Hadley Woodward's Source - per Raw Story News Flash

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.

Testifying under oath Monday to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Woodward recounted a casual conversation he had with Hadley, these sources say. Hadley did not return a call seeking comment.

Woodward said he was told that it was “no big deal” that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate the veracity of the Bush Administration’s claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. According to the attorneys, he said Hadley dismissed the trip by saying his wife, a CIA officer who worked on WMD issues, had recommended him.
snip

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. WHY would Woodward be told that it was "no big deal?" IF it REALLY

wasn't "no big deal?" Why bother if that's the case? Woodward's LYING.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Do you think Hadley meant, "It's no big deal", i.e. what Wilson is

saying (that there was no Niger uranium deal) because we "have the goods" on Wilson? In other words, don't worry, we can smear Wilson because his wife sent him?

But, those words "no big deal" are odd to tell a reporter. It implies that the listener has a vested interested in the whole Iraq war scam succeeding?

[tiptoe]

3. Seems Hadley withheld info from Fitzgerald's investigators?

Stephen Hadley is among Thinkprogress.com's list of "23 Administration Officials Involved In Plame Leak"

Presumably, everyone on that list -- which includes WHIG members -- was approached by Fitzgerald's investigators (if not the GJ) regarding the CIA leak. Presumably, all would have been asked about knowledge of communications by "senior WH officials" re leak of a CIA agent's identity.

The Oct 28 indictment shows Fitzgerald understood Libby as the "first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson." (i.e. "late-June" 2003, June 23 as per Miller notes).

Given Fitzgerald's stated knowledge as of Oct. 28, the implication is that Hadley did not disclose his possibly-earlier "mid-June 2003" contact with WP reporter Bob Woodward when he was presumably investigated. Is Hadley now susceptible to similar perjury or obstruction (re)considerations as Libby?

Additionally, there now appears at least two aides to the Vice President who may have communicated classified information to non-authorized reporters. Coincidence or coordination??

Reformatted excerpts from
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference
...
"Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby."

"But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas..."
1) from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th,
2) from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th,
3) from the vice president on or about June 12th
4) from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office...some time prior to July 8th.

"Mr. Libby discussed it..."
5) with a CIA briefer on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column...in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.
6) with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch."
"What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday." .
7) on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

"So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html">National Security Adviser was Woodward's source, attorneys say Larisa Alexandrovna and Jason Leopold, RAWSTORY.COM

...According to sources, Woodward’s meeting with Hadley occurs in mid-June of 2003, around the same time that Libby begins to meet with New York Times’ Judith Miller, who has since left the paper.

Actually, a Reporter-1/Cheney-aide1 "mid-June" meeting would seem closer to June 11,12, when Cheney-aide2 first learned about Valerie Wilson {see 1, 2, and 3 above}, than to the later-June meeting between Reporter-2/Cheney-aide2 (i.e. June 23).

"Reporter-1" would be Bob Woodward, who did not write about the Wilson CIA-wife connection ("not a big geal" he was allegedly told).
"Reporter-2" would be Judith Miller, who did not write the story about the Wilson CIA-wife connection.

"Cheney-aide1" would be Stephen Hadley, known as the "eyes and ears of Dick Cheney" and principal NSA advisor to VP Dick Cheney, as well as Deputy NSA to NSA Condoleeza Rice, until 2005
"Cheney-aide2" would be Lewis Libby, now former-Chief of Staff to VP Dick Cheney...now indicted.

My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room NYTimes, Oct 16, Judith Miller
...This account is based on what I remember of my meetings with Mr. Fitzgerald and my testimony before the grand jury. I testified for almost four hours, much of that time taken by Mr. Fitzgerald asking me to decipher and explain my notes of my interviews with Mr. Libby, which I had provided to him.

I was not permitted to take notes of what I told the grand jury, and my interview notes on Mr. Libby are sketchy in places. It is also difficult, more than two years later, to parse the meaning and context of phrases, of underlining and of parentheses. On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled.

I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him...

(Note: John Bolton visited Miller at her jail site a few weeks before she was released)

(Note: Karl Rove emailed Hadley after his contact with reporter Matt Cooper.)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Well, you are assuming that Hadley didn't disclose that he spoke

to Woodward. Maybe it is because he didn't disclose info to Woodward. Maybe Woodward is lying. Not saying I believe that - but it is possible. What I noticed about the Libby indictment is that Fitz had him nailed 4 different ways - fully corroborated. I wonder, when it is a 'he said - he said' deal - what would Fitz do? Probably nothing.

I am still waiting for him to nail Condi. That would make me the happiest.

[tiptoe]

5. Woodward did not initiate the post-indictment revelation;

an administration official came forth...doing so a week after Fitzgerald's unusually-composed federal indictment against Libby was laid out. (We're now two weeks after that official's offering, and RAWSTORY's sources have identified the official as Stephen Hadley, then principal NSA-advisor to Cheney and Deputy NSA under Condi Rice, and now, current NSA.)

If Hadley had previously disclosed that he spoke to Woodward, Fitzgerald would have had no basis to announce that Libby was the "first official known to have told a reporter about Valerie Wilson"...unless Fitzgerald was "posturing not to know" in his press conference, in a strategic scheme to "break the Libby firewall" and smoke out prospective "flippers" by using the opportunity of the public press conference less for revealing the actual indictment charges and more for referencing those charges in the context of the Espionage Act, without naming officials (not permitted), but naming their offices! (Sounds like a Rovian name-game: "Didn't name 'Valerie Wilson' merely said the 'wife of Joe Wilson'"...Touche, Counselor Fitzgerald.)

Prosecutorial posturing aside, I'm assuming Fitzgerald actually learned something new from the administration official that came forth around Nov 3, and that no evidentiary disclosure by Hadley existed prior to Nov 3 to disabuse Fitzgerald of the notion that Libby's June 23 meeting with Miller was the first contact by an a WH official with a reporter. (The revelation does not impinge on the charges against Libby.)

Woodward would still be feigning objectivity on cable and radio shows, advocating against the leak investigation, and avoiding deposition today, if his source, an administration official -- whose confidentiality release for public discussion has yet to be offered Woodward -- hadn't "spilled the beans" and purportedly initiated disclosure of their discussion about Valerie Wilson, "mid-June" (according to RAWSTORY), prior to the June 23 Libby-Miller contact. Now, true, we haven't heard from the source himself, and I suppose it's possible that Woodward may be lying about a conversation with an admin official. But if dissembling is in play, it'd make more sense (or nonsense) that both Woodward and Hadley were conspiring to deceive (for whatever reason), since the impetus for the story originates not with Woodward, but with his source, the administration official:

...After testifying, Mr. Woodward publicly said a Bush administration official told him in mid-June 2003 -- apparently before any other reporter -- that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson, a former ambassador who criticized the administration over the war in Iraq, worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction. The official came forward to the prosecutor recently to inform him of his conversation with Mr. Woodward, who was writing a book at the time. The journalist said he received a waiver of confidentiality from his source, allowing him to be deposed but not permitting him to publicly identify the person.
...
Speculation Over Woodward Source Draws Denials

Again, might Stephen Hadley be exposed to the same charges dealt to Libby, depending on what he may have previously disclosed (and/or not disclosed) to Fitzgerald's investigators? I suspect he could be. But I also suspect that Hadley may have "come forth" after a week's consultation with lawyers post Oct 28 in a deal to cooperate in a broader Espionage Act case against a few of the "higher up" unnamed persons (and others, like Condi) that Fitzgerald semi-identified in the press conf as Libby contacts, namely:

1) a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th,
2) an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th,
3) the vice president on or about June 12th
4) somebody else working in the Vice President's Office...some time prior to July 8th.

Imagine if you're Hadley and his lawyers on Oct 28, having just heard a very unusually cast federal indictment (see John Dean below). Not only were prospective 30-years worth of perjury and obstruction charges leveled on Libby, whose situation in the leak case apparently parallels Hadley's (i.e. "VP-aide<-->reporter"), but the prosecutor referenced the charges in a context unrelated to perjury and obstruction: the Espionage Act. Why?

...In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793, a provision which he is willing to invoke, albeit with care."

Ya think maybe Hadley and lawyers -- after hearing Fitzgerald's "advertisement" re Libby's obstruction (and invitation for help?) -- spotted an opportunity to cut a deal for Hadley in exchange for cooperation toward Fitzgerald's goal of breaking through the Libby firewall in pursuit of the broader case against higher ups, like Cheney, Rice and WHIG members? Has Hadley flipped?

John Dean points out that Fitzgerald's indictment is very unusual for a federal charge:

A Cheney-Libby Conspiracy, Or Worse? Reading Between the Lines of the Libby Indictment by John W. Dean
...
Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted.
...
Typically, federal criminal indictments are absolutely bare bones. Just enough to inform a defendant of the charges against him.
...
But this indictment went much further - delving into a statute under which Libby is not charged.
...
What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the criminal code.
...
But Libby isn't charged with espionage. He's charged with lying to our government and thereby obstructing justice. So what's going on? Why is Fitzgerald referencing the Espionage Act?
...
In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793, a provision which he is willing to invoke, albeit with care.

And who is most vulnerable under the Espionage Act? Dick Cheney - as I will explain...

--more--

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Interesting.

First of all, I do agree with Dean. Fitzgerald didn't charge for the uderlying crime - but he acted like the crime had been committed. I found that very strange because on every other aspect, he was so ultra careful not to name names or imply anything outside the Libby indictment.

Ok, let's assume that (1) Hadley didn't disclose that he spoke to Woodward in his original GJ appearance. and, (2) the Woodward didn't previously appear before the GJ (correct)?

Leaving any deal cutting aside for the moment, why would Hadley come forward at this late date? If Woodward had never been called in to testify in the first place, why would he assume that he would have been called in to the GJ post-Libby indictment? It just seems too much of a self-incriminating thing to do. I mean, what would he say, "Duh, I forgot to tell you before, but I remember now, I talked to Woodward." Because of this, I think we can throw out the idea that Hadley just acted on his own and wanted to clear his conscience.

So that leaves these possibilities:

1. Hadley conspired with others in the WH to aleviate some of Libby's pain, take the fall, and admit that he leaked before Libby did. Woodward was really on the up-and-up and Hadley really told him that it was "no big deal".

This theory seems a little bit too good to be true. It seems too much of a coincidence that Hadley just happened to remember something he didn't disclose that would help Libby AND that Woodward was the perfect recipient(one that hadn't testified previously and who hadn't printed anything).

2.Hadley conspired with others in the WH to aleviate some of Libby's pain, take the fall, and admit that he leaked before Libby did. , because of all the favors he had received while writing his books, agrees to go along and say that Hadley talked to him and even threw in the "no big deal" line. No harm done to Woodward, since he hadn't testified to the contrary before.

The problem with this theory is that Woodward would be agreeing to place himself in jeopardy - quite an unselfish act for any cause. But, it does seem like the perfect plan for helping Libby out.

3.Fitz has put the squeeze on Hadley to turn and implicate others in the bigger crimes.

So if this is true, then what would the revelation that he spoke to Woodward have to do with anything? It is just a sideline issue? He spilled his guts, and then this leaked out because Woodward went public?


One thing that would be interesting to me, is to know how Fitz questioned Woodward. Do you think he said, "Hadley has said he talked to you?" Or - "Mr. Woodward, did anyone tell you about Wilson?"

Sorry if this sounds so rambling -- just trying to think it all through as I write...

[tiptoe]

8. And while awaiting update from Rawstory, this Hadley news tidbit appears:

Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings By Adam Entous
...
STIRRING THE POT

Woodward's sworn deposition sparked renewed speculation about who first leaked Plame's identity, and sent Bush administration officials scrambling to deny involvement.

A lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not answer directly whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was Woodward's source.

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, in Pusan, South Korea, where Bush was attending an Asia-Pacific summit, left it to aides to put out the word that he was not the source.

Neither was Cheney nor Bush, according to current and former officials and their lawyers, none of whom would agree to be identified...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Hmmm. So Raw Story's got some source problems, huh. When

I was watching Faux the other night, they were saying that Woodward's source was not in the administration any longer. They deduced this.

So, could be Tenet? Ari? Powell?

[cal04]

7. update from Rawstory, but no story yet

SOURCES REAFFIRM HADLEY'S THE ONE...
SAY 'THERE IS A RECORD'.... DEVELOPING...

http://www.rawstory.com/