking one more time for a direct answer.
The only other explanation is Novak knows Rove well enough to understand he is not going to confirm it. So Novak hangs up with no follow up and goes after another confirmation source.
But the "You know it too" reply makes no sense at all. There is no way Novak would have called to confirm a confirmed story. Know is a word that is almost never used by reporters. They ask people to comment on things other people claim to be true. I can't remember a reporter claiming to know something. I'll bet Rove can't either.
My opinion is Howard Kurtz did not accurately quote Novak.. He may have "misunderstood" Novak. It is not the first time Kurtz has presented his "misquotes" as news.
Not any more.
Because there was nothing revealed that was covered by Law.
Excellent! Congratulations!
All reporters need a harsh lesson in constitutional law and how to report and NOT report! It's really out of control - reporters think THEY are ABOVE the law!
I'm glad you cleared that up. I think No-facts went to some pains to try to clarify it was NOT a WH person but an "administation" source, which I interpreted to mean State Dept, i.e. Richard Armitage or Colin Powell (for whom everyone likes to provide cover).
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
We know,
1. Rove was 1 "Senior Administration Official"
2. Bill Harlow was the CIA source.
3. Fitz KNEW the identity of the other Senior Administration Official BEFORE he talked to Novak.
Since Harlow was the CIA source, the CIA Director (Name? Mental Blank) can be discounted as the other Sr. Admin Official.
The Primary Source had to be someone like Rove and who had access to info such as this. My guess is Andrew Card or someone very close to him.......
Because the Primary Source hasn't broken any laws...........
Not a propaganda offensive, the real offensive; and it's up to we peons to do the piddling stuff with the media. That's what we're here for.
He did. And I believe he said everyone would be surprised.
I wonder what the substance of the "differed from my recollection" was all about. And doesn't Novak record his conversations?
I read (and who knows how reliable the source?) that Rove recalls that when Novak asked about Valerie Plame, he said "I heard that too." And Novak recalls that Rove said something like, "Oh, you know that too?"
Joe was very careful when he talked about the yellow cake. He said that there was none issued through legal purchase channels and if they did get any, it was obtained illegally. In other words, who knows?
You know who must have known about Valerie...Joe's attorney. Valerie and Joe were both divorced. There's paper work. And guess who lived next door to Joe...for years...his attorney, Christopher Wolf.
Damn it. Who is the third?
What a political HACK Fitz is and what a disgrace!!!
PLEASE MR. PRESIDENT DO NOT REAPPOINT FITZ!!!
Now if Novak had written that both Joe and Valerie Wilson were/are "operatives" for the DNC he would have been more accurate!! These two frauds have been carrying water for the Demagogic Party from start to finish in this sordid affair. It's long past time that they be fully exposed, tarred & feathered, and then jailed for a long time.
The AP had a story in our morning fish wrap that never mentioned Joe Wilson either. They were trying to heap it all on Rove. We have such wonderful MSM reporters. It's all the news they want to write as being true.
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.