My Role in Plamegate -- Robert Novak

[Overpaid Slacker]

My Role in Plamegate
By Robert Novak

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half 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.

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.

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices 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.

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.

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.

(Emphases added)

So this whole Fitzgerald wild goose leak chase was a huge waste of taxpayer money? (and Scooter Libby is not relevant to Fitz's appointment, as Libby is in hot water for actions taken after Fitzgerald's investigation began).

JP

[Rodeo]

Sure, it was a waste of money to investigate the leak of classified information related to the identity of a covert CIA agent, a leak the president himself vowed to get to the bottom of.

What do we care if our public officials reveal classified information for the sake of political expediency? Of lie repeatedly to grand juries? Boys will be boys, right?

Now if there was a bj involved, that would have been money well spent.

[lendaddy]

What exactly was in the "Who's who in America" entry by Wilson?

Edit:

Nevermind, I found it. Would not this "top secret" name seem an odd thing for him to submit for global publishing? But I digress as it's not what this thread should be about.

[lendaddy]

JP, but he hasn't revealed his third source yet correct? That would be tonight (rumors say Armitage)

If it's not Libby, then what the heck was his prosecution all about?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
If it's not Libby, then what the heck was his prosecution all about?

You have a short memory.

Libby revealed Plame's identity to multiple reporters, then lied about it when interviewed by the FBI and in sworn testimony before the grand jury. He testified that he learned about Plame's CIA status from Tim Russert, when in fact he learned about it from the VP himself, who was at the center of the effort to smear Wilson for exposing the Niger yellowcake lie.

Now, Clinton lying about sex with Monica was an impeachable offense.

But Libby lying about using classified information in a political smear campaign, concerning the reasons America went to war at a cost so far of 2,500 lives and a trillion dollars, that's no big deal, right?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You have a short memory.

Libby revealed Plame's identity to multiple reporters, then lied about it when interviewed by the FBI and in sworn testimony before the grand jury. He testified that he learned about Plame's CIA status from Tim Russert, when in fact he learned about it from the VP himself, who was at the center of the effort to smear Wilson for exposing the Niger yellowcake lie.

Now, Clinton lying about sex with Monica was an impeachable offense.

But Libby lying about using classified information in a political smear campaign, concerning the reasons America went to war at a cost so far of 2,500 lives and a trillion dollars, that's no big deal, right?

Even if completely true, libby would have been well down stream from the actual leaker. Meaning he was guilty of basically saying "yea I heard that too". If there was any actual crime involved, then the original leaker should be the one in hot water....but alas......

Also, just to clarify. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury while being sued for sexual harassment. The BJ was not a crime.

This escapes you guys I notice.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
***Also, just to clarify. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury ***

And Libby is under indictment for committing perjury.

I guess since he "well down stream from the actual leaker" (whatever that means), perjury and obstruction of justice by the vice president's Chief of Staff is no big deal.

I gues you don't see the hypocrisy of your position

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
And Libby is under indictment for committing perjury.

I guess since he "well down stream from the actual leaker" (whatever that means), perjury and obstruction of justice by the vice president's Chief of Staff is no big deal.

I gues you don't see the hypocrisy of your position

I'm not defending Libby's perjury, I am questioning why he received such scrutiny. It appears he was a non factor all together. If he lied, then so be it. When his trial ramps up we will see what really happened I guess.

[Rodeo]

Glad to hear you are not defending Libby.

I'll point out that Clinton never had a trial, yet you have no problem saying that Clinton lied (nor do I), but I guess that we have to wait for Libby's trial to understand that the vp wanted to go after Wilson, that Libby did the dirty work, and that Libby then lied about it because he was using classified information to smear a political opponent.

Even though the public record establishes all the above, we'll wait for his trial to determine whether he or the vp did anything wrong.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Lendaddy -

Why wait for the facts to come out? It's much more fun to run on speculation than dry, boring fact.

I don't have an issue with Libby being tried, and if guilty of a crime (which is the key in the rest of Fitzgerald's investigation that seems to get lost by the Blame Bush First, Last and Always Geniuses) then convicted and severely sentenced.

But to conflate Libby's ex post facto doings with the initial release of information is typical of the fact-dodge approach that the Libs absolutely cannot do without. With all the hullabaloo and absolute moral certainty that there was a crime committed here necessitating Fitzgerald and the investigation, the fact that Libby appears to have committed his own crimes, independent of the initial disclosure is being hailed by the shallow thinkers of vindication for the investigation into the initial disclosure. Not exactly a brilliant tactic, but one that evidently suckers people who pay half attention and need there to be something to hang on Bush.

Evidently, Fitz knows who the "leakers" were, but he goes way beyond most of the BBFLA and knows the law as well. Thus far, it is his determination that concerning the initial leak, the law hadn't been broken. Will that stop the Geniuses from stating that it had been broken as a foregone conclusion? If history is any guide, absolutely not.

JP


EDIT -- Rodeo, if Clinton was "denied" a trial somehow, it was by his own party, who voted lock-step along party lines not to allow him one in impeachment proceedings.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Glad to hear you are not defending Libby.

I'll point out that Clinton never had a trial, yet you have no problem saying that Clinton lied (nor do I), but I guess that we have to wait for Libby's trial to understand that the vp wanted to go after Wilson, that Libby did the dirty work, and that Libby then lied about it because he was using classified information to smear a political opponent.

Even though the public record establishes all the above, we'll wait for his trial to determine whether he or the vp did anything wrong.

Clinton admitted he lied, I need no trial.

And we know why Cheney wanted to discredit Wilson, there is no mystery there either. He read read Wilsons editorial and felt it was a partison attack veiled as a legitiimate exorcise. No mystery there.

There is no crime in trying to discredit Wilson, especially if he lied. And disclosing Plame is not a crime if she was either not covert and/or the discloser did not know or do so with malice. Apparently Fitz found no crime.

And you can quit waiting to find out if Cheney "did anything wrong", Fitz has already decided he hasn't.......or are you still holding out hope?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You have a short memory.

Libby revealed Plame's identity to multiple reporters, then lied about it when interviewed by the FBI and in sworn testimony before the grand jury. He testified that he learned about Plame's CIA status from Tim Russert, when in fact he learned about it from the VP himself, who was at the center of the effort to smear Wilson for exposing the Niger yellowcake lie.

Joe Wilson, intentionally or not, exposed himself by lying about a sitting President and VP. He lied about his findings. Not only did Wilson lie about what he found but he was unqualified for such an investigation. Hanging out as a dignitary and sipping sweet tea, and saying "hey bro, was Saddam trying to buy yellow-cake from you guys...I hate that Bush, just say no and I have all I need," does not an investigation make. He immediately returned from his mission and lied, with the help of the New York Democrat Times, with the express purpose of harming a President that was trying to protect America from terrorists.

Either Wilson knew he was exposing his NON-covert (everybody in D.C. knew who she was in relation to Wilson) wife's status, or Plame knew, but more likely they both knew precisely what they were doing, as did the Democrat lawyers that packaged them to their media friends. Book deal anyone?...Talk shows?...No problem!!!..."We can get you on Tim Russert and Katie Couric multiple times!!!"...."You will be a star!!!"

They were all in bed together, a big leftist orgy.

Joe Wilson lied and his wife helped him. They should be brought up on charges of treason and hung, at least beheaded.

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by Rodeo
And Libby is under indictment for committing perjury.

I guess since he "well down stream from the actual leaker" (whatever that means), perjury and obstruction of justice by the vice president's Chief of Staff is no big deal.

I gues you don't see the hypocrisy of your position

If by no big deal you mean "under indictment for committing perjury" then....

You can't impeach Libby. You can only prosecute him for lying. That's why he's in trouble.

Having the feds after you is a big deal.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Lendaddy-
Thanks. I was typing something along those lines myself. Look, anyone who believes there was a shred of integrity, evidence or professionalism in Wilsons "reports" has no idea what he did, what he wrote or what he's admitted to since.

It would be very convenient to believe what Wilson wants people to believe in order to discredit Bush and his administration; but it's just farce.

With all the legitimate reasons to bash Bush, why (oh why) do Libs get suckered by this crap and spend so much energy chasing empty, fatuous will o'wisp charges when there' no "there" there? It does nothing but damage Lib credibility on those issues that have substance; and frankly, it makes the parrots look lazy and foolish.

JP

[Overpaid Slacker]

I'm usually disinclined to 2nd what I often find to be Mul's hyperbole, but he is spot damned on about Wilson.

Too often it appears that Libs want the specific problems with their "Wilsons" to go down the memory hole, leaving only that vague, "everybody knows..." impression behind. But some of us pay attention and have memories that reach back further than a few media cycles.

JP

[Rodeo]

Are you capable of typing a post without the letters "libs" in there somewhere?

Try it sometime, you might actually find that you address actual arguments when you can't resort to silly and misleading labels.

For the record, condeming the misuse of classified information for political purposes is neither a "liberal" nor "conservative" stance.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo

the misuse of classified information for political purposes

That is what you allege, a multimillion dollar investigation found otherwise.

[Rodeo]

In which alternate universe?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
In which alternate universe?

Then I guess he found a crime and chose not to prosecute.

[techweenie]

There seems to be some confusion here. Wilson's wife's name was never the issue.

Her occupation was.

Novak, Libby, Rove, et.al. exposed Valerie Plame's employment as a CIA operative. In doing so, they also exposed any other CIA agents using the 'blind' of Brewster Jennings, and thereby any and all informants that could be traced to Brewster Jennings "employees."

Hair splitting as to whether "Joe Wilson's wife" or "Valerie Plame" is a "revealed identity" has got to be the smallest figleaf one could try to hide behind.