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."
Woodward said he MAY have told Libby about Plame and her work for the CIA but he couldn't remember for sure. At the very least it casts doubt as to whether Libby was lying about hearing the information originally from "journalists". Instead of Russert he may have heard it from Woodward and just been mistaken.
Secondly, it shows direct contradictions of recollections within the MSM. Since a significant amount of the evidence against Libby is MSM testimony, any discredit brought upon them concerning the facts weakens the case as a whole. Proving the charges against Libby beyond a reasonable doubt has now become more difficult.
Excellent point. Fitz' whole argument is that LIbby's "perjury" sent the investigation off on different tangents..and that is why he was indicted. Sounds to me that the persons "holding back" were the journalists, lengthening the investigation. What is incredible is that Libby is required to remember the time, persons, and content of ALL his conversations...yet Pincus "doesnt' recall"...and even Woodward "doesn't remember" or deny that had told/discussed Wilson's wife with Libby.
And these people make a living gathering and documenting facts about which they write "honest" stories???
I remember that and thinking that if it was Wilson or the secret agent Plame herself, it would be a laugh.
Add that Pincus and his wife spent the July 4 holiday in Joe & Valerie Wilson's backyard, barbecueing steaks with his buddy, Joe.
This would be a week after the Ambassador's "coming out party" in the NY Times...and tend days before Miss Valerie was "outed" by Robert Novak.
A good working assumption is that Pincus, when he testified before Fitzgerald's GJ, claimed he had "no idea" (at the time) that Miss Valerie was a CIA employee and was "shocked, shocked" at Novak's revelations.
This from a reporter, it should be pointed out, with reputedly "fabulous connections" inside the CIA...
Bob Woodward has just blown Pincus' story into smithereens...
Here's a question....if Hadley told Woodward about a person who was NOT a covert agent..
...and Woodward did not write a story about this non-classified information (as indicated by the fact that Fitz did not indict anyone)
...then is Hadley in trouble for talking about this non-classified remark about a non-covert agent to Woodward?
Anyone watching Hairball with Chrissy Matthews???
He is interviewing a Downie guy from WaPo....and asked him if perhaps Colin Powell has asked Woodward to say this NOW, in order to help out Libby....
Well, I can't say that I'm watching it -- I stopped watching Hairball around the time of The Bent One's Senate impeachment sham trial.
At the same time, it sounds like Pincus knew BEFORE Woodward told him. That gets us back a bit....closer to Joe himself.
Chrissy actually said that/?? Oh please..tell him to STFU!
I don't know anything, and I don't think he'll tell anything... the Berger case might be closed but I think it is far from 'over'.
And I wonder if Fitz will be as aggressive at going after possible Pincus perjury as he was after supposed Libby perjury. Why do I get the feeling that he won't?
Wilson told Novak: "Keep my wife out of this."
So there are people saying: You can report this but not that. The truth is a complete puzzle. Anything less is an "agenda".
I wouldn't say it was akin to rathergate cuz in that example the usage of documents were just plain false.
In this example the record, as it stood the day fitzy made indictment, looked like scooter was left holding the ball. I wouldn't say that is the same as claiming fabricated documents are part of the legit record. ( yes I use legit loosely there)
So he said scooter is holding the ball and now a whole host of people with additional evidence are coming out of the woodwork.
In the respect that maybe fitzy knew there was more to the story and this was his method of 'outing' those avenues I can see your comparison to rathergate.
Holy Shiite, Batman!!!......you just may be on to something there......
This would be a week after the Ambassador's "coming out party" in the NY Times...and tend [sic] days before Miss Valerie was "outed" by Robert Novak. [Emphasis Added].
Please let me provide one small but very important correction...
I believe that Wilson's story was published on July 6th in the NY Times.
The 6th is a Wednesday. So, Wilson, Ms. Plame, and the Pincus' spent July 4th weekend together. That's 3-4 days before the publishing of Wilson's What I Didn't Find in Africa (Reproduced here. It is only reasonable to assume that Wilson had the story written several days before that. Who knows? Maybe Pincus gave it a look-see before Wilson turned it in?
We don't know. But, no one has even asked the question.
And, it is important to note that, Novak's column was of the "Who is this Wilson character?" variety. As I (and many FREEPERs) have said, any person with an internet connection and the ability to do a Google search would have found out Joe Wilson's wife's name in a matter of seconds. So, Novak (or a research assistant) did some preliminary (i.e., Google) research and found his wife's name. Novak calls CIA, tells them what he has, asks for verification, gets and tepid response about her role (certainly not an indication of any concern), and he runs with the story.
This really is the biggest non-event in the history of the news cycle, yet, there are people calling for congressional investigations, criminal charges, etc., etc., etc.
Huh?
Then, we look back to the heart of how things developed, in the media specifically, and two of the main people who generated the initial buzz about this story: Pincus and Wilson. They published stories in Wash Post and NY Times, respectively, only 3 1/2 weeks apart. In between, it is known that these 2, AND the focus of the entire hub-bub --Plame-- are having a BBQ together.
" Seriously? This isn't important to the case? Huh?
I can only hope that Fitzmas finally stumbles onto the story (as Wolfstar noted). Even though our very own Wolfstar was reading between the lines 2 years ago, I can only hope that Fitzmas or someone in Fitzmas' group can't ignore the facts anymore.
A good working assumption is that Pincus, when he testified before Fitzgerald's GJ, claimed he had "no idea" (at the time) that Miss Valerie was a CIA employee and was "shocked, shocked" at Novak's revelations.
If Pincus says that he didn't know that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife until Novak's column, it's real simple: Pincus is lying. And, if Scooter Libby was indicted because he got the dates of a conversation wrong (which, in theory, could have been with or without malice), then Pincus should be indicted too.
Last question, where is the famous NY Times "Web of Connections" diagram when you need it?
Sounds like Chrissy is spinning like a clothes dryer.
On the 8th, a "friend" of Joe's approached Novak inquiring about Wilson & wife. Joe called Novak on the 8th-10th saying: "Leave my wife out of this". Novak said: "She's fair game".
On the 11th, Cooper called Rove bypassing the Tel Log book by having the call transferred to Rove.
On the 12th, Novak's column came out. Cooper called Libby on the 12th but couldn't get him until the afternoon.
"Plame is clearly not undercover and therefore the law doesn't apply. "
I believe she was at the time - and/or her identity is to remain protected in case of retroactive retribution. What I feel is very disingenuous is the idea that the White House would seek retribution by outing Wilson's wife.
If they wanted retribution - there are several other things that could be done - for example - like Clinton using the IRS to audit O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh et al.
In my opinion - Fitzgerald is a liberal opportunist clearly trying to make a name for himself.
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.