home

Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate

Bob Novak says his lawyers have told him Patrick Fitzgerald says the Valerie Plame leaks investigation is over as to him. The column is available to subscribers, which I am not, but I just got a full copy. Here's what's available on their website, more is below the fold:

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..... 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.

Fitz had waivers from all three of his 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.

He later testified to the grand jury. He explains why he revealed Rove and the CIA's Bill Harlow as two of his three sources:

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.

He sticks to the "non-partisan gunslinger" story.

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.

So his source for Plame's name according to him is Who's Who. Who's the primary source? He's not saying. A non-partisan gunslinger who disclosed it inadvertantly. Sounds just like Bob Woodward's source. And that source has talked to Fitzgerald and 'fessed up his role and is now referred to by Fitz as an "innocent accused." Richard Armitage seems the most likely to me.

Update: Howard Kurtz has more at the Washington Post.

< FBI to Muslims: Snitch and Keep Your Green Card, Or.... | Duke Lacrosse Player Convicted in D.C. Assault Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Drudge says the source was Joe Wilson. So did these guys in 2005.

    The primary source is whoever told it to Who is Who. That would probably be Joe Wilson.

    No, the primary source is whoever told him Joseph Wilson's wife who worked in the counterproliferation wing of the CIA and was responsible for sending Wilson to Africa. He was then able to find the name from Who's Who. His primary source who he has not revealed says he did it inadvertantly.

    OK, I give. The primary source is who ever disclosed public information to Novak. Is disclosing public information a Federal crime? BTW is the number of postings I can do today cumulative from all the days i missed? Or am I one below my limit? LOL.

    Simon Circular argumentation is just plain boring

    I slipped and hert my back entering this thread. I wasn't paying attention to the puddle of irony that had dripped from this article having been leaked.

    aww.....stupid #&$%#@* typos.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    Not only is Fitzmas over but now if you believe Novak and anyone who isn't still holding out hope that the Bush administration will go down no crime was commited by anyone. Other then libby stupidly covering up a non crime by lying to a grand jury. Un-proven. So my short synopsis is this. Nobody "leaked" the identity. The information was readily available to anyone that wanted to put the pieces togther and when Novak did it appeared as if someone had leaked it. Novak worked with Fitzgerald early on and shut up enjoying the show as the attack media went into full spin cycle for 3 YEARS!!! and then wound up with nothing. End of story.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 06:30:55 PM EST
    rumi- #&$%#@* is usually spelled #&$^#@*, you must be in very bad shape today, irony dripping not withstanding.

    Val's name was put in Who's Who by her hubby. Which means Joe didn't think she was very covert. If she was covert Joe would be the one who outed her. It appears the CIA didn't think Joe's trip was very secret or they would have had him sign a CIA Non-Disclosure, Secrecy Form.

    Will we get a report or summary of events from SP Fritzgerald? The most damaging part to the White House is going to be the CIA Damage Assessment Report. Plame had to be an undercover agent or this investigation never would have been launched. When the American public finds out what damage the White House did to Plame,her front company and the CIA during a time of war.

    Tank, Sorry your just plain incorrect about the front company. The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign. Source WaPo 10/4/03 [link deleted, not in html format, instructions are in comment box]

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 08:26:32 PM EST
    Here is the whole Novak article. Thanks to swopa commenting at emptywheel.

    Joe put his wife's name, not her CIA employment, in Who's Who. It was the Administration official who leaked that Joe's wife worked for the CIA. She was covert, Fitzgerald has said so. The official blew her cover, even if he didn't name her, by disclosing she worked for the CIA. But don't forget all of Judith Miller's notes with "Valerie" and "Valeried Flame -- a name mistake even Robert Novak made.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 08:39:21 PM EST
    Not much news from what I can tell after reading the full article. Novak seems full of it as usual.

    Here are Fitz's words from his presser when he accounce the charges against Libby. FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. Talkleft, If you have another instance when Fitz spoke to her status let me know. You wrote: Joe put his wife's name, not her CIA employment, in Who's Who. Shoot, all lefties have been saying for the past 3 yrs that it was her name that was classified and how terrible it was the Bush WH was to out her! Or is the left going to shift the goal posts, AGAIN! Yeah, people in the intel world are so dumb they could not find her name in who's who. Novak proved it could be done. A classified CIA officer does not make a Covert CIA officer. Tank, Fitz will not issue a report as Grand Jury testimony is secret and it would be against the law for him to do so. Ms Merrit can confirm that this is Correct.

    Squeaky - How about this, more #&$^#@* irony :-) From what I've observed, the confirmation from Harlow came in the form of his plea to Novak not to write that story, with the implication of doing harm by writing it. If Harlow didn't actually state the words that outed VP, then the responsibility is on Novak. Once Novak solicited that information from Harlow, he made Harlow aware of a potential danger and Harlow would have been derelict not to warn Novak against writing. Novak should've known better but this would give him a possible excuse. I can find the reference by Fitzgerald to VP being covert at the time of the outing, if necessary. I've linked to it before but not here. Another interesting piece of trivia is that one of the govt depts or agencies demanded that the campaign contribution be listed as it was because originally it was all in Wilson's name, (I think is the way it went) but it exceeded the maximum for an individual. They were then forced to list it as some from each.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 09:37:08 PM EST
    What is important is what Fitzgerald is not saying. The CIA asked for this investigation into the outing of one of their agents. Fitz has already acknowledged that VP was covert. The CIA says she was covert Fitzgerald says she was covert. If Fitzgerald concludes theat she was not intentionally exposed, then Busco is in the clear. So why doesn't he announce that the investigation is over and write a report?

    Hey Che... It might have to do with references to 'retaliation' which could prove deliberate disclosure....Cheney's notations on Wilson article clipping? I too noticed the phrasing that indicates that Fitzgerald isn't finished.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 09:55:24 PM EST
    This is so obvious I find it hard to believe that the wingers are not just being purposely obtuse. Every covert CIA agent has a name and a cover company, they are not like the invisible man who cannot be seen. What is invisible about a covert agent is the fact that they work for the CIA in a covert capacity. Novak seems to have indulged the wingnuts in a feeding frenzy by his bogus Who's Who story. Guaranteed that many in the telephone book are covert CIA agents. They are only known to be covert when someone outs them. Then their whole operation is blown. Brewster-Jennings was a known company. What was not known was that is was a CIA cover company. Does anyone really believe that during a republican controled Administration this case would be allowed to get past Ashcroft if Plame was not covert? Isn't all this too obvious for words?

    things seem to be dragging with the Plame case. wonder what it is that Fitzgerald has been doing all this time, exactly? the way this thing dribbles and drags on makes me feel that Fitz ain't what he presents himself as: honest. maybe he's waiting for the end of the next election cycle, again. if all that comes of this is the Libby indictment, I'll bet Fitzgerald or his case has been compromised and Sealed v Sealed will go the way of all of the Bush family's official papers: off limits to the public.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 01:27:12 AM EST
    I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee
    Confirmed? Only if you believe Senators Roberts, Hatch and Bonds "additional views" to the Senate Intelligence Committee

    wonder what it is that Fitzgerald has been doing all this time, exactly?
    Maybe he's been waiting for Congress to exercise it's responsibility of oversight and accountability? Yes, the laughter subsides eventually. Take a look at what's been happening in Italy for possible answers.

    ordi from the same article

    Sorry about last post,Computer problems ordi from the article you quoted also said this
    The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered."
    So there could be damage to CIA operations during a time of war.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:30:13 AM EST
    The great thing about this case is that there are so many details, cross stories and allegations that no one that wants to believe that some wrong was commited will ever be satisfied with the outcome. The fact that nothing is really going to happen I think we should all agree is inevitable but the need by the left to continue to believe that BushCo. got away with one is too strong so they will cross link, refer to past statements etc... in a desperate attempt to keep this thing alive. Reminds me of many a Clinton scandal that never had a conclusion even though the president had escaped harm but the desperate right still kept at it in hopes of bringing down the cigar man. Ahh the memories.

    Armitage seems to be the most likely source. I recall reading elsewhere that "Richard Armitage" fit the redacted portion of a Fitzgerald filing discussing Novak's original source. And according to Novak and others, the identification was inadvertant and Armitage urged Novak to not discuss Plame's role in sending Wilson to Niger. Whatever the case, he's not a target. Is this over yet? Really. (Oh, for what it's worth, Armitage has been a signatory to some PNAC letters and statements, including the 1998 letter to President Clinton about Iraq.)

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 07:24:20 AM EST
    The CIA considered it a crime, as does the DoJ.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#29)
    by killer on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 07:25:47 AM EST
    Even if Novak was informed "inadvertantly", he was asked not to publish by someone at CIA. If you believe that the NYT was wrong to publish reports of illegal intellegence operations or not, it would seem that effectively rolling up a long standing covert operation that was directy addressing the reasons we went to war with Iraq was a horrible, stupid and life-threatening act.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 07:41:16 AM EST
    rolling up a long standing covert operation that was directy addressing the reasons we went to war with Iraq I guess that's one way to describe what Wilson and or his wife was doing. Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife because he needed a job. He then did a poor job in Niger and then lied about what he'd found. His wife was either covert, classified or neither(thats really never been confirmed either way despite a 3year investigation) and then her identity was reavealed through a series of events including Novaks column and specualation surrounding Wilsons NYT's column. If Wilsons wife was really a covert agent then her husband shouldn't have been writing op-ed columns in the worlds biggest newspaper about the administration. Knowing that his wife was the reason he was sent there and that his column was at best untruthful and misleading. This was a media created firestorm and the CIA was hitting back at the administration because of their feud on IRaq and the war on terror. It appears that no matter what the left wants to believe no crime was committed and no one will go to jail. Maybe not even Libby as the basis for this investigation crumbles by the day.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    Novak imagines that by holding out, and not keeping his word, he can fend off his own obsolescence. He is obsolete, no one cares about him anymore.

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife because he needed a job.
    No, he wasn't, his wife had no power to send him.
    A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.
    But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.
    BTW, he's rich, he never needed a job. Try links instead of lies. BTW, since we know rove leaked, and bush said he'd fire the leaker, why isn't rove fired?

    Re: Novak Discloses Role, Not Source in PlameGate (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife . That's not even a clever troll. At some point dosnt disseminating of obvious disinformation become terminally dishonest muddying of the discussion?

    Richard Armitage is the person most people think it is. If you remember early into this , andrea mitchell told "IMUS"that Colin Powell had a report he had requested from the State Deptartment concerning Wilson's trip, and who sent him to africa,( Wilson said in his NYT article that the Vice President's office sent him) with him on the plane to Africa. I think it's time he come forward, it's disgusting that he has been willing to let the Press and Fitzgearld go after Rove & Libby knowing who the primary source was. Let's not forget Novak also said that a third party had called him to say that the source may have inadvertantly given Novak that information.