Back in 1997 Robert Novak wrote a column claiming that Janet Reno covered up the 1996 campaign-finance scandals. In an August 6th 2001 New York Observer piece, Joe Conason noted that Novak revealed his primary source for that article (oh, the irony) as Robert Hanssen. Hanssen, who was then Deputy Chief of the FBI's Soviet Analytical Unit, was since convicted for selling secrets to the Soviet Union (and later Russia).
Was this the fist time Hanssen was used as a source by Novak? It is reasonable to assume that the two knew each other socially. Both of them were members of the conservative Catholic organization Opus Dei; although, Novak probably joined after he was baptized as a Catholic in 1998. Then again, Novak was apparently attending Church services through the 1990s and Hanssen's church, which also counts Santorum and Scalia as members, would probably be an inviting choice for a conservative columnist. Maybe a casual social contact led to a one-time tip where Hanssen was using Novak to pursue his own agenda. Then again...
Reading further in Conason's piece, he cites a July 29, 2001 LA Times article by Jonathan Dann and J. Michael Kennedy that reveals Hanssen's role in the FBI's Regan-era program to monitor U.S. citizens' "subsersive" activities. The Soviet Analytical Unit, the Times article says, "had responsibility in the bureau for not only evaluating information collected about Soviet spies in the United States, but also to digest raw intelligence reports regarding alleged subversion. The unit would analyze the data, then provide conclusions to the intelligence community, the White House, Congress, and occasionally, the public." The LA times article goes on to say that "later Congressional investigations would show, what this often meant in practice was the harassment and sometimes the smearing of Americans engaged in lawful political activity."
Now that raises a question. What was the conduit of choice to release this information to "the public"? A politically reliable columnist for would be a good choice. That is, if we can find one that does not have a problem with "the smearing of Americans engaged in lawful political activity."