|
I thought I would add it to your post.
Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, to borrow the title of the old Carol Reed/Joseph Cotton/Orson Welles masterpiece, “The Third Man.” The source remains unidentified, but the reporter is this man, Walter Pincus, who covers the intelligence beat for “The Washington Post.” Pincus has written a piece on the use of anonymous sources for a scholarly publication, “Nieman Reports” of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard.
In it, he recalls that two days before the column by Robert Novak outing Valerie Plame, quote, “On July 12, 2003, an administration official who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former ambassador Joseph Wilson‘s CIA-sponsored February, 2002, trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction.”
Pincus also wrote that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wanted him to name the source. Pincus refused. And then Pincus discovered that his source had named himself. Pincus says Fitzgerald finally put him on oath last September, never asked him to identify his source, only about the nature of their conversation.
So where do we get idea that Pincus‘s source was neither Rove nor Libby? “The New York Times.” Its story today reads, “A review of Mr. Pincus‘s own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggests that his source was neither Rove nor Libby and was, in fact, a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.”
The Walter Pincus story is just the latest tentacle springing out from what may—some have already called the neverending story. Paying close attention to that story, both for a series of columns on the Findlaw Web site and because, perhaps, of his own sense of deja vu, is John Dean, the White House counsel to Richard Nixon and author of the book “Worse Than Watergate.”
Good evening, John.
JOHN DEAN, NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: What‘s the significance of the third man here? Is it his or her identity? Is it the willingness to volunteer information to Pincus? Or is it something else?
DEAN: Well, it‘s hard to really know for certain, since we‘re not privy to the investigation. What I found interesting is that, apparently, Fitzpatrick is not—Fitzgerald is not interested in the information of exactly the identity of the person, which suggests this person isn‘t a target, isn‘t a corroborating witness. So the exact role of this person is not clear.
We do know from “The Washington Post” many, many, many months ago, that they said some six people had been involved on behalf of the administration in trying to spread this story, so I assume this is one of the six. But this is story, Keith, is one that we just learn a little more about, about one sixteenth of an inch at a time and long between those movements.
OLBERMANN: Does the solidity of the fact that there‘s a third source if “The Post” is right and there‘s six, that‘s still somewhat nebulous. But here we have two named ones and potentially a third one. Would that explain why Judith Miller of “The New York Times” is in jail, or is the speculation Arianna Huffington posted today correct, and, in fact, Judith Miller was the original source about Plame to the administration figures?
DEAN: Yes, that story about Judith Miller‘s role has been buzzing around for quite a while, and this could have some influence on that. I‘m not inclined to speculate excessively on these things. We do know that a lot of people think that it may be Miller herself who tipped off people, and it may be that Fitzgerald is trying to press her to find out where she got the information from, and there could be a tie-in there. So again, we‘re pretty much in the area of speculation. But what is the—to me, the interesting point is how little we do know, how close this prosecutor is holding his information.
OLBERMANN: But you were one of the first people to posit, as a lot have since, that this prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald‘s, case in the investigation would probably not turn out to be about this very fine point of law, the deliberate outing of an undercover agent, that the threshold for that is extraordinarily high, and that if there are indictments, they will probably wind up being for perjury, for withholding information. Are you any clearer in your own mind on where you think he is going?
DEAN: Well, our principal source for information on this story has been not the witnesses themselves who‘ve been appearing before the grand jury, who are free to talk, but their attorneys. And it‘s not unusual for attorneys in situations like this to share information amongst themselves so they can better protect and defend their clients. And there is a little buzz going on amongst these attorneys, and this is what is trickling out into the press and how we know the progress we do know.
One of the indications that has developed of late is, indeed, that there is more of an indication that the witnesses are being asked about questions that would suggest a perjury investigation or an obstruction of justice investigation. So that is a turn in the case.
OLBERMANN: I referenced your Findlaw columns at the beginning of the introduction here. You‘ve actually found and put in one of them a fairly recent legal precedent that might also give us something of a roadmap as to where the Rove case could go?
DEAN: Well, this is the Randel case that came out of Atlanta, where a young Ph.D. analyst had the book thrown at him. He‘s a classic whistleblower. And they threatened him with 500 years in jail if he didn‘t plead. He pled and did time, for not classified information, for just sensitive information. And when you throw the book at a very small fish, I‘m not quite sure how you can let a big fish off the hook.
And I think that‘s the most troubling aspect of the precedent. It may or may not affect the actual law that was involved, but it‘s the attitude towards prosecution that the Justice Department has shown with others who have leaked improperly information. And they‘re going to have to explain that away or pursue a similar course of prosecution.
OLBERMANN: There may still be a few books to throw in this one. And one other thing about one of your columns. This is from June of 2004. And you mention the arrival on the stage of a player who, even to this date, is probably unknown to a lot of people in this case. People may not have heard this name, James E. Sharp. Who is he, and why do we care?
DEAN: Well, Jim Sharp—it‘s very interesting. He‘s been around Washington a long time. When I first hear the name, he was a young former assistant U.S. attorney whose most notable prosecution had been to successfully prosecute Maryland Senator Brewster for bribery. But where I also ran into him is he defended Jeb Magruder in the Watergate affair. So as I say, he‘s been around a long time, has a very good reputation.
And the significance of it, however, is the fact he is now—one of his clients is no less than the president of the United States, George Bush. And so why did Bush hire an outside attorney? Well, it‘s quite obvious to me that he‘s got information he dare not tell a government attorney because there‘s no attorney-client privilege. And it suggests that he knows more than we are being told publicly he knows, otherwise, he wouldn‘t have needed to bring in an outside attorney.
OLBERMANN: What percentage of presidents wind up hiring their own criminal defense attorneys? Do you have any idea?
DEAN: I think it will become the norm in the future, after what Mr. Starr did to the attorney-client privilege. If a lawyer—excuse me—if a president feels he has any problem, he‘s going to go to an outside attorney, rather than work with an in-house attorney, because that person could theoretically, as Hillary Clinton learned, have to reveal any notes, conversations, and what have you. So no longer is a government attorney available.
So we have one precedent right now, which is George Bush, followed by Dick Cheney, who also hired his own private attorney. And that is the new standing precedent, if you will.
OLBERMANN: Lots of deja vu to go around. John Dean, the White House counsel to Richard Nixon, columnist on Findlaw.com, author of “Worse Than Watergate,” as always, John, my great thanks.
DEAN: Thank you, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Also tonight, a pregnant woman in Philadelphia vanishes without a trace more than a week ago. Now a reward and fund have been started and police are pulling out the stops to try to solve the mystery. Now. And how could Paris Hilton be a mystery to anyone? Well, it seem her future mother-in-law had no clue about Paris‘s home video. Her message to her son? Lose her! That‘s next. This is COUNTDOWN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
