(In response to last night’s post on the Page Six gossip that Bob Woodward may be retiring from the Washington Post, Paul Lukasiak wrote this comment and I thought it deserved much wider exposure — JH)
There are excellent reasons why the Post is extremely unhappy with Woodward right now.
First and foremost, his story makes no sense. And what “sense” it does make, implicates Woodward (and, by extension, the Post) in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
First, why Woodward’s story makes no sense.
1) Woodward claims that he was told about “Wilson’s wife” before anyone else.
2) Woodward claims that he told Pincus immediately, but didn’t tell Downie at that point.
3) Woodward knows that Pincus has an obligation to tell Downie (and the Post lawyers) everything he knows about the “Plame” story, especially given that Pincus was subpoenaed and the Post’s lawyers negotiated the terms under which Pincus was eventually deposed by Fitzgerald
4) Thus, Woodward has to have assumed that Pincus had told Downie that Woodward had told Pincus about “Wilson’s wife”, and that there was no reason for Woodward to have kept it a secret from Downie until October 24th.
5) When Woodward went public with his “I told Pincus” story, Pincus denied it.
6) When Woodward was questioned about telling Pincus, he said that he told Pincus while he was passing Pincus’s desk, and Pincus said “What?”, which Woodward took to mean “That’s interesting”. Woodward also said that was the full extent of the conversation
7) Woodward later admitted that “What?” could have meant “I didn’t hear what you said.”
Conclusion – Woodward never told Pincus what he claims he told Pincus. If Woodward believed that Pincus knew, he would not have kept the info from Downie. Pincus had no reason to hide from Downie the fact that Woodward had told him about “Wilson’s wife”, he denied ever being told about “Wilson’s wife” by Woodward, and Woodward’s “explanation” was not merely incredibly lame, but was eventually retracted.
Next, lets deal with the “obstruction of justice” question.
1) Woodward claimed that he went to his source on a number of occasions and reminded his source of their conversation, and suggested that his source tell the special prosecutor.
2) Woodward claims that his source repeatedly ignored Woodward’s urgings to tell the story to Fitzgerald –
3) Thus, (assuming Woodward’s source was someone who had been questioned by the FBI and/or testified under oath) Woodward literally conspired with his source to keep information material to a federal grand jury investigation from that grand jury.
Especially given Woodward’s role as an editor of the Post, and the involvement of the Post’s lawyers in the Pincus negotiations, this puts the Post in a really bad position — not only did one of their supervisory personnel conspire to keep material information from the Special Prosecutor, he did so while the Post was negotiating the terms under which a Post reporter would be allowed to be deposed under super “special” circumstances.
***************************
Then, there is the whole question of the timing of Woodward’s involvement. In the month before the grand jury was to expire, there were tons of reports about all sorts of people being indicted by Fitzgerald. Woodward, who had shown no interest in the story until that point, suddenly decides he wants to “report” on it for the Post.
So Woodward starts investigating….and comes up with a story so big that he has to go on October 24th to Downie and tell him about being told about “Wilson’s wife” very early on. But, even though Woodward had this huge story – a story so big that he has to disclose to Downie the secret he’d been keeping for two years — Woodward never publishes that story. Moreover, on October 27(?), when he shows up on TV and is asked about the rumors that he has a “bombshell” story that is coming about about the Plame affair, he denies it—-and around the same time says that the whole “Plamegate” thing is just a molehill being made into a mountain.
So, what happened to Woodward’s scoop that was so big that he had to go to Downie with the “I heard about Wilson’s wife first and told Pincus” story?
**********************
Here’s the thing that most people don’t yet understand. FitzG let Pincus be deposed under very “special” arrangements (like not having to actually name his source) based on promises that Pincus and the Post were operating in good faith. Doubtless, one of the questions that were resolved during the negotiations and/or deposition was that Pincus first heard about Wilson’s wife from his “White House source.” So, when Bob Woodward shows up on October 24.(four days before the grand jury is about to expire) and tells Len Downie “I told Walter Pincus about Wilson’s wife long before he heard about it from his government source”, all hell broke out at the Post.
The first thing that would have happened is that the Post would have told FitzG that that the reliability of Pincus’s testimony had been drawn into serious question by Bob Woodward, one of the Post’s editors — and that would have happened immediately—-the Post had to notify FitzG that there were questions about Pincus’s testimony before FitzG cited Pincus in an indictment.
So, with days left before the Grand Jury was about to expire, FitzG is confronted with information that one of his key witnesses may have lied under oath. Since he didn’t have time to figure out what the hell had happened, he did the only thing he could do—- create indictments without ever referring to Pincus’s testimony. And THAT is why Libby is the only person who was indicted….
Of course, FitzG is pissed, and is now demanding that the Post demonstrate its good faith by turning over all of Woodwards notes having to do with his “investigation” of Plamegate — and because of the whole “obstruction of justice” charge hanging over Woodward, the Post is more than willing to comply.
But Woodward isn’t. Which is why Cindy Adams is reporting that Woodward may be out at the Post.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fitz ‘em all! Thanks Paul.
Fitzo de Mayo!
Congrats Paul on the guest blogger honors. Way to go!
If Woodward is that dim – Fitz him!
Shouldn’t he have learned something from Watergate?
Good riddance to Woody!
One thing that has been bothering me.
As Bushco gets backed into a corner, at what
point do they lash out, or roll over.
If they do lash out it could be very bad.
Very bad indeed.
in response to previous post, Jay #86:
here’s the chart via huffpo. i agree, it’s the only ad the dems would need:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..19582.html
This a pretty amazing piece of writing and thinking.
Great analysis, Paul. Thanks.
Oh nice article Paul.
I am old enough to remember Woodward and Bernstein and regard them as heros.
Very sad to see this happen. He forgot his roots
Does anyone know where to look for the occurrences of GOP rejection?
Susan in Iowa #73 (previous thread)
i called slaughter’s office and someone will get back with the info.
Lukasiakitz!!!
excellent post, thanks Paul.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it also the Post’s position that Woodward’s editorial responsibilities are pretty “special” as well? He researched Plan of Attack while the Post beat the drums for war, ostensibly in complete ignorance of what Woodward knew.
I think the Post’s position is that Woodward’s editorial responsibilities do not require him to look out for anyone but himself and that he refrains from interfering with the journalists supervised by other editors. Then he turns around and claims to be meddling in Pincus’s reporting.
The Post-Woodward relationship is an entanglement indeed, and Woodward’s relationships with his sources add more twists and turns.
Paul — fantastic analysis. Thanks so much for sharing it here with all of us. Really, first rate stuff — not exactly surprising, coming from you, but I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated the read. Kudos!
An excellent piece. Thank you.
Okay, so is there any way that Fitzgerald can demand that Woodward produce his notes directly, without the involvement of the WaPo?
Because if this is the case – which I believe it is – it would mean that the question of whether Woodward resigns will be irrelevant to whether Fitz can ultimately get the notes.
Or has Fitz already received the notes from Woody?
Another question – Why did Woody step forward to say that he told Pincus prior to Pincus hearing it from a government official? I would assume that he was trying to muddy the waters and undermine Fitz’s case right before the GJ expired. By waiting until the last minute to drop his bombshell he almost succeeded w/r/t Libby. And he may have succeeded in undermining the case against Rove sufficiently to prevent his indictment.
So, all roads now lead to Woodward and his notes to clear up what he knew about Plame and who told him about her so long ago. Once Fitz has this information, and, assuming such information points back at the Bush administration, Fitz’s case actually only gets stronger in the long run.
So it seems Woodward made a calculated move to delay Fitz, which, while perhaps partially successful, ultimately may have provided (or will provide) Fitz with even more evidence to build his case.
I think the Woodward side of this story has been one of the less-explored Plame-related issues on FDL. I look forward to see what we can dig up now that we are all focused on it. It seems to me Woodward is a critical piece of this puzzle.
Last question, I promise – how, exactly, would Woodward be indicted with obstruction or other charges if he simply kept mum about his dealings regarding Plamegate? Or is there something I am missing? Was he actively covering up or lying to investigators?
Questions, questions…
Welcome to the club of guest posters Paul.
You’re one of us now.
[cue creepy music]
Mike King #6–
I am hardly a Plame-ologist, but I try to keep up. My wife, on the other hand, only hears about things on the news (rarely) and what I tell her…and we will all agree that this whole Plame-gate business isn’t anything that can be explained in brief snippets over dinner.
But on this issue of the potential for a “lash out” from the White House, I told her just today that it seems as though there is a gigantic race going on behind the scenes.
One one side you have the good guys, RACING to expose BushCo. On the other side, you have the bad guys RACING to start a war in Iran to distract everyone. One of these things is likely to happen before the November 7 election.
Each day there are items on FDL and other non-MSM sites that build the case to oust Bush from the White House. But everyday, the bad guys, usually through the MSM, add another piece to the War Puzzle.
Today there was a story about the Iranians getting missile tech from North Korea. Tomorrow is the UN or IAEA deadline for Iran to stop with the uranium enrichment, which they certainly won’t do. So it is a deadly race.
We can only hope that the good guys win.
bkny,
Thanks for the link. I also posted a link on the last thread to the opensecrets webpage that has all of the data (source: Center for Responsive Politics) broken down in black and white. Look at the last two columns, % to Dems and % to Repubs. It’s consistently moving in one direction.
Very interesting tidbits Paul! Makes one think that Rove was dealing with more than one “matter” which occurred since October 2005, hence almost 4 hours of testimony. I’m thinking that if Bob Novak has been there in Feb, what are the odds that Woody has also been in for a visit to the GJ?
OT – I am hearing on the news today that the Republican re-election strategy is a $100
briberebate. Isn’t there some rule about not using tax dollars to wage election campaigns?Wow, if Woodward really pulled this stunt then he’s a sad caricature of his historical self and, more importantly, he’s got to be high on Fitzgerald’s shit list. The WaPo must want him gone in the worst way. Frankly I’m happy to see yet another media whore for Bush’s career destroyed. The Fourth Estate in this country has really failed us.
just posted at the WaPoo Blog p. lukasiak’s entire analysis … used the pseudonym of “watercatpond”
OT (but not really)…
I just received an email from TrueMajority, all concerning Iraq…
Russ Feingold will introduce an amendment to a spending bill requiring that US troops leave Iraq by the end of the year,
House Majority Leader Boehner will “allow” a “lengthy debate” on America’s Iraq war policy,
and, several songs from Neil Young’s new “anti-war” album will be available for free download tomorrow, 4/28.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld…..442608.htm
Feingold amendment would require troop return by end of year
(Associated Press)
WASHINGTON – Sen. Russ Feingold said Thursday he will introduce an amendment to a spending bill requiring that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of the year.
Feingold, D-Wis., had proposed last year a target date of Dec. 31, 2006, for the troops to return. His latest amendment takes that concept a step further by requiring the troops to leave by that date
1. “Feingold amendment would require troop return by end of year.” Associated Press, 4/27/06.
2. “House will debate Iraq.” The Hill, 4/27/06.
3. Hear the new Neil Young antiwar album, “Living With War” on the TrueMajority website: http://neilyoung.truemajority.org and several free downloads on Friday, April 28:
Along with the free album tracks, TrueMajority will have a petition supporting Sen. Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) new move to bring the troops home by New Year’s.
“Neil Young lets loose a war cry.” The Globe and Mail, 4/26/06.
Someone with knowledge of the newspaper biz can hopefully answer this:
Typically, a company owns all of an employees “work product.” If you are a computer programmer, the company you work for owns the code you write for them on their dime.
Are newspapers somehow special in this regard in allowing an employee to own their work product?
If the WaPoo owns the work product, can Deadwood do anything to stop them from handing it over (and not hiding it in some super secret place – I assume the WaPoo has copies/files for this type of stuff)?
In any other business, the employee wouldn’t be able to stop the employer from handing over any “company” records.
*ilson — they’re gonna love you. If there’s anyone they can’t stand as much as us over at the post.blog it’s Paul. Makes me kinda proud ;)
1) Woodward claimed that he went to his source on a number of occasions and reminded his source of their conversation, and suggested that his source tell the special prosecutor.
2) Woodward claims that his source repeatedly ignored Woodward’s urgings to tell the story to Fitzgerald –
3) Thus, (assuming Woodward’s source was someone who had been questioned by the FBI and/or testified under oath) Woodward literally conspired with his source to keep information material to a federal grand jury investigation from that grand jury.
This seems a little unclear. Are you saying that Woodward was obliged to reveal his source once he became aware that his source hadn’t been honest with the GJ?
Because if that’s what you’re saying, i think you should say it. Otherwise, it just seems that a reporter is legitimately protecting his source. I haven’t picked a favorite side of this issue yet, but if you have, you might make it more clear what side that is.
Paul- thanks much. Read the comment last night and I am glad to see it featured here.
Have you thought about emailing this (link to article) to Joe Strupp at E&P? I’d like to see this stirred up a bit. No idea how he would respond, frankly, but the was the first I saw to write about Woodward’s “bombshell” I believe, at least the Post reaction.
I just tried to find the E&P article, but it looks like it is now behind a firewall for subscribers- alas- articles are typically available for a week online apparently, and then are put behind a pay wall, unless there is particular interest. I’ll try to find the articles on NL if anyone is interested.
1) Woodward claimed that he went to his source on a number of occasions and reminded his source of their conversation, and suggested that his source tell the special prosecutor.
2) Woodward claims that his source repeatedly ignored Woodward’s urgings to tell the story to Fitzgerald –
3) Thus, (assuming Woodward’s source was someone who had been questioned by the FBI and/or testified under oath) Woodward literally conspired with his source to keep information material to a federal grand jury investigation from that grand jury.
Paul – I’m not sure how you get conspiracy out of this chain of events. On their face, these facts do not indicate that Woodward did a single thing to “advance” the conspiracy, which is generally the legal test.
Woodward claims he asked the witness to tell the truth, etc. Even if he didn’t do anything, the mere fact that he remained mum about what he knew doesn’t meet the requirement of an act on Woodward’s part that actually “advances” the conspiracy. At least that’s how it looks to me.
OT – Conyers is taking the Admin to court:
Read More
and since Paul’s analysis is now on their servers, they have a certain “responsibility” for actions taken or not-taken based on that electronic publishing. The WaPo itself is part of the legal jousting.
EPU – I believe they’re straddeling copyright law here. If you create something as a “work for hire” then it is the property of your employer. But if you create something yourself and then sell the copyright to someone, it’s a transfer of rights. Matt Cooper’s notes were the property of Time because it was a “work for hire.” The NYT made the argument, I believe, that since Judy Miller was not working on a story for them at the time her notes belonged to her and they were therefore not able to turn them over on her behalf. Which is probably one of the reason that Jill Abramson sticks to her story so hard that Judy Miller never approached her with the Plame story.
Woodward no doubt owns his own stuff until such time as he “sells” it to the Post; I don’t believe he’s written much for years that hasn’t been something excerpted from his book. I would bet you just about anything that he retains the rights to all his own stuff and isn’t in a “work for hire” situation with regard to the Post.
I can say that this post allowed a lowly rookie like me to understand this convoluted situation. Cleanly written and clearly compiled. A concise narrative that is easy to follow. The facts fit the theory/assertions.
I’ll just add that it does me a mind to retract any favorable comparisons I had with Brady, Howell et al in another thread (which were made prior to this post, in my defense.)
I’d like to remind folks that Woodie’s roots are in Naval Intell. I still would like to see how exactly he got onto the staff of WaPo in the first place. And, that AFAIK, Bernstein was the ‘real’ reporter/journalist in that famous pair. If you review the first part of the movie ‘All the President’s Men’ you’ll note tha Woodie is typing up the FIRST REPORT of the connection of the Watergate break-in to Republicans. Bernstein is ‘looking over his shoulder’ and notes something to the effect, “No, you’re burying the lede. Here’s how it should look.’ And with a few snapping keystrokes, history was made. Perhaps by pure chance.
Today, as ‘associate’ or (whatever the honorific) can anyone tell me exactly WHAT Woodward’s job entails? What are his responsibilites? Wha t ‘beat’ does he manage, and who else is staff?
just askin’…
Paul, thank you for your post. Very interesting take on that bit of sordid confusion.
Blank Kludge- Woodward has written a piece about how he chatted up Mark Felt and it gives the details about how he happened to get the WaPo job (well, his version). I’m sure it’s *somewhere* on the net. Kinda like “poor confused kid in the right place at the right time…”
IAAL and this is, in one important respect only, nonsense. There is no LEGAL obligation for Woodward to come forward to Downie or Fitzgerald to “correct the record,” as long as Woodward has not lied to a federal agent or the Grand Jury, or tampered with a witness (which is a specific crime different but similar to obstruction of justice.) Up to the point of the expiration of the first GJ, Woodward never testified to GJ IIRC, and IIRC he was not interviewed by any federal agents up to then either. So, as far as we know, he never misrepresented any facts which could have obstructed the investigation to any federal official. “Remaining silent” is still hanging on as a constitutional right which is not incriminatory.
And, presumably, Pincus testified (truthfully, as far as Pincus was concerned) that he heard about “Wilson’s wife” from whomever his real WH source was. Therefore, I see no obstruction of justice as a matter of law. I see no journalistic ethics either, but that is an entirely different matter. That his non-disclosure may have led the newspaper to a particular strategy in their negotiations with Fitz doesn’t change the analysis of whether there was any “obstruction” by Woodward.
“OT – I am hearing on the news today that the Republican re-election strategy is a $100 bribe rebate. Isn’t there some rule about not using tax dollars to wage election campaigns?”
Does the Republican Party plan on leaving the $100.00 (Rebate/bribe/services rendered fee) on the nightstands of every American on election eve?
Hint to the Republicans: Not every American is a $100.00 whore.
Besides whatever happened to the time tested right-wing mantra “liberals just want to throw money at the problem”.
-GSD
This is great. Rice/Rummy visit Iraq, and soldiers on the ground say “Yeah, so?” because they either “don’t know or care.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I think their visit is “hurting troop morale.” {/snark}
Poor dopey, Bob Woodward, he won’t even be able to revive his career with the Deepthroat scoop.
-GSD
Great, sharp post!
*ilson – major kudos!
Deborah – the whole list is smile time!
Conyers – if only we had 100 more like him!
*ilson46201,
Someone replied to your pasting.
“
Feedback:
Fire Woodward and hire p. lukasiak.
Posted by: FeDupLiars | April 27, 2006 04:30 PM”
we need at least 218 Congresscritters like Conyers…
Way to go *ilson (and p luk ofcourse). It’s possible that these facts are still not well known “below a certain pay grade,” at the WaPo. Putting it on their blog will help fuel the fire at the WaPo. Maybe we can even get Lil Debbie
nobody can say *uck except meHowell into denying that she as ombudsman has any responsibility for Woodward’s attempt to taint a reporter, Pincus.Jacrat 40,
Ha! I’ll second that! If only they would.
# 18
Iranian missiles can reach Europe, report states.
http://today.reuters.com/news/…..amp;rpc=22
-GSD
Pelosi on C-SPAN now Lobby reform
Link for #37
Valley Girl 34
Thanks for the tip. (Raises, just for the record, the question of ‘who is Mark Felt’? ie background, etc).
I’ll see if I can find ‘Woodies Tale’ somewhere.
lol Matto #16
Jane – I think they make that argument when it suits them, and would take the opposite position when it doesn’t.
Under standard employment laws in most states any work created within “the scope of the employees” employment belongs to the company.
You get into “work for hire” doctrine when the “scope” issue is not clear (although it is most likely really “assignment of IP rights,” “work for hire” technically applies to not so many types of works).
Thus, if Deadwood is working on one of his books, he can claim it is his intellectual property. If he is working as a reporter or editor for the Wapoo, the Wapoo owns it.
I don’t know enough about the situation in which Deadwood learned of the info in question, in what capacity he was acting, but it sure sounds like he had his WaPoo employee hat on at the time – especially if he was going to write a bombshell article for the WaPoo (even if he never wrote it), and felt compelled to tell his editors/bosses about it.
Maybe there are differences for newspapers, but under basic employment law/property ownership rules, WaPoo wins. Or maybe Deadwood has an agreement that gives him the ownership rights.
I don’t see how he is in a different position from Matt Cooper. He is not an “independent contractor” to Wapo, he is a salaried employee.
Anyway, my take.
Redd–Yoohoo- are you around?
I was just thinking about Fitz’s timing with the Rove indictment (assuming that there is to be one).
What are the downsides to Fitz in indicting Rove before the discovery issues are settled with Libby? To fight two of these discovery battles at the same time might be complicated- each defendant would be demanding stuff from the case of the other, etc.
Would that explain Fitz’s delay in indicting Rove? Wants to get the Libby stuff put to bed before opening a second can of worms?
Holy shit. Great analysis.
This sounds like Woody was taking one for the “Rove Team” and fucking with Fitz at the last minute to stave off an investigation.
This is obstruction by Woody, at the least.
And, yes, xzy, Fitz can compel Woody to turn over his notes. Branzenburg. Press has no 1.A. right over the public to withhold info from a grand jury.
QUESTION: If Woody is this evil, and Fitz so pissed about it, why was Woody “deposed” and not dragged in front of the grand jury? He should be a subject as well, talk about obstruction, lying about Pincus to save Roverer’s sorry ass?
Jacrat 40:
Posted by: FeDupLiars | April 27, 2006 04:30 PMâ€
FeDupLiars= FDL? LOL!
Gotta love this site…
Mike King #10
“I am old enough to remember Woodward and Bernstein and regard them as heros.
Very sad to see this happen. He forgot his roots”
Well, Bernstein may still be a hero. He just wrote a long article about how Bush needs to be investigated and possibly impeached. He picked up on John Dean’s theme that this could be “worse than Watergate.”
Certainly the corruption and greed and damage to the country is far greater. After all, Nixon didn’t start any wars based on lies, he just kept one going.
Good one Matt O. Meet the Fobbits.
Lovely analysis. Simply excellent.
Also, re: comments on the $100 oil
briberebate proposal, lessee, that’ll fill up my car and my wife’s car once. Lotta help. Then, next year I’ll likely find out that the $100 is 2006 “taxable income” (like our 2001 $600 Bush tax rebates were).Oh, and the $100 oil
briberebate is contingent on allowing ANWR drilling.*ilson
Audacious!
OfT:
Fitzgerald’s Headfake: It’s Not Just about Rove and Cooper
by emptywheel. “Jim VandeHei, who tends to serve as a Luskin’s most faithful stenographer, tells us Rove spent most of his three hour chat yesterday talking about Matt Cooper…”
good lord.
woodward almost succeeded in derailing fitzgerald’s investigation?
i would not want to be in his shoes for anything.
but why would woodward do this?
what could he gain personally from derailing fitzgerald’s indictments?
is he a committed member of a cabal?
is he being black-mailed?
why take this huge risk
based on a childishly implausible story (i told pincus; but the old guy just didn’t hear me.).
there’s some pieces yet missing in this sector of the puzzle.
Condi and Rummy=John and Lorena Fobbit.
-GSD
http://www.editorandpublisher……1002424408
Just up at E&P highlights of Dana Priest WaPo chat today. Nice!
Re: OtisIsHungry #35:
However, Woodward is on the WaPo directory board; as part of the agreement for Pincus to testify with fairly extensive restrictions, including that the WaPo participate in good faith.
Having one of the directors withold quite relevant information from the investigation demonstrates a violation of that faith, which therefore (due to his participation in the deal) is how Woodward becomes obligated to “correct the record”.
Now we know why Woody called Fitz a “junkyard dog.” That dog can hunt!!!
… FitzG is confronted with information that one of his key witnesses may have lied under oath. Since he didn’t have time to figure out what the hell had happened, he did the only thing he could do—- create indictments without ever referring to Pincus’s testimony. And THAT is why Libby is the only person who was indicted…
Wait a second — are you suggesting that Fitz would have indicted Pincus’s source?
The reason Pincus didn’t have to name his source to Fitzgerald is that Ari Fleischer his source already admitted to the grand jury that he made the call.
Thus, Ari the source wasn’t indicted because he told the truth to the grand jury and said he was just doing what Libby told him.
orionATL -
They all simply thought they’d never get caught. Criminals mostly never do.
Thanks Paul!
I have a question though…is Pincus’ source identified?
Paul says that the warning from the Post that Pincus’ testimony might be suspect is the reason “why Libby is the only person who was indicted.”
If I’m following this–apologies for any redundancies–Woodward lies in order to compromise Pincus’ testimony, forcing Fitzgerald to withhold an indictment of…anyone Pincus may have incriminated (aka his source). Big gamble for Bob. Big stupid gamble.
Woodward should know, it’s always the cover up that gets you ;-)
BobbyG says: “Lotta help. Then, next year I’ll likely find out that the $100 is 2006 ‘taxable income’â€
April 27th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
No, not if you didn’t receive any tax deduction for automotive expenses, according to Section 111 of the Internal Revenue Code.
GSD #59
LOL!! People are looking at me weird because I am cracking up like crazy in the computer lab.
That. Was. Funny.
Boy, people post too quickly for me to add anything new. Heh.
Hardball with Noron hosting doing Rove’s tea party with Fitz now
How ironic is it that the reporter who sent so many to jail (or resignation) because of cover-up and obstruction of justice may be guilty of the same thing all these years later? Hoo-boy!
Leslie in CA, kristinejoy,
Yeah I have a sneaking suspicion on who “somebody” might be… Laughed and laughed when I saw that “Feedback:”
OfT: Sitting on Pins and Needles, waiting for Softail, Pacifica, TeddySF, cloveralice, dh, and all the others (8-9 or so!) in the CA roots project to get back from their visits with Boxer and DiFi’s aides…
I hear there might be video of sorts, and can’t wait for the post-play-by-play!
OT
RE: The $100 rebate…That would be Dr. Frist’s brain child, at least he made the announcement.
The translation of this is that if you ever have a sucking chest wound, Dr. Frist will be there with a band clamp and a box of shop towels.
Very nice, Paul, as usual.
Stephen Parrish, CPA
OT, but I thought of you when I found this link to BearingPoint recently- http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..nt%2C_Inc.
I posted the link earlier for Matt O., who is working on a FDL series about war profiteering. I tried to follow up with some research, but thought that your expertise might be useful. I hope you will check out the link, and if you can help, that would be great!
GSD 44 – is that “old Europe” or “new Europe”?
I cannot help but think that Bob Woodward was mad that he didn’t have exclusive rights to who “Wilson’s Wife” really was, so that he minimalized the importance PlameGate on the yak shows. And then he finds himself caught up in the cover-up and cannot quite fashion a plausible alibi….he mentions his knowledge while passing Pincus’ desk? Aren’t the big editors at WaPo furnished with private offices? Even in the “All The Pres Men” movie showed there were private offices, not just the bullpen. Too many odd things about Woodward’s version.
Bob Woodward on TV has looked and sounded so slow and medicated the last few years that I cannot help but wonder if he really is (mentally and physically)losing it. His feeble attempt at being aboveboard in Plame case may have a medical reason.
-what REALLY prompted Woodward to finally reveal he knew about Plame?
Couldn’t it have been because he found out that he had ALREADY been named by his source to the FBI/Fitzgerald?
He is in Betty Currie country– Rove has tied her 5 times before the GJ, but she was not in trouble– He could be indicted tomorrow per Sol Wisenberg on Noron’s Hardball. The indictment could already be drawn up. He just blew off her question that there is not enough time to get the transcripts to the lawyers– He said, what lawyers? Nobody has to see anything but Fitz.
Anytime your client has gone before the grand jury 5 times, last time for 3 1/2 hours is very bad news.
#6 Mike King says:
“One thing that has been bothering me.
As Bushco gets backed into a corner, at what
point do they lash out, or roll over.
If they do lash out it could be very bad.
Very bad indeed.”
As Bush’s troubles have piled up I too have wondered how he would extricate himself from this most recent failed undertaking. No one who has paid any attention to Bush’s past record could or would expect him to have a change of heart, see the error of his ways, make a course correction or right the ship and save the enterprize. For him, it has always been plunge on to disaster.
Always it was daddy’s friends who stepped in and bought Dubya’s shares at a nice profit (to Dubya) allowing him to skate free and cocky as ever [think Harkin & Arbusco]. Are there any of daddy’s friends capable of saving Jr.’s bacon this time or would daddy even bother to ask them?
re: the 100$ rebate
I feel like those poor people in the Houston Astrodome when Barbara Bush toured through and said (paraphrased) this is working quite nicely for them.
They probably think us po’ folks would salivate over the $100 rebate and think that congress is a-ok.
SuzieQ – that is what I thought at the time. I had a little brother like that. Huge temper tantrums when he wasn’t old enough to go somewhere I got to go, and then when reality sunk in, he didn’t want to go to that stupid place anyways.
siun #69
Ah yes, Noron.
When I suggested “Spinderella,” a few people said that it would be an insult to the DJ from Salt ‘n’ Peppa.
But I argue equating Norah O’Donnell to morons is an insult to morons everywhere.
I still hope we can use “Spinderella” at some point.
This seems a little unclear. Are you saying that Woodward was obliged to reveal his source once he became aware that his source hadn’t been honest with the GJ?
Because if that’s what you’re saying, i think you should say it. Otherwise, it just seems that a reporter is legitimately protecting his source. I haven’t picked a favorite side of this issue yet, but if you have, you might make it more clear what side that is.
and
Paul – I’m not sure how you get conspiracy out of this chain of events. On their face, these facts do not indicate that Woodward did a single thing to “advance†the conspiracy, which is generally the legal test.
Woodward claims he asked the witness to tell the truth, etc. Even if he didn’t do anything, the mere fact that he remained mum about what he knew doesn’t meet the requirement of an act on Woodward’s part that actually “advances†the conspiracy. At least that’s how it looks to me.
On a technical level, the fact that Woodward went to Pincus and asked him to “keep my name out of your reporting” would constitute the act that “advanced” the conspiracy.
But (and Christy can correct me on this) the test for “conspiracy” is not “advance” in the sense that it “takes the conspiracy to the next step”; rather “advance” means “promote/improve the chances of the success of the conspiracy.”
There is a difference in this kind of case between a reporter “protecting a source by refusing to testify and what Woodward did.
In general, a reporter does not know what his/her source has testified to under oath, and has no idea whether their (the reporter’s) testimony would be consistent with the sources’ testimony, i.e. the reporter doesn’t know if the source is obstructing justice or committing perjury, and is refusing to tesify based on “first amendment principles”.
Woodward, on the other hand, knew full well that his source had withheld relevant information from the Special Prosecutor, and agreed to keep silent about it. Woodward, in essence, witnessed a crime, and conspired with the criminal to keep the crime a secret.
to people hurting from high gasoline prices, $100 is an insulting drop in the bucket. The GOP always talks about those evil Democrats buying votes — what the hell does a $100 ‘gasoline help’ check look like?
Cathy #80
Agreed.
Valley Girl says:
April 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Thank you for the link to Sourcewatch. I haven’t visited it in several weeks. Was there something in particular you wanted me to look up? Was it something about Bearing Point? It didn’t show up when I clicked on the link you provided.
unconfirmed rumor:
GJ meeting tommorw. (MSNBC) Anyone hear this?
Yes, Wisenberg thinks things look not so good for Rove, based on number of appearances and length of Wednesday’s session, though he wouldn’t speculate as to outcome. Shuster had same opinion. As usual, Hardball identified Wisenberg only as a former deputy independent counsel, failing to mention that his role was in the odious Ken Starr abomination.
—-
1) great post!
2) good riddance in advance to Woodward
3) interesting new teaser on Raw – MSNBC to report that a worried Rove says his 3 hours of testimony were “HELL”. Get used to it Karl – eternity is a long time. I’m just smiling to myself as imagine Jane’s graphic with Karl as a pig on a roasting spit. Every time another bead of sweat pops up on his forehead it warms my heart!
Bri Williams has an interview again with the chimpster while visiting the Gulf Coast– both in blue shirts, strutting and posing like roosters and with people working on framing a house in the background. Deja vu all over again. ugh. Noron helpfully tells the audience, you can catch the whole exclusive interview on Bri’s evening broadcast.
pitkin49 says:
April 27th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
What shares are for sale now? What can his father’s friends buy?
Ooooooh. Rumor of a grand Jury meeting tomorrow?
Wisenberg and others thinking things aren’t looking good for Rove?
I predict that tomorrow is the day for Rove.
I haven’t ever made a prediction on Rove’s indictment until now.
We shall see.
P. Lukasiak – You might want to think of it this way. Any act on behalf of the conspiracy can qualify as an underlying act of the conspiracy.
You are correct that the act does not need to “advance” the conspiracy – as in move it forward: a conspirator could try and the act might not be successful, it still counts as an act on behalf of the conspiracy and makes you a conspirator.
Blank Kludge #87:
Grand Jury meets every Wednesday and Friday.
:-)
Just saw the RawStory report on the MSNBC story on Rove’s reaction to yesterday’s GJ testimony:
—————————————-
“Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour fifth meeting with a grand jury as “hell,” and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting.”
“The three and a half hour duration is considered highly unusual for a fifth appearance before a grand jury, MSNBC’s David Schuster reported. Schuster will be giving an updated report at 7pm EST.”
“Also not boding well for Rove is the fact that the grand jury plans to meet tomorrow. Some are speculating that an indictment for Rove may come in tomorrow, though others have claimed such a turnaround time is unlikely.”
——————————————-
Well, unless this is all part of some spin plot of Luskin’s, it sounds to me like Rove is nigh on shitting himself over this. I don’t think we’re going to see an indictment tomorrow, but it sounds like whatever Rove was told yesterday hasn’t set well with him.
angie says: “Anytime your client has gone before the grand jury 5 times, last time for 3 1/2 hours is very bad news.”
April 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Yes – how many topics do you suppose were mentioned?
EPU – I agree with you.
Withholding information in such instances is considered being an accomplice, isn’t it?
Cocktail weenies for everyone! Both Norah and Fineman (Hardball) each mentioned a big party last night with Administration honchos, including Rover, who said everything went just great with the GJ. I’m assuming it was the same party, though mentioned in different contexts.
—
CityGirl
Hmmm.. A going away party?
Somewhat OT, but not really: you might want to check out RawStory’s coverage of David Shuster’s report on MSNBC -
Matt O.,
This war profiteering story may be of intrest to you.
http://www.democracynow.org/ar…..25/1343214
I plan on reading her book.
This is an engaging piece. However, like roxtar (#26) and xyz (#28), I’m confused by your reasoning with the obstruction of justice question.
I’m not getting the logic. If Woodward went to his source and told him to share something with the special prosecutor and if the source refused to do so despite Woodward’s urgings, then how does it follow that Woodward conspired with his source to withhold material information from the grand jury? It might help if you spelled out exactly what Woodward suggested that his source share with the special prosecutor.
Another issue I haven’t heard anyone examine thoroughly is Woodward’s claim on that Oct. 27 TV show (it was on Larry King) that the CIA had done a damage assessment on the outing of Plame’s identity and found that there was no damage. He even claimed to have a copy of the classified assessment in his pocket right then and there! However, Woodward’s own paper ran a story on Oct. 29, 2005 (two days later!) that said the CIA had NOT yet done a formal assessment. In fact, the article says “the CIA informed the Justice Department in a simple questionnaire that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation.”
If Woodward lied on national television in an attempt to put the Plame identity disclosure into the category of “no harm, no foul”, then THAT would seem to be legally problematic (poisoning jury pools and what not). Any thoughts?
Rove
Before and after
Here’s the Shuster piece from Raw Story. It makes the critical point that Rove’s testimony didn’t change until a point in time that was (a) 7 months after the reported exchange between Viveka Novak and Luskin AND (b) only a matter of days after Cooper agreed to testify.
Great point. Is it true?
Regardless, I stand my prediction of indictment tomorrow. You heard it here first.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0427.html
OT Comedy.
Jim Vandehei is upset with Scottie because the magic people on the other end of the phone won’t change the WH TV channels from Fox to CNN.
in that case, does Fitzo de Abril sound right?
Rove, you are goin’ DOWN, you arrogant puke! Fitzfucked, LOL! Your experience with “hell” is just getting underway, Turdblossom.
My schadenfreude runneth over.
I suppose tomorrow we’ll “learn” that Iran has missiles capable of striking frigging Iowa.
Hi everyone, and again, paul, a wonderful and well thought-out post. Congratulations on the mainpage.
I wonder if the GJ had a few more questions for Karl as they finished up the indictment, to decide on charges? Remember, they haven’t met him and might have decided they wanted to do that and see how he handled the lingering issues. Maybe an atty could comment on whether that’s something a GJ could want or do. They also may not have been able to schedule that with Fitz present until now? Don’t know, just wondering.
Jane and Christy have, IIRC, both written about the questionable ethics and role of Woodie in all this; with so many characters to think about it’s day-to-day who gets to have the spotlight, I think.
Lettuces, sweet peas, bishop’s mantle, pansies, thyme, sweet woodruff in the ground. Morning glories and Sunflowers started. Our garden is blooming with tulips, narcissus and daffodils and all kinds of things are peeking out. My apologies to our SD friends.
Did David Shuster say that the grand jury was meeting tomorrow specifically about Plame? Reporting on this whole case has been sometimes so sloppy and contradictory that I want to make sure it’s not just a case of the GJ meeting to hear another entirely unrelated case.
*ilson-
No it’s viente y ocho d’abril celebration.
timewarp @ 2:32 pm (#105) – That link just leads to a 404 message.
xyz, it’s true
CCMask–was it you who opined that April 28 would be a most significant date? how are things looking?
Stephen Parrish, CPA
I clicked on my link, and I see what you mean. Actually, I’m sure Matt O. has plenty of info anyway. I’ll try to see if I can find a better link.
Bob gets taken to the Wood(ward) shed
Frist just said on M$NBC that $100 rebate would be a huge help for drivers. How the hell would that millionaire surgeon begin to grasp how ‘average Americans’ feel?
Someone asks if Shuster reported that Fitz’s specific GJ is meeting tomorrow. The excerpt below definitely sounds as though this is the case. From Raw Story’s Shuster transcript:
STILL, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY CAN BE DIFFICULT TO JUDGE. THE SESSIONS, BY THEIR NATURE, ARE ADVERSARIAL. AND EVEN IF KARL ROVE FELT HIS APPEARANCE WAS “HELL,” A ROVE LAWYER DISPUTES THE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR HAS NEW REASONS TO BE FEARFUL. THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, OF COURSE, BELONGS TO PROSECUTOR FITZGERALD… WHOSE GRAND JURY IS SCHEDULED TO MEET AGAIN TOMORROW. I’M DAVID SHUSTER, FOR HARDBALL, IN WASHINGTON.
Iraq War Costs :Interesting web site.
I got this week’s New Yorker today (haven’t read it, yet) and the cover is worth a trip to the bookstore or newsstand. It’s not up on the website yet. I won’t describe it unless asked, dont’ want to spoil it. They have been doing a fantastic job on political covers with this admin.
“Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour fifth meeting with a grand jury as “hell,” and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting…”
No, Karl, THIS is hell, and you helped make it happen:
http://www.bgladd.com/Bush_Mal….._child.jpg
RE $100 gas
briberebate. Sorry it is not abriberebate. Rather the correct talking point language appears to be “‘gas-tax holiday’ in the form of a rebate check for every family.” (NY Times)Umm . . . an opinion piece in the online IthacaJournal.com contains the following:
Independent journalist Jason Leopold has turned over to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald 250 e-mails from Dick Cheney’s office, relating to the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson, that the White House claimed did not exist, in fact do. They are said to be explosive.
Excuse me if this has already been addressed, but this is the first time I’ve seen it asserted that Leopold was the source of the missing emails. To put it mildly, wtf? Is this just an error on the writer’s part? I assume so, but thought I’d run it by all y’all just in case.
wow— this is why I don’t blog….
so many comments to respond to, and so little time to do them all justice!
first off, thanx everyone for the kind words. They are really appreciated. (and a special “hi” to beth meachem who I haven’t seen in a while — have you been hiding, or have I not been paying attention?)
re: Woodward’s notes. My understanding is that under ordinary circumstances they would belong to the Washington Post, because even though Woodward has a special arrangement with the Post that allows him to draw a Post salary while doing book research, that deal includes a provision that that WaPo Company gets exclusive first access to all the “scoops” published in these books. (Of course, the deal could also include questions of ownership of the notes —- but I have the feeling that the Post legal department would protect that Post’s interests in any such deal, and not let Woodward have full, exclusive ownership of the notes.)
Another question that remains unanswered is “why would woodward act like this?” There are lots of plausible theories, including what might otherwise be considered “tinfoil hat” theories, that have been advanced.
But I’d like to advance another theory (without endorsing it). Woodward really believes that Plamegate is resulting in good people being prosecuted for bad reasons — and furthermore, that the outing of Valerie Plame as an NOC agent was completely unintentional. Woodward “conspired” with his source because his source didn’t disclose Plame’s NOC status — just the “minor” (albeit classified) detail that “Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and was involved in sending Wilson to Niger”. So Woodward “protected” his source, because that information was classified at the time Woodward was told about it, and admitting that to FitzG would mean loss of access to classified info…..
In other words, in analysing people’s motives, its important to consider the most “innocent” explanations, because most people justify their actions to themselves with that “innocent” explanation. The real/subconscious reason Woodward did what he did is probably all about Woodward’s ego, and the need to maintain better WH access than anyone else in the universe — but you probably could never convince Woodward of that lacking years of in-patient therapy ;)
I think we need to send a bunch of gas receipts to Frist. Asshole. I hit the max today for my 6 year-old little Subaru, cheap gas station, $38.58 to fill with 87octane. Wonder what Frist drives?
Dr. Bong 94
Yes. Speed typing (lack thereof) leads to unspecificity. Was wondering if it was ‘important’ ie w/Fitz and a ‘handup’.
$100? That’s about three tanks of gas at current prices. Maybe three week’s worth of fuel for my average-sized vehicle. This is a big help?
The mighty fall hard and their egos take a bit more time… sad he forgot where he came from. All that fame went to his head and now he will have a most shameful legacy.
Bush hits all-time low in daily Rasmussen Poll!
Everyone hates Rasmussen because they consistently give Bush a 5 to 10 point higher approval rating than the other polls, but they have two great features: daily free web updates, and a breakdown into strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove and strongly disapprove.
Until last week Bush had never gone below 40%, but today he hit 38%, with only 18% strongly approving and a record 45% strongly disaspproving.
LINK
I was also listening to people with Red State accents grousing about gas prices on the radio today. Karl Rove’s magic act all these years has been to con Middle Americans to consistently vote against their own pocketbooks, but that house of cards is starting to show cracks in the foundation.
Bush & the corporations are screwing the Red Staters just as hard as they’re screwing the rest of us and sooner or later they’re gonna start crying uncle. Persecuting gays and women is great fun, but the price of admission is getting just a tad bit steep, eh Jethro?
Legally, all of Woodward’s notes create in the course of his work with the Post are the property of the Washington Post. No different from an employee’s work product in any other industry. Of course, we don’t know if the Washington Post modified that standard practice in its special contract arrangement with Woodward. That seems unlikely.
Paul- did you see my note about sending this to Joe Strupp at E&P and asking for comments? #27
Joel – Thank you; you are in good company :)
Bush In The Bunker: The Final Days, Again
Somehow I think being the used-up White House confidante to a nest of liars in their death-throws lacks credibilty. Redford/Hoffman blockbuster? More like Spade/Shore straight-to-DVD.
Van de Hei Faux News linky:
Filling my Grand Vitara now costs about $51 a tank here in Vegas. Roughly the same for my wife’s car.
$100 rebate, stick it up your ‘face,’ Frist.
If you are going to post how much a fill-up costs, please also state the price per gallon.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight.
Woodward perservered for 2 years in encouraging that his source come clean to Fitzgerald about the leak. It stands to reason he would have also touched base with Pincus during that time. After all, according to his account, they were both aware of the the source’s identity.
That being the case, what exactly were their mutual points of reference when they kicked the can around? If the crossed-wire about the source’s identity was the simple misunderstanding that Woodward professes it to be, it begs the question: Would the Post have it believed they subsequently talked past each other during all that time? That the source was referred to in conversation as Mr. X? Or worse yet, that they never spoke with each other at all?
Where are you now that we need you, Deborah Howell?
What the heck? Trying again: Van de Hei Faux News link
OfT: Rice: U.N. Credibility at Stake on Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200….._ministers
Deja vu, anybody?
Specter must be feeling the heat from somebody, or maybe he does have a conscience
Specter threatens to cut funding for Shrub’s NSA spying program
$100 dollars. Please. If your income was low enough (with dependents) for you not to have pay federal income tax, you would get nothing. So no check for me, anyway.
Evil Parallel Universe -
Around $3/gal in Vegas now. As of this morning. I saw some $3.18’s in Florida last week.
Someone asks if Shuster reported that Fitz’s specific GJ is meeting tomorrow. The excerpt below definitely sounds as though this is the case. From Raw Story’s Shuster transcript:
after three and a half hours with Karl Rove, there can be little question that a meeting of the GJ would be about the Plame case — FitzG would want to put Rove’s testimony in its proper context while it is still fresh in the GJ’s mind. (but I don’t think that means indictments tomorrow — FitzG is too methodical to act that quickly, plus there’s always a chance that some new information might come his way as a result of all the publicity surrounding Karl’s 5th appearance.)
***********
special to Valley Girl…
No, I haven’t contacted Joe Strupp…. modesty prevents me from doing so (plus, I think he prolly checks FDL every so often). But ego compells me to mention that nothing prevents YOU from bringing it to his attention…just in case! :)
Of course, they’ll time the cutting and sending of the $100
briberebate checks for optimal vote buying effect.BobbyG – The reason I asked is that I drive between LA and Phoenix a lot, and gas in Blythe, CA (middle of nowhere CA equidistant basically between LA and PX) on Monday was $3.40 for regular. Blew me away, cause to go anywhere around Blythe requires a fair amount of gas, and it is not exactly a dynamic, new age economy.
Woodward perservered for 2 years in encouraging that his source come clean to Fitzgerald about the leak. It stands to reason he would have also touched base with Pincus during that time. After all, according to his account, they were both aware of the the source’s identity.
actually, according to Woodward’s account, Pincus was not aware of Woodward’s source, and Pincus and Woodward never actually discussed “Wilson’s wife”. The closest to “touching base” that Woodward did was to request that Pincus keep Woodward’s name out of Pincus’s reporting — which Pincus readily agreed to do, because Pincus had no reason to include Woodward’s name in his reporting! :)
“Frist just said on M$NBC that $100 rebate would be a huge help for drivers. How the hell would that millionaire surgeon begin to grasp how ‘average Americans’ feel?”
This $100 rebate thing is one of the most fucking STUPID things I’ve ever heard. With the hundreds of billions in price gouging that the government is letting the petroleum industry get away with… hell, PAYING the petroleum industry to get away with… do these fuckos actually think that a check for a hundred bucks helps us at ALL? When people are paying $1,000 monthly heating bills in the winter these days? That’s a goddamned insult!
Sorry, EPU, my gas was $2.86, prices around here are from there to 3.39 for premium grades. Where I actually live, a little cape north of Boston (Cape Ann, very lovely), the prices are higher, and differ between my more blue collar town and Rockport (tiny artist/tourist town) by $0.10. I am fortunate to work 20 minutes away where there is greater variety in stations.
If I get the $100 bribe, I’m buying an IMPEACH BUSH T shirt, and sending some money to Ned.
oh man, damn funny (in an ironic kind of way) and hysterical report from lou dobbs re china’s ‘oil grab’(communist red china and communist cuba in dobbsspeak). china is partnering up with cuba for access to their oilfields that reach within 50 miles of florida. because of the u.s.’s embargo against cuba (hello, florida cubans), u.s. oil companies have been restricted from doing business with cuba. dumbfuck’s belligerent, war-mongering foreign policy is seriously putting this country at risk as china is locking up oil in countries across the globe.
we be fucked.
“and it is not exactly a dynamic, new age economy.”
LMAO.
Stephen Parrish CPA
I don’t know if you saw it, but I left you a long explaination of NAGRA on the fillerbuster thread. Hope it was clear.
Some Woodward bashing: Up to the point that he talked to Fitz, he was either evil (i.e. actively misleading the public about the weight and merits of the investigation) or stupid (i.e. believed the Republican spin about how this was all no big deal and was then dumb enough to comment about a story that he knew full well he was already a part of). If he was evil, he’s beyond hope, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume, for argument’s sake, that he was just stupid.
So going with the Stupid Hypothesis, when Libby got indicted, Woodward FINALLY realized that his vaunted sources had been playing him and that there really was a systematic effort to discredit Wilson. He called his source, and his source said to go to Fitz, which is what he finally did. He and his source then talked to Fitz, and no one really has any idea what the hell went down.
So what can we conclude? Well, Fitz’s source has to have at least a shred of honor, since he (or she) didn’t just tell Woodward to take the whole thing to his grave. That knocks out most of the big players (Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, etc). I’m still going with Powell, but it’s just a stab in the dark. Second, we know Woodward’s source wants to stay in the shadows as long as possible. That could be merely an effort to delay the inevitable, but it could also mean that the source knows that all hell is going to break loose over this, and he (or she) would rather be in the spotlight when everyone else is in it, too. Third–and here’s where it gets interesting–Woodward and his editors are honoring the source’s request to remain out of the news. I’m not sure the Post would be willing to sit on such a major story unless there was more to it. Maybe the source promised Woodward an exclusive when the whole thing blows up. But I think it’s more likely that Fitzgerald himself asked Woodward to keep the source’s identity secret. If so, I’m more than a little eager to see what he’s up to.
Schumer promising “a Manhattan Project” on energy if Dems elected. Rahm says Rethugs have paid 86mil for this via the energy bill. NPR
Gas is about $3.01 to 3.10 here. My damned power bill has doubled over the past year,too. Somebody should ask Frist what the average Tennessean pays for electricity this year, as opposed to last year.
Paul- #141, of course I thought of that, and I will. But, I thought that a reply was more likely if it came from you. He responded to one of my emails a while back when I was asking whether a particular article was his own investigative reporting. But, he didn’t respond to the emails I sent at the time asking him to clarify the statements in his article about Woodward’s sources. First time callers may get best attention. My impression is that Strupp has some kind of an inside line to WaPo. I actually think that it would be better if you contacted him asking if he has any comments or perspectives to add to your article. He has done some investigative reporting pieces in the past. Sure, I can bring it to his attention, but you might actually get an interesting reply.
bkny -
I guess Bush better hurry up and invade Cuba too.
Woodward was still declaring after the whole story broke that the Plame matter was nothing but “gossip and chatter” and that the whole thing was tempest in a teapot.
Which leads be to conclude he is evil, with a bad midwestern accent.
-GSD
cleter -
Yeah, my AC bill is gonna be swell this summer here in Vegas when we get our usual July stretch of endless hairdryer-in-your-face 115+ degree days. A lot of our electric is natural gas fueled. Prices are gonna be breathtaking.
The CNN.com poll this morning was on the gas ‘rebate’: real help or political move. It was running strongly for political move.
DOA.
And even with a Prius (47.3mpg average over the last 4000 miles), it isn’t fun. Gotta fill up this weekend…
6) When Woodward was questioned about telling Pincus, he said that he told Pincus while he was passing Pincus’s desk, and Pincus said “What?â€, which Woodward took to mean “That’s interestingâ€. Woodward also said that was the full extent of the conversation
7) Woodward later admitted that “What?†could have meant “I didn’t hear what you said.â€
What does this remind me of…?
Ah, yes. This story in the WaPo:
On July 8, 2003 — two days after Wilson published a denunciation of the White House on the weapons issue — Miller had breakfast with Libby at the St. Regis Hotel. Miller said Libby told her that Wilson’s wife worked for a CIA bureau called Winpac, for weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control. Miller said she testified, however, that Libby did not refer to Plame by name or mention her covert status.
Her notebook from that day includes the notation “Valerie Flame,” but she says the name appeared in a different section of the notebook from her Libby interview notes and that she believes it came from another source who, Miller maintains, she cannot recall.
Cos, you know, it’s a complete impossibility that she just…turned a few pages and wrote it there in a clumsy attempt to construct plausible deniability.
Not only are these people incredibly mendacious, they are ridiculously inept liars. These are the kinds of lies that make third grade teachers sigh deeply and roll their eyes. If the rest of their defense is this much of a shambles, they’re in deep, deep trouble.
Gas is about $3.50 here, but I’d gladly pay $10 if it would get people pissed off enough to cut the umbilical cord between congress and the corporations.
p.lukasiak:
Thanks for the clarification about my misunderstanding that Woodward and Pincus shared a mutual source.
My larger question still stands, though. Would the paper have it believed that the two colleagues talked past each about Plame for lo those many months?
Schumer promising “a Manhattan Project†on energy
it’s about fucking time.
John Dean and Daniel Elsberg on Democracy Now today.
Tell Dr./Leader Frist (as those smug little twits at The Note call him) to have his sleazy health care corporation issue a $5,000 rebate, per year, to every American to defray the cost of health insurance. Most of the (healthy) people I know pay quite a bit more than that, but $5K would at least bring it into the affordable range.
Wilson said “what the hell does a $100 ‘gasoline help’ check look like?”
It looks a lot like a Florida $100. gift card after they take your orange tree……when me & all my neighbors lost their orange trees to the big bad mulcher, we got to go to Wal-Mart to replace our orange trees. Unfortunately, while waiting for orange trees, the cards expired.
I always thought this was some kind of payback to the big orange companies. Can you say Katherine Harris?
zennurse: Bill Frist is driven around Washington in a very large black SUV. Don’t know about Tennessee.
Woody started his career in Military Intelligence and he’s ending it in Military Stupidity.
“Not only are these people incredibly mendacious, they are ridiculously inept liars. These are the kinds of lies that make third grade teachers sigh deeply and roll their eyes.”
They never thought they’d ever get caught. They are now Fitzfucked.
new thread
CCMask–this is a repeat and I apologize, but did you say the 28th would be significant? if so, how’s it looking? thanks!
QUESTION: If someone loses their security clearance, is that information classified?
wondering-No, it was Tax Day, April 15th. I was wondering last night what the date is when you file an extension…….lol
Sonoma
Would the paper have it believed that the two colleagues talked past each about Plame for lo those many months?
yes, because Woodward wasn’t talking about plame at all…
**************
*ilson
new thread
YEAH!!!!!
Regarding the $100 gas card, I’d rather have a hooker.
Regarding the $100 gas card, I’d rather have a hooker like the duke.
Tyler Drumheller on CNN right now. Lou Dobbs.
Swopa 63:
I don’t think Ari was Pincus’s source. Pincus said he and his source were talking national security and his source suddenly changed topic and talked about Wilson’s wife. Ari wouldn’t be talking national security with Pincus. I always thought it was Hadley.
Who was Woodward’s source and would it make a diffrence to Fitz’s plot line?
If the source was Powell, Fitz would let it go by, because it didn’t fit wtih Fitz’s big picture (not part of conspiracy) and Powell gave so much inside stuff to Fitz and he is like a friend of the prosecution.
If it was Armitage, same as above. Inadveratent mistake and not part of conspiracy. Fitz will say “don’t do it again” and move on. Armitage is a friend of the prosecution.
If it was Hadley, Fitz will use it for his framing, because it would fit with his big picture.
If it was Andy Card, same as Hadley.
So Woodward either reinforces the prosecutor’s case or it means nothing.
Very often in cooperation agreements the person involved in cooperating is given a conditional deal – he or she has to tell the truth. If a prosecutor comes to the conclusion that s/he has not been told the truth, all deals are off, and the witness/cooperating party may face jail. If Woodward caused Fitz to question Pincus’s veracity, he may have caused him and the paper to face greater jeopardy than just loss of credibility.
p.lukasiak:
Wasn’t talking about Plame? Says who? What kind of newsman wasn’t talking about that story? Or, for that matter, when did he stop talking about it? Immediately after he dropped his little nugget of information on Pincus? Can’t any of his colleagues at the Post recall even a single instance in which he was drawn into a discussion about Plame after Pincus wrote his account?
Or is Woodward a veritable Oracle, understood only by those wise enough to deign the meaning of his every utterance?
looseheadprop says:
April 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I saw it; thank you very much for the wire to wire coverage!
Or is Woodward a veritable Oracle, understood only by those wise enough to deign the meaning of his every utterance?
actually, my understanding of Woodward’s relationship with the working reporters/editors at the post is pretty close to “Oracular”. Woodward spends most of his time working on his books….occasionally, he will deign to actually function as a Post “reporter”, and occasionally will “leak” story ideas/leads to Post reporters/editors.
Indeed, much of the Post’s approach to Plamegate (like that moronic “good leak” editorial) may be due to Woodward’s WH access.
I’m confused – can’t seem to find the WaPo blog anymore. Haven’t been there for awhile. Where are Paul’s and fedupliars’ postings?
Woodward, on the other hand, knew full well that his source had withheld relevant information from the Special Prosecutor, and agreed to keep silent about it. Woodward, in essence, witnessed a crime, and conspired with the criminal to keep the crime a secret.
I’m sorry but this is just wrong as a matter of law! It is not a crime to remain silent, even with knowledge of a crime, and Woodward simply had no duty to report to Fitz or the GJ, in the absence of a subpoena.
Bilge 61- You make a good point about Woodward being a WaPo director, but he still has a right to remain silent. Maybe WaPo has a claim he violated a fiduciary interest, but there is NO CRIME.
Wondering-no. I answered you earlier. I have nothing for the 28th.
Wow! Great analysis.
Unfortunately, I don’t see Woodward going anywhere. The rose may be off of Woodward’s bloom, but he still has immense credibility with the general public. The Post’s reputation isn’t precisely sterling these days, so imho, it’s better for the Post to be seen with him than without him.
I wear a hearing aid. I also have a Tiffany clock that I received after ten years with my old company engraved with “What?”.
Heh, heh. Woodward called Fitzgerald a “junkyard dog.” Maybe he’ll have to deal with that “junkyard dog.”
Excellent, fascinating analysis.
Slightly OT: Does anyone think it’s possible that Robert Novak’s other source–besides Rove–is Woodward? He could be described, in Novak’s world anyway, as being “not a partisan guhnslinger.” After all, he helped bring down a Republican President.