Plame: Front-page fronts

The Times and Post are publicizing Rove's version of events. But is his story true?

A little while ago, TAP Online posted a story of mine about what is going on with the Plame grand jury. It is an antidote, hopefully, to the accounts in the New York Times and Washington Post, which have done little more recently than tell Rove's side of the story.

Here is the lede to my story:

A federal criminal investigation of the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's name has in large part focused on the truthfulness of statements made to investigators by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, and whether he worked with others to devise a cover story to conceal his role, according to government officials familiar with the probe.

Columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed Plame's identity in a July 14, 2001 newspaper column, has also been co-operating with investigators for some time, according to the same sources, as I first reported in my blog earlier in the week. But federal investigators have been highly skeptical of Novak's account-- as they have been of Rove's-- and were concerned that the key participants might have devised a cover story in the days shortly after it became known that a criminal investigation has been commenced of the leak.

Novak and Rove have claimed that they discussed Plame during a July 8, 2003 telephone conversation, only days before Novak's column appeared revealing Plame's status. According to Novak's account, it was he, rather than Rove, who first broached the issue of Plame, and that Rove at best simply said he too had heard the same information.

To read the story in its entirety, click here.

Major Plame Exclusive: House Democrats to introduce Resolution of Inquiry on Rove tomorrow morning....

House Democrats tomorrow morning will introduce a formal resolution of inquiry demanding that the Bush administration turn over information and documents relating to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair, according to congressional sources.

Among the members who will be calling for the inquiry are such prominent Democratic Represenatives as Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee; Tom Lantos, of California; Leonard Boswell, of Iowa; Anna G. Eshoo, of California; Chris Van Hollen, of Maryland; and Silvestre Reyes, of Texas.

The resolution effort was spareheaded by Rep. Rush Holt, of New Jersey, who is a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Most importantly, according to one key congressional source, the effort "has the blessing of the Democratic leadership." House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has signed on to support the effort, sources said.

The resolution of inquiry will seek documents related to the Plame matter from the State, Defense, and Justice Departments, as well as other executive branch agencies. A spokesman for the White House did not return a telephone call tonight seeking comment.

Here are excerpts from a background paper, explaining "resolutions of inquiries", circulating to congressional staff tonight:

A resolution of inquiry "is a simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnished House of Representatives with specific factual information in the possession of the executive branch.

Under House Rule XIII, clause 7, a Member may address a resolution of inquiry "to the head of an executive department."

Resolutions of inquiry have been traditionally directed to the President or to a particular cabinet officer. Under a rule change made by the Republicans at the beginning of this Congress, the Speaker of the House decides as to which committees it will be referred, at which time the Chairman of each Committee on his/her own (or in consultation with the Ranking member) must decide how each Committee will act within the required 14 legislative days.

A resolution of inquiry is usually referred to the committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter, but on a number of occasions two or more committees have been involved in responding to a resolution of inquiry.

After the resolution of inquiry has been introduced and referred to a particular committee, the committee sends the resolution to the Administration for action, requesting a timely response to allow the committee to act within the deadline for a committee report.

The committee then has a variety of options once a resolution of inquiry is referred to it. The committee may hold an up-or-down vote on the resolution, or amend it. It can report favorably or adversely, but an "adverse report" is often times also accompanied by a substantial amount of information prepared by the executive branch.

The quality and quantity of this information can bring the Administration into compliance with the resolution, making further congressional action unnecessary. Usually, a committee issues a report on a resolution of inquiry. If it doesn't, the resolution can then be discharged.

Unlike a normal bill or resolution, the referred committee or committees must report to the House on the resolution, either favorably or adversely, within 14 legislative days of introduction, exclusive of the day of introduction and the day of discharge. If the referred committee does not report the resolution back to the House within 14 legislative days, a Member of the House may raise a motion to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution at which point the resolution goes to the House Floor for a vote.

Some additional analysis: One of the things to watch for as the vote proceeds is whether any Republicans break ranks with their party and vote in favor of the resolution. As Dan Froomkin observed earlier today regarding the tepid support for Rove amongst congerssional Republicans: "An awful lot of senior members of Bush's party are sitting this out for now."

One of the reasons that Republican National Committtee Ken Mehlman has been making the rounds of the cable circuit to defend Rove is because so few Republican members of Congress have volunteered to do so.

Exclusive: Novak co-operated with prosecutors (Murray Waas)

THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, Washington D.C.-- Columnist Robert Novak provided detailed accounts to federal prosecutors of his conversations with Bush administration officials who were sources for his controversial July 11, 2003 column identifying Valerie Plame as a clandestine CIA officer, according to attorneys familiar with the matter.

Novak's attorney, James Hamilton, declined to comment earlier this morning. An assistant for Novak told me: "Mr. Novak, per his lawyer's instruction, does not comment on any aspect of that case." Kim Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the leak of Plame's name said: "We do not confirm or deny any anything regarding an ongoing investigation."

Novak had claimed to the investigators that the Bush administration officials with whom he spoke did not identify Plame as a covert operative, and that use of the word "operative" was his formulation and not theirs, according to those familiar with Novak's accounts to the investigators.

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and at least two other Bush administration officials have told federal investigators that they had spoken to reporters about Plame, but that they did not know at the time that she was a covert operative with the CIA, the same sources told me.

And, as has now been widely reported, an email turned over last week by Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper to investigators shows that Cooper spoke to Rove just prior to Novak's column. The notes indicate that Rove told him that Plame worked for the CIA, and that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, obtained an assignment from the CIA, on her recommendation, to go to the African nation of Niger to investigate allegations that the then-Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was attempting to covertly purchase uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

When Wilson made known that the Niger allegations were untrue, but were still cited by President Bush to make the case to go to war with Iraq, Rove and other administration officials mounted a campaign to discredit Wilson by claiming that he obtained the assignment only because of his wife.

Robert D. Luskin, an attorney for Rove, has previously told me and others that Rove had never told Cooper, Novak, or others that Plame was a clandestine operative for the CIA. He also has said that the special prosecutor investigating the Plame matter, Patrick Fitzgerald, has repeatedly assured him that Rove is not a target of the federal criminal probe, although a spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to verify that claim.

Reached last night at home, Luskin said he would neither confirm or deny that his client, Rove, ever spoke to Novak about Plame: "That particular question is not something I want to address at this point," he said.

Federal investigators have been skeptical of Novak's assertions that he referred to Plame as a CIA "operative" due to his own error, instead of having been explicitly told that was the case by his sources, according to attorneys familiar with the criminal probe.

That skepticism has been one of several reasons that the special prosecutor has pressed so hard for the testimony of Time magazine's Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

In the email that Cooper turned over to federal investigators, Rove was quoted as saying that Plame worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, but it was not dispositive as to whether she was a covert officer or an analyst. That is why the testimony of Cooper and the information already provided by Novak has been central to the criminal investigation. For a violation of law to be prosecutable, the information provided to Novak and other journalists must have been provided with the express intent of exposing a clandestine officer.

Cooper is scheduled to soon testify before the federal grand jury investigating the matter, perhaps even as early as tomorrow morning, sources said.

Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity. Investigators have been concerned that Novak and his sources might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover story to disguise the nature of their conversations. That concern was a reason-- although only one of many-- that led prosecutors to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, sources said.

Lending credence to those suspicions was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact.

Whatever the outcome of the criminal case, the political fallout to the Bush administration continues. On Sept. 16, 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, characterized as "totally ridiculous" allegations that Rove had discussed Plame with reporters. On Sept. 29 of the same year, McClellan said: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

In the last few days, many Democrats were calling on the President to make good on his word. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who only last year was his party's nominee for President, said that Rove "has to go." The White House has declined to comment for the second day in a row regarding Rove's conversations with reporters, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

Note to my several readers: I recently moved to a new home, and the Comcast guy can only get out on Wednesday to give me Internet access again. So I have blogged this post from the public library! Also special thanks to Sonya Bernhardt, the publisher of the Georgetowner newspaper, for later lending me not only her laptop-- but office as well-- to complete this posting. Note to my several friends: I might be borrowing your laptops for a few minutes between now and then. Unlike major media corporations with their tremendous resources and budgets, I have no laptop of my own. Indeed, unlike most bloggers with their tremendous resources, I have no laptop of my own. Indeed, unlike, well-- most 18 and 19 year old college students today, I don't have a laptop! (All that I actually have are my old school reporting skills and the public library!... and maybe a few good sources here and there. Apparently, those count for something.)

Because I cannot report that much about this during the next couple of days, I recommend that my many readers turn to Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing blog at the Washington Post. His analysis yesterday on recent developments is the most thorough on the Internet.

First update: I do agree with many readers that it is quite lame that I have no laptop, and I pledge to get one very soon (when my readers start paying me, that is.) I will update this post in more substantive ways when I have Internet access again!

Preview for tomorrow: Plame prosecutor still to demand that Matthew Cooper testify to the grand jury or go to jail

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper should still be required to testify before a federal grand jury, or ordered to go to jail anyway, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said in court papers filed today.

Here is what Fitzgerald had to say: "After reviewing the documents provided by Time Inc., Cooper's testimony remains necessary" for the completion of the prosecutor's work. Fitzgerald also asked the judge to turn down requests by Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to serve out their time at home: "Forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion," the prosecutor said. (Miller had offered to forego her cell phone and Internet access in pleadings earlier filed by the NYT. Maybe she should have offered to give up her access to cable, too.)

Things do not look too good for both reporters, who are to appear tomorrow before Federal District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the District of Columbia. Hogan has already held both reporters in civil contempt, but suspended their sentences while they have unsuccessfully appealed their the contempt findings. The reporters now face up to 120 days in prison.

In seeking stiff sentences for the two reporters, Fitzgerald cited an editorial in the Los Angeles Times questioning the reporters' "absolutist" positions, as well as other journalists who have advocated that Cooper and Miller disclose their sources.

(A few editorial comments: First, one is taught and told that prosecutors and judges are supposed to act according to the law, instead of public opinion. That is what is known as the "rule of law". It is also more than a little disconcerting to learn that the Los Angeles Times is taking such a position. As with Time's capitulation in turning over Cooper's notes, and Cooper complying with that decision, the LA Times editorial illustrates once again that the most serious threat to freedom of the press is the contemporary press.)

In other Plame news: The blogosphere is extraordinarily civilized! In a lengthy post yesterday, I detailed exculpatory evidence to Karl Rove as to why breathless reports by MSNBC analyst Lawrence O'Donnell and Newsweek's Michael Isikoff were irresponsible reporting. I expected to wake up this morning to be excoriated by some bloggers on the left, who ordinarily like this blog, because I was telling them some news they wouldn't want to hear. Instead, those who disagreed, either did so respectfully, or had solid analysis of their own and added new information to what we already know.

This particular post on leftcoaster.com contains a very good analysis of the current situation. DailyKos also had some interesting stuff as well. Michael Miller, at Public Domain Progress, writes: "Whatever happened in the Plame outing is forever fixed, immutable history; it cannot be unhappened. That-- what happened-- is what we need to know. Who, what, when, how, and why."

Meanwhile, David Corn, at his blog at the Nation, has this analysis as well as to why Novak's source most likely was not Rove.

(This post has been updated since originally posted today, and will again as events continue to unfold tonight.)

Plame: Was it Karl Rove? Newsweek Story Full of Holes

If one were to watch the McLaughlin Group, surf their favorite blogs, check the Drudge Report, or read Newsweek's Mike Isikoff this weekend, they might have reasonably come to believe that the notes turned over by Time magazine to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald all but sew up the case that Karl Rove was the person who leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the columnist Robert Novak. Not so fast.

For consumers of political news, there should be two cardinal rules: First, take with a grain of salt anything you might hear on the McLaughlin Group. Second, don't ever implicitly trust anything that Mike Isikoff writes.

Here are the facts that are known at this time: Karl Rove did indeed talk to Time reporter Matthew Cooper just three or four days prior to Cooper writing about CIA officer Valerie Plame. I spoke earlier this morning to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, who confirmed that this was the case, as he has told other journalists as well. And the notes that Time turned over to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald do include details of the conversation that Rove and Cooper had.

But it is quite a stretch from those scant known facts to imply or infer, as Isikoff did in his Newsweek post, that Karl Rove is the person that leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA officer to columnist Robert Novak, Time's Cooper, or others. For one thing, it is unclear what exactly is in Cooper's notes regarding his conversations with Rove and others. (And if Isikoff knew such specifics, he would have reported them, as would have I or any other journalist covering this story.) Secondly, Rove was hardly the only Bush administration official with whom Cooper spoke to before he wrote about Plame.

What then is Isikoff's other purported evidence that it was Rove who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, or that Rove is being targeted by federal prosecutors?

Isikoff writes: "[O]ne of... two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing `concern' in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove." That is fairly flimsy evidence: Isikoff has none of the federal investigators talking to him, and not even someone in the White House talking to him. Rather, he has a single source-- an attorney for one of those who has provided information to prosecutors-- repeating speculation from some unknown person in the White House as to what the prosecutors might or might be doing. Even as speculation, it is third hand.

I carry no brief for Karl Rove. But I do not like shoddy journalism. And this was an example of exactly that.

Isikoff's story did not have several qualifications that responsible and fair journalism should require. His story also omitted information clearly exculpatory to Rove.

Rove's attorney, Luskin, for example, told me earlier this morning that he has been assured by special prosecutor Fitzgerald that Rove has not been a target of his grand jury investigation: "We have been assured consistently that Karl is not a target of the inquiry." Luskin said that the last such assurance from Fitzgerald's office was "within the last several days."

Luskin also told me that he informed Isikoff of much the same thing, but that Isikoff did not see fit to report his comments in his story. Absent evidence to the contrary, Newsweek had an obligation to give Luskin and Rove their say.

In his Newsweek posting, Isikoff also darkly insinuated that Rove must have done something wrong because Luskin has declined to provide more than scant details regarding his client's appearance before the federal grand jury. But, as other journalists who have regularly covered this story can tell you, Fitzgerald has asked witnesses to his inquiry-- and their attorneys-- not to publicly disclose what they have told the FBI, or what they testified to before the federal grand jury. That is because Fitzgerald, like many prosecutors, doesn't want one witness to know what another has said to his investigators so they can devise a cover story. That is how coverups succeed, and crimes go unpunished.

Luskin, himself a former federal prosecutor, told me: "They [the prosecutors] have wanted their witnesses in a pigeon-hole. They have asked us to say as little as possible so we would not impede them."

There has been a sharp contrast between the way Newsweek on the one hand, and this blog, the wires, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times have covered these latest revelations. Newsweek's story is an instance of sloppy reporting. Bill Kovach, the former Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, editor of the Atlanta Constitution Journal, and founding director of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, famously said after Isikoff's erroneous story that a Pentagon report concluded that a Koran had been flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo: "Here is a reporter who can shake stuff out of deaf and dumb people... As the course of events in [the Koran story] has shown, you can't play fast and loose." It is more than a little disconcerting that this irresponsible story follows so closely on the heels of his Koran flushing story.

Once again, for the record, I carry no brief for Karl Rove. To the contrary, I have pursued the Plame story, breaking significant new ground, including this report in the American Prospect. I have probably spent more time on the story than any other reporter in Washington, and think the press has not been aggressively pursuing the story the way it should. For those who think I have some soft spot for Rove, I personally angered him, I was told on good authority, when I wrote this story, in which I disclosed:

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative Robert Novak last July. Rather, Novak insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column...

Rove and other White Hosue officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through leaking and disseminating derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups....

I also carry no brief against Mike Isikoff. In terms of full disclosure (or perhaps too much disclosure): During our reporting on Whitewater and the impeachment crisis, he did privately comment to some mutual acquaintances that I was carrying water for the Clinton White House because my reporting was too critical of Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. Isikoff later apologized, and we have socialized on rare occasions.

Still, in the case of Isikoff's coverage of Whitewater, as well as his reporting of this story, I believe fair play took a back seat to causing a sensation. Perhaps Isikoff will tell folks I am an apologist for Karl Rove and the Bush White House!

My brief here is for quality journalism. The reason: One day, the nation may very well face a constitutional crisis of the magnitude of Watergate. In that case, the "system worked" because so many ordinary folks rose way above their institutional and political biases for the greater national imperative. In instance after instance, FBI agents, Hill investigators, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, and the press simply did their jobs responsibly, ethically, and sometimes bravely.

But who today, like W. Mark Felt, would tell what they knew to Time magazine or others in the press, knowing that Time's editors would not keep secret the identity of their sources? Would MSNBC and Fox and the other cable so-called "news" networks be devoting all of their resources and air time to finding Natalee Holloway, the missing teen in Aruba, that they wouldn't even notice there was a consitutional crisis going on? And who would believe reporters who in the past produced so much reckless reporting, whether it be about Korans be flushed down the toilet, or Whitewater?

It is brave new world of the media today, and if Richard Nixon were alive today and president of the United States, the little horrors of Watergate and his lawless presidency might very well go uncovered, undetected, and even if found out by the press, undetered. Today, the press stands weakened as an institutional challenge to lawless governmental authority or lies. Sadly, it has been so weakened not so much by assualts from without but within.

Plame Game: Time Magazine capitulates

The most serious threat to freedom of the press today apparently is the press itself.

What more is there for the time being to say about the decision by Time magazine to turn over to a special prosecutor the notes of their reporter, Matthew Cooper, identifying one or more of his confidential sources? And why is there not more outrage by journalists to what Time has done?

In explaining his decision, Time magazine editor-in-chief actually cited the "rule of law" as central to his decisionmaking. (The First Amendment is apparently not amongst those other rules of law.)

On the very same day that Pearlstine agreed to provide special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald with the identity of his magazine's sources, he told Editor & Publisher that "the magazine would continue to protect confidential sources in the future."

In short, any modern day W. Mark Felt should not be afraid to speak to a reporter at Time! Just because Time magazine provided federal prosecutors with the names of its confidential sources this week doesn't mean the magazine would automatically disclose its sources in the future.

Here is what E & P reported today:

In response to critics who have said giving up a confidential source sets a worse precedent, Pearlstine said, "everyone has to make their own decision. My decision was based on what I thought was the right thing to do for Time Inc."

When asked if this action might reduce the willingness of sources to come to Time reporters in the future, Pearlstine said "there is some risk of that, but if what we have to do is break the law to keep confidential sources, that is a risk I am going to take."

He also said the magazine would continue to protect confidential sources in the future: "We may have a case come along where we have a confidential source and we will again take to the Supreme Court." However, he did not say what would happen if the Supreme Court again declined to hear the case.

So here it is for any current day W. Mark Felts: Even though Time agreed to turn over information identifying its confidential sources today, that does not mean that they will not perhaps sometime in the future protect their sources! If you wish to be a confidential source for the magazine, but are deterred because of today's actions, then that is a "risk" that Pearlstine is bravely only too "willing too take." And if a Time reporter promises you confidentiality, he or she might or might not be telling you the truth. And if you turn out that you have later have been lied to, it was all done in the name of the "rule of law."

Washington Post scoop: Nothing new in Bob Woodward's Deep Throat Book

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Plame news for tonight.... Time magazine considers capitulation

At the end of a long work day on other stories, I ventured over to the federal courthouse to watch our democracy in action, or rather, our democracy in inaction, or even much, much worse... an assault on our democracy and the First Amendment.

The occasion was a hearing before Federal District Court Judge Thomas Hogan, who appears intent on sending reporters Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York Times
in jail for criminal contempt of court for refusing to identify their sources to a special prosecutor, who is conducting a criminal investigation as to who in the Bush administration leaked undercover CIA officer's Valerie Plame's identity to the press.

I had other reporting chores during the day, so I arrived at the federal courthouse quite late. Unbeknownst to me, the hearing had just let out, and as my elevator door opened to the fourth floor of the courthouse, standing directly in front of me was a small mob of very, very well dressed, dour, serious, and glum looking people. There was exactly one of me and well, a throng of them, and my sole presence in the elevator was as much a surprise to them as theirs was to me.

They were a well behaved bunch of folks, all wearing very serious clothes, but all the same, very intimidating. Being the courthosue and all, some of them had that Elliott Ness look.

"I'm not sure who you people are," I blurted out, "but I think I am just going admit my guilt."

That lightened up the mood somewhat. Among those waiting for the elevator was one of the reporters who may go to jail (Judith Miller of the Times), two of her attorneys (Bob Bennett and Floyd Abrams), and at least a couple of the federal prosecutors who had just asked Judge Hogan to send the reporters to jail. (To put my two cents in here-- what else is a blog for after all?-- I think that prosecutors and defense attorneys perhaps should take seperate elevators, as perhaps should the various parties to a divorce.)

"So, Ms. Miller", I asked the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) Judith Miller, "I don't want to wait for the morning Times to find out what just happened in there. Can you tell me?" Always protecting corporate profits, she suggested that if she told me, I wouldn't buy the next day's paper. Whatever one thinks of Judith Miller, at least she keeps her good humor and grace during tough times.

By the time I was done exchanging pleasantries with Bob Bennett and Floyd Abrams, there were those who were wondering if this particular blogger was not himself someone secretly famous.

Everyone was trying to make the best of a sad day: two reporters facing jail time for refusing to identify their sources.

But it was ultimately what happened outside the courthouse, rather than inside, that was the most disturbing. Time magazine's attorneys had said that they were seriously considering turning over to federal investigators Matthew Cooper's notes in a last minute effort to spare him from jail.

Before the cameras outside the courthouse, according to this Associated Press account, Matthew Cooper said: "On balance, I think I'd perfer they not turn over the documents, but Time can make that decision for itself." Cooper then went on to say the decision as to whether his notes would be given up might be a "corporate" one, in which he might play no role.

It is understandable why Time might not want one of its reporters to go to jail, but it is inexcusable for the magazine and its reporter to consider turning in their source. There has been much written lately as to how the special prosecutor investigating the Plame affair, Patrick Fitzgerald, has such little regard for the First Amendment. I personally think it is an unfair rap. But one thing was for sure at the end of the day: by suggesting that they might give up Cooper's notes, Time magazine was doing more to harm the freedom of the press than anything anyone in government has done.

As to Cooper, it is difficult to believe he has no say in the decision as to whether to turn over his own notes. He appears to want it both ways: to portray himself as a First Amendment martyr, without having to pay any price, and then blame his corporate bosses for acting against his wishes. Matthew Cooper should clearly state that his notes shouldn't be turned over, and if they are-- against his wishes-- resign his job in protest.

At the federal courthouse today, one came away with the awful feeling that it was not the government that was the worst threat to freedom of the press, but once again, sadly....

Our freedom of the press is being most imperiled by the press itself. How sad. How very, very sad.

Deep Throat apparently was more of a committee than a single source, Part II

It is at the core of journalistic ethics that reporters do not reveal their confidential sources. It was for that correct and high-minded reason that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein kept the secret for more than thirty years that W. Mark Felt was Deep Throat.

In this morning's Washington Post, reporter Michael Dobbs, in writing a lengthy account of Felt's role in Watergate, appears to have written an account less concerned for the truth than protecting the brand name. The vast majority of scholars, historians, press critics, and other journalists who have studied Watergate in recent years have concluded that the historic role of the Post was much less than that portrayed in "All the President's Men" and by the Post itself over the last three decades. Dobbs' account, disappointingly, selectively omits evidence that tends to undermine in any way the mythology of the Post's role. The Post's Watergate reporting was a historical watershed for journalism; there is hardly any good reason therefore to continue to exaggerate their real historical role. The newspaper could have used recent events to set the historical record straight. I have written about this in a post directly below, and in a recent article in the Village Voice, and will have more later here and elsewhere.

But for the time being, Dobbs does write something that should make any journalist, or first-year journalism student for that matter, cringe. He reports that Woodward and Bernstein not only revealed the identity of a source, but actually told the FBI the identity of one of their sources. The person they accused was an FBI agent then working the Watergate case, Angelo J. Lano. Woodward and Bernstein, writes Dobbs, accused Lano of planting a false story with their newspaper. As it turns out, Lano did no such thing at all. The mistakes in the Post story which so upset Woodward and Bernstein were of their own making. There is no evidence that Lano did anything wrong.

By turning in Lano, the two reporters shamed themselves, their newspaper, and anyone who is a professional journalist. Perhaps they have an explanation, but in the meantime both Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein apparently have nothing to say-- even to their own newspaper.
Dobbs has no comment from either reporter in his article. (I did speak to Dobbs this morning for a while about his piece, but he declined to talk for the record, so my hands are tied from saying anything more.)

In any case, here is what Dobbs wrote this morning regarding the Lano incident:

Felt was under huge pressure to deflect White House suspicions about FBI leaks away from himself. Fortunately for Felt, the Post reporters had been talking to other sources in the bureau, including Angelo J. Lano, the Washington field office agent directly responsible for the Watergate investigation. Woodward and Bernstein were angry with Lano for allegedly providing them with bad information on the Haldeman story. They decided to get even with him by reporting him to a superior, in violation of the confidentiality understanding.

(Woodward and Bernstein provide a detailed account of this incident in "All the President's Men," without naming the agent involved. Lano's version of the incident is contained in declassified FBI files.)

In a four-page memo to Attorney General Richard D. Kleindienst, Felt came to Lano's defense. depicting him as the victim of a "vicious fabrication". He accused Woodward and Bernstein of taking Lano's comments about Haldeman "completely out of context."

It is a journalistic sin if not a journalistic felony for reporters to reveal their sources. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are yet to appropriately explain why they did so in this instance. What they did wrong should obviously be taken in the broader context of their historical reporting on Watergate. But the fact they do not feel it necessary to explain their actions does not speak for well for them-- as does the original bad deed.

Being angry with a source is not a reason to turn them in: especially an FBI agent who was working the Watergate case. As it turns out, the reporters made a serious mistake, not their purported source. (And I should note we have only the Post story this morning identifying Lano as their source-- without any attribution or sourcing to show that was the case. That Lano was indeed a source for the reporters is not a proved fact by any means.) But even if the reporters had good reason to be upset with a source, they did journalists everywhere a disservice by breaking their word to him. One would hope they would feel compelled to now explain. Their earlier actions might be explained away as the actions of youth and inexperience and the extraordinary pressure of working on such a significant and high-risk story. One wants to think well of them.

But their failure to explain themselves today is simply one of arrogance. If there was a single lesson of Watergate, it was that democracy only works when there is accountability for anyone exercising power, whether that is a President of the United States who violated his constitutional oath, or the once (it now seems like so long ago) underdog reporters who violated their own ethical rules.

Deep Throat apparently was more of a committee than a single person, Part 1

Over the last week, there has been an increasing body of evidence that W. Mark Felt, recently identified by both his own family and the Washington Post as Deep Throat, was almost certainly not acting alone in leaking sensitive Watergate information to the press, but was rather working in concert with, or the lead of, a band of several other then-senior FBI officials who sought to provide details of the FBI investigation's investigation of Watergate to the press.

The Albany Times Union last Sunday a week ago broke a major story quoting Paul Daly, a former FBI high-ranking manager, as saying that at least three other senior FBI officials worked closely with Felt in leaking Watergate information to the press as a means of keeping the Nixon's White House at bay.

Last night, I believe that I significantly advanced the story, reporting new information as a Web exclusive to the Village Voice (a newspaper for which I was a staff reporter back in the day in my wayward twenties). I think my new account clearly provides additional credence to Daly's claims. Additionally, over the next few days, both here on my blog, online at the Voice, and perhaps elsewhere, I will provide other new evidence making the case that Felt was actually acting with a group of senior FBI officials.

In short, Deep Throat was less of an individual than a committee of sorts.

For the last thirty years, Deep Throat was the public face to the man in the parking garage that Bob Woodward knew to be W. Mark Felt. Now apparently, though, even though it was Felt in the parking garage, he in turn might have been acting as the face to Woodward in concealing the role of a circle of other senior FBI officials. Felt was playing much more a complicated game than apparently Woodward knew, and one that might not be fully understood because Felt is 91 and most of the other key players in the FBI are now deceased.

In my view, the revelation that Felt was co-ordinating his activities with other senior FBI officials is as important or even more important a revelation that Felt was Deep Throat. It enlightens and informs our understanding of Watergate in ways much more significant than that the man who met Bob Woodward in a parking garage and became known as Deep Throat was Felt. (I will be further explaining why in future blog entries.)

What is also extraordinary about this episode so far is this: The Albany Times Union story has been out there a week now and virtually nobody has picked up it. In the days when only a few large newspapers, wire services, newsmagazines, and television networks decided what was news-- say when Watergate was originally in the news-- this would not seem that extraordinary. But we live in the day of blogs and the Internet and the such!

Yet other than my advance of the story in the Voice, the story has not been reported upon, commented upon, or advanced upon by a single major newspaper. All of the nation's very largest newspapers-- the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal-- have been silent. Newsweek, which devoted an entire cover story to the revelation that Felt was Deep Throat, is yet to publish a word. No pundit has taken up the case. And also silent has been the online press. Timothy Noah and Jack Shafer of Slate have obsessively and relentlessly written recently about Watergate and Deep Throat so much that even people like me haven't read half of it! But they too have yet to write their first words about this. (Update: In the original of this post, I mistakenly wrote that Mickey Kaus, who blogs for Slate, did not write or blog at all about Paul Daly's allegations. As he pointed out to me in an email, he did in fact briefly mention Daly's disclosures and link to the Albany Times Union story as well. Apologies to both Mickey and my numerous readers.)

And then there are the bloggers, the supposed and vaunted last line of defense when an important story disappears beneath the radar! All that I conclude at this moment (this comment is made somewhat tongue-in-cheek in that bloggers can sometimes be oh so too sensitive at times): Bloggers suck!

This story is meant for bloggers, but yet somehow they are missing it.

One of the reasons that this tale is tailor-made for bloggers is that perhaps the major newspapers have not been covering this is because it doesn't make them look so good.

The new narrative that emerges from this important new information is that the Washington Post's Watergate coverage was perhaps not as heroic or integral as both the Post and much of the rest of the elite press corps have portrayed it over the course of the last three decades.

Most historians of the Nixon era have long ago developed a consensus that it has been myth to believe that the Washington Post brought down a President of the United States. It has even been an even greater myth that the Post's reporting solved the Watergate mystery.

At best, the Post and other newspapers acted as a catalyst in spurring on others to act: the FBI; the federal prosecutors investigating the burglary, funding of it, and subsequent coverup; the special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski who took over the case from the U.S. Attorney; the Senate Watergate Committee; and finally the House Judiciary Committee, which drafted articles of impeachment against Nixon.

In reality, the historical record clearly has shown for some time that there was little published in the Washington Post in the initial days of Watergate that already was not known by the FBI or federal prosecutors. The Post largely relied on leaks from the FBI, or pursued leads based on tips from other governmental investigators. Much of what the newspaper reported was simply leaks as to what the FBI was telling Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. There was virtually nothing that the Post published that had not already long been known to the FBI.

That the That Deep Throat turns out to be W. Mark Felt, then the FBI's deputy director, only seems to further show that this was the case. T he new revelations that Felt was likely the leader of, or simply one of, a group of four FBI agents who decided to leak to the press only further seems to illustrate the point further.

At best, the Washington Post kept the Watergate issue alive, amplified the findings of the FBI and other official government investigators, and lead the way for the rest of the press. Some historians have even argued that without the Post's Watergate coverage the outcome might have very likely been the same. But that is uncertain, and there is no way of knowing.

What the newspaper might have actually accomplished-- and deserves our gratitude for-- was paving the way and elevating the issue to the point whereupon the Senate formed a special committee to investigate and a special prosecutor was named to take up the case from a possibly compromised Department of Justice. Historians and journalists have long considered and argued whether the Post's reporting was responsible for those key developments. Others have said that that is not so. It is, of course, unknowable whether that was the case or not.
But without the formation of a Senate investigating committee and the appointment of a Watergate special prosecutor, the outcome of Watergate could have been very different. But if the Post's coverage kept the heat on for those developments to occur, then their role was crcucial, although hardly paramount among the major institutional players.

Those were no small developments and they led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. And if a newspaper's reporting served as a catalyst, that was and remains no small accomplishment. And no-one is saying that the paper's Watergate coverage was not exemplary, and Post publisher Katharine Graham was any less a brave woman, even if they did not play that role. Thus, it is has been hard for many journalists such as myself to uderstand why the reporters or the newspaper that published their work have perpetuated a myth that they brought down a President or that their own detective work broke the Watergate case.

The new revelations that W. Mark Felt was not working alone but rather with several other FBI senior officials to release sensitive details regarding the FBI's investigation of Watergate to the press on its surface appears to undermine the Washington Post's own mythology of its Watergate role. (Once again, out of fairness, I want to underscore that the newspaper's coverage was historic, at times brave, and a watershed event for American journalism, which makes the newspaper's mythmaking to overstate it own role both so disquieting and puzzling.)

Over the course of the last several days I have been able to interview a number of FBI agents and senior officials, including Daly, who were knowledgeable about the role of Felt and other senior FBI officials in getting the Watergate story out to protect the integrity of their criminal investigation, and see to it that their prosecutions were not to be hampered and justice were not done. Some of those are talking for the record, and I will report their comments in the days to come.

In the meantime, however, one former FBI agent told me: "It was an unspoken thing... but there was almost an unspoken directive [to the agents working the Watergate case] that it was all right to talk about certain things to certain reporters... the Washington Post, Sandy Smith [then of Time magazine], and [Seymour] Hersh." For those not familiar with all things Watergate, Sandy Smith was a Time reporter, whose Watergate stories have been considered by many journalists and historians (including among them, David Halberstam) of almost as great an importance as those of Woodward and Bernstein. Seymour Hersh, then writing for the New York Times, came to covering Watergate late, but once he was on the case, was competitive and often ahead of the Post. (Disclosure: Hersh is a friend of mine on several days of a week. On the other days during-- those on which he teases me-- it is unclear.)

More than one of the FBI officials I have spoken to, as well other key participants, suggest that Felt and other FBI officials wanted the word out regarding Watergate and that that they would have found ways to do so had not Bob Woodward confessed his twenty-something angst to Felt and Felt befriended him. Felt, after all, as Paul Daly has revealed, was working closely with other senior FBI officials to get the Watergate story out. And Felt was only too familiar with so many other reporters, as this story in USA Today and this recent New Yorker "Talk of the Town" piece by Seymour Hersh both demonstrate.

In short, the historical outcome might very well have been the same without the role of role of Woodward and Bernstein and the Post and its courageous publisher Katharine Graham. The FBI officials appear to already have had a game plan and they would have simply found another outlet.

For those who will interpret these new and forthcoming revelations that Watergate was simply another story that came out solely because of leaks from senior officials, that would be too much a simplification. But the emerging evidence is that while the reporters engaged in many of the tools of the tools of traditional investigative reporting and understood the use of shoe leather, the story very likely well have emerged through other media outlets and the outcome might have been the same.

But coversely, the simplistic myth that detective work of Washington Post reporters broke the Watergate case or that the newspaper or the press brought down a President are and have been dangerous and wrongheaded myths sometimes perpetuated by those involved for their own aggrandizement or profit. No serious historian or other student of Watergate has believed that to be the case for some time.

That Deep Throat was most probably a committee rather than a single person-- or rather more specifically in that W. Mark Felt very likely co-ordinates a campaign of leaks with other senior FBI officials-- and that they had available any other number of means to get their story out only further undermines the myth of "All the President's Men." That is perhaps why you are not reading anything about this so far in the Washington Post.

Some initial thoughts about W. Mark Felt and Watergate

First, apologies to my many readers. I have not been blogging lately because I have a major investigative story coming out next week, and am about to become a twice published author very soon. (When I say that I am about to become a twice published author, I do not mean thatI have a book that is going to sell two copies, but rather that I am going to be an author of two books.)

I am going to blog a lot about W. Mark Felt and Watergate in the days ahead, but have a few comments in the meantime: For us old school journalists, who actually have spent time in the county courthouses and on the phone and on the road developing sources, the entire episode has made us feel good about journalism once again. Whatever one thinks about the current day Bob Woodward, the Washington Post's Watergate reporting was a watershed event in American journalism. Now that we know that Mark Felt was Deep Throat, I believe that history's verdict will lead to him (rightfully) receiving more credit for Nixon's downfall while the credit awarded the Post will be somewhat less. But revisionists who want to diminish the role of the newspaper entirely by this new disclosure are doing so unjustly.

But besides the revelations of Deep Throat reminding us of a better time for American journalism, there is an undercurrent still present that can not be ignored: the current state of American journalism.

It is perhaps sad to say that many of us are also simply grateful for the fact that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did not fabricate the existence of Deep Throat.

Many at the Washington Post have felt the same way, as Post Style reporter/stunt man/funny man Hank Stuever wrote: "Perhaps Deep Throat's lovely (and daring) parting gift to Washington, especially to reporters, is simple: He actually exists. He is not fabrication or composite. He is one man, a fact not easily proved had he taken his secret to the grave. That in itself, in an era where trust has been shredded beyond recognition, is something to behold."

While many in journalism were waxing nostalgic and high-fiving, many of us were also pointing out that Watergate was thirty plus years ago, and the journalism of today is very different. David Sirota perhaps was speaking for many of us when he wrote today:

"Upon the news this week that Watergate source `Deep Throat' had come forward, CNN's Judy Woodruff waxed nostalgic about the golden rule of muckracking journalism. `It is so hard, I think for young people we know who work here at CNN and other news organizations to even imagine what Watergate was like,' she said. `To have a White House come undone, an administration come undone, because of some news reporting.' Coming from a lead reporter at one of America's largest cable networks, it was truly a sad moment.

"First and foremost, it was sad because she was right-- American journalism today has lost its confrontational, hold-their-feet-to-the-fire attitude that gave it a reputation as our government's fourth check and balance. Young reporters can't imagine what kind of reporting that really is because they never experienced it.

"Certainly there was a Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but those were cheap attempts by journalists to recreate Watergate without actually doing the investigative work. They were pathetic journalists' attempt to grab the sizzle of scandal without doing the hard work that uncovers serious crimes like Watergate. Though there are certainly some very fine investigative reporters left, they have become a rare breed, usually replaced by blow-dried blowhards who spent more time sucking up to power than challenging it."

My own comments: Whitewater was not Watergate. Michael Isikoff and Susan Schmidt were not Woodward and Bernstein. Len Downie is not and will never be Ben Bradlee. Henry Hyde was not Peter Rodino. And Kenneth W. Starr was not Archibald Cox.

And finally, Bob Woodward is not Bob Woodward, at least anymore-- meaning that the Bob Woodward who broke Watergate stories is not the same reporter today than he was back then.

Back to Sirota here to drive home the point:

"[O]ne of the much-lauded reporters who broke Watergate, Bob Woodward, actually epitomizes these problems. More than any other, his career charts the decline of the national press corps to the laughingstock it is today. Here was a tough-nosed reporter who made his name doing the gritty, unglamorous work that eventually exposed one of the more egregious abuses of power in American history. But instead of using the credibility he earned from Watergate to build a career exposing corruption, he quickly dove into the Beltway culture, where that kind of thing is looked down upon. He used fame to suck up to those in power, and then wrote books like Bush at War that simply told power's story, ultimately becoming just another bloviating cutout on the pundit circuit."

The comment about Woodward being just another "bloviating cutout on the pundit circuit" in my opinion is unfair. Whatever one thinks of Woodward's reporting itself, he is still doing reporting.

As to Sirota's comment that Woodward's reporting has become one of simply telling power's story, I would add that, unfortunately, it has become not only one of simply telling power's story, but celebrating power's story.

Plame news for tonight: Time considers capitulation

The blogger/proprietor of this website, blog, parody of a blog, or whatever this is, has taken off the entire three-day Memorial Day weekend to pursue ornithological pursuits and interests...

I will have more news, ornithological and otherwise, during the week.

As any regular reader of this blog knows, I have been looking to hire a copy editor for some time now. But we are also now interviewing First Amendment attorneys as well. For details, see the post directly below this one.