Woodward's Testimony Alters Chronology (1 Viewer)

[oldreliable67]

WP reporter Bob Woodward testified under oath that a government official who was not either Libby or Rove told him about the identity of Wilson’s wife about a month before Libby is supposed to have told anyone about her and before Wilson wrote his NYT editorial. From the WP:

“Woodward's testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official -- not Libby -- the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. It would also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.”

Interestingly, Woodward testified that he told Walter Pincus of the Post about Wilson’s wife but that Pincus doesn’t remember the conversation at all. Again, from the WP:

“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.

"Are you kidding?" Pincus said. "I certainly would have remembered that."

Pincus said Woodward may be confused about the timing and the exact nature of the conversation. He said he remembers Woodward making a vague mention to him in October 2003. That month, Pincus had written a story explaining how an administration source had contacted him about Wilson. He recalled Woodward telling him that Pincus was not the only person who had been contacted.

Pincus and fellow Post reporter Glenn Kessler have been questioned in the investigation.”

The differences between Woodward’s testimony and Pincus’ recollections beg the question: how is that so different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? Furthermore, if we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn’t it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something too? Or that Scooter Libby could? Why is one discrepancy worthy of indictment and the other one chalked to “confusion about the timing”?

Link to source.

 

[aps]

WP reporter Bob Woodward testified under oath that a government official who was not either Libby or Rove told him about the identity of Wilson’s wife about a month before Libby is supposed to have told anyone about her and before Wilson wrote his NYT editorial.

Woodward stated that it was not Libby who told him. It's Rove's attorney who has asserted that it was not Rove either. Woodward's statement regarding his testimony says nothing about Rove.

This is an interesting situation here. What the heck was Bob Woodward doing all this time during the investigation?

From the WP:

“Woodward's testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official -- not Libby -- the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. It would also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.”

Interestingly, Woodward testified that he told Walter Pincus of the Post about Wilson’s wife but that Pincus doesn’t remember the conversation at all. Again, from the WP:

“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.

"Are you kidding?" Pincus said. "I certainly would have remembered that."

Pincus said Woodward may be confused about the timing and the exact nature of the conversation. He said he remembers Woodward making a vague mention to him in October 2003. That month, Pincus had written a story explaining how an administration source had contacted him about Wilson. He recalled Woodward telling him that Pincus was not the only person who had been contacted.

Pincus and fellow Post reporter Glenn Kessler have been questioned in the investigation.”

It is odd that one of these individuals is not remembering correctly.

The differences between Woodward’s testimony and Pincus’ recollections beg the question: how is that so different from Libby and Russert both testifying to different memories of their conversations? Furthermore, if we can believe that the great Bob Woodward is misremembering when he told someone something, isn’t it possible that Tim Russert could misremember something too? Or that Scooter Libby could? Why is one discrepancy worthy of indictment and the other one chalked to “confusion about the timing”?

Link to source.

Sure it's possible that Russert may not remember his conversation with Libby. The grand jury weighed what Russert said and weighed what Libby said, along with other evidence, and chose to indict. Now it will be the jury's chance to weigh which of them is telling the truth.

What is interesting is that several reporters have laughed at the accusations that Russert does not remember talking to Libby about this in the sense that it is highly unlikely that Russert does not remember and that his credibility would outweigh Libby's credibility. But, we shall see.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Doesn't seem to do much for Libby. Libby'd have to have forgotten or becom confused about a series of conversations and requests for classified information that happened about twice a week for a month. It would seem that this harder to misremember or fail to remember than a single conversation.

 

[Stinger]

Woodward stated that it was not Libby who told him. It's Rove's attorney who has asserted that it was not Rove either. Woodward's statement regarding his testimony says nothing about Rove.

He said he heard it from 3 current or FORMER WH staffers. Libby and Card the two named are current, that leaves a former. Rove is current. It's a logical assumption therefore is that it is not Rove.

This is an interesting situation here. What the heck was Bob Woodward doing all this time during the investigation?

Why wasn't Fitzgerald interviewing him.

It is odd that one of these individuals is not remembering correctly.

It is quite normal that people don't remember things correctly.

What is interesting is that several reporters have laughed at the accusations that Russert does not remember talking to Libby about this in the sense that it is highly unlikely that Russert does not remember and that his credibility would outweigh Libby's credibility. But, we shall see.

What is interesting is the growing mound of evidence that it was well known, Woodard described it as well known gossip, that Plame worked at the CIA and that it was known not just in government circles but also by the press. Russert was bureau chief for NBC News, it was his job to know what the reporters know. Yet he says he didn't know this.

 

[scottyz]

As many Libby apologists like to point out, Libby wasn't charged with outting Plame....

 

[oldreliable67]

As many observers of the proceedings like to point out, nobody was charged with outing Plame. At least, not yet.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Probably Cheney or Fleischer "outed Plame. But it doesn't matter because there was no crime. This is a witchhunt and pure politics. There is an old saying and everyone had better be prepared. What goes around comes around. Payback time is a (expletive deleted.)

 

[TwoPops4Sure]

He said he heard it from 3 current or FORMER WH staffers. Libby and Card the two named are current, that leaves a former. Rove is current. It's a logical assumption therefore is that it is not Rove.

Where did Andy Card's name come from? He's not part of what Woodard publcly revealed of his testimony to the grand jury. Woodard specifically said he couldn't as part of his agreement, reveal the source in public.

TwoPops

 

[aps]

He said he heard it from 3 current or FORMER WH staffers. Libby and Card the two named are current, that leaves a former. Rove is current. It's a logical assumption therefore is that it is not Rove.

I am not saying that Rove is the one who talked to Woodward. The poster stated that Woodward stated that it was not Rove, which is inaccurate, as Woodward never specifically mentioned Rove. Rather, the only one he specifically mentioned having spoken to was Libby. Sure you can deduce that it’s not Rove, but Woodward did not say that it was not Rove. Thus, what I stated above is true and accurate.

Also, here is the first paragraph of Woodward's statement:

"On Monday, November 14, I testified under oath in a sworn deposition to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for more than two hours about small portions of interviews I conducted with three current or former Bush administration officials that relate to the investigation of the public disclosure of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame."

The key word being "OR." You are inferring that it means that he spoke to both current AND former. There is a difference. For example, if you wrote a check to "aps or aps's husband," my husband OR I would be able to cash it. If, however, you wrote the check to "aps and aps's husband," both of us would have sign the check in order for it to be cashed.

Woodward is an expert on journalism--he used "or" so as not to limit who he could have spoken to and potentially reveal his source.

See Woodward's full statement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601017_2.html

Why wasn't Fitzgerald interviewing him.

Ummm, because Woodward and his source failed to put Fitzgerald on notice that Woodward had any knowledge about this issue. Why would Fitzgerald interview someone who seemingly was not involved?

It is quite normal that people don't remember things correctly.

That is true, but based upon these two individuals, I find it odd. Pincus has explained that he would have remembered this information had Woodward told him. It’s one thing if Pincus said he did not remember, but what he stated was that it would be doubtful that he would not remember such important information. Woodward has been a reporter for decades and his credibility is pretty solid. That is what I find odd, Stinger.

What is interesting is the growing mound of evidence that it was well known, Woodard described it as well known gossip, that Plame worked at the CIA and that it was known not just in government circles but also by the press. Russert was bureau chief for NBC News, it was his job to know what the reporters know. Yet he says he didn't know this.

And what is your point, Stinger? Libby was not indicted based upon a violation of the statute of outing a CIA agent. Rather, he was indicted because it was perceived that he lied under oath and obstructed the investigation. Even if there is never an indictment based upon the statute, it does not take away from the fact that it appears that Libby lied and obstructed justice.

The issue that one lies about need not be a crime. For example, Clinton having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not a crime; however, under oath he stated he did not have such relations. Thus, he perjured himself.

Sure you can state that Russert may be mis-remembering, but I personally don’t believe that is the case. First, those who know Russert have attested to his credibility. Russert isn’t saying that he doesn’t remember telling Libby—he’s saying that he knows he did not tell Libby. There is a difference between saying you do not remember something and stating that you know you did not reveal certain information. Second, Libby has been described by those who know him to be meticulous with details and facts. But weighing the credibility of Russert and Libby will be up to the jury.

 

[cnredd]

Ummm, because Woodward and his source failed to put Fitzgerald on notice that Woodward had any knowledge about this issue. Why would Fitzgerald interview someone who seemingly was not involved.

If you were Woodward, and you saw a long line of journalists testifying before a grand jury and a couple threatened with jailtime, with one of them actually going....would you open your mouth?

 

[aps]

If you were Woodward, and you saw a long line of journalists testifying before a grand jury and a couple threatened with jailtime, with one of them actually going....would you open your mouth?

Hmmmm, I don't know because I do not know what it was that Woodward was concerned about should he come forward. However, I think I would come forward. I have a terrible conscience and would feel compelled to state that I knew something about this case.

What bothers me more, cnredd, is that he went on national TV and specifically addressed this case, chastising Fitzgerald and dismissing the repercussions on the outing of Plame's name. It would be one thing if he made no comment about this case, but his attacking the investigation while having evidence of such investigation was dishonest. I am terribly disappointed in him, and it's not because I think that his deposition helps Libby, because I don't believe it does.

 

[cnredd]

Hmmmm, I don't know because I do not know what it was that Woodward was concerned about should he come forward. However, I think I would come forward. I have a terrible conscience and would feel compelled to state that I knew something about this case.

And if your notes or wrong or you remember something wrong you get indicted for trying to help...Then you'd be saying "WTF did I say anything for?!?!?"

What bothers me more, cnredd, is that he went on national TV and specifically addressed this case, chastising Fitzgerald and dismissing the repercussions on the outing of Plame's name. It would be one thing if he made no comment about this case, but his attacking the investigation while having evidence of such investigation was dishonest. I am terribly disappointed in him, and it's not because I think that his deposition helps Libby, because I don't believe it does.

I would assume he was told what he could say and what he could not...He would be free to explain his part of the story...If he felt he was treated hostily during TWO HOURS of questioning for what seems like a 5 second conversation, I bet he'd be pretty annoyed...

I have NO CLUE whether this helps/hurts/neither/both Libby's case...Everyday the wind blows differently...:shrug:

 

[Stinger]

As many Libby apologists like to point out, Libby wasn't charged with outting Plame....

No one was for it seems now it was public knowledge among the reporters in Washington, but as I said before Woodward says current and former, we know the names of two and they are current, that leaves a former.

 

[Stinger]

Probably Cheney or Fleischer "outed Plame. But it doesn't matter because there was no crime. This is a witchhunt and pure politics. There is an old saying and everyone had better be prepared. What goes around comes around. Payback time is a (expletive deleted.)

I know of no testimony that Cheney spoke with any reporters about it nor Fleischer, and of course the bottom line is there was no "outing" her employment was not a secret.

 

[Stinger]

Where did Andy Card's name come from? He's not part of what Woodard publcly revealed of his testimony to the grand jury. Woodard specifically said he couldn't as part of his agreement, reveal the source in public.

TwoPops

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]"The Washington Post said Wednesday that Woodward had given a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald on Monday. According to the Post, Woodward's source told Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment that the source had talked to Woodward in mid-June 2003. Woodward also talked to Libby and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card at about the same time in connection with his book. But Woodward said in a statement printed in the Post that he didn't recall talking about Plame with Card or Libby.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Card, Libby and the remaining source - still unidentified - released Woodward from promises of confidentiality so he could answer Fitzgerald's questions. But the remaining source - at least as of Wednesday - refused to allow Woodward or the Post to identify him or her publicly."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051117/D8DU01F00.html
[/FONT]

 

[Stinger]

I am not saying that Rove is the one who talked to Woodward. The poster stated that Woodward stated that it was not Rove, which is inaccurate, as Woodward never specifically mentioned Rove. Rather, the only one he specifically mentioned having spoken to was Libby. Sure you can deduce that it’s not Rove, but Woodward did not say that it was not Rove. Thus, what I stated above is true and accurate.

Logically it is not. Rove is still a current employee and was at the time any statement would have been made.

Also, here is the first paragraph of Woodward's statement:

Woodward is an expert on journalism--he used "or" so as not to limit who he could have spoken to and potentially reveal his source.

If they were all current officials the the qualifier and any mention of "former" would have been unnecessary.

Ummm, because Woodward and his source failed to put Fitzgerald on notice that Woodward had any knowledge about this issue. Why would Fitzgerald interview someone who seemingly was not involved?

Why would he not interview the person who was interviewing ALL the WH staff about Iraq and the process of going to war? Did his name come up as a report Libby, Rove et al had spoke too. That's why I asked the question "why hadn't Libby interviewed him previously".

That is true, but based upon these two individuals, I find it odd. Pincus has explained that he would have remembered this information had Woodward told him. It’s one thing if Pincus said he did not remember, but what he stated was that it would be doubtful that he would not remember such important information. Woodward has been a reporter for decades and his credibility is pretty solid. That is what I find odd, Stinger.

I think it was odd that some believed that everyone involved would have a perfect memory of everything they said to everyone else and the exact times and dates of such statements. As we now see almost everyone has somethings confused and out of order.

And what is your point, Stinger? Libby was not indicted based upon a violation of the statute of outing a CIA agent. Rather, he was indicted because it was perceived that he lied under oath and obstructed the investigation.

And the KEY finding Fitzgerald used was that Libby was the FIRST person to discuss Plame with a reporter and it was with Miller or Cooper. This just blew that out of the water and as Joe DeGenova, former federal prosecutor, said last night Fitzgerald is required by law to retract that indictment if there is reasonable doubt that it's basis is now flawed.

For example, Clinton having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not a crime; however, under oath he stated he did not have such relations. Thus, he perjured himself.

Yes and because the lie's were a concerted effort to obstruct justice and involved the submittence of a false affidavit. This case comes no where near the perjury and obstruction of justice Clinton engaged in.

Sure you can state that Russert may be mis-remembering, but I personally don’t believe that is the case.

How self-serving.

First, those who know Russert have attested to his credibility.

Is it credible that ALL the reporters in the NBC News Washington Bureau would know the Plame was Wilson's husband and she worked at the CIA except the Chief? Especially when this was the hottest story in town?

But weighing the credibility of Russert and Libby will be up to the jury.

If it even gets that far now.

 

[aps]

Logically it is not. Rove is still a current employee and was at the time any statement would have been made.

Also, here is the first paragraph of Woodward's statement:

If they were all current officials the the qualifier and any mention of "former" would have been unnecessary.

By saying that the person could be current or former, he increases the # of people with whom he could have spoken, which then makes it more difficult to deduce who the person is. That is solely my interpretation.

Why would he not interview the person who was interviewing ALL the WH staff about Iraq and the process of going to war? Did his name come up as a report Libby, Rove et al had spoke too. That's why I asked the question "why hadn't Libby interviewed him previously".

Huh? Woodward’s book was about the path to war. What does outing a CIA agent have to do with it? Fitzgerald has been pretty detailed throughout this investigation. I am sure if he had an suspicions that Woodward had information on this issue, he would have sought out Woodward. Woodward deliberately did not reveal that he had any knowledge of the subject. He and his sources were the only ones that knew.

I think it was odd that some believed that everyone involved would have a perfect memory of everything they said to everyone else and the exact times and dates of such statements. As we now see almost everyone has somethings confused and out of order.

Okay, we agree. It’s about time. (Although we already agree that Hillary should not be president.)

And the KEY finding Fitzgerald used was that Libby was the FIRST person to discuss Plame with a reporter and it was with Miller or Cooper. This just blew that out of the water and as Joe DeGenova, former federal prosecutor, said last night Fitzgerald is required by law to retract that indictment if there is reasonable doubt that it's basis is now flawed.

Ahhhh, and there’s your error. Fitzgerald stated at the press conference:

“In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

At the time he made that statement, it was true. He did not know of any official talking to a reporter about Plame prior to Libby.

I have a copy of the indictment in front of me right now. Nowhere do I see where Fitzgerald states that Libby was first official to release her name. The indictment is not predicated on that fact.

Yes and because the lie's were a concerted effort to obstruct justice and involved the submittence of a false affidavit. This case comes no where near the perjury and obstruction of justice Clinton engaged in.

That is your opinion. Sorry, but I give more probative value to a professional who specializes in these kinds of cases as to what is and is not obstructing justice.

How self-serving.

How is that self-serving? We can have different opinions on this, Stinger, can’t we? I provided a rationale as to why I believe this. It’s not like I provided a conclusion without stating the fact upon which I base that conclusion. Sheesh.

Is it credible that ALL the reporters in the NBC News Washington Bureau would know the Plame was Wilson's husband and she worked at the CIA except the Chief? Especially when this was the hottest story in town?

That’s your opinion.

If it even gets that far now.

True. The only reason it would not go to trial is if Libby made a deal. I do not see any reason why Fitzgerald would dismiss the indictment.

 

[scottyz]

If you were Woodward, and you saw a long line of journalists testifying before a grand jury and a couple threatened with jailtime, with one of them actually going....would you open your mouth?

He says he was busy finishing his book.... :lol: His odd sense of timing still wouldn't protect him from jail time.

 

[akyron]

This is an interesting situation here. What the heck was Bob Woodward doing all this time during the investigation?

He stated he was hunkering down. I guess he was trying to keep under the radar for a reason.