home

Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 11:29:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Washington Post reports that reporter Bob Woodward was deposed by Patrick Fitzgerald on Monday for two hours. The big news is that Woodward was told by a "senior Administration official" about Joseph Wilson's wife working for the CIA as an analyst in weapons of mass destruction in mid-June, 2003.

My bet: Woodward's source is the State Department or CIA official mentioned in Paragraph 6 or 7 (and 33)of the Indictment against Libby. If it's the State Department official, it could be David Wurmser, John Hannah or Fred Fleitz. David Wurmser seems to me to be the most likely.

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

33. .... On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

Back to the Post article: According to Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, the official is not Karl Rove. According to Woodward, it also is not Lewis Libby, whom he spoke with on June 27, but with whom he does not believe the subject of Wilson's wife arose, even though Wilson's name was on his list of questions to ask Libby.

Woodwards' account of his two hour testimony is here (pdf.) Woodward says he disclosed the information about Wilson's wife to Walter Pincus but Pincus doesn't remember him having done so.

Woodward reports he received waivers from three sources to discuss the Plame situation with Fitzgerald. He said he is not authorized to reveal their names publicly, but all three requested he testify.

Woodward's source came forward to Fitzgerald on November 3 - a week after Libby was indicted - and disclosed the conversation.

Questions: Is Woodward's source the same as Novak's source or Pincus's source?

Most importantly, it sounds like the source already has his deal in place with Fitzgerald, and I would bet it's for immunity. Raw Story had this exclusive a while back:

Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on loan from the office of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle, the sources said.

Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, they added.

Within a week, Wurmser, on orders from "executives in the office of the vice president," was told to leak her name to a specific group of reporters in an effort to muzzle her husband, Wilson, who had become a thorn in the side of the administration, those close to the inquiry say. It is unclear who Wurmser had spoken with in the media, the sources said, but they confirmed he did speak with reporters at national media outlets about Plame.

It sounds like Wurmser was the leaker, who became angry at Libby and Cheney for directing him to contact reporters about Wilson's wife, and ended up cooperating with Fitzgerald. Who but Wurmser's lawyers would have told Raw Story:

"Libby wanted to discredit him [Wilson] right from the start," one source close to the investigation told RAW STORY. "He used David Wurmser to help him do that."

Update: Jane at Firedoglake weighs in here and here. Armando parses Woodward here.

Update: Tom Maguire weighs in.

Update: Atrios has the transcript of Woodward's Larry King Live tv appearance of October 27, the night before the Indictment. It looks like both Mike Isikoff and a New York Times reporter had heard Woodward was going to release "a bombshell." Although Woodward denies it on the show, perhaps the source was watching and it jogged his memory.

I still think the source who contacted Fitzgerald on Nov. 3 did so to correct his prior testimony and save his deal and was not a last minute volunteer. Fleitz, Hannah and Wurmser remain at the top of my speculative list.

< Internet Wiretapping Law Rolls Out Starting Monday | Wrongful FBI Arrest Leads to $100K Settlement >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald | 23 comments (23 topical)
    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    What is particularly troubling about this epsode is how Woodward is living on a reputation he has now implicitly repudiated. He wrote a book that was very sympathetic to the Bush administration, and then became a highly critical of the Fitzgerald investigation. This from one of the reporters who was critical (in thinking) of the Nixon administration. What is just as interesting is referencing Pincus. Last year, as the Times and the Post were doing weak-kneed mea culpas about their WMD reporting, Woodward was out front as a defnder of Pincus who had written the best articles about the doubts surrounding the entire WMD argument. (Also check, if you have Lexis as I do, or an account at the Post, Jim Hoagland and Dana Milbank, and some others that I'm still researching.) At the time I wanted to believe it, but had nagging doubts because of his book on Bush. Now my doubts seem justified. In Pincus, Woodward imagines a reporter like himself at his moment of glory. Unfortunately, Pincus remains a reporter and Woodward, well... A question from a legal perspective. Was Woodward deposed in front of agrand jury or what?

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    He was deposed at the offices of his lawyer in lieu of having to appear before the grand jury. So was Tim Russert. Both were under oath however.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    What if anything can we infer about Fitzgerald's strategy from the fact that Woodward was deposed without the presence of a Grand Jury?

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Woodward's source can't be Wurmser or Hannah or Fleitz. Woodward's source is a senior administration official. Wurmser and Fleitz wouldn't qualify--not senior enough. Hannah now would, in his new role as Libby replacement. But even that would be some pretty dicey attribution for a source that Woodward must know will be exposed in the near future. Bolton or Cheney would qualify, of course.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#5)
    by Tom Maguire on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    There is something that may be a cryptic clue in the WaPo story: It is unclear what prompted Woodward's original unnamed source to alert Fitzgerald to the mid-June 2003 mention of Plame to Woodward. Once he did, Fitzgerald sought Woodward's testimony, and three officials released him to testify about conversations he had with them. Downie, Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month. Downie defended the newspaper's decision not to release certain details about what triggered Woodward's deposition because "we can't do anything in any way to unravel the confidentiality agreements our reporters make." Well, if the question was, why wait a week, answers might include, the person was sick, traveling, on leave, etc. And, per Steve Clemons via Jane, we see that there were rumors that Fleitz was on leave in late October. We also see that there were rumors Woodward was planning a big story, which jibes with the WaPo: Downie said in an interview yesterday that Woodward told him about the contact to alert him to a possible story. He declined to say whether he was upset that Woodward withheld the information from him. So let's say that half of the Clemons rumor was good - Woodward was planning a story. Where was Fleitz? FWIW - I don't buy the idea that whover came forward a week late already had deal. Why not come forward at the time?

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#6)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Call me pretty dense - but if Wurmser has already cooperated and spilled the beans then why have the "executives from the VP's office" not been charged with the "underlying crime"?

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Call me crazy but this is yet another example of how ridiculous this supposed crime, investigation, and news obbsession has become. I mean Fitzgerald spends 2 years and millions of dollars on getting 5 lying to a prosecuter charges and we now just find out about Woodward? This whole thing smells or we may have to face the fact that nothing happened. Other then Libby lying to Fitzgerald which hasn't been proven. I am a righty but have wanted to let this thing play out but every day it continues it becomes more and more likely that A) no crime was commited and B) Fitzgerald is a victim of his own investigation that has taken on a life of it's own. Am I crazy?

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Lies on lies, and this non government is insane! in fact bush, as i see it is the enemy of this non nation, what next mass camps? anyway who really knows what's going on? the fact is the system is coming apart, and the politicos are starting to eat each other, but soon the rats will start to eat you! keep your eyes opened for the next move by bush and business!

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Yes, you're crazy Slado. You got your scandals mixed up. Fitzgerald's probe has cost far less than some past independent counsel investigations. According to recent reports by the congressional Government Accountability Office, Fitzgerald spent just over $724,000 in the first 15 months of his investigation. It was the Starr investigation that spent millions. More than 40 million.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    So I'm crazy about Fitzgerald but what does it mean if Libby wasn't the first source?

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    So I'm crazy about Fitzgerald but what does it mean if Libby wasn't the first source? It means that he is not the only traitor working in the White House.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Nik said: This investigation has taken two years because of Miller's refusal to testify. Ummm... How did Miller's refusal to testify prevent Fitzgerald from finding out about Woodward? This whole thing makes no sense at all. Fitzgerald hasn't charged anyone with leaking the info, yet he certainly knows who this official is who spoke to Woodward - therefore we must assume that telling Plame's name to Woodward did not violate the law. So what are we left with? Libby is being charged with lying to investigators about something that wasn't a crime? How is that worse than Clinton's perjury? Hell, why don't they spend some time investigating something important like the energy task force thing, or forcing the Senate to finish the investigation into whether or not intelligence was mis-used to lead us into war?

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#13)
    by mjvpi on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Mr. fitzgerald was crystal clear at his press conference. A VERY SERIOUS CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED! Mr. Libby was charged with impeading his ability prosecute that crime. If Mr. Fitzgerald can't charge the crime, that's a tribute to the cover-up, not a statement that this is "no big deal".

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    I think there is a distinction between "senior white house official" and "senior administraton official." Because the article and Woodward refer to "senior adminstration official" I am assuming the source does not work directly in the White House but for the State Dept., National Security Agency, Defense Department etc. I also think an "under secretary" or anyone who is in a senior position at his agency qualifies.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    slado:
    I am a righty but have wanted to let this thing play out but every day it continues it becomes more and more likely that A) no crime was commited and B) Fitzgerald is a victim of his own investigation that has taken on a life of it's own. Am I crazy?
    Maybe you're not crazy, just very impatient. You say you "wanted to let this thing play out". So when did you stop wanting that? Why are you now trying to draw conclusions before it plays out? Fitzgerald said that the investigation was not over, but he was charging Libby with perjury for instructing the investigation. So new revelations about more leaks will not alter the fact of Libby's perjury, but they may help the investigation to make progress -- in spite of Libby's efforts to obstruct it. So how is Fitzgerald is "a victim of his own investigation?" What do you mean by "takes on a life of its own?" If the truth is gradually being revealed, isn't the investigation progressing? Is it too hard to assume that Fitzgerald actually knows what he is doing? I know it's probably hard for you to wait to find out the truth about the crimes committed by people in this administration. It's understandable that -- as a "righty" -- you may have even voted for Bush and Cheney. So you probably feel some sense of ownership for their actions, and want to see Fitzgerald get to the bottom of this mess and clean house. But maybe you just need to have a bit more patience and trust in your prosecutor to know what he's doing.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Cyrmo Thanks for the resonable point of view. I for one don't feel Libby should be given any slack if he is indeed guilty of these crimes. My only partisan feelings on this whole affair is that it's being used by anti-administration advocates as a "see we told you so" regarding alledged "misuse of intelligence". Wilson has been proven at the very least to be wishy washy on the facts and to date no-one has been charged with the original crime. And to date no one seems to have decided whether or not Mrs. Plame was covert or who actually outed her. What will be interesting...patience coming back...will be how the press handles becoming part of the investigation and the possible trial. To date it is my opinion that they preformed as poorly as Mr. Libby.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#17)
    by Tom Maguire on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    I still think the source who contacted Fitzgerald on Nov. 3 did so to correct his prior testimony and save his deal... Far be it from me to insist that the "I just remembered..." scenario is out of bounds here. As to the source - I may be missing something, but in his own statement, Woodward says that he testified about "three current or former Bush administration officials". One of them becomes a senior offical in the WaPo version, but I don't know why. I vividly recall that in late Sept/early OCt 2003, when the WaPo first broke the 1 x 2 x 6 leak, they told us that a "senior" Admin official (1) fingered two WH people (2) as having leaked to six reporters (6). A few days later, the same official reappeared, but as a mere "Administration official". Puzzling. Also, the source who leaked to Pincus on July 12, 2003 was originally an "Administration official". Recently, the WaPo switched that to "White House official". So I don't know what to read in to this latest.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    And to date no one seems to have decided whether or not Mrs. Plame was covert or who actually outed her.
    Slado, I appreciate the even handedness with which you're trying to approach this. That being said, it seems to me that you would at least allow that much of the obfuscation regarding whether or not Plame was covert has emanated from the very partisan forces which trouble you. Why is it, a reasonable person would ask, that during a time when multiple factions have devoted themselves to murdering Americans, the GOP's immediate desire to cast every possible aspersion on the CIA operative in question? Obviously if it were Carville and it was 1997, the same people would be reacting very differently. I can't believe I'm recommending this, but you should really check out Joe Scarborough's take on the whole Plame affair, especially in terms of the discourses surrounding it. Scarborough is very much a righty in most ways, and as far as social issues I loathe him, and on many foreign policy issues he's way too much of a Bush bootlicker for me, but I'll give him this much: he is intellectually honest. Republicans with this quality are getting rarer and rarer. He joins George Will, John McCain, and a handfull of others.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    TomM-at least they have not identifies the source as a 'former WH staffer', but that may come too, if anyone has a sense of humor left.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Glanton thanks for the compliment. I agree that hypocrasy reigns supreme on this subject and have no doubt that if Clintons WH was at the root of this many republicans would also be crying foul, calling him a traitor, etc... and making equally outlandish statements that can be read on a daily basis at this blog. However, my last post was intended to say that the press has preformed miserably at both explaining this story, providing context and jumping to conclusions. Should I be suprised? I attribute that mostly to the fact that many of the Beltway reporters are very heavily involved in the story itself. I.E. who leaked what, who knew what etc... The kicker for me is Andrea Mitchell backpedeling from statements she made in 2003 saying "Everybody knew Valarie Wilson worked for the CIA" (paraphrased). The resonable non-partisan view on this is that if VP was covert, people knew she was and she was deliberatly outed people should go to jail. But that hasn't been proven and if what the administration is truley guilty of is playing "Hardball" then so be it. Wilsons' statements where highly questionable and in some corners proven to be false so why should people go to jail for pointing out that his wife gave him the job, which he wasn't qualified for, when it's true? I will take Cyrno's advice to wait and see. Patient Righty signing off.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    "he is intellectually honest." Sputter, cough, sputter. After Joe's efforts to pass off a load of winger manure on Terri Schiavo was utterly rebutted by the patient (and correct) neurologist Ronald Cranford, Joe said this, to cover up the complete lack of facts in his attempted smear: "SCARBOROUGH: But too many doctors out there can be bought off by attorneys on either side. And then they come out, instead of telling you the facts, you get into debate like you are talking to an attorney. It is very, very disappointing." If that's intellectually honest, my turkey is dancing in the refrigerator.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Paul, As I made clear, there is no love lost between myself and Scarborough. I consider him to be, among other things, ultimately emblematic of the faux marriage between coprorate royalty on the one hand and redneck nation on the other. That being said, Scarborough's take on the Plame leak does operate as a specimen of intellectual honesty--to be sure, he is a war hawk even if the war in question is about as necessary to national security as the designated hitter is to baseball's integrity: but in this case he shows a willingness, at least, to put his money where his mouth is. Moreover, I have seen him translate this consistency, hobgoblinish as it undoubtedly is at times, at other times into principled critiques of the Bush Administration. You will not find, for example, anyone on the Right more opposed to corporate subsidization than Scar. I come in the end not to champion, but only to point out that there are even some on the Right who recognize the hideousness of outing a covert operative during a time of war. It would be nice if some within his echo chamber listened. Or put another way, as my high school football coach used to effuse: A blind groundhog will find an acorn every now and then.

    Re: Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:11 PM EST
    Was it Bush who told Woodward about Valerie Plame? Remember, Woodward was granted tremendous access to the Pres to write his book. Maybe Bush thought Woodward owed him one. And Woodward knew his reputation would be destroyed if it came out that he knew how committed this administration was to keeping the truth about the war from its critics. It also would kind of crimp his book sales. And ruin his reputation.

    Bob Woodward Deposed by Fitzgerald | 23 comments (23 topical)