What is The Post trying to tell us today that it can't come out and say at this point?
Early this month, Fitz secretly interviewed Woodward's unnamed high government source. That official revealed that in mid-June 2003, he told Woodward about Plame. That was days before Scooter Libby had a similar chat with Judy Miller, previously the first know disclosure to a reporter. Rove is not the source. By all indications, Cheney is.
Bottom line: Cheney is going to be charged with obstruction of justice for his previous false statements. Woodward will be the chief witness against him.
MORE BELOW . . .
There's a real divergence of opinion about this around here about Bob Woodward's motives in the Plame case.
On the one hand, there's the faction of Plamegate observers that says Woodward is an Old Spook who's got the goods on Bush-Cheney and is going to bring 'em all down. On the other, some of us are saying he's been brought in by Libby's defenders to generate smoke and call Fitzgerald's indictment into question, and perhaps to save Rove and others from indictment. Both can't be right? Right?
One has to do a careful, almost line by line, analysis of the story to see what The Post is trying to tell us. The most important extracts of the Post's report are in italics, below.
Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.
Woodward affidavit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
One: Fitz's investigation is clearly still very much in business. Finally, confirmation that it isn't over, as many had feared.
In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.
Two: Mid-June 2003 would have coincided with Libby's conversations with Judy Miller at the NYT, a conversation that Libby belatedly revealed to the Grand Jury after Miller produced her reporters note book that shows Scooter mentioned the name, "Valerie Flame (sic)."
Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 -- one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted in the investigation.
Three: Woodward didn't contact Fitz with what he knew. Fitz summoned Woodward to reveal that Woodward's unnamed source told him about Plame in Mid-June 2003.
Woodward did not share the information with (Washington Post Executive Editor) Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place.
Four: Woodward may have an agenda in this outside his role as an investigative reporter for the WashPost, one which he obviously believes is important enough to put his editor's position at the paper at some jeopardy - whoever the source and information he refuses to disclose, (s)he isn't a low-ranking functionary.
Woodward said he also testified that he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, and discussed Iraq policy as part of his research for a book on President Bush's march to war. He said he does not believe Libby said anything about Plame.
He also told Fitzgerald that it is possible he asked Libby about Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. He based that testimony on an 18-page list of questions he planned to ask Libby in an interview that included the phrases "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife." Woodward said in his statement, however, that "I had no recollection" of mentioning the pair to Libby. He also said that his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as "Wilson's wife."<>
Five: Woodward already knew enough about Wilson's mission to Niger, and about his wife, that Libby saw no need to divulge further details about Plame's identity, according to Woodward's recollection. This appears to show that Libby wasn't the original source for the Plame identity leak. However, Libby isn't being charged with outing Plame, instead he is being prosecuted for perjury and obstruction over his earlier misleading testimony before the Grand Jury. Thus, this doesn't exonerate Scooter from criminal prosectution. Whatever Woodward's motive is, he's not really helping Libby, but is instead shifting the focus onto an as yet unnamed government source.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said that Rove is not the unnamed official who told Woodward about Plame and that he did not discuss Plame with Woodward.
Six: That significantly shirks the list of potential unnamed high Administration officials who might have been Woodward's source, to whom Fitz would now be turning his attention.
According to his statement, Woodward also testified about a third unnamed source. He told Fitzgerald that he does not recall discussing Plame with this person when they spoke on June 20, 2003.
Seven: It is completely unclear at this point who this third unnamed source might be, or what the significance of Woodward's inability to recall talking about Plame might be. Also, who is the second official? One might guess that Woodward talked to a couple of White House staffer about Wilson's trip to Niger, but didn't discuss Plame with them. As I reported in my previous diary, there was a report last week that Rove's Administrative Assistant, Susan Ralston, was being called, so she may have been one of these other sources.
It is unclear what prompted Woodward's original unnamed source to alert Fitzgerald to the mid-June 2003 mention of Plame to Woodward. Once he did, Fitzgerald sought Woodward's testimony, and three officials released him to testify about conversations he had with them. Downie, Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month.
Eight: Here is perhaps one of the biggest bombshells in the article. If I am reading this correctly, it appears that Fitz interviewed Woodward's original source earlier this month, and then, upon learning that the Post editor was in on the loop, subpoenaed Woodward to testify.
Woodward, therefore, did not volunteer what he knew about his original source, and did not name names until he was released by all three sources. This would seem to put a damper onto speculation that Woodward has been a mole of sorts in the White House for some party, perhaps the CIA, that's been eager to get the goods on those responsible for outing Plame. This is certainly not impossible, but evidence doesn't appear to yet firmly support that conclusion.
(WashPost Managing Editor Len) Downie said he could not explain why Woodward said he provided a tip about Wilson's wife to Walter Pincus, a Post reporter writing about the subject, but did not pursue the matter when the CIA leak investigation began. He said Woodward has often worked under ground rules while doing research for his books that prevent him from naming sources or even using the information they provide until much later.
Woodward's statement said he testified: "I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."
Pincus said he does not recall Woodward telling him that. In an interview, Pincus said he cannot imagine he would have forgotten such a conversation around the same time he was writing about Wilson.
There's no reason to doubt Pincus on this. Both men have long-term ties to US intelligence sources, but unlike Woodward, Pincus seems to be a straight-forward career Washington Post reporter. Woodward, on the other hand, has some very complicated attachments and his own agenda. His motive is enigmatic. What appears to have happened is that Woodward tipped Pincus about Plame, but we don't know why, and the two disagree on the details about this.
Was Woodward actually playing a part in the White House plot to out Plame and punish Wilson, and then publicly attempted to minimize the importance of the investigation, perhaps even to obscure the facts? Or, was he playing along and putting together the ultimate insider story about the neocons vs. the career CIA?! We will have to wait and see about that.
So, finally, who might Woodward's orginal source have be? On June 12, 2003, Reuters ran an article saying the CIA was not taking credit for the Niger yellow cake report that had been cited as support for the invasion. http://web.archive.org/... Eleven days later Scooter had a chat with Judy about Wilson and his wife. Recall, Judy went to jail for 85 days in order to protect Libby about what he revealed during this conversation. We now know more about what happened in between. A highly-placed Administration official told Woodward about Plame. The top people talk to each other first - that's the way Washington protocol usually works. So, who's over Libby, who might have had an interest in this matter? Really, only two people.
I think almost certainly that Fitz will want to talk again to Libby's boss - this time, under oath.
BOTTOM LINE: IMHO, Cheney is going to be charged with obstruction of justice for his previous false statements. Woodward will be the chief witness against him.
P.S. - Some very interesting events centered around 06/12/03 detailed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/...