The phrase Plame Affair (also known as the CIA leak scandal, the CIA leak case, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and Plamegate) refers to the identification of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert^[1][2] Central Intelligence Agency officer.^[3] Mrs. Wilson's relationship with the CIA was classified information.^[1] The disclosure was made in a newspaper column entitled "Mission to Niger" written by Robert Novak, and published on July 14, 2003.^[4]

Mrs. Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, stated in various interviews and subsequent writings (as listed in his 2004 memoir The Politics of Truth) that members of President George W. Bush's administration revealed Mrs. Wilson's covert status as retribution for his op-ed entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003.^[5]

Background

Following the disclosure, on September 16, 2003, the CIA sent a letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), requesting a criminal investigation of the matter.^[6] On September 29, 2003, the Department of Justice advised the CIA that it had requested an FBI investigation into the matter.^[6][7]

The investigation resulted in the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Richard Cheney, in United States v. Libby on one count of obstruction of justice, one count of perjury, and three counts of making false statements.

The federal trial United States v. Libby began on January 16, 2007. On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, and was acquitted of one count of making false statements.^[8][9][10] Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison, a fine of US$250,000, and two years of supervised release after his prison term.^[11][12]

According to testimony given in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and United States v. Libby, Bush administration officials Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and Lewis Libby discussed the employment of a then-classified, covert CIA officer, Valerie E. Wilson (also known as Valerie Plame) with members of the press.^[13][2]

Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself. However, I. Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005; Libby resigned hours after the indictment.

After the verdict, Special Counsel Fitzgerald stated that he does not expect anyone else to be charged in the case: "We're all going back to our day jobs."^[10] On July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's jail sentence, effectively erasing the 30 months he was supposed to spend in jail. The probation and fines still remain. The Wilsons also brought a civil law suit against Libby, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Richard Armitage, in Wilson v. Cheney.^[14][15] On July 19, 2007, Wilson v. Cheney was dismissed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.^[16] On behalf of the Wilsons, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed an appeal of the U.S. District Court's decision the following day.^[17]

In March 2008, the Government Accountability Office revealed that the investigation had cost $2.58 million. The GAO also reported that "this matter is now concluded for all practical purposes."^[18]

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."^[19]

In late February 2002, responding to inquiries from the Vice President's office and the Departments of State and Defense about the allegation that Iraq had a sales agreement to buy uranium in the form of yellowcake from Niger, the CIA had authorized a trip by Joseph C. Wilson to Niger to investigate the possibility. Contrary to Wilson's later public claims, he was selected for the mission at his wife's specific recommendation.^[20] The former Prime Minister of Niger Ibrahim Hassane Mayaki reported to Wilson that he was unaware of any contracts for uranium sales to rogue states, though he was approached by a businessman on behalf of an Iraqi delegation about "expanding commercial relations" with Iraq, which Mayaki interpreted to mean uranium sales. Wilson ultimately concluded that there "was nothing to the story," and presented his report in March 2002.^[21]

After the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson wrote a series of op-eds (opinion-editorials) questioning the war's factual basis (See "Bibliography" in The Politics of Truth). In one of these op-eds published in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, Wilson argues that, in the State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush misrepresented intelligence leading up to the invasion and thus misleadingly suggested that the Iraqi regime sought uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.^[5]

The Iraq Intelligence Commission and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at various times concluded that Wilson's claims were incorrect. The Senate report stated that Wilson's report actually bolstered, rather than debunked, intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq.^[20][21] Wilson later took strong exception to these conclusions in his 2004 memoir The Politics of Truth. The State Department also remained highly skeptical about the Niger claim.^[20]

Former CIA Director George Tenet said "[while President Bush] had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound," because "[f]rom what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct ? i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa," nevertheless "[t]hese 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."^[22] With regard to Wilson's findings, Tenet stated: "Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials."^[22]

Eight days after Wilson's July 6 op-ed in The New York Times, columnist Robert Novak wrote about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger and subsequent findings and described Wilson's wife as an "agency operative."

Subsequent press accounts reported that "White House officials wanted to know how much of a role she had in selecting him for the assignment."^[23]

Joe Wilson has said: "I felt that... however abominable the decision might be, it was rational that if you were an administration and did not want people talking about the intelligence or talking about what underpinned the decision to go to war, you would discourage them by destroying the credibility of the messenger who brought you the message. And this administration apparently decided the way to do that was to leak the name of my wife."^[24]

Stanley M. Moskowitz, CIA Director of Congressional Affairs, in his January 30, 2004 letter to Rep. John Conyers, Jr., who had queried the Director of Central Intelligence in an earlier letter of September 29, 2003, "regarding any contacts the ... Agency (CIA) has had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating under cover [Valerie E. Wilson, aka Valerie Plame]," writes that, after an internal inquiry into the matter, the CIA made a referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for investigation of "possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."^[6]

According to a letter of December 16, 2003 from Bruce C. Swartz, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General, to David Addington, then Counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney,^[25] the Department of Justice's investigation concerned "the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the July 14, 2003 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times and the July 22, 2003, edition of Newsday."^[26][27] In his book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, Tenet writes "About two weeks after Novak's column appeared, CIA lawyers sent to the Justice Department a formal notification that classified information may have been inappropriately leaked to the media. CIA lawyers had to make that kind of notification about once a week on average. I was informed after the fact that a 'crimes report' had been submitted. I supported the action but had nothing to do with the decision".^[28]

A Special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to lead the investigation. In a February 6, 2004, letter from the Justice Department to Fitzgerald, the Justice Department clarified to Fitzgerald that he had the authority to "prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice."^[29]

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said that if there had been "a leak" from his administration about Plame, "I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."^[30] Initially, the White House denied that Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby were involved in the leak.^[31] In various legal filings, however, Fitzgerald alleged that both Rove and Libby had told several reporters about Plame's employment at the CIA. Libby was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and grand jury.^[32] On June 13, 2006, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, released a statement saying that Fitzgerald had informed him Rove would not be charged with any wrong-doing.^[33][34] On July 13, 2006, Joseph and Valerie Wilson filed a civil suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, top Presidential advisor Karl Rove and other unnamed senior White House officials, for their alleged roles in the public disclosure of her classified CIA employment.^[35]

The civil suit was dismissed on July 19, 2007. In dismissing the suit, United States District Judge John D. Bates states:

The merits of plaintiffs' claims pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials. Defendants' motions, however, raise issues that the Court is obliged to address before it can consider the merits of plaintiffs' claims. As it turns out, the Court will not reach, and therefore expresses no views on, the merits of the constitutional and other tort claims asserted by plaintiffs based on defendants' alleged disclosures because the motions to dismiss will be granted...The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush Administration's handling of prewar foreign

intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials. Thus, the alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform.^[36]

Judge Bates ruled that the "plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is the proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim." Bates ruled that the FTCA outlines the appropriate remedy since the FTCA "accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties," and the "plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts that would rebut the [FTCA] certification filed in this action."^[36]

The Wilsons appealed that decision the next day. On August 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision.^[37]

Wilson appeal

The Wilsons and CIA memoranda presented in the report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, indicate that Ambassador Wilson's diplomatic experience in Africa, and particularly in Niger, led to his selection for the mission to Niger. He is fluent in French, and, during his diplomatic career prior to the trip, he had served as a U.S. State Department general services officer in Niger, as an ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe, as Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in both Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, and Iraq (taking over as Chief of Mission during the 1990?91 Gulf War), in other diplomatic postings, and in subsequent national security and military advisory roles concerning U.S.-African affairs under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

After being consulted by her superiors at the CIA about whom to send on the mission, Valerie E. Wilson, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, suggested that she ask Ambassador Wilson, her husband, whom she had married in 1998, whether or not he might be interested in making such a trip.^[21]

In the book Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, as Corn observes (before its release on September 8, 2006), they consider the issue of "whether Valerie Wilson had sent her husband to Niger to check out an intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium there," presenting "new information undermining the charge that she arranged this trip. In an interview with the authors, Douglas Rohn, a State Department officer who wrote a crucial memo related to the trip, acknowledges he may have inadvertently created a misimpression that her involvement was more significant than it had been."^[38]

According to a report by the Associated Press filed during the first week of United States v. Libby, in response to questions from the Vice President's office sent to the CIA regarding alleged attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Niger, Ambassador "Wilson claimed Cheney's office sent him on a fact-finding mission that questioned intelligence President George W. Bush later relied on to go to war [in Iraq]."^[39]

Citing some witnesses, who said that "Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, actually conceived the idea for the trip" (later disputed), the AP report points out that "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to show that Cheney's office wanted to make that clear to reporters," that "Fitzgerald says Libby learned that fact on several occasions and discussed it with reporters as part of the White House effort to discredit Wilson," and that "When FBI agents began investigating the leak of Plame's identity, Libby lied and said he only learned about Plame from reporters," leading Fitzgerald's grand jury to indict him and his "trial on perjury and obstruction charges."^[39]

In his testimony to the grand jury, Libby testified that both he and Vice President Cheney believed that Joseph Wilson was qualified for the mission, though wondered if he would have been selected had his wife not worked at the CIA.^[40][41] On March 16, 2007, Valerie Plame addressed this question in sworn testimony to Congress: "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority.... It's been borne out in the testimony during the Libby trial, and I can tell you that it just doesn't square with the facts."^[42][43][44] In his book, Tenet writes "Mid-level officials in CPD decided on their own initiative to [ask Joe Wilson to look into the Niger issue because] he'd helped them on a project once before, and he'd be easy to contact because his wife worked in CPD."^[45] In response to Plame's testimony, Republican Senators Kit Bond, Orin Hatch, Richard Burr submitted additional views to the Senate report that stated "Mrs. Wilson told the CIA Inspector General that she suggested her husband for the trip, she told our committee staff that she could not remember whether she did or her boss did, and told the House Committee, emphatically, that she did not suggest him."^[46] Also in the additional views is the full text of an e-mail message sent by Plame on February 12, 2002 to the Directorate of Operations at CPD, in which she writes that Joe Wilson "may be in a position to assist" the CIA's inquiries into the Niger reports.^[47] In a review of Plame's memoir, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House, Alan Cooperman writes for the Washington Post that "by her own account, Valerie Wilson neither came up with the idea [of sending Joe Wilson to Niger] nor approved it. But she did participate in the process and flogged her husband's credentials." Plame writes in her book that Joe Wilson was "too upset to listen" to her explanations after learning years later about the February 12, 2002 email she had sent to outlining his credentials.^[48] After his identification by Corn and Isikoff in advance word of their book, Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, acknowledged that he was the initial and primary source for Novak's column of July 14, 2003, that disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative".^[23]

On March 6, 2007, Libby was found guilty on four of the five counts against him. At a press conference after the verdict was read, Fitzgerald told the press "I do not expect to file any further charges. Basically, the investigation was inactive prior to the trial.... I would not expect to see any further charges filed, we are all going back to our day jobs. If new information comes to light, if new information comes to us that would warrant us taking some action, we look forward to doing that. But I would not create the expectation that any of us will be doing further investigation at this point, we see the investigation as inactive."^[49]

Robert Novak's column "Mission to Niger"

In his column of July 14, 2003, entitled "Mission to Niger," Robert Novak states that the choice to use Wilson "was made routinely at a low level without [CIA] Director George Tenet's knowledge." Novak goes on to identify Plame as Wilson's wife:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.^[26]

Response to Novak's column "Mission to Niger"

The suggestion that naming Plame as an agent is a serious crime first appeared in an article by David Corn published by The Nation on July 16, 2003, two days after Novak's column.^[50] In that article Corn quotes Joe Wilson: " 'Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.' "

In October 2007, regarding his column "A White House Smear", Corn writes:

That piece was the first to identify the leak as a possible White House crime and the first to characterize the leak as evidence that within the Bush administration political expedience trumped national security.

The column drew about 100,000 visitors to this website in a day or so. And--fairly or not--it's been cited by some as the event that triggered the Plame hullabaloo. I doubt that the column prompted the investigation eventually conducted by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, for I assume that had my column not appeared the CIA still would have asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak as a possible crime."^[51]

Robert Novak's column "The CIA Leak"

In "The CIA Leak," published on October 1, 2003, Novak describes how he had obtained the information for his July 14, 2003, column "Mission to Niger":

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.^[52]

Novak defends his column "Mission to Niger"

In his column of October 1, 2003, 'The CIA Leak," Novak states that he included the paragraph about Wilson's wife "because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission." He writes:

I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one... During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife.^[53][52]

In that column Novak also claims to have learned Mrs. Wilson's maiden name "Valerie Plame" from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who In America,^[54] though it was her CIA status rather than her maiden name which was a secret.

A day after the publication of the October 1 column, Novak announced on his TV program Crossfire on CNN that although "Ms. Valerie E. Wilson" had donated $1,000 to the Gore campaign in 1999, according to the website Newsmeat, listing Brewster Jennings & Associates as her employer, he was "convinced" that "[t]here is no such firm."^[55][56] Novak argued further that "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover ? they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."^[55] Novak wrote in his column "It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA,"^[53] though this assertion has been disputed.

According to Murray S. Waas in the American Prospect of February 12, 2004, the CIA source warned Novak several times against the publication: two "administration officials" spoke to the FBI and challenged Novak's account about not receiving warnings not to publish Plame's name; according to one of the officials, "At best, he is parsing words ... At worst, he is lying to his readers and the public. Journalists should not lie, I would think."^[57][58] Novak's critics argue that after decades as a Washington reporter, Novak was well aware of Plame's CIA status due to the wording he used in his column. A search of the LexisNexis database for the terms "CIA operative" and "agency operative" showed Novak had accurately used the terms to describe covert CIA employees, every time they appear in his articles.^[59]

On March 17, 2007, Plame testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. She was asked how she learned of Novak's reference to her in his column. Plame told the committee "I found out very early in the morning when my husband came in and dropped the newspaper on the bed and said, 'He did it'.... We had indications in the week prior that Mr. Novak knew my identity and my true employer. And I of course alerted my superiors at the agency, and I was told, don't worry; we'll take care of it. And it was much to our surprise that we read about this July 14th.... I believe, and this is what I've read, that the then-spokesman, Mr. Harlow, spoke directly with Mr. Novak and said something along the lines of, don't go with this; don't do this. I don't know exactly what he said, but he clearly communicated the message that Mr. Novak should not publish my name."^[42]

Novak has written that "the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else."^[52] According to the Washington Post, Harlow conveyed in an interview that "he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed."^[58] Novak published a column refuting Harlow's claim.^[60] In his book, George Tenet wrote "Bill [Harlow] struggled to convince Novak that he had been misinformed [about Wilson's wife being responsible for sending her husband to Niger]-and that it would be unwise to report Mrs. Wilson's name. He couldn't tell Novak that Valerie Wilson was undercover. Saying so over an open phone line itself would have been a security breach. Bill danced around the subject and asked Novak not to include her in the story. Several years and many court dates later, we know that the message apparently didn't get through, but Novak never told Bill that he was going to ignore his advice to leave Valerie's name out of his article."^[28] In response, although Phelps stands by the report, Novak has argued that he was "badly misquoted."^[61] In September 2003, on CNN's Crossfire, Novak asserted: "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. There is no great crime here," adding that while he learned from two administration officials that Plame was a CIA employee, "They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators."^[62] In July 2005, it was revealed that Rove was Novak's second Bush administration source. Novak told Rove about Plame, using her maiden name, and Rove responded by saying "I heard that, too", or "Oh, you know about it."^[63] Through his personal attorney, Robert Luskin, Rove has stated that other media sources told him about Plame, although he's not sure which journalist first told him.

Robert Novak's "primary source": Richard Armitage

After the indictment of Lewis Libby and the expiration of the term of the initial Grand Jury, Michael Isikoff revealed portions of his new book entitled Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, co-authored with David Corn, in the August 28, 2006, issue of Newsweek. Isikoff reports that then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had a central role in the Plame affair.^[64]

In their book Hubris Isikoff and Corn reveal ? as both Armitage and syndicated columnist Robert Novak acknowledged publicly later ? that Armitage was Novak's "initial" and "primary source" for Novak's July 2003 column that revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative and that after Novak revealed his "primary source" (Novak's phrase) was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger," Armitage phoned Colin Powell that morning and was "in deep distress." Reportedly, Armitage told Powell: "I'm sure [Novak is] talking about me." In his Newsweek article, Isikoff states:

The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA... [William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser] felt obligated to inform White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. But Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source ? possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy. So Taft told Gonzales the bare minimum: that the State Department had passed some information about the case to Justice. He didn't mention Armitage. Taft asked if Gonzales wanted to know the details. The president's lawyer, playing the case by the book, said no, and Taft told him nothing more. Armitage's role thus remained that rarest of Washington phenomena: a hot secret that never leaked.^[64]

According to Isikoff, as based on his sources, Armitage told Bob Woodward Plame's identity three weeks before talking to Novak, and Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged because Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.^[64]

In an August 27, 2006, appearance on Meet the Press, Novak is asked if indeed Armitage was his source of Mrs. Wilson's identity as a CIA operative. Novak responds: "I told Mr. Isikoff... that I do not identify my sources on any subject if they?re on a confidential basis until they identify themselves... I?m going to say one thing, though, I haven?t said before. And that is that I believe that the time has way passed for my source to identify himself."^[65]

On August 30, 2006, the New York Times reports that the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage confirmed he was Novak's "initial and primary source" for Plame's identity.^[23] The New York Times also reports "Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife?s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said... Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.... He resigned in November 2004, but remained a subject of the inquiry until [February 2006] when the prosecutor advised him in a letter that he would not be charged."^[66]

In an interview with CBS News first broadcast on September 7, 2006, Armitage admits that he was Novak's "initial" and "primary source" (Novak's words). In the interview he describes his conversation with Novak: "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, "Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?" I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency, adding it was "just an offhand question.... I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had." After acknowledging that he was indeed Robert Novak's initial and primary source for the column outing Plame, Richard Armitage refers to what has been termed "a classified State Department memorandum" which purportedly refers to Valerie Wilson.

While the document is "classified," Armitage states, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.... I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government.... I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative.... I didn't try to out anybody."^[67] In a phone interview with The Washington Post, Armitage reiterates his claim, stating that in 40 years of reading classified materials "I have never seen in a memo... a covert agent's name."^[68]

According to The Washington Post, Armitage attributes his not being charged in the investigation to his candor in speaking with investigators about his action; he says that he turned over his computers and never hired an attorney: "'I did not need an attorney to tell me to tell the truth.'"^[68]

Novak disputes Armitage's claim that the disclosure was "inadvertent." In a column titled The real story behind the Armitage story, Novak states: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column... he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column ? implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information." Novak also disputes Armitage's claim that he learned he was Novak's "primary source" (Novak's phrase) only after reading Novak's October 1 column: "I believed [Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's close friend and political adviser] contacted me October 1 because of news the weekend of September 27?28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak."^[69]

In a review of Corn's and Isikoff's book, Hubris, Novak writes: "I don't know precisely how Isikoff flushed out Armitage [as Novak's "primary source"], but Hubris clearly points to two sources: Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's political adviser, and William Taft IV, who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary."^[70]

Armitage also acknowledges that he was Woodward's source. At the end of a lengthy interview conducted in the first week of September 2006, he describes his June 2003 conversation with Woodward as an afterthought: "He said, 'Hey, what's the deal with Wilson?' and I said, 'I think his wife works out there.'"^[71]

On February 12, 2007, Novak testified in Libby's trial. As Michael J. Sniffen of the Associated Press reports:

Novak described trying to get an interview with Armitage in 2001 and being told the deputy secretary was "not too busy. He just didn't want to talk to me." Novak said he was rebuffed again after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then in the last week of June 2003, Armitage's office called to set up an interview. "I had not pressed my request for one in two years," Novak said. Once he asked about the Wilson trip, Armitage said "it was suggested by his wife, Valerie, who is employed in the counter-proliferation division at CIA," Novak testified."^[72]

In his memoir, titled "The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years of Reporting In Washington," Novak writes that after Armitage revealed to him that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, "Armitage smiled and said: 'That's real Evans and Novak, isn't it?.' I believe he meant that was the kind of inside information that my late partner, Rowland Evans, and I had featured in our column for so long. I interpreted that as meaning Armitage expected to see the item published in my column."^[73]

On November 11, 2007, Armitage appeared on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer and was asked to respond to Valerie Wilson's assertion that Armitage "did a very foolish thing" in revealing her identity to Novak. Armitage and Blitzer had the following exchange:

ARMITAGE: They're not words on which I disagree. I think it was extraordinarily foolish of me. There was no ill-intent on my part and I had never seen ever, in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative's name in a memo. The only reason I knew a "Mrs. Wilson," not "Mrs. Plame," worked at the agency was because I saw it in a memo. But I don't disagree with her words to a large measure.

BLITZER: Normally in memos they don't name covert operatives?
ARMITAGE: I have never seen one named.
BLITZER: And so you assumed she was, what, just an analyst over at the CIA?
ARMITAGE: Not only assumed it, that's what the message said, that she was publicly chairing a meeting.
BLITZER: So, when you told Robert Novak that Joe Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador's wife, worked at the CIA, and she was involved somehow in getting him this trip to Africa to look for the enriched uranium, if there were enriched uranium going to Iraq, you simply assumed that she was not a clandestine officer of the CIA.
ARMITAGE: Well, even Mr. Novak has said that he used the word "operative" and misused it. No one ever said "operative." And I not only assumed it, as I say, I've never seen a covered agent's name in a memo. However, that doesn't take away from what Mrs. Plame said, it was foolish, yeah. Sure it was.
BLITZER: So you agree with her on that.
ARMITAGE: Yeah. Absolutely.^[74]

Justice Department investigation pertaining to Novak's column

The matter of the leak of Valerie Wilson's classified CIA covert identity as Valerie Plame was investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel.

The redactions in a March 1, 2006, affidavit by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald suggest that he was aware then of the identity of Novak's original source. According to the affidavit,

Mr. Novak has published a brief description of how he learned the information, albeit declining to name his sources (REDACTED). Mr. Libby indisputably knows at least one of Mr. Novak?s sources:(REDACTED). Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that Rove told Libby that Novak was publishing a column about Wilson?s wife before it was ever published.... The one significant piece of information that Libby is not being told is the identity of (REDACTED) as a source for (REDACTED). Moreover, Libby has been given a redacted transcript of the conversation between Woodward and (REDACTED) and Novak has published an account briefly describing the conversation with his first confidential source (REDACTED).^[75]

In May 2006, it was reported that on September 29, 2003, the same day on which Novak made a statement on the Crossfire television program about the investigation, and three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation, Novak and Rove had a telephone conversation in which Novak told Rove he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation. According to the National Journal, "Rove testified to the grand jury that during his telephone call with Novak, the columnist said words to the effect: 'You are not going to get burned' and 'I don't give up my sources.'" When "asked during his grand jury appearance his reaction to the telephone call," the National Journal continues, "Rove characterized it as a 'curious conversation' and didn't know what to make of it."^[76]

On July 11, 2006, Robert Novak posted a column entitled "My Role in the Valerie Plame Leak Story": "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret." Novak dispels rumors that he asserted his Fifth Amendment right and made a plea bargain, stating: "I have cooperated in the investigation." He continues:

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew ? independent of me ? the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.... In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part. Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." (Italics added.)

Bush administration officials subpoenaed to testify in Fitzgerald's Grand Jury Investigation

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby

On October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald issued a five-count indictment of "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former Chief of Staff, leading Libby to resign his post hours later, to his trial United States v. Libby, and to his conviction in that trial on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying during the leak investigation on March 6, 2007.^[8] It is the only indictment brought by the grand jury, and Fitzgerald has stated that he does not expect to be indicting anyone else, citing repeatedly Libby's obstruction of justice as a main impediment to finding out what happened in investigating the leak of Valerie Wilson's classified, covert CIA identity.

The Grand Jury Investigation indictment of Libby states:

Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).

A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.^[32]

According to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby first learned of Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA in early June 2003 from Vice President Dick Cheney and proceeded to discuss her with six other government officials in the following days and months before disclosing her name to reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper in early July 2003. Fitzgerald asserts that Vice President Cheney told Libby about Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment as the two crafted a response to an inquiry about Wilson's trip from reporter Walter Pincus. While her name was not disclosed to Pincus, Fitzgerald asserts that Pincus's inquiry "further motivated [Libby] to counter Mr. Wilson?s assertions, making it more likely that [Libby's] disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson's wife were not casual disclosures that he had forgotten by the time he was asked about them by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and before the grand jury."^[78]

Libby does not dispute that he initially heard about Mrs. Wilson from Cheney, but he claims that he had no recollection of that fact when he told the FBI in October 2003 and the grand jury in March 2004 that he remembered first learning about Mrs. Wilson in a conversation with NBC?s Tim Russert on July 10, 2003. Libby told the grand jury that only after he was shown his calendar and notes by investigators did he remember that he actually learned the information about Mrs. Wilson from Cheney in June 2003. During Libby's trial, Libby's lawyers argued that Libby?s testimony to the grand jury and his interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have contained inaccuracies but that they were the result of innocent memory lapses explained by his pressing schedule of national security issues. Libby's defense lawyers also challenged the memory and recollections of each prosecution witness.

According to press accounts Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Mrs. Wilson's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, though it's unclear whether Cheney was made aware of her classified status. Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney. Tenet did recall, however, that he made inquiries regarding the veracity of the Niger intelligence information as a result of inquires from both Cheney and Libby. According to press accounts, Libby told investigators that on July 12, 2003, while aboard Air Force Two, he and Cheney may have discussed leaking information about Plame to reporters. Libby told investigators he believed at the time that the information about Plame had come from Russert. After arriving back in Washington, according to Cooper's and Miller's testimony at Libby's trial, Libby spoke to both of them by telephone and confirmed to them that Plame worked for the CIA and may have played a role in sending her husband to Niger. FBI agent Deborah Bond testified at Libby's trial that during Libby's second FBI interview in his office on November 23, 2003, Libby was asked about the July 12 flight. Bond testified Libby told the FBI "there was a discussion whether to report to the press that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." She added that Mr. Libby expressed some doubt, however, adding "Mr. Libby told us he believed they may have talked about it, but he wasn't sure." She testified that Libby did say he had discussed Wilson's wife with Cheney sometime after allegedly discussing her with Russert. Libby reportedly told investigators that neither the president nor the vice president specifically directed him or other administration officials to disclose Plame's CIA employment to the press.^{[79][80][81][82][83]}

According to court documents, by December 2004 Fitzgerald lacked evidence to prove Libby had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and was pursuing charges related to "perjury, false statements and the improper disclosure of national defense information."^[84]

During Libby's trial, the prosecution focused the jury on a sequence of events occurring between May and July 2003. According to prosecutors, given the level of interest coming from the Vice President's office regarding Joe Wilson, it was impossible for Libby to have forgotten during his FBI interviews and grand jury testimony that he already knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.^{[85][86][87][88][89][90][91]}

On March 6, 2007, Libby was found guilty on four of the five counts against him.^[8] After the verdict was read to the court, Denis Collins, a member of the jury and a journalist who has written for The Washington Post and other newspapers, spoke to the press. According to Collins, some in the jury felt sympathy for Libby and believed he was only the "fall guy." Collins said that "a number of times" the jurors asked themselves, "what is [Libby] doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys. I?m not saying we didn?t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [Ted Wells, Libby?s attorney] put it, he was the fall guy."

According to Collins, "What we?re in court deciding seems to be a level or two down from what, before we went into the jury, we supposed the trial was about, or had been initially about, which was who leaked [Plame?s identity]. Some jurors commented at some point: ?I wish we weren?t judging Libby. You know, this sucks. We don?t like being here.? But that wasn?t our choice." Collins described how after 10 days of deliberations, "What we came up with from that was that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson nine times...We believed he did have a bad memory, but it seemed very unlikely he would not remember about being told about Mrs. Wilson so many times....Hard to believe he would remember on Tuesday and forget on Thursday."^[92][93] Collins told the press "Well, as I said before, I felt like it was a long, you know, haul to get this jury done. And if Mr. Libby is pardoned, I would have no problem with that."^[94]

Another member of the jury, Ann Redington, who broke down and cried as the verdict was being read, also told Chris Matthews, in a March 7, 2007, appearance on Hardball, that she hoped Libby would eventually be pardoned by President Bush; she told Matthews that she believed Libby "got caught in a difficult situation where he got caught in the initial lie, and it just snowballed" and added: "It kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed."^[95][94]

On May 25, 2007, in a court filing, Fitzgerald asked Judge Reggie B. Walton to sentence Libby to 30 to 37 months in jail, because Libby had "expressed no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility and no recognition that there is anything he should have done differently." Fitzgerald stated "Mr. Libby was a high-ranking government official whose falsehoods were central to issues in a significant criminal investigation, it is important that this court impose a sentence that accurately reflects the value the judicial system places on truth-telling in criminal investigations."^[96] The defense sought leniency based on Libby's record of public service.^[97]

The Probation Office's recommended sentence to Judge Walton was cited in court documents to be no more than 15 to 21 months of incarceration. According to court documents, the Probation Office states its opinion that the more serious sentencing standards should not apply to Libby since "the criminal offense would have to be established by a preponderance of the evidence,...[and] the defendant was neither charged nor convicted of any crime involving the leaking of Ms. Plame?s ?covert? status."^[98][99]

On June 5, 2007, Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison, a fine of US$250,000, and two years of probation (supervised release) after the expiration of his prison term.^{[100][11][12]} According to The Washington Post, Judge Walton expressed his belief that the trial did not prove Libby knew that Plame worked in an undercover capacity when he disclosed her identity to several reporters. He added, however, that "anybody at that high-level position had a unique and special obligation before they said anything about anything associated with a national security agency [to] ... make every conceivable effort" to verify their status before releasing information about them. Walton stated "While there is no evidence that Mr. Libby knew what the situation was, he surely did not take any efforts to find out,...I think public officials need to know if they are going to step over the line, there are going to be consequences... . [What Libby did] causes people to think our government does not work for them."^[101]

On July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted the sentence. No pardon was given, and the fine and probation, as well as the felony conviction remain. The statement said: "Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation. I respect the jury?s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby?s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison. My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby."^[102]

On July 5, 2007, it was reported that Libby had sent a cashier?s check dated July 2 in the amount of $250,400 to the court clerk of the District of Columbia. NBC News reported that Libby paid the fine through his personal funds and not through a defense fund set up in his name.^[103][104]

On July 12, 2007, President Bush held a press conference and was asked about his commutation of Libby's prison sentence. Bush told reporters:

First of all, the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven't spent a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my administration were forced to give as a result of the special prosecutor. I didn't ask them during the time and I haven't asked them since.

I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, I did it. Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course and now we're going to move on."^[105]

In December 2007, Libby, through his attorney Theodore Wells, announced he had dropped his appeal of his conviction. A statement released by Wells read "We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby's innocence. However, the realities were, that after five years of government service by Mr. Libby and several years of defending against this case, the burden on Mr. Libby and his young family of continuing to pursue his complete vindication are too great to ask them to bear." Wells also stated that an appeal "would lead only to a retrial, a process that would last even beyond the two years of supervised release, cost millions of dollars more than the fine he has already paid, and entail many more hundreds of hours preparing for an all-consuming appeal and retrial."^[106]

Karl Rove

In his grand jury testimony, Karl Rove testified he learned of Plame's CIA affiliation from journalists and not from government officials. Rove testified that Novak called him in July 2003 to discuss a story unrelated to Plame or Wilson. Eventually, according to Rove, Novak told him he planned to report in an upcoming column that Plame worked for the CIA. Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he had already learned of Plame from other reporters, but that he could not recall which reporters had told him. When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony for the Associated Press. Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and, in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations, informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name. Rove also testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. Rove testified that Libby told him that he heard the information from journalists.^[107][108]

The indictment of Libby states: "On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson?s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson?s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson?s wife." Though never confirmed by Fitzgerald, it has been reported that Rove was "Official A."^[109][32]

On July 2, 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove spoke to Time reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. Cooper's article in Time, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published. Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."^{[110][111][112]} Luskin also has said that his client did not initiate conversations with reporters about Plame and did not encourage reporters to write about her.^[113]

Initially, Rove failed to tell the grand jury about his conversations with Cooper. According to Rove, he only remembered he had spoken to Cooper after discovering a July 11, 2003, White House e-mail that Rove had written to then-deputy National Security advisor Stephen J. Hadley in which Rove said he had spoken to Cooper about the Niger controversy. Luskin also testified before the grand jury. He told prosecutors that Time reporter Viveca Novak had told him prior to Rove's first grand jury appearance that she had heard from colleagues at Time that Rove was one of the sources for Cooper's story about Plame. Luskin in turn said that he told Rove about this, though Rove still did not disclose to the grand jury that he had ever spoken to Cooper about Plame. Viveca Novak testified she couldn't recall when she spoke to Luskin. Rove testified a total of five times before the federal grand jury investigating the leak. After Rove's last appearance, Luskin released a statement that read in part: "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges."^[114][108]

On July 11, 2006, Robert Novak confirmed that Rove was his second source for his article that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, the source who confirmed what Armitage had told him.^[115]

On February 12, 2007, Novak testified in Libby's trial. As Michael J. Sniffen of the Associated Press reports: "Novak testified he got confirmation from White House political adviser Karl Rove, who replied to him: 'Oh, you've heard that, too.' "^[72]

Shortly after the publication of Novak's article, Rove also reportedly called Chris Matthews and told him off the record that "Wilson's wife is fair game."^[36][116]

On August 19, 2007, Rove was asked by David Gregory on Meet the Press about whether Rove considered Plame to be "fair game." Rove replied "No. And you know what? Fair game, that wasn?t my phrase. That?s a phrase of a journalist. In fact, a colleague of yours."^[117]

Court documents reveal that in December 2004, Fitzgerald was pursuing perjury charges against Rove.^[84] Like Armitage, who was Novak's first source of the leak, Rove was not indicted as a result of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury Investigation.^[119]

On July 8, 2007, Rove spoke publicly about the investigation at the Aspen Ideas Festival question-and-answer session. Rove told the audience "My contribution to this was to say to a reporter, which is a lesson about talking to reporters, the words 'I heard that too,'...Remember, the underlying offense of Armitage talking to Novak was no violation. There was no indictment."^[120][121]

After announcing his resignation from the Bush Administration, Rove appeared on Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press, and discussed his role in the Plame affair. According to Rove, he didn't believe he was a confirming source for Robert Novak and Matt Cooper with regard to Plame. Rove also reiterated that he first learned of Plame from another reporter, though would not disclose which reporter. Rove told Gregory "I acted in an appropriate manner, made all the appropriate individuals aware of, of, of my contact. I met with the FBI right at the beginning of this, told them everything. You?re right, the special prosecutor declined to take any action at all. I was never a target." Rove told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday "I didn't know her name, didn't know her status at the CIA."^[117][122]

Ari Fleischer

In January 2007, during the first week of Scooter Libby's trial, it was revealed in court proceedings that former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was granted immunity from prosecution by Patrick Fitzgerald in February 2004.^[123] Fleischer reportedly acknowledged discussing Valerie Plame with reporters, but promised to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation only if granted immunity. Once the deal was struck, Fleischer told Fitzgerald that he had discussed Plame with David Gregory of NBC News and John Dickerson of Time in July 2003, days before leaving his job at the White House. Fleischer testified that he first learned about Plame and her CIA affiliation during a July 7, 2003, lunch with Libby. Fleischer also testified that four days later, while aboard Air Force One and during a five-day trip to several African nations, he overheard Dan Bartlett reference Plame. According to Fleischer, Bartlett stated to no one in particular "His wife sent him...She works at the CIA." Shortly after overhearing Bartlett, Fleischer proceeded to discuss Plame with Gregory and Dickerson. According to Fleischer, neither Gregory nor Dickerson showed much interest in the information. Dickerson has denied Fleischer's account.^[124] Gregory has declined to comment on the matter.^[125] With regards to the immunity deal, Fitzgerald told the court "I didn't want to give [Fleischer] immunity. I did so reluctantly." Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, sought to learn more about the deal, telling the court "I'm not sure we're getting the full story here." According to Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press, "Prosecutors normally insist on an informal account of what a witness will say before agreeing to such a deal. It's known in legal circles as a proffer, and Fitzgerald said [in court] he never got one from Fleischer."^{[126][127][128]}

Journalists subpoenaed to testify in Fitzgerald's Grand Jury Investigation

In a January 23, 2006, letter to Scooter Libby's defense team, Patrick Fitzgerald states: "... [W]e advised you during the January 18 conference call that we were not aware of any reporters who knew prior to July 14, 2003, that Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson's wife, worked at the CIA, other than: Bob Woodward, Judith Miller, Bob Novak, Walter Pincus and Matthew Cooper."^[129]

Bob Woodward

On November 16, 2005, in an article entitled "Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago," published in The Washington Post, Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig revealed that Bob Woodward was told of Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation a month before it was reported in Robert Novak's column and before Wilson's July 6, 2003 editorial in the New York Times.^[130] At an on-the-record dinner at a Harvard University Institute of Politics forum in December 2005, according to the Harvard Crimson, Woodward discussed the matter with fellow Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, responding to Bernstein?s claim that the release of Plame?s identity was a "calculated leak" by the Bush administration with "I know a lot about this, and you?re wrong." The Crimson also states that "when asked at the dinner whether his readers should worry that he has been 'manipulated' by the Bush administration, Woodward replied, 'I think you should worry. I mean, I worry.'"^[131]

Although it had been reported in mid-November 2005 that Novak's source was National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley,^[132][133] almost a year later media reports revealed that the source of this information was Richard Armitage,which Armitage himself also confirmed.^[64]

On February 12, 2007, Woodward testified in "Scooter" Libby's trial as a defense witness. While on the witness stand, an audiotape was played for the jury that contained the interview between Armitage and Woodward in which Plame was discussed. The following exchange is heard on the tape:

WOODWARD: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency. I mean that's just ?

ARMITAGE: His wife works in the agency.
WOODWARD: Why doesn't that come out? Why does ?
ARMITAGE: Everyone knows it.
WOODWARD: ? that have to be a big secret? Everyone knows.
ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, he's all pissed off.
WOODWARD: But why would they send him?
ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency.
WOODWARD: It's still weird.
ARMITAGE: It ? It's perfect. This is what she does she is a WMD analyst out there.
WOODWARD: Oh she is.
ARMITAGE: Yeah.
WOODWARD: Oh, I see.
ARMITAGE: Yeah. See?
WOODWARD: Oh, she's the chief WMD?
ARMITAGE: No she isn't the chief, no.
WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh yeah, hubby will go."
ARMITAGE: Yeah, he knows Africa.
WOODWARD: Was she out there with him?
ARMITAGE: No.
WOODWARD: When he was ambassador?
ARMITAGE: Not to my knowledge. I don't know. I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [expletive].^[72][134]

Judith Miller

New York Times reporter Judith Miller also claims to have learned Plame's CIA affiliation from Scooter Libby. Though she never published an article on the topic, Miller spent twelve weeks in jail when she was found in contempt of court for refusing to divulge the identity of her source to Fitzgerald's Grand Jury after he subpoenaed her testimony. Miller told the court, before being ordered to jail, "If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press." Miller was released from jail on September 29, 2005, after Libby assured her in a telephone call that a waiver he gave prosecutors authorizing them to question reporters about their conversations with him was not coerced. Libby also wrote Miller a letter while she was in jail urging her to cooperate with the special prosecutor.^[135] The letter has come under scrutiny, and Fitzgerald asked Miller about it during her grand jury testimony.^[136] Fitzgerald attempted to enter the letter into evidence at Libby's trial, arguing it showed Libby tried to influence her prospective testimony to the grand jury. Judge Walton ruled it inadmissible.^[137]

Miller testified twice before the grand jury and wrote an account of her testimony for the New York Times.^{[138][139][140][141][142][143]}

In her testimony at Libby's trial, Miller reiterated that she learned of Plame from Libby on June 23, 2003, during an interview at the Old Executive Office Building, and on July 8, 2003, during a breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington D.C. At the July 8 meeting, which occurred two days after Joe Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, Libby told the grand jury "that he was specifically authorized in advance... to disclose the key judgments of the classified [October 2002] NIE to Miller" to rebut Wilson's charges. Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE", but testified "that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."^{[144][145][146]}

Miller was pressed by the defense at Libby's trial about conversations she may have had with other officials regarding the Wilsons. Miller also testified that after her conversation with Libby, she went to New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson and suggested the Times look into Wilson's wife. Abramson, however, testified at the trial that she had "no recollection of such a conversation."^[147][148]

According to Denver criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt, a press-accredited blogger who attended the trial, "After Judith Miller's testimony, Libby lawyer Ted Wells told the judge he would be moving for a judgment of acquittal on a count pertaining to her."^[149] Neil A. Lewis reported in The New York Times on February 9, 2007, that "The Libby defense won a victory of sorts when Judge Reggie B. Walton agreed to exclude part of one of the five felony counts against Mr. Libby. But it remained unclear whether the change, which was not contested by the prosecutors, would matter in jury deliberations," and some speculated that Libby's conversation with Miller would be dropped from count 1 of the indictment.^[150][149] At Libby's sentencing hearing, Libby's lawyers filed a response to the Government's sentencing request. Libby's filing read, in part, "At the close of the government?s case, the defense moved to dismiss from the indictment the allegation that Mr. Libby had lied about his July 12 conversation with Ms. Miller, because the evidence did not support this allegation. The government did not oppose this motion, and the Court granted it."^[151]

After the verdict was read, a juror told the press that while Miller's memory may have been bad, many on the jury felt sympathy for her due to the nature of her cross-examination. The juror also stated that Miller was deemed credible during deliberations due to the fact that she had made notes of her meeting with Libby.^[92][93]

Walter Pincus

Walter Pincus, a Washington Post columnist, has reported that he was told in confidence by an unnamed Bush administration official on July 12, 2003, two days before Novak's column appeared, 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." Because he did not believe it to be true, Pincus claims, he did not report the story in The Washington Post until October 12, 2003: "I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson. Because of that article, The Washington Post and I received subpoenas last summer from Patrick J. Fitzgerald."^[152]

On February 12, 2007, Pincus testified during Libby's trial that he learned Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from Ari Fleischer. According to Pincus, Fleischer "suddenly swerved off" topic during an interview to tell him of her employment. Fleischer, who was called to testify by the prosecution, had earlier testified he told two reporters about Valerie Plame, but on cross-examination testified that he did not recall telling Pincus about Plame.^[72]

Matthew Cooper

Days after Novak's initial column appeared, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine published Plame's name citing unnamed government officials as sources. In his article, entitled "A War on Wilson?", Cooper raises the possibility that the White House has "declared war" on Wilson for speaking out against the Bush Administration.^[153] Cooper initially refused to testify before the grand jury, and was prepared to defy a court order and spend time in jail to protect his sources. At a court hearing, where Cooper was expected to be ordered to jail, Cooper told U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan: "I am prepared to testify. I will comply. Last night I hugged my son good-bye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again. I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions." Cooper explained that before his court appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret. In an interview with National Review Online, Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, stated: "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, 'Can you confirm that the waiver [Rove originally signed in December 2003 or in January 2004] encompasses Cooper?' I was amazed...So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Cooper testified before the grand jury and wrote an account of his testimony for Time. Cooper told the grand jury his sources for his article, "A War on Wilson?", were Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.^{[154][155][156]}

During his appearance at Libby's trial, Cooper recounted how he first learned about Valerie Wilson on July 11, 2003, from Karl Rove. Cooper testified that Rove told him to be wary of Joe Wilson?s criticisms in The New York Times. "Don?t go too far out on Wilson," Cooper recalled Rove saying, adding that Wilson's wife worked at "the agency." Rove reportedly ended the call by saying, "I've already said too much."^[36] Cooper testified that when he spoke to Libby, he told Libby that he had heard that Joe Wilson?s wife worked at the C.I.A. According to Cooper, Libby responded, "I heard that too."^[147] In Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby recalled telling Cooper that he'd heard something to that effect but that he didn't know for sure if it were true. In Libby's trial, Cooper's notes became the subject of intense scrutiny by the defense.^{[157][158][159]}

Libby was acquitted on one count involving Cooper. A juror told the press that count three of the indictment came down to Libby's word versus Cooper's word, and thus provided enough reasonable doubt.^[92][93]

Tim Russert

According to Patrick Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury Investigation indictment, in his sworn testimony, Libby claimed to have heard of Plame's CIA status from Tim Russert.

Both Russert and Libby testified that Libby called Russert on July 10, 2003 to complain about the MSNBC program Hardball and comments that were made on that show about Libby and Cheney with regard to Wilson's Niger trip and subsequent op-ed. Libby contends, however, that at the end of that conversation, Russert asked him: "Did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? All the reporters know it."^[160][40]

At Libby's trial, Russert was questioned by prosecutors for only 12 minutes, but underwent more than five hours of pointed cross-examination over two days from defense attorney Theodore Wells Jr. Russert told prosecutors that he could not have told Libby about Plame because he had not heard of her until she was publicly revealed by Novak on July 14,