About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On Hardball, The Hill's Stoddard accepted Novak's claim that CIA leak was "inadvertent"

July 13, 2006 6:53 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: The Hill associate editor A.B. Stoddard claimed that "we learned" from Robert Novak's syndicated column that the leak of then-CIA employee Valerie Plame's identity "was inadvertent." But Novak's assertion that the leak was "inadvertent" appears to conflict with an earlier assertion he made, that his sources thought Plame's identity "was significant" and that "they gave me the name and I used it."

10 Comments

On the July 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, claimed that "we learned" from Robert Novak's syndicated column that day that the leak of then-CIA employee Valerie Plame's identity "was inadvertent," based on Novak's statement in the column that his still-unnamed primary source for Plame's identity "told me ... that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part." But as Media Matters for America noted when host Chris Matthews advanced a similar claim on the previous edition of Hardball, Novak's assertion -- in his new column -- that the leak was "inadvertent" appears to conflict with an earlier assertion he made: a July 22, 2003, Newsday article quoted Novak saying that his sources thought Plame's identity "was significant" and that "they gave me the name and I used it." Moreover, even before Novak received the information from his primary source, administration officials had reportedly disclosed Plame's CIA employment to other reporters -- casting doubt on Stoddard's assertion that, based on Novak's new description of the leak by his primary source, "the Valerie Plame revelation was inadvertent."

Additionally, Stoddard stated that "you could make [the] argument" that -- in Matthews's words -- special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald "should have folded" his investigation as soon as he learned of the purportedly "inadvertent" nature of the leak, an event Stoddard placed "just one month later or less" after Fitzgerald's December 30, 2003, appointment to head the leak investigation.

In a column that appeared on the website Human Events Online on July 11 and syndicated on July 12, Novak wrote that "[a]fter the federal investigation [into the Plame leak] was announced," his primary source -- whom he still has not named -- "told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part." But as Media Matters noted, in a July 22, 2003, Newsday article by reporters Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, Novak was quoted saying that his sources leaked Plame's CIA employment because "[t]hey thought it was significant":

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Novak apparently backtracked on this assertion later, describing the leak by his primary source as "offhand" in an October 1, 2003, column, and telling host Tim Russert on the October 5, 2003, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press that his original source had mentioned Plame's role at the CIA "offhandedly." When asked by host Tim Russert to "explain" the discrepancy between this characterization of the leak and his earlier statement that his sources felt that Plame's identity was "significant," Novak said his earlier characterization was not "very artfully put" and insisted that there existed "no inconsistency between those two." As Media Matters noted, after this episode of Hardball featuring Stoddard aired, Novak advanced a second explanation for the discrepancy in his statements about whether the leak was purposeful, claiming on the July 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes that Newsday mischaracterized his comments.

Additionally, as Media Matters noted, there is ample evidence that multiple administration officials disclosed Plame's CIA employment to reporters multiple times -- a pattern, among other things, that led Fitzgerald to assert the existence of a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson -- casting doubt on Stoddard's assertion that Novak's new description of the leak by his primary source shows "the Valerie Plame revelation was inadvertent."

From the July 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Well, let me go back to the one I started with. Let's go to [Washingtonpost.com political columnist and blogger] Chris Cillizza. Chris, if we had known, say, October 2004 that despite what the president said, despite what his spokesman said, that there was a massive leak from the White House, it was people like Scooter Libby, of course, Karl Rove, all involved in it -- I've been counting, there's six leaks coming out of there -- in fact five there, one in the CIA -- actually four out of the White House, one out of the CIA, and one of the big mystery man out there so far. Would that have hurt the president's re-election if he was he caught not telling the truth?

CILLIZZA: Would it have hurt it? Yes, I think it would have. Would it have meant --

MATTHEWS: You only have to hurt him one percent, everything changes.

CILLIZZA: Good point. I think it's hard for us here in D.C. to measure how much people are really paying attention to this, but yeah, of course, it hurts it. When it looks as though were -- the administration is submarining someone, solely because of their political partisan ties, there is an element of people who don't like that. And again, you know, 100,000 votes, like you said, in Ohio, go a different way, and it's President John Kerry, so --

LYNN SWEET (Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief): But there are a lot of ways this could have come out, Chris. You know, Bob was one of many players that could have brought in Karl Rove's name. So he wasn't a central -- he was not central to just being the person -- he was one of many people that --

MATTHEWS: Right, well -- well, a lot of people knew about his attitude, of course, but the ones who knew about his leaking were the ones he leaked to, Matt Cooper of Time and in a kind of a supporting way, or affirming way, Bob Novak. A.B.?

SWEET: And Bob Woodward and Judy Miller.

STODDARD: I think that what we learned from Bob Novak's column today is that Karl Rove is a confirming source. The mystery man is the primary source. And what we learned is that Patrick Fitzgerald got this job in December of '03 and just one month later or less, mystery man No. 1, the source No. 1, reveals that, actually, the Valerie Plame revelation was inadvertent.

MATTHEWS: So he should have -- you think he should have folded his tent right then?

STODDARD: He -- you could make that argument.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dangrady (July 13, 2006 7:28 pm ET)
         

      Whoh, BIG SUPRISE!! A Hard Ball interview that was soft ball to a conservative, no matter how loathesome the conservative.

      All this "let's gas the leaker" is just that "GAS" when it's one of their own.

      Please, Please, Please let's bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" in the media, let's please regulate the media industry, and the control of outlets in the individual markets.

      We don't need "Big Brother Corporate Media" morons telling us self serving B.S. as though they were the authority.

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (July 13, 2006 7:44 pm ET)
         

      like a record player." -- Dead or Alive

      Man this spin is making the rounds.

      You could almost believe it if it wasn't on Hardball and Hannity&Colmes and what almost appears to be a looped feed for Fox. Also, if the WH had not been covering up its involvement like a cat in a litter box.

      I'd like to throw out a theory, "If Plame was inadvertent. Could it be NSA wire tapping was just an accidental pickup while a few million were on the phone as well? You NeoCons think about it and get back to Fox with the spin."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (July 13, 2006 7:59 pm ET)
         

      "source no. 1 reveals that, actually, the valerie plame revelation was inadvertant". that's it folks, pack up the tent and go home. a guy under investigation for the crime of revealing an operative's identity tells the prosecutor he didn't do it on purpose. we can take his word, right? and stoddard says "what we learned today....is that karl rove is a confirming source". and that security clearance he signed that said he couldn't even confirm information unless he knew it was declassified? it must not apply in that parallel world that bush and company live in.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by FrankBlackFrancis (July 13, 2006 8:16 pm ET)
         

      if this information was passed inadvertantly than who was so incompetent and careless with classified information. Shucks Bob, I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to know by now, but you were used.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by edenscape246494 (July 13, 2006 9:04 pm ET)
         

      so with years of journalistic experience the Count from Sesame Street wants us to believe that the Plame leak and the Joe Wilson editorial piece just by CHANCE happen to occur ...no connections to make here folks, nothing to see, please keep moving?

      either he believes everyone is stupid or he's just comfotable with the 50% of our country that are in fact stupid and believe whatever the GOP media monster machine feed them

      Report Abuse
    • Author by edenscape246494 (July 13, 2006 9:05 pm ET)
         

      anyone in the GOP gonna apply that NYT leak bashing hysteria to old naughty Novak...or is this just anti-liberal law?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by FrankBlackFrancis (July 13, 2006 9:25 pm ET)
         

      but it'd be weak.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 14, 2006 12:41 am ET)
         

      that makes Novak a bigger traitor, for instead of being told to leak, he took it upon himself to do so.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by freedoms (July 14, 2006 8:51 am ET)
         

      ..."inadvertent" like a FOX! Pun intended!!!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nunez (July 14, 2006 12:03 pm ET)
         

      True to Leo Strauss' philosophy, namely to lie to the public, to spin information, to flip and flop so that the general public remains in a constant state of confusion, the media mouthpieces of President Bush are certainly putting the spin on the "take-charge" statement of the president: "If the leak happened within the White House, we will prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law." Talk about a flip flop -- the very thing he accused Kerry of doing! But hey, we were never at war with East Asia, but always with Eurasia.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.