Booman Tribune

Delving into the Labyrinth of Plame

by BooMan
Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 01:29:06 PM EST

I've been snooping around the story that Time reporter, Viveca Novak, has been asked to give a deposition to Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame case. And, via a July 31 2005 post at Reality-Based Educator, I found something interesting. It involves a Time magazine piece that Viveca Novak contributed to that was published that day. The article revealed something interesting that we have since come to learn more about.

As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer.

Rove's lawyer is Robert D. Luskin. I had assumed that this Time piece was sourcing Luskin from previous public statements. But perhaps Ms. Novak interviewed him for this article.

From the New York Times piece:

...Viveca Novak, who has written about the leak investigation, has been asked to testify by the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, about her conversations with Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, the magazine said.

The request for Ms. Novak's testimony is the first tangible sign in weeks that Mr. Fitzgerald has not completed his inquiry into Mr. Rove's actions and may still be considering charges against him.

And this theory starts to come together as we look a little closer at the July 31st Time article:

The previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report. The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources familiar with the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to Wilson, say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June.

Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too.

When Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials who knew about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. "After Pincus," a former intelligence officer says, "there was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others" about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that "we looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on."

There is a lot of information in this snip, and we have learned a lot more details about this time period since last July. What concerns us now is how this article may have piqued Fitzgerald's interest and led him to subpoena Ms. Novak to discuss her conversations with Rove's lawyer.

Does it have something to do with Woodward's revelation, or is this just tying the final bows on the Rove indictments? Or both? Interestingly, Ms. Novak co-wrote a piece on Woodward as recently as November 21st, but there is not too much of interest in it.

The night before Scooter Libby was indicted Bob Woodward appeared on Larry King Live and had this exchange with Michael Isikoff:

ISIKOFF: No, look, this is the biggest mystery in Washington, has been really for two years and now as we come down to the deadline of tomorrow the city is awash with rumors. There's a new one every 15 minutes and nobody really knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Nobody knows what Fitzgerald's got.

I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who is behind the whole thing. So, I don't know, maybe this is Bob's opportunity.

KING: Come clean.

WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.

So, right before Fitzgerald indicted Libby on October 28th, someone started leaking heavily that Woodward had some hot information. Then, on November 1, the Washington Post gave an explanation for why Rove had not been indicted:

Fitzgerald appeared prepared to indict Rove heading into last week for making false statements, according to three people close to the probe. But that changed during a private meeting last Tuesday between Fitzgerald and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. It's not clear precisely what happened in that meeting, but two sources briefed on it said Luskin discussed new information that gave Fitzgerald "pause."

It seems highly likely that the 'pause' that Fitzgerald received was related to the leaks going around Washington that Woodward knew about a "Mr. X source who (was) behind the whole thing."

Woodward claims that he first became concerned when, during Fitzgerald's press conference, Scooter Libby was named as the first 'known' government official to leak Valerie Wilson's employment to a member of the press. I submit that he first became concerned the night before when people from the CIA started calling him and saying things like "(I) got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that (you) supposedly had a bombshell."

This sent a clear signal to Woodward that his little secret was up. In fact, I believe the signal was sent to Woodward a few days earlier and this led him to break down and confess his sins to Len Downie on or about October 24th.

Indeed, things are clearly not what they seem. It appears that Rove dropped a dime on Woodward's source. Then he sent feelers out to Woodward by leaking all around town that Woodward has some big scoop. Woodward panicked and went to his editor, thinking that a subpoena was imminent. Then he went on Larry King the night before the indictments and sent the signal back that he would be a friendly witness by minimizing the importance of the investigation.

But I think Fitzgerald smells a rat. He's bringing in Ms. Novak because he is now investigating Rove's lawyer. He wants to know what Luskin was leaking to reporters. The Time piece says, "Ms. Novak had been asked to discuss conversations she had with Mr. Luskin, starting in May 2004, when she was covering the investigation." But my guess is that the conversations that most interest Fitz occurred in October 2005.



Display:
I'm just passing through on my way to bed -- had to get up to turn the heat up! it's in the 20s here! -- but when I saw your story, I realized I had to stop and look up this snippet of the transcript from this morning's Meet The Press. it may not be central to your theses but the comments reflected consternation with Woodward, and the looks on the faces of David Broder and Eugene Robinson said a hell of a lot more than their words:

Let me turn to the CIA leak investigation. Time magazine reports that Viveca Novak of Time magazine has now been subpoenaed to testify. David Broder, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, as you know, has testified before Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel. What's going on at The Post, in light of that?

MR. BRODER: Consternation, to be honest with you. I think none of us can really understand Bob's silence for two years about his own role in the case. He's explained it by saying he did not want to become involved and did not want to face a subpoena, but he left his editor, our editor, blindsided for two years and he went out and talked disparagingly about the significance of the investigation without disclosing his role in it. Those are hard things to reconcile.

MR. RUSSERT: Gene Robinson?

MR. ROBINSON: I agree with David. Consternation, a certain amount of embarrassment. And, you know, the fact that we can't understand why Bob did what he did. You know, I think that's a very interesting question in this whole incident about confidential sources, about access, about the tradeoffs that we all make for access in granting anonymity for sources. And, you know, I think that's going to continue. I think people are looking at us skeptically.

MR. RUSSERT: And every source I believe is going to want complete assurance that if I give you this information, will you refuse to testify even if it means going to prison.

MR. ROBINSON: But are we going to have to give sources a form to...

MR. RUSSERT: Well...

MR. ROBINSON: ...you know, is there going to be a form? Well, check off yes for, you know, grand jury testimony, no for public disclosure, yes...

The last part is silly ... but "the fact that we can't understand why Bob did what he did" isn't.

Hickok: "You know the sound of thunder. Can you imagine that sound if I ask you to? Ma'am, listen to the thunder."

by susanhu (susanhuatearthlinkdotnet) on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 02:35:11 AM EST
In Howie's just-released "obit" of Woodward (thanks, Atrios), he mentions this little tidbit:

Downie concedes that months sometimes go by without any contact with Woodward, adding that they have now agreed to communicate more often. He says Woodward occasionally volunteers to break off from his book research to produce news stories for The Post, especially with material too timely to be held, and sometimes does so at Downie's request. In fact, it was when Downie asked Woodward to work on the CIA leak case last month that the reporter acknowledged that a senior administration official had told him in 2003 that Valerie Plame, the wife of White House critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA.

According to the Post today, Woodward spilled the beans only when prompted to work the actual story by Downie. Woodward was holding onto his ace, in other words, until he was specifically asked and promptly submitted the info. That would explain Downie standing by him in the whole matter; after all, Downie knew the drill. Woodward doesn't talk unless he's ready, or his editors get the scoop from an independant source.

Woodward's been playing Deep Throat ever since Watergate. Why not? He created the monster.

by Inner Cog (josephnobles location hotmail point com) on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 04:18:39 AM EST
Thanks for the interesting link to the WaPo.  I agree; it may very well be his obituary.  Some juicy tidbits in there that I found very telling of what's going in side the WaPo these days(emphases mine):

...his unusual relationship with The Post, and whether he hoards newsworthy material for his books, have also come under fresh scrutiny. [snip]

...journalistic methods have been assailed by those who view him as dependent on the Bush inner circle for the narratives that drive his bestsellers. [snip]

...Woodward's unusual relationship...has sparked some resentment among the staff. [snip]

No, do you think?  Reading between the lines, this is a staff ready to explode.  And the editor allowed this to be printed!  Does that reflect dissent in the editorial board, or an attempt to let the rest of the staff blow off some steam before the situation totally spins out of control?  I commented a few weeks ago that they would have to fire Woodward for insubordination, or the rest of the staff would take it as a license for rebellion.  

Apparently the editors tried to allow Bob a pass based on his "special relationship" with the paper, but the rest of the staff ain't buying it.  Bob's "favored-child" status has apparently been a source of simmering dissent in the ranks:

He is different in that he takes no unpaid leave to produce his books -- unlike most working reporters -- crafting his volumes for Simon & Schuster while retaining The Post's cachet. He is different in that he is a brand name, returning to the same cast of characters again and again, a luxury afforded one of the few nonfiction authors whose books consistently hit No. 1. He is different in that he is more famous than most of the people he interviews. [snip]

[Many] reporters (including this one) also write books or appear regularly on TV public affairs shows, but unlike Woodward, they also must produce regularly for their primary employers.

I've served as a first-line supervisor in various jobs over the years, and the tone of this story has all my alarm bells and whistles going off.  They've got a major staff resentment situation going on because they didn't bite the bullet and fire Woodward for insubordination at the git-go.  Now they have a real food-fight going on.  They can solve it by either Woodward leaving, or the rest of the staff will be carpeting the street with resumes.  Now the editors have to pick their poison.

Woodward made a "serious mistake" in not informing him about the Plame conversation, Downie says, even as Woodward was repeatedly criticizing special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" whose conduct in issuing subpoenas to reporters was "disgraceful." But, says Downie, "the fact that people would see that as a firing offense is unfathomable to me."

Yeah, and George McGovern backed Tom Eagleton "1000%" until the day he dumped him from the ticket as his VP.

Like McGovern, he's signaling he'll "accept his resignation with regret," allowing all parties to save some face.

It just goes on and on (like this comment):

...a series of incidents has made some staffers question his loyalty to the paper. [snip]

...staff was puzzled this month when, on the day he acknowledged having testified in the Plame case, Woodward released a statement but would not answer questions from Post reporters.

Puzzled?  Try infuriated!

Woodward views himself as conducting the same kind of reporting -- piling fact upon fact from a range of sources -- as he did during Watergate

He's as disconnected from the effects of his behavior as the Bushistas he covers!  Is it something in the water supply in the White House?

The piece interestingly shifts gears in mid-piece, going from an attack to a defense of Woodward - one wonders if the editors demanded the "balance" be added before they'd give the piece their imprimatur.

Ecological collapse is already happening. Your resentment of the word doesn't change the fact that it is occurring.

by Knoxville Progressive (green_planet_2000 (at) yahoo (dot) com) on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 07:36:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So good it could be a diary all by itself.

I'm flaggerghasted Woodward doesn't take unpaid leave while he writes his books! WaPo actually pays him to make money for himself and Simon and Schuster! What a sweetheart deal; wish someone would pay me to kinda, sorta work for them whenever I feel like it.

by sjct on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 09:22:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ossification.

Woodward is on staff, being paid whatever (even if it's Guild standard), and thus taking up space and money that could be used to hire one or even two bright, energetic, driven young reporters. Reporters who might actually turn out real journalism for the WaPo.

I think you analysis of extreme resentment is right on.

A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it. -- Oscar Levant

by Mnemosyne on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 11:39:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Dudehisattva...
"Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"
by bood abides (thedoodabides@suddenlink.net) on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 06:28:26 AM EST
that show and entering that discussion while he was part of the story. On the show he called Fitzgerald a "junk-yard dog" and later explained that it was a compliment. In context, it did not sound like one, it was said in a disparaging tone.

What a phoney, awe-struck, Bush suck-up he turned out to be.

To thine own self be true. W.S.

by sybil on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 07:07:10 AM EST
Has anyone speculated that Woodward's source might be Bush himself? This seems to me a possible reason (beyond arrogance, Republican sympathies, etc.) for Woodward's silence.
by Coral on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 08:52:41 AM EST
I specualted that last week when all this was going down. Woodward has had unlimited acces to Bush for his books. Dubya may have not even realised what he was saying to Booby or it's importance at the time. I have reached a point that I don't care anymore WHO it is just.Anyone that leaked Plame's name and status as a CIA operative should be prosecuted for Treason...period. Of course in my fantasy it is CHeney/Rove/Libby. I will always believe Bush is just the puppet in all this.  

Frodo failed...Bush has got the ring.
by alohaleezy on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 09:34:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it's entirely possible, for many of the reasons Alohaleezy says, above. Bush is just arrogant and unthinking enough about conequences to others to have done something like that.

A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it. -- Oscar Levant
by Mnemosyne on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 11:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
if rove's lawyer told fitzgerald about woodward then he told him about woodward's sources, because Rove would have known who it was who told woodward to know about plame. and if fitzgerald corroborates that any of these sources is the same one who told Bob Novak about Plame, that fella is going down.

the most logical explaination is a conspiracy of rove, libby and woodward's sources to out Plame. which is just what joe wilson said over two years ago.

by kuvasz on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 11:52:54 AM EST
if Jason Leopold in his reporting at truthout.org is right, we could have more than leftover turkey fixings this week.

Jason reports Fitz will present new evidence this week that Rove lied. Hadley isn't off the hook. A detailed peice makes interesting read.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112805Z.shtml

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 11:41:08 AM EST
Interesting piece, but a pretty big inconsistency within it -

First:

The most serious charges Rove faces are making false statements to investigators and obstruction of justice, the sources said. He does not appear to be in jeopardy of violating the law making it a crime to leak the name of a covert CIA agent, because it's unlikely that Rove was aware that Plame Wilson was undercover, the sources said.

But then:

Her additional testimony may help Fitzgerald prove that there were inconsistencies in Rove's account of his role in the leak and assess why he withheld a crucial fact from the prosecutor: that Rove had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper as well as Novak about Plame and confirmed that she was an undercover CIA agent.

So which is it? Did he know she was undercover or not? Is the reporter just guessing that he knew she was undercover or does he have a separate source that leads him to this conclusion?

Damn I miss editors.

by spiderleaf (spiderleaf at gmail dot com) on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 12:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It could also be careful wording by the author.

In the first graf, his source may be talking about the early leaks in mid to late June before the Wilson op-ed.  In those leaks, it is likely that Rove et al., were telling reporters in a "gossipy" way that Wilson's wife works at the CIA (they probably didn't even mention her first name or her maiden name).

Later, during the Get Wilson phase in mid-July (and when most of the "official" leaks were made by Rove and Libby), they were probably not offering information to reporters, merely confirming it, (a la Rove's reported "I heard that too" in response to Cooper's inquiry).  Those inquiries may have included language that indicated that Plame was covert.  But Rove and Libby may have been merely the messengers, covering up for their source (who may or may not be the mysterious Mr. X for Woodward).

My point is, in order to be prosecuted under IIPA, you must a)have authorized access to classified info that would name the agent in question, b)willfully use that authorized access to obtain said information, and c)unlawfully leak this information to those not authorized to know.

I'm not sure Rove and Libby were authorized to know that Plame was NOC, therefore they cannot be prosecuted under IIPA.  Someone else leaked that info to them.  Unfortunately, I don't think IIPA provides an avenue for prosecution if an unauthorized agent finds out the covert idendity of an operative and then proceeds to leak that identity (which is probably what Libby and Rove did).  The Espionage act does however, but that's a dangerous sword to wield.  Other remedies include civil prosecutions and whatever sanctions the non-disclosure agreement that all WH employees sign wrt classified information permit.

In essence, Rove and Libby are obfuscating and covering up for the real leakers (and at the same time trying to limit their criminal liability under espionage act), and that's why Fitz is pushing them on obstruction, perjury and false statements charges.  He wants to get the REAL leaker (and I'd be willing to bet so does the CIA).

by viget on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 01:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...while I've been hashing out the niceties of IIPA vs. espionage vs. other prosecutorial avenues for Libby and Rove (see commment above).

This is complicated stuff.  Even high-level WH officials wouldn't know exactly what they could and could not say regarding Plame once they knew she was covert (which should be about Jun. 12th or so according to the indictment, when Cheney tells Libby).

Some lawyer had to have advised Rove and Libby how to proceed with the leaks so as to limit their criminal liability.  The logical choice would be the WH counsel in order to keep this stuff inside.  (or perhaps David Addington, Cheney's counsel).

At that time, Abu Gonzales was WH counsel.  Interestingly enough, he also was the first one tipped off to the FBI's investigation of the leak by someone at DoJ (Ashcroft, maybe?) and we have the famous 12-hour gap before Gonzales advised the WH staff to preserve all information regarding the leak for the FBI. (though supposedly he also told Card immediately after learning about this from DoJ)

Could Gonzales himself have been "cleaning house" that night, purging his files of any legal opinions regarding what Rove and Libby could or could not say wrt Plame?  Were he and Andy Card erasing any evidence of high-level meetings so as to not open up the "conspiracy" can of worms?

As far as I know Gonzales has not spoken with Fitz or the GJ, but should he?  I understand that he could probably cite attorney-client privelege or executive privelege to stonewall, but have the WH logs regarding his in and outs of the day he was notified by DoJ been subpoenaed?

In other words, is there any evidence that he might have been at the WH late that night "cleaning house"?  And if so, can he give a plausible alibi as to why he would be there?  This might be an interesting angle of attack.

by viget on Mon Nov 28th, 2005 at 01:32:25 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune