"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present additional evidence to a grand jury Wednesday morning in the CIA leak case that could result in an indictment being handed up against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, sources close to the investigation told RAW STORY.

"MSNBC's Hardball has confirmed the story..."

http://rawstory.com/news/20 05/Fitzgerald_to_present_mo re_information_to_1213.html

A lie of omission is still a lie, and a lie under oath is perjury, Karl:

A conversation between Karl Rove's lawyer and a journalist for Time magazine led Mr. Rove to change his testimony last year to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case...

Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak, a reporter for Time. In that conversation, Mr. Luskin heard from Ms. Novak that a colleague at the magazine, Matthew Cooper, might have interviewed Mr. Rove about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the case, [Valerie PLame]...

...Mr. Rove testified to the grand jury that he had held a conversation about [Valerie Plame] with only one journalist, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist. Mr. Rove did not disclose that he had also spoken to Mr. Cooper either in his first grand jury testimony, in February 2004, or in an earlier interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

First, The Washington Post mistakenly thinks itself a member of a sanctified priesthood.

Second, The Post blew smoke out its journalistic ass to confuse readers throughout the Nov. 20 "mea culpa" self-examination article by ombudsman Deborah Howell - and assumed we wouldn't notice.

Third, despite the confessional, breathless language employed in Howell's faux contrition piece, there is no recognition that there truly is a serious institutional, systemic problem that needs to be addressed, either at the Washington Post specifically or by mainstream media generally.

The Language and Sanctimony of the Priestly Caste

Let's take a look at some of the language Howell used to explain Bob Woodward's withholding of vital information from Patrick Fitzgerald, Post editors and (oh, yeah, the afterthought) the public.

Bob Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by not telling his editor at the WaPo that a top Bush administration official had told him the name of a CIA officer, the newspaper's ombudsman said.

Hmmm.  I wonder if Larry King will ask Woodward about this tonight?

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman in question had some pointed other barbs at Woody:

"He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff - even if he's rich and famous," wrote Deborah Howell in The Post's Sunday editions. She said Woodward made another mistake by publicly commenting on the case on CNN's "Larry King Live" and on National Public Radio without disclosing his knowledge of the CIA leak case.

Howell wrote that Woodward's decision to keep the information from Downie "is a deeply serious sin ... the kind that can get even a very good reporter in the doghouse for a very long time."

And while Woodward is listed as an assistant managing editor, Howell said he has no management duties. "He comes and goes as he pleases, mostly writing his best-selling books on what happens behind the doors of power and he reports only to ... Downie," she wrote. "He is allowed to keep juicy stories to himself until his latest book is unveiled on the front page of The Post. He is a master of the anonymous source."

She said Downie should either work more closely with Woodward or assign him another editor at the paper. "The Post needs to exercise more oversight," she wrote.

Let's see if anything changes, including whether or not Woody acknowledges this.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

There's an editorial in today's Washington Post on the brouhaha surrounding Bob Woodward.

And as with the NYT did with Judy Miller, they just don't get it.  

Excuse me, but nobody is vilifying Bob Woodward for protecting the identity of his source.  They are vilifying him for being a part of the story, and using his 'vaulted' experience to undermine the investigation.

More.....

Raw Story is reporting that Stephen Hadley is Woodward's Mystery Source!

"Sources who identified Hadley as Woodward's source dismiss denials"

Attorneys close to the CIA leak investigation reasserted late Thursday that Hadley approached Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment and alerted him to the June 2003 conversation he had with Woodward, and that he subsequently told Woodward he could testify.

When pressed further, the sources told RAW STORY there is a record at the National Security Council of Hadley's meeting with Woodward.

I've been following all the excellent analysis and commentary surrounding Bob "I didn't want to get subpoenaed" Woodward and yet I kept thinking things weren't adding up. So a parsing I went...

And what I found leads me to believe these two "masters of the universe" really think we're stupid. And Woodward is no journalist. And Downie is no editor.

Libby was indicted for lying to investigators. Now it looks like he might have a bunk buddy behind bars:

Woodward's statement claimed that, "I testified that after the mid-June 2003 interview, I told Walter Pincus, a reporter at The Post, without naming my source, that I understood Wilson's wife worked at the CIA as a WMD analyst."

When approached with this claim, Pincus responded, "Are you kidding? I certainly would have remembered that."

The Post story noted that Pincus had already been questioned in the investigation, though it did not specify whether or not he was under oath or before the grand jury.

Most likely, Pincus' testimony to the investigators was consistent with his public proclamations -- that he had NOT been told of Plame's identity at the time.

Woodward on the other hand, testified that Pincus DID know of Plame's identity at that time.

Given the circumstances that were unfolding, it was highly unlikely, as Pincus attested, that such a conversation could possibly be forgotten.

Someone lied to the investigators and that someone should be indicted.

Ron Brynaert at his blog, Why Are We Back in Iraq, has a spot-on analysis comparing Bob Woodward's role in the Plame outing to Judith Miller's role. But what makes the read most intriguing is Brynaert's observations that it appears Woodward's original notes weren't consulted. First, Brynaert quotes Woodward:

I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list of questions with the Page-5 reference to ``yellowcake'' to this interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June 20, which had the ``Joe Wilson's wife'' reference.

I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned ``yellowcake'' and said there was an ``effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02.'' This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger.

When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.

Buried and scattered within an MSNBC story about the newest dismal poll for Bush are the following interesting tidbits:

... the CIA leak scandal seems to be taking a toll on the administration, with nearly 80 percent believing the indictment of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, is a serious matter ...

...Libby was indicted by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak investigation.

... The CIA leak investigation also seems to be dogging the Bush administration. Seventy-nine percent think that Libby's indictment is a serious matter. (Libby has since resigned from the administration.)

.. Democratic pollster Jay Campbell of Hart Research notes that Americans are paying attention to this CIA leak investigation. "They think there is something real here," he says. "This is a really big deal."

These, in their entirety, are the references to the CIA leak.

The Republican-led campaign to oust Rove from the White House went up a notch this weekend with this article from Time, which also indicates that several prominent Cabinet members will also be jumping ship:

As far as I'm concerned, CBS has redeemed itself for caving-in to the extreme right-wing on "The Reagans" biopic, refusing to air an ad from the gay-friendly United Church of Christ, blowing the story of Bush's  failure to fulfill his National Guard duties, and a host of stories reported with a conservative bias so blatant that the reporters and producers behind them no doubt developed bursitis in their right arms.

This evening, CBS News delivered a one-two punch to George Bush and his obscenely corrupt administration with two stories featuring its latest poll; the reported results are absolutely devastating, and the collective mouth of the Radical Right must be covered in more froth than a club kiddie at a foam party.

Online petitions for your signing pleasure...

From Democrats.com: Should Congress Demand Documents from the White House Iraq Group?

From Ted Kennedy: We Need Answers, Not Cover-ups

From John Kerry: 20,000 Troops Over the Holidays

From PFAW: Reject the Bush Torture Policy

So how about it Mr. "War Time President"? Mr. "Honor & Integrity"? It is quite clear that your "brain" violated, if not criminal law, then an Executive Order relating to disclosure of classified info. We have Chris Matthews and "Your wife is fair game". We have "Official A" and Novak. We have Matt Cooper. Rove told reporters Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, which, as Fitzgerald noted in his press conference and in Libby's indictment, that information was classified.... No need to wait for Fitzgerald to finish his business, Rove dunnit. .. at least as it pertains to actions that you Mr. President can take to restore the public trust and integrity to the national security of the United States. And you have the power, indeed the obligation, to hold him accountable as outlined in the EO.

Or do the rules only apply to people who don't work for you?

The basics about today's closed session of the Senate -- without all the right-wing spin.

What is Rule 21?

Section 1 of Rule 21 reads as follows:"On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed."

In essence, all Senate staffers, tourists, reporters, television cameras, cell phones, and PDAs are barred from the Senate floor so that the Senate, as a whole, may discuss classified national intelligence.

The rule has been invoked 53 times since 1929 -- 6 times during the Clinton administration by the GOP.