Plame / Phelps and Royce First Reporters Contacted By Fitzgerald.

I've always wondered what happened with these Newsday reporters.....In the Columbia Journal Review, Timothy M. Phelps of Newsday has a run down of his dealings with special prosecuter Fitzgerald, this information has never been made public until now.

Phelps and his coauthor, Knut Royce along with Novak were the only reporters named in the original document request from the DOJ in September 2003, they were also named in the January 2004 subpoena from Fitzgerald.

According to Phelps, he and Royce were the first reporters contacted by Fitzgerald.

Roughly two months after he empaneled a grand jury in Washington in December 2003, Patrick Fitzgerald called Newsday saying he wanted to talk to us. So far as I know, we were the first reporters he contacted, with the possible exception of Novak, whose interactions with Fitzgerald are still unknown.
CJR January/Febuary 2006

More  
   

If you remember Phelps and Royce wrote the 7/22/03 article entitled "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover" for Newsday that established that Valerie Plame worked undercover at the CIA. This was the story that shut down the WH smear campaign that had geared up after the 7/14/03 Bob Novak column.

In the CJR article, Phelps recounts how and why Newsday went after the story. he is very clear that the sources for his story are from the intelligence community.

When I read the column I wondered whether Plame was working undercover. So, along with Newsday's Knut Royce, known for his sources in the intelligence community, I started making inquiries.

A week later we wrote a story quoting "intelligence officials" as saying that Plame did indeed work undercover at the CIA, on weapons of mass destruction, raising the possibility that the disclosure to Novak broke the law. Novak himself volunteered something interesting when we reached him. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me." His sources, he said, "thought it was significant; they gave me the name and I used it."

Our story was the first to establish that Plame was undercover. In fact not only was she working for the secret "D. O." or Directorate of Operations at agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, but she was also still in transition from an even deeper underground mission as a "NOC" for Nonofficial Cover, posing as a businesswoman during agency-sponsored trips to Europe. The day after our story there were calls for an investigation by Democrats, and White House press secretary Scott McClellan vigorously asserted that "That is not the way this White House operates."
CJR

Phelps has sources that told him that the CIA referred the Newsday story to the DOJ early in the investigation and that the original document request eventially went far beyond the White House.

(Sources told us that the CIA had referred not only Novak's column but our Newsday story to the Justice Department for investigation because we, too, had revealed new classified information -- that Plame was working undercover.) Subsequently the document requests relating to the three of us were sent to the CIA and top officials at the Pentagon, as well as hundreds of senior officials at the State Department, where I cover Middle East policy
CJR  

Phelps thinks it's possible that Fitz had a waiver from one or more of their sources. Phelps and Royce considered the waivers coerced and refused to talk to Fitzgerald. They also felt that their source would "deny having disclosed that Plame was undercover."

Roughly two months after he empaneled a grand jury in Washington in December 2003, Patrick Fitzgerald called Newsday saying he wanted to talk to us. So far as I know, we were the first reporters he contacted, with the possible exception of Novak, whose interactions with Fitzgerald are still unknown.

Don't worry, Fitzgerald assured us, he was not asking us to name our sources. He simply wanted some information about our discussions with the sources. Oh.

snip

In our case, Fitzgerald intimated that he might have a waiver from one or more of our sources. These exploratory conversations between a prosecutor and news organization usually involve quite a bit of shadow boxing. Neither side wants to give too much away, so things tend to be discussed in theoretical terms. But my impression was that Fitzgerald may have talked to or planned to talk to someone who had admitted talking to us. It seemed likely to us, however, that that person would deny having disclosed that Plame was undercover.

What Fitzgerald wanted us to do, among other things, was to differentiate between Source A, B, or C. Without giving up any names, would we simply outline which source had said what in our story?
CJR

Interestingly Phelps and Royce after talking with Fitzgerald decided not to testify and although Fitz threatened to subpoena Newsday and the reporters he never did.

But Royce and I told our editors at Newsday that we would become pariahs in Washington if we agreed to testify -- that no other Washington reporter would ever do so. Newsday backed us up, and told Fitzgerald in mid-April that we would not help in any way. He threatened a subpoena that for some reason never came.
CJR

Also of interest, Newsday pulled their reporters off the story.

Newsday decided that Royce and I should no longer cover the story, since we were now part of it. I play a dual role as reporter and editor, and I had to withdraw from any editing involvement as well. So Royce and I could no longer work the story we had been among the first to recognize.
CJR

I recommned reading the entire article, Phelps has an excellent run down on Fitzgeralds dealings with the other reporters and his take on the First Amendment issues.

Other Plame News / Declassified State Department Memo

The NYT has a story in a recently declassified State Department memo entitled "2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim". The NYT received the memo from Judicial Watch who obtained the memo by a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.  

A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

snip

 A four-star general, Carlton W. Fulford Jr., was also sent to Niger to investigate the claims of a uranium purchase. He, too, came away with doubts about the reliability of the report and believed Niger's yellowcake supply to be secure. But the State Department's review, which looked at the political, economic and logistical factors in such a purchase, seems to have produced wider-ranging doubts than other reviews about the likelihood that Niger would try to sell uranium to Baghdad.

The review concluded that Niger was "probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq," in part because France controlled the uranium industry in the country and could block such a sale. It also cast doubt on an intelligence report indicating that Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja, might have negotiated a sales agreement with Iraq in 2000. Mr. Tandja and his government were reluctant to do anything to endanger their foreign aid from the United States and other allies, the review concluded. The State Department review also cast doubt on the logistics of Niger being able to deliver 500 tons of uranium even if the sale were attempted. "Moving such a quantity secretly over such a distance would be very difficult, particularly because the French would be indisposed to approve or cloak this arrangement," the review said.

Chris Farrell, the director of investigations at Judicial Watch and a former military intelligence officer, said he found the State Department's analysis to be "a very strong, well-thought-out argument that looks at the whole playing field in Niger, and it makes a compelling case for why the uranium sale was so unlikely."

The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency
NYT 1/17/06

Added

from Judicial Watch

he analysis, entitled, “Niger-Iraq: Sale of Niger Uranium to Iraq Unlikely,” was part of a larger analysis document for the week of February 25 – March 3, 2002

Judicial Watch obtained the document under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, having successfully appealed an earlier State Department decision to withhold the document from disclosure. Portions of the document contain redactions of classified material made by both the State Department and the CIA.

The link to the actual document pdf file can be found at Judicial Watch.


And more on Plame / Judy Miller

As part of an annual Leadership Educational Forum on Sunday at the Four Seasons Resort Palm Beach for the American Friends of Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Miller discussed the case and spoke with New York Times columnist David Brooks on "The Reporter's Privilege Under Siege."
Palm Beach Daily News 1/16/06

This is the only item I thought noteworthy

The Times, she said, spent $1.7 million to defend her. Most organizations don't have that kind of money, she said.
Palm Beach Daily News 1/16/06

Update: Here is one other item on Plame. Hat tip to 2lucky

For anyone still hoping for an indictment of Karl Rove, I have a smidgen of hope to offer. A well-wired lawyer in Washington tells me that not too long ago he bumped into Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney and a friend of this lawyer. My source said to Luskin, "Looks like you're out of the woods." Luskin replied, "Not so fast. It's not over yet." So....

David Corn 1/18/06

•  interesting, yes

  but what does it all mean, bazzle??

  by mediaprisoner on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:53:17 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    I don't know why Fitz dodn't pursue the Newday reporters, it's possible although I don't think it likely that he already had the story on that from their intelligence sources.

    I think it more likely Fitz wasn't as concerned with that side of the story. The damage was done with the original leaks out of the WH.

    by pollyusa on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:44:17 AM PDT

    •  I think I disagree

      And it points out one of the disingenuous things about the article.

      Phelps suggests that the Judy ruling means there is NO consideration of journalistic privilege, when it was clear from the Patel opinion that the court weighed the value of the leak against teh damage to security. And that Fitz had demonstrated that there was no other way to get the information in the case of Judy and Cooper. Which is true--he absolutely needed their testimony to prove or disprove Libby's and Cooper's guilt.

      Given that background, I think it quite likely that Fitz figured out what he could have learned from Phelps some other way (one of the burdens against impinging on journalistic privilege). Even to ask the ABC question says he's got someone talking openly about this.

      by emptywheel on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:00:03 PM PDT

      •  Hi EW

        You may be right, but here is my thinking here.

        Phelps doesn't think his source is going to talk.

        But my impression was that Fitzgerald may have talked to or planned to talk to someone who had admitted talking to us. It seemed likely to us, however, that that person would deny having disclosed that Plame was undercover.

        and my guess is that Fitz had the contacts with Phelps and Royce from phone records which he would have from the document request. Phelps noted that the document request from the DOJ went to the CIA and State among other agencies.

        by pollyusa on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:39:34 PM PDT

        •  Sure, but

          And I should correct my earlier post and say it was Judge Tatel who weighed the import of First Amendment against security.

          Thing is, CIA clearly thought the Phelps leak was real. It's not in Fitz' nature to just let something go. He just indicted someone in Chicago for taking $200 bribes.

          It strikes me that there's a reason why Phelps' and Royce's source is excusable. Perhaps Fitz can determine that by figuring out whose phone it is. Perhaps their source talked (as I think it quite possible if the person were CIA or INR, whic is the likely kinds of people).

          Or, hell, maybe it's Armitage, Armitage is also the Woodward leak (which I highly doubt), and for some reason Fitz has given that leak immunity.

          But the point is, Fitz only went after journalists who were the only source of information, and Fitz is not the kind of guy to just dismiss a crime.

          by emptywheel on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:11 PM PDT

          •  here's your answer

            from the Judy Miller apellet ruling

            Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks--say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson--the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers.

            Phelps didn't use the original leakers as a source

            and the apellet ruling was written to explain who that makes a difference

            by knowthings on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:42:40 PM PDT

            •  Thanks

              That is an excellent example of where Fitz is coming from.

              I think this is partly right. Fitz was after the damaging leak and leakers.

              The leak to Phelps and Royce was considered to be a leak of classified information as well, but the cat was already out of the bag so to speak. Here is the section where Phelps mentions this. That the request was sent to the deparments indicated to me that Fitz did have a look at this leak.

              Sources told us that the CIA had referred not only Novak's column but our Newsday story to the Justice Department for investigation because we, too, had revealed new classified information -- that Plame was working undercover.) Subsequently the document requests relating to the three of us were sent to the CIA and top officials at the Pentagon, as well as hundreds of senior officials at the State Department, where I cover Middle East policy

              I think EW has a point that Fitz will go after any crime, but he showed an unwillingness to prosecute Libby for spilling classified information and I would think that would also hold true here.

              by pollyusa on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:00:04 PM PDT

•  Is the Iran nuke a coincidence?

  It sounds as if Plame must have been undercover in 2003 mainly to protect people still in the field. (My guess is that her battle with postpartum depression might have at least kept her out of the field for a few years.)

  But, anyhow, you've got to wonder: if Plame, her colleagues and her sources were still undercover, would Iran be as close as it is to having WMD? Is it possible that the Iran nuke mess is boiling over now because the spies who usually kept tabs on Iran and threw monkeywrenches into Iran's nuke project when necessary were compromised?

  by sclminc on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:55:45 AM PDT

  •  All the CIA agents in Iran were outed in 2004

    to an Iranian double agent by accident. Risen - State of war. But this was after the CIA had sold faulty bomb plans to the Iranians, which they promptly compared with the real ones they had from A H Khan.

    by sailmaker on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:32:02 AM PDT

    •  Did the plans show the bomb or the process

      for making the fissionable material?

      My understanding is that at least making a big, static nuclear bomb is extremely easy. Anyone who can renovate a house could build a big, static nuclear bomb.

      But my understanding is that getting plutonium or the right kind of uranium to serve as the bomb material is really hard.

      If the Iranians just have the bomb plans but not plans for purifying the uranium, then maybe good spies in Turkey, Egypt, Russia, etc. could still play a role in keeping them from building a bomb. (Well, probably not, but it would be nice.)

      Maybe the real trump card is that most Iranians, like most people everywhere, are nice, and that at least one nice Iranian who is now lying low might be in a position to keep Iran from really using its nukes.

      by sclminc on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:46:49 AM PDT

      •  You are correct

        in that getting fissionable material is difficult, from what I have read. Building a bomb is difficult, as well, requiring very precise measurements, machining, and other requirements that I have read about. The real physical threat, from what I have read, the thing that most alarms people is ability to deliver such a bomb/warhead, and the fallout. Talk about moving capitals in southeast asia and such, because the upperlevel atmosphere fallout would affect SE Asia (much as our coal burning emmissions result in acid rain in Europe, on an infinately graver scale). Iran will be getting short range missiles from Russia(what are the Russians thinking???)obstensively to repel preemptive attacks from Israel (like Israel did in 1977). Now the nukes are reportedly spread out over 30 installations, making the odds agains successful preemption high .

        As far as internal sabotage - stock options on Iranian oil output (already contracted to China and India) have changed the face of dissent. One doesn't protest if one's families' stock options will be revoked. There is the possiblity of sabotage, but with 30 installations it would be  difficult.

        by sailmaker on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:34:11 PM PDT

•  What does it say

  about our news culture that fullfilling your obligation as a citizen would make you a priraih, but protecting the guilty would be acceptable?

  by Alice Marshall on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 10:59:16 AM PDT

•  good catch, Polly

  thanks

  by QuickSilver on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:13:27 AM PDT

•  side topic request here

  thanks for the update and information

  here's another question you might be able to answer:

  when does Scooter Libby go to court next ???

  that ought to cause some fireworks

  by knowthings on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:14:50 PM PDT

  •  I haven't seen anything recently on Libby n/t

    by pollyusa on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:19:48 PM PDT

    •  Last I heard, Libby had a jan court hearing

      something to do with access to classified materials for the defence

      Fitzgerald is expected to ask for denial based on lack of relevence

      that's what I heard-read last month

      Court hearings are supposed to be public, so we should be able to find out

      I want to know, so if you hear anything, I subscribe, so write it up (yo emptywheel, that applies to you too)

      by knowthings on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:31:14 PM PDT

  •  Scooter in court

    February 3.

    by JDL on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 08:36:53 PM PDT