The New York Times – the newspaper that had been promising us less use of anonymous sources – reported the following this morning:
I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war.
Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.
“Lawyers involved in the case”… ah, there’s a redolent phrase. How many of those are there? Well, probably not that many but enough to keep up confused forever about the source and his/her motivations in talking to the Times only days before the disclosure of whether there will be an indictment. Three reporters sign the article to add to its “veracity.” The identity of the leaker is perhaps more interesting than the story itself, but the Times, of course, will never tell. That’s mainstream journalism as its practiced in 2005.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. Swopa:The identity of the leaker is perhaps more interesting than the story itself…
Uhh, Roger, “the story itself” is that the Vice President of the United States quite likely lied under oath (not to mention to the nation) and as a result may be named in an indictment this week.
And you think it’s “perhaps more interesting” whether the story was leaked by Lewis Libby’s lawyers or someone else’s? Well, at least you’ve acknowledged the story’s existence, which as of a few minutes ago puts you ahead of Instapundit.
Great to know that such giants of integrity and news judgment will be leading the way at Alice in Wonderland Media — oops, sorry for scooping PJ Media’s new name.
Oct 25, 2005 - 7:43 am 2. Ed Poinsett:SWOPA
quite likely lied….and may be named….
What convincing rhetoric by a giant of integrity.
Oct 25, 2005 - 7:56 am 3. markus:SWOPA — If Cheney was really in trouble, I think that the leakers would be putting out even more provocative and incendiary indications of what Fitzgerald is working on. But Cheney will have to square whatever he said under oath with the timing his comments on Meet the Press that he didn’t know anything about Wilson. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006823.php
We should probably just wait till the drama unfolds. Anything one says about this issue now is mostly just trying to guess unknown facts that are going to become public knowledge in a few days anyway.
Oct 25, 2005 - 8:11 am 4. David Thomson:
Oct 25, 2005 - 8:17 am 5. Michael_B:Swopa, you couldn’t convince the most dull witted of Pavlovian, unthinking, laugh-tracking, Bill Maher audiences. Or perhaps you could.
Stephen F. Hayes, The White House, the CIA, and the Wilsons.
If there are indictments then hopefully the President will remove that person(s) from their duties, even given the circumstances and details as described in Hayes’s review and even if it’s merely the coverup of a leak of a leak of a leak. But Fitzgerald has a reputation for being eminently thorough, fair and not easily cowed by politically correct, partisan pressures.
Oct 25, 2005 - 8:29 am 6. Silicon valley Jim:Several unnamed sources (some guys I was watching the World Series with Sunday evening) have revealed that no NYT reporter has any idea what proper sourcing means.
Oct 25, 2005 - 9:03 am 7. David Thomson:Many of us living in the hinterlands might get excited learning that someone works for the CIA. Some immediately think of 007 and spies going over the Berlin Wall. Most CIA employees, however, are boring desk jockeys. They are nothing more than white collared pencil pushers. The most dangerous thing they might do during a regular day is to get out of bed in the morning. In Washington, DC, these folks are a dime a dozen. Learning that someone like Valerie Plame earns a living at Langley is not normally greeted with a
Oct 25, 2005 - 9:03 am 8. jedrury:Two points:
1.) The vice president of the US has a right to
know about, and discuss with others, Valerie Plame, and to vet the impact of the Wilsonian revelations on administration policy.
2.) Whether or not Fitzgerald indicts is the best kept secret in the US.
One thing for sure, if he indicts, the witnesses for the prosecution, Cooper and Miller and Wilson and Plame, are a cross examining feast of plenty for any sophmore at any law school in America.
Oct 25, 2005 - 9:14 am 9. Fresh Air:This is really a hoot.
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury.
Let’s just append this a little, shall we:
Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation, which the Times reporters have not actually seen, between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ–but may not actually differ (How would we know?)–from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury ,which is still supposed to be classified, (though why should we care if it hurts the administration to disclose it?)…
A lesson in the anonymously sourced leaked hearsay story.
Oct 25, 2005 - 9:30 am 10. Michael Branca:Jedury:
You are exactly right. At the heart of the matter is who sent Wilson to Niger? Wilson was peddling the lie that Cheney had requested him to go, Cheney called that BS and was trying to figure out who actually sent him. It is his right to know who sent Wilson and who requested him to go. This whole Plame crap is disturbing because we now have the CIA actively trying to
undermine the President.
Oct 25, 2005 - 9:48 am 11. markus:David Thomsen — revealing Valerie Plame’s non-covert CIA desk job would unlikely be a crime if that was the only position she had ever held with the CIA. But of course she previously had held other positions that were covert. And it is quite possible that revealing this prior covert status was dangerous and damaging to U.S. interests.
Oct 25, 2005 - 10:06 am 12. Charlie (Colorado):Personally, I’m just happy to see Roger double post for a change.
Oct 25, 2005 - 10:12 am 13. Lew Clark:Every time an anonymous source is quoted, I’m pretty sure it’s Lucy Ramirez faxing it in from a KINKO in Abilene Texas. When is that gal going to get her much-deserved Pulitzer?
But, I thought Lucy was a free-lance reporter, not a lawyer. So maybe these lawyers close to the case (don’t think it’s Fitzgerald or his staff who are pretty closed mouth)are lawyers for soon-to-be defendants. And not Libby’s or Rove’s lawyers. And maybe they’re preparing their defense. “Wait a minute, for two years the story from the Special Prosecutor’s office has been, criminal leaks from the White House exposing a super double top secret spy. Now they’re indicting the poor victims, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, for disclosing classified information to impact a Presidential election? What gives here?” Only problem for them is, indictments lead to trials, in the open, and the truth just might get out there, finally.
Oct 25, 2005 - 10:41 am 14. jedrury:Michael:
The Times, in its hatred of Bush, is not only “criminalizing” political disagreements, but the carrying out of the duties and functions of the vice presidency. One expects that the president and vice president in sending the nation’s sons and daughters to war, would want
to know all the salient facts and all legitimate criticisms of, and about, the effectuation of that obligation and their policies. Suggesting that the vice president was involved is so sexed up for these scoop hungry writers and editors that they care not about accuracy. They are fixated on the scoop and how to damage this presidency.
Oct 25, 2005 - 10:47 am 15. dougf:We should probably just wait till the drama unfolds. Anything one says about this issue now is mostly just trying to guess unknown facts that are going to become public knowledge in a few days anyway.–Marcus
Thank you for a reasoned comment on this ‘tempest-in-a-teapot’.
No-one knows anything and the 24-7 speculation and conjecture is both unseemly and non-productive.
Why this pathetic little episode is considered the be-all-and end-all of life is totally beyond me. For the record i felt the same way about the Clinton ‘ scandals’ when they were the talk of the town . The culture and the system cannot discuss or address, an Energy Strategy, or How To Rebuild NO, or Government OverSpending, or a myriad of substantive problems but it can obsess over this and every other ‘gotcha’. Is this the best we got?
Again, thanks Marcus for your contribution and for the increasingly uncommon ability to take a giant step back from the issue in order to try to see the whole picture.
Oct 25, 2005 - 11:20 am 16. submandave:Am I the only one, but does anyone else see a connection between this and the infamous “Qu’ran flushing” story?
1. The results of an official investigation are soon to be released.
2. A “news” organization, largely driven by a desire to have the mostest firstest, publishes startling revelations from the report provided by anonymous sources. Coincidentally, both leaks conveniently paint the Administration in a negative light.
All that remains to be seen is if this episode continues to follow the same story arc, where the official report is released and all the hyped-up revelations of the anonymous sources are revealed as nearly complete fabrications.
Hell, this isn’t news. It isn’t even meteorology. It’s more like the “psychic” who just guesses, hoping to get enough close answers to fool you into believing their tripe. “I see something red, something that has to do with red or the name ‘Red’ or perhaps anger …“
Oct 25, 2005 - 12:05 pm 17. Patrick Tyson:My best guess is that the Administration (as uncertain as anyone as to what Fitzgerald will do in the next three days) is doing its best to protect the President by anticipating the worst that could happen and that The Times is, as usual, being played.
Oct 25, 2005 - 12:34 pm 18. Barry Dauphin:Not long ago the Cheney stuff was prominent on the CNN webpage. It’s still in the headlines. Funny though. There’s nothing about the passage of the Iraqi constitution.
Oct 25, 2005 - 12:44 pm 19. Hermie:“Lawyers involved in the case, who described the notes to The New York Times, said they showed that Mr. Cheney knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the C.I.A. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.”
I don’t know what kind of lawyers are supposedly talking to the NYT, but they miss an important fact that Ms Wilson was NOT an undercover operative when her name was mentioned.
Oct 25, 2005 - 1:01 pm 20. vegetius:I, for one, will be sorry when this story closes out. It’s quite a sight watching dozens of the supposedly smart set, construct conspiracy theories based on anonymous leaks, hear-say, and wishful thinking. The emotional investment in these delusions is staggering.
This has got to be America
Oct 25, 2005 - 1:30 pm 21. Terrye:Previously undisclosed to whom?
Fizgerald said that he was almost done a year ago. So far as I know he has shown no interest in interviewing Cheney.
How do we know that Fitz did not know about this all along? Maybe Cheney had someone check out Wilson when he started making claims about Cheney’s office, it would not have been hard for Cheney to find out that Plame sent her old man off to Africa. He might even have passed this along to Libby, that has nothing to do with outing her. They can talk to each other about her.
It could even be that as the weeks went by and that publicity hound Wislon just kept making a spetacle of himself people began trying to pump Libby for information and after a few weeks passed and a few reporters had made it plain they knew who Plame was he let down his guard.
That is my story and I am sticking to it. Truth is we will know when we know.
I think the whole thing is absurd. Watching the Democrats and the lefties making a hero out of a conman like Wilson is pathetic.
Oct 25, 2005 - 1:50 pm 22. flenser:“.. more than a month before her identity was made public and her undercover status was disclosed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003.”
As usual where the Times is concerned, this is simply false. Novak did not disclose Plames “undercover status”, if any such existed. The first person to claim that Plame was an undercover agent was David Corn.
Perhaps Roger or some other member of PJ Media can ask Mr. Corn what he knew and who his source was. A member on the Executive board in the new company is a party in this story.
Who reports on the reporters?
Presumably if any of this goes to trial a lot of people, including Wilson, Plame, and Corn, will be subpoenaed.
Oct 25, 2005 - 6:31 pm 23. Syl:It is not criminal to lie to the press.
Whether it’s Cheney, ’sources close to the investigation’, or Wilson.
Everyone got that?
Oct 25, 2005 - 7:57 pm