Lawyers involved in Plame negotiations identified Stephen Hadley as the insider who leaked Plame’s identity for the first time, at least so far as we know.
A spokeswoman for the National Security Council (NSC) denied that Hadley was the journalist’s source. However, in South Korea on Friday during an official visit with President George W Bush, Hadley dodged the question.
“I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources,” Hadley said with a smile. Asked if this was a yes or no he replied: “It is what it is.” [aren’t we a coy little cherub – ed.]
A White House official said the national security adviser’s ambiguity was unintentional and repeated that Hadley was not Woodward’s source. But others close to the investigation insisted that he was.
If so, according to Woodward’s timeline, he will have disclosed the information in mid-June 2003, roughly a week before Libby talked to other reporters on June 23. Supporters of Cheney’s disgraced aide are jubilant that this casts doubt on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby was the first to spread the word about Plame.
It looks as though Fitzgerald’s brand new Grand Jury will have more than just reading homework to keep themselves busy.
In other news, People Magazine named Fitzgerald one of the sexiest men alive. It’s a shame they don’t have Congressional nomination hearings for that.
carot
I wonder if Hadley is going to take the fall again. He was the designated fall guy for the SOTU speech.
ppGaz
Is this the part where Stormy and Darrell and the other Bushmonkeys come in and apologize for swearing that this investigation is over?
Paddy O'Shea
I posted the Raw Story version of this story here two days ago.
Here’s the London Times version of this story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2089-1880016,00.html
As I said before, it is heart-warming to think that Woodward might have very well brought down his 2nd corrupt GOP regime. Whether he wanted to or not.
anonymous
Ya, but you really have to be a democrat to get a federal job and Woodward has worked for the CIA Union for how long now?
He should have another best seller.
Davebo
We need a special prosecuter to determine why Fitzgerald hates America.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Can someone explain to me very slowly why Hadley’s leak would weaken a perjury charge? The Administration is now grasping at straws.
Sine.Qua.Non
Fitzgerald for the Supreme Court!
Pb
Andrew J. Lazarus,
That’s giving them far too much credit–when haven’t they been grasping at straws (and tilting at windmills)?
ppGaz
That’s optimistic. They seem so spun that they will tilt at straws and grasp at windmills. Friday Nov 18 2005 really was the end of their charade. That sorry spectacle puts the end to their masquerade as strong leaders supporting the troops. The stunt insulted the troops and disgusted every sentient citizen.
Fledermaus
No no, Tim,
As long as he didn’t put secret documents in his pants he is still OK as Chief of National Security.
You see, it’s the whole pants thing that is important.
Slide
I don’t get this part:
Did I miss something? Was Libby charged with being the first to spread the word? Funny, because I thought he was charged with being a lying sack of shit, metohphorically speaking of course. Also it should be noted that Fitzgerald said libby was the first KNOWN person to talk to a reporter. Amazing little word KNOWN.
Does this supposed to show that Fitzgerald is incompetent by not finding this out? Now, I may be wrong, but I believe Hadley testified before the Grand Jury. I assume they asked him if he talked to any journalists. He must have LIED, right? (or the bad memory defense again of course). So Hadley lied, Woodword kept his mouth shut (except on Larry King, Hardball, Reliable Sources, your local 7-11 denouncing the investigation). How would Fitzgerald know about this conversation that took place between two people? Friends Psychic Netowrk?
This SPIN that somethow this vindicates or helps Libby is ridiculous and the MSM should be ashamed of themselves for being stenographers for Libby’s lawyers. The more interesting story is what trouble is this now for ANOTHER one of Cheney’s boys, Hadley?
I’ll just sit back and watch, this is way too much fun.
Vizsla
“Supporters of Cheney’s disgraced aide are jubilant that this casts doubt on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby was the first to spread the word about Plame”
Er….that’s not what the indictment specififed. The indictment’s language stated that Libby was the “first known” person to out Plame, not necessarily *the first*
Everyone needs to get that part right. Fitzpatrick remains on the money here. That’s why he’s charged obstruction of justice. The antics of those involved have made it difficult to see clearly who’s responsible for what.
searp
This is bad for the administration for obvious reasons, but in my opinion there is worse to come.
Abramoff will be worse, in my opinion, because that scandal will expose the depth of the corruption in the machine. I’m not letting the Democrats off on corruption, but it is a fact that DeLay built the rough equivalent of Tammany Hall on K Street, and that this machine has been an instrument of Republican power. That is, it is a political machine masquerading as a plethora of charities and lobbying efforts.
That, in and of itself, is truly awful, but the amount of contempt shown for the very contributors to the machine (indian tribes, christian fundamentalists) makes it even worse.
Pass the popcorn.
James C.
This story out of the London press appears to be totally off base. Newsweek magazine, which is a part of the same corporate entity as the Washington Post, believes that the source for Woodward and Novak was Richard Armitage, former top aide to Secretary Powell.
James C.
Here’s a Link to the Newsweek story referred to above: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10117465/site/newsweek/
Paddy O'Shea
According to Reuters (via Daily Kos) Don “Let Them Eat Armor” Rumsfeld himself could be the target of Fitz’s new Grand Jury.
The list of potentially treasonous blabbermouths in this administration is seemingly endless. But one thing is for sure, if you had to guess who didn’t know what was going on, Bush would have to be your odds on favorite.
But maybe I shouldn’t say that. You know how his supporters like to say his ignorance and inability to come to grips with accurate information makes him innocent …
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/19/701/31559
Sojourner
Why are these people (with the exception of Libby) still allowed access to national secrets? I have a DOD security clearance and I would have been fired and had my security clearance yanked even if I unintentionally spilled the beans. And my access to secure information is trivial compared to these dudes.
ats
Hmm, Hadley is busy this weekend telling the treasonous boys at AIPAC how wonderful they are. He is also telling them how the US leaving Iraq will “embolden Israel’s enemies.”
Perle and Gerecht are talking to Wolf this AM.
But I’m sure this is all my imagination.
chefrad
Hey, Rummy was being called sexy just two years ago. And Rummy went to friggin’ PRINCETON!
James C.
Tossing around the label, “treasonous,” in the context of the Plamegate affair, is really silly beyond words. Fitzgerald’s actions and his press conference at which he announced the Libby indictments make it very clear that NO illegal and criminal disclosures were made by Libby, or for that matter, by anyone else. In fact, the amicus briefs filed by the NYT, the WaPo and virtually all other significant media in this country make the case that there was no crime in disclosing Plame’s name since she was not in an employment status within the CIA that made such disclosures a crime. The only treasonous acts being committed are by those individuals whose actions are directly encouraging, and thereby providing support to al Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq who are killing innocent Iraqis and our soldiers.
Stormy70
What are you going on about?! A sprinkle of anti-semitism to start a Sunday morn? Pathetic.
Plame has degenerated into farce at this point. Fitzy has egg all over his face, tossed there by Woodward. Now you think Rummy is involved? Cue black helicopters.
whatsleft
This is why Stormy makes the perfect Bush supporter. Denial coupled with convenient loss of memory for previous statements when faced with unpleasant news.
James C.
It is interesting to observe that, with some notable exceptions, if one scratches a really rabid anti-war nutjob, one is often likely to upset an anti-semite.
Paddy O'Shea
Ahhh, the Treason Apology Squad is finally up. Sleeping off another night of making love to a glue bottle, eh Jimmy C? How nice. I’m sure Team Torture appreciates your blind obedience and endless ability to swallow horseshit.
You know what is kind of funny? The more the right wails about its victimhood over such issues as Plame and Iraq (or the $1.03 TRILLION dollars the jackass in the White House has borrowed so far), the lower Bush’s numbers get. The latest? Harris/WSJ poll has Bush’s approval number at a horrendous 34%. Or only 5 percenatge points away from Nixon’s 29% nadir.
We’re only one more Bushie tantrum about Iraq away from the 20s.
Wake up and smell the bodies floating down the Potomac, ladies!
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1132217395.shtml
James C.
Good old Paddy…drunk as a skunk, but always good for a laugh. It is a bit of a shame, however, that such worthless, treasonous twits are still permitted to drink on Sundays.
Paddy O'Shea
No drinking? So you are from Al Qaeda!
I knew it!
Sojourner
Wrong. What he said was that all of the lying that was going on made it difficult to determine who committed the other crimes. At no time has Fitz said that the outing of Plame was anything other than illegal. He just doesn’t have enough evidence to pin it on someone.
Ancient Purple
Only in your small, tiny, Bush-ass-kissing world, Stormy.
Bruce Moomaw
Children, please stop throwing dog shit at each other.
James C., since the CIA’s legal division referred this case to the Justice Department after the fact precisely because they thought that a possible crime had been committed, would you mind explaining how whoever leaked Plame’s name knew at the time that they definitely weren’t committing a crime? As for Fitzpatrick’s statement supposedly “making it clear that no illegal and criminal disclosures were made by Libby, or by anyone else”: please.
Fitzgerald: “Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I’d like to put the investigation into a little context. Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security…
“Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn’t result in a charge? I’ve been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.
“If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you’d want to know why the pitcher did that. And you’d wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, ‘I’ve got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I’m just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.’
“You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter’s head. And there’s lots of shades of gray in between…
“And what you’d want to do is have as much information as you could. You’d want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you’d want to know.
“And then you’d make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, ‘Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it.’
“In this case, it’s a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
“And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
“And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now, if you’re asking me what his motives were, I can’t tell you; we haven’t charged it.
“So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make. This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.”
Throughout the rest of the press conference, Fitzgerald kept reemphasizing that, for mandatory legal reasons, he was not allowed to say — yet — whether the leak itself was a crime, or whether he had not issued any indictments in regard to it simply because he didn’t have adequate evidence yet as to whodunit, or as to whether or not they’d done it inadvertently and thus made it a non-crime. (See the Oct. 28 Washington Post for the full transcript.)
Now let us quote Byron York in National Review Online’s “The Corner”, Oct. 28: “A number of observations tonight from people who know and follow the CIA leak case: The first is that they view the indictment against Lewis Libby as very strong. One source called it ‘as clear-cut an indictment’ as one would ever see, and the consensus is that Libby is in serious trouble. If Libby lied as much as Fitzgerald accuses him of lying, the sources say, then Libby acted in an astonishingly reckless way.
“The observers also suspect that Fitzgerald has some strong but as yet unrevealed evidence to support the centerpiece of his perjury charge against Libby, that is, Libby’s testimony to the grand jury about his conversation with NBC’s Tim Russert on July 10, 2003, in which Libby swore that it was Russert who told him that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA.”
Finally, James C., what’s with the schtick about anyone who says we should pull out of the war, or that Bush rigged the intelligence to get us into it, being guilty of “treason”? Talk about loose legal charges… Calling you a wingnut would appear to be a smear against the mechanical parts industry.
scs
Yeah I think it’s too soon to determine if it’s Hadley. First of all Novak implied his source, presumably the same guy, was a former, no partisan gunslinger. Hadley is not former and supposed to be one of the biggest gunslingers of them all. But people tell me Novak has been known to lie, so who knows. I’m going to wait and see.
Pb
Dear not James C.,
Don’t feed the trolls.
James C.
Some of you morons really do need to read more widely, rather than incorrectly assume a level of truthfullness and accuracy from the fevered swamps of DU, Kos and atrios. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn’t fit the act’s definition of a “covert agent” — someone who “has within the last five years served outside the United States.” By 2003, Plame had been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president’s chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn’t a crime. The Liddy indictment was based, not on a “treasonous” act, but alleged failures of truthfullness in interviews with the prosecutor and before the Grand Jury.
Paddy O'Shea
Looks like we have a straight Kool-Aid drinker in old Jimmy C here.
Then again, how can you defend this administration except to engage in such absurd levels of denial?
Sojourner
It’s the CIA’s call, not yours. And they chose to take it to the DOJ. And the DOJ chose to move forward on it.
I love the law-abiding Repubs: we can just decide for ourselves whether something is a crime or not. What a great concept!
Paddy O'Shea
Jimmy C seems to want to just call the whole thing off and personally declare that none of his heroes in the Bush admin are in any way culpable of engaging in clearly defined acts of treason.
Meanwhile, here on Planet Earth, Mr. Fitzgerald is just about to kick off Grand Jury II.
Kick back, crack open a cold one and watch the Bushies squirm.
James C.
Sojourner says, in part: “It’s the CIA’s call, not yours. And they chose to take it to the DOJ. And the DOJ chose to move forward on it.”
Yes, they moved forward by appointing an Independent party, Mr. Fitzgerald, to “investigate.” And that’s about the only element of your comments that comes close to being accurate.
Sorry, Sojourner and Paddy, but you two useless idiots simply don’t know a fucking thing about the law, or in the case at hand, the relevant facts. Fitzgerald was very clear in his press conference, and more importantly, in his indictments, there was NO violation of the relevant statutes as regards the so-called “outing” of Ms Plame. The charges relate to allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, very serious charges; however, not in any way, shape or manner, to a crime associated with “outing” Ms. Plame. You morons really do need to study up on this before you start tossing around your nonsense picked up from reading crap…although I recognize that poses a serious challenge given your likely limited education, to say nothing of your obviously limited intellects.
Sojourner
Sorry, asshole, but there’s something you’re too dumb to understand. The fact that a prosecutor doesn’t think there’s enough proof to pin a crime on someone does not mean that no crime was committed.
Duh.
Sojourner
Distributing classified information is a crime. The only question is who did it.
James C.
Sojourner, the absolutely, totally fucked-up moron, says:
“The fact that a prosecutor doesn’t think there’s enough proof to pin a crime on someone does not mean that no crime was committed.” I guess by this reasoning process, Bill Clinton was guilty as sin of a whole raft of crimes!
Among other things, this dim bulb named Sojourner apparently doesn’t accept the proposition that one is innocent of a crime until proven guilty. I don’t believe one needs to bother with anything Sojourner says…it’s obvious that we’ve got a twelve year old sitting at the keyboard, and a not very bright 12 year old at that!
Sojourner
Uh, no. It takes a conviction to presume that someone is guilty of committing a crime.
You obviously missed the main issue: it is not a question of whether a crime was committed (it was) but whether it is possible to determine who committed the crime.
You might want to tone down the language. Calling people names only brings additional attention to the fact that you’re not a particularly strong thinker.
James C.
Sojourner says: “You might want to tone down the language…” This from a twit that tosses words like “asshole” around at the drop of a hat!
Sojourner also says: “…it is not a question of whether a crime was committed (it was) but…” Apparently Sojourner knows what the ultimate jury verdict will be, assuming that the charges against Liddy ever make it to trial. More likely, Sojourner merely fails to understand jurisprudence as practiced in this country.
I would amend Sojourner’s closing comment to state “Making idiotic comments on legal issues about which you know absolutely NOTHING only brings additional attention to the fact that you’re not a particularly strong thinker, Sojourner.” Perhaps you could discuss acne or some similar subject about which you have some greater expertise, Sojourner.
Sojourner
Oh, I see. Since OJ Simpson was not convicted then Nicole Simpson was not murdered.
Now that’s truly a unique twist on jurisprudence. And will, no doubt, come as a hell of a surprise to poor, dead Nicole.
Yeh, you really do need to tone down the language if you’re going to make these kinds of arguments.
James C.
I recognize that I am likely dealing with a mental defective here, but let’s try to get through one more time. To wit, there is not a scintilla of fact that supports Sojourner’s claim that a crime was committed in the disclosure about Ms. Plame. Every major media organization in the country, and virtually all of them are extremely liberal, supported that conclusion in the amicus curiae brief filed in connection with the case. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did not assert such a claim in his indictments of Liddy; those were solely related to perjury and obstruction allegations. Sojourner, you really do need to stop writing about things about which you don’t know diddly squat.
Sojourner
At no time did I ever claim that Libby committed the crime in question. You would be better served by reading more closely what I said than spewing a chain of insults that do nothing but demonstrate that you’re not a strong debater.
Plame’s identity was classified. Someone released that information to journalists who did not possess the requisite security clearances. This is a crime. I learned that when I received my security clearance. The fact that no one has been legally accused of the crime does not in any way mean that a crime was not committed.
For some reason, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that someone must be convicted of said crime in order to conclude that a crime has been committed. Clearly, this is an erroneous conclusion.
You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that the person who throws out the most insults wins the debate. The reality is otherwise. It reinforces the perception that you’re not a strong thinker.
I’m sorry you seem to be struggling with these concepts. I’m not inclined to pursue it further with you. You are not worth my time.
Tulkinghorn
This is simply a dishonest argument. No Scintilla? I spot you three iotas and and a dust mote.
Troll.
What the fuck is that supposed to signify? Media corporations represent their own interests. They hardly want to stress the underlying illegal acts when they argue that they should benefit from some sort of privilege/immunity for publishing illegally released information.
Then again, I suppose you know some corporations that volunteer to take on liability and responsibility for their actions. Such would be, of course, a violation of their fiduciary duties to their stockholders!
This goes beyond talking points — you are confabulating absolute dishonest garbage. Troll.
Paddy O'Shea
Again, Little Jimmy, the investigation is hardly over. We have a brand new Grand Jury being seated and this whole sordid tale of treasonous activity within the Bush White House will be played out before the American people once again. Just because Libby lied to the previous Grand Jury and got socked with a perjury rap is hardly proof that nothing insidious happened in the Plame debacle. If anything it has only prolonged the process. Your defense here is almost as laughable as your rank sputtering.
And look at it this way, we now have a true media superstar in Bob Woodward to entertain us. The word is he’s got a whole new raft of names to share as well. It is not just about acting president Dick Cheney’s side of the administration anymore, either. We’ll now have a whole bunch more of Bush’s office boys coming in to chat with Mr. Fitzgerald as well!
Ask yourself this, Little Jimmy: If nobody within the Bush White House did engage in the kinds of treason outing a covert CIA agent represents, why did poor Scooter set his poor self up for a potential 30 years in a Federal pen lying about it?
But again, the investigation has hardly begun. And you can deny it another 30 or 40 times if you like, but that won’t make your Rush Limbaugh hallucinations come true. Knowng the tenacious Mr. Fitzgerald’s hunger for the truth here, we might have another 3 or 4 Grand Juries to look forward to. You know how Federal prosecuters work, don’t you? First you clean out the liars, then you bag the crooks.
And Fitzgerald has got a big sack ready.
James C.
Well I see that the usual assortment if ill informed nitwits have been busily writing loads of nonsense about a subject that they are clearly not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to address. I, of course, am referring to posts by Sojourner, Tulkinghorn and the usually inebriated Paddy. To briefly recap the most relevant points: Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no, REPEAT: NO, criminal conspiracy and no, REPEAT: NO, violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose a CIA employee’s name. Full stop, end of discussion.
Paddy O'Shea
Poor Little Jimmy, pleading his little fool heart out that people stop talking about the ongoing Plame investigation before he falls bawling to the floor and pound his fists in an infantile rage.
Unfortunately for LJ, and something he so tellingly refuses to acknowledge, is a new Grand Jury is now being seated by Mr. Fitzgerald and his highly regarded investigation into potentially treasonous disclosures by members of the Bush administration continues unabated.
Somebody please pull Limbaugh’s colostomy bag off Little Jimmy’s head so that he can better appreciate what most of the world regards as reality.