Armitage leaked Plame, but Fitzgerald blames Bush?
What is Fitz doing?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in The White House — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, hawing a Bush-bashing novel he's written with the derelict David Corn of The Nation, told the world earlier this week the that anti-war former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the person Joe Wilson was looking to frog-march, the man who had leaked the name of super-secret spy agent Plame, Valerie Plame, to columnist Bob Novak. Wilson had frothed that Karl Rove had leaked Plame's name to defame him for attacking the President about Niger/Yellowcake/etc. Really, according to Isikoff, it was Armitage dropping the name because that's the sort of thing he does. Nothing sinister.
But we all knew this. And Isikoff still has the Koran-flushing fiction for which he has never personally apologized, so we can take his word for what it's worth.
CNN has independently verified Armitage's culpability from "two sources familiar with Armitage's role."
Read More…
Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source unless the source came forward. However, he said the special counsel in the CIA leak investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, learned who the source was independently.
Fitzgerald has said he does not plan to bring any charges against Novak's original source.
Calls to Armitage for comment were not returned Tuesday.
Armitage himself has not come forward.
At a Chicago Sun-Times forum held last April, Novak made clear that Fitzgerald had know for a while who was his source:
"The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed."
Fitzgerald, then, had known "for years" that Armitage was responsible for the leak but that Armitage had broken no law. Why then, did special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald say at an October 28, 2005 news conference heralding the indictment of Scooter Libby on five counts, none of which were leaking Plame's name:
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.
In fact, Mr. [Scooter] Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
The first reporter to whom her name was leaked was the WashPost's Bob Woodward. According to the Post piece just linked, Woodward told Fitz that "his original government source did not mention Plame by name, referring to her only as 'Wilson's wife.'"
According to Isikoff, Armitage was the source for both Novak and Woodward. The AP reports that it discovered through the Freedom of Information Act, that Woodward and Armitage met in private on on June 13, 2003. That's the right timeline for the leak.
Okay. Fitzgerald knows all this. So what in this particular universe is Fitzgerald investigating?
The San Francisco Chronicle reported in April of this year:
[T]he White House -- and specifically President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- have been pitched back into the center of the controversy, this time because of a prosecutor's court filing in the case that asserts there was "a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House," to undermine Wilson.
The new assertions by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has put White House officials on the spot in a way they have not been for months, as attention in the case seems to be shifting away from the White House to the pretrial procedural skirmishing in the perjury and obstruction charge against Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Fitzgerald's court filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." It concludes, "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.'"
It looks like he's investigating an effort to smear Wilson which had nothing to do with an illegal leak of a CIA officer's name. Why is Fitzgerald doing this?
Fitzgerald's original mandate, from the deputy Attorney General's letter of December of 2003, charged the prosecutor to "investigate into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a C.I.A employee's identity." He's done that, it was Armitage, no laws were broken… case closed? Nope.
In February of 2004, at Fitzgerald's request, the deputy Attorney General wrote a letter clarifying Fitzgerald's mandate, writing that it:
includes the authority to investigate and 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, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue.
He's allowed to prosecute Scooter Libby for alleged perjury. Libby did not leak Plame's name. Leaking Plame's name did not violate the law. Whatever the White House wanted to do with Wilson, they neither leaked Plame's name nor violated the law in not doing so. But there is Fitzgerald, as documented above, telling the press that he had indications of White House culpability.
It's madness.
I am not going to assign a motive to Patrick Fitzgerald. I do not know him, and I am not an attorney familiar with the various machinations of a prosecution, much less a "special one." (Technically, Fitz is a "Special Counsel," though this title, according to the '04 authorization letter, "should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.")
One wonders if someone thinks they are doing the nation a service by damaging this President. "The ends justifies the means" seemed to work for Bentham, Mill, and Mr. Spock, after all.
Why is Fitzgerald still blaming the White House when he has known all along that the leak came from Dick Armitage at Colin Powell's State Department? Why is he still prosecuting Scooter Libby? Why haven't Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame been frog-marched by a responsible media from our memories?
« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend Bush — Comments (5) | The debate over Iraq is not about patriotism. It is about judgment. — Comments (64) »
Armitage leaked Plame, but Fitzgerald blames Bush? 46 Comments (0 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The left still hates Ken Starr and still wants payback.
Mr Kilmer wrote:
One wonders if someone thinks they are doing the nation a service by damaging this President. "The ends justifies the means" seemed to work for Bentham, Mill, and Mr. Spock, after all.
Perhaps you might wonder if our liberal friends believe that, but I don't wonder, not at all.
The mission is to Get Bush; the truth doesn't matter.
I see you figured out how to do search and replace on your computer. Maybe one day you'll get higher brain functions and learn how to use logic and reasoning.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Fitzgerald's court filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." It concludes, "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.'"
Yeesh. They haven't shown the White House is guilty of anything, they've defined the White House as being guilty.
Okay, I posit that the moon is actually made of green cheese, just with a crust over the top of what we think of as 'moon rocks'. Disprove it!
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
The facts known at the present moment indicate that Fitzgerald actually lied in his press conference when he said that Libby was the first official to reveal Plame's role to reporters.
According to the AP, Armitage told Woodward on June 13. According to Fitz's own indictment Libby told Judy Miller on or about June 23.
And Fitz knew these facts when he accused Libby of being the first. To indict Libby for perjury he had to ascribe Libby's sinister motive to lie as providing cover for an irresponsible White House campaign involving outing Wilson's wife and disrespecting national security issues. It appears he had to tell an out right lied to make this case. And furthermore, if this leak were a crime he should have indicted Armitage for it. Obviously it is not a crime.
Perhaps Fitz plans to run for office as a Dem. some day and needs to save face for putting a journalist in jail by finding somebody to prosecute. In light of the present facts, I think it would be just for the President to remove him from the case with reprimand and restore Libby to the WH staff.
Armitage's silence in all this, and Powell's complicity, does more than simply raise questions about their loyalty. This well kept secret has caused great harm to the credibility of the Bush administration, distracted it, and caused personal injury to Libby, Rove and others...arguably W. included. How Armitage could stand in the wings and simply watch that happen to his former boss and colleagues while holding back the exculpatory truth is beyond any explanation that accords the man respect.
John E.
Fitzgerald was asked to investigate. He did so. He found in his investigation that Scooter's testimony didn't (in his opinion) quite "add up". Scooter Libby, and only Scooter Libby was then indicted.
I fail to see how that amounts to Fitzgerald blaming President Bush.
...especially the SF Chronicle link and excerpt. Your vision must have failed you before you got to that part.
If you think Patrick Fitzgerald has some secret axe to grind - prove it in court. I seem to recall most of you guys saying he was a stand-up guy when he was appointed.
If Scooter is guilty, let the courts prove it. This is how the law works. No qualifiers. No "but he said" or "she said"..
The law has been followed.
of "most of you guys"? And is blooch on it? If not that statement is a little ridiculous don't you think?
...who desperately needs to prove something. Seeing as there is no law against axe-grinding, I will stay out of his way, as he grinds it down to a pocket knife.
I know its become common to take being disingenuous to extremes but this level of cuteness is enough to induce diabetes through the internet.
Even granting your'e assertions that the right as a group thought fitzgerald was a stand up guy. There is no way anyone could be expected to cling to such an opinion after this. The man disrupted the process of government over a prolonged period during time of war. His antics at times convienient to the left deflected attention from real issues. He robbed people trying to solve national crisis of the time they needed to devote to real problems not his fantasys. Seeing as most of US GUYS liked him based on his record we certainly have the right to reevaluate based on that same record.
" If scooter is guilty ", Please. Guilty of what ? Guilty of being the only person this incompetent was able to get any kind of an indictment against ? You are correct this is the way LAW works but its not how Justice works. Mr Libby we come out of this unjustly harmed whether he wins or loses. His defense is estimated to cost in the millions and the prosecution many times that. Seeing as "YOU GUYS" Are so big about government run amok and the law being used to persecute an idividual, here is what should be your cause selebre. Instead Mr. Libby demonstrates the ultimate hypocrisy of the left. Tolerance, Rights, Freedom From Persecution, and the willingness to defend what you say only apply to people that tow a completely ideological correct line. Don't believe me ? Ask Joe Lieberman.
If is a two letter word. A tiny, dangerous little word, in fact.
Note that I said Mr. Libby, in so many words, was innocent until proven guilty. Yet, he has been charged with a crime. This is beyond dispute.
The assertation that Mr. Libby has been railroaded for political reasons is up for question and factual debate.
What I can prove is that most, not just "the right", approved of his track record prior to his findings.
Mr fitzgerald had a successfull record prosecuting mobsters. Whats not to like.
As a special counsel his record was abysmal. There was little to approve of and as time reveals less that should have been endured. Lets look at the results of his tenure. He managed to have contempt charges brought, and a charge of perjury about a crime that wasnt commited. On the downside, he caused disruption to the executive branch of government and actively interfered with the governance of the country during time of war.
Bringing up that dangerous two letter word of yours. IF I were a cynic , I would have to conclude that Mr. Fitzgerald interpeted his appointment as one of prosecuting the White House not investigating an alleged crime. IF I were truly cynical, I could say that Fitzgerald prosecuted libby so he could at least come away with a scalp and wouldn't let down the people who got him the job.
Since we have to conclude that Fitz knew from day one of his investigation that Armitage was Novak's primary source, and that he consequently did not consider Armitage prosecutable for leaking classified info, what do you think justifies Fitz's agressive jailing of journalists for guarding their sources? What about his apparent mistatement regarding Libby in order to justify the perjury charge? (Without an intent to lie, which generally implies a motive for concealment, perjury is not charged...at least that's my IANAL impression).
I haven't questioned Fitz until now, but the present rendering of the facts don't comport with a boy scout image, unless the emphasis is on 'boy'as in naive and lacking perspective. I'm not a cynic and prefer to give credibility to prosecutors, but as I see it, the facts are putting him in a hole. What argues for Fitz other than blind faith?
John E.
interesting threads in this.
First, Armitage knew that Plame was a CIA employee which goes to the point we've made for two years which is that using cover as a CIA officer as cover for being a secret agent isn't one of the smartest things to do. This points to another Fitzgerald howler"
Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states.
As we know Armitage knew about her employment, he's not part of the intelligence community. We know Woodward knew about it. We know that Andrea Mitchell thought it was common knowledge.
Second, why did Armitage keep quiet during this feeding frenzy? He was free to come forward at any time and go public, something he still hasn't done, and basically kill this. That he didn't speaks volumes to his character or lack thereof.
Armitage, that is. And I agree with your assesment of his character and lack thereof.
Armitage's silence in all this, and Powell's complicity, does more than simply raise questions about their loyalty. This well kept secret has caused great harm to the credibility of the Bush administration, distracted it, and caused personal injury to Libby, Rove and others...arguably W. included. How Armitage could stand in the wings and simply watch that happen to his former boss and colleagues while holding back the exculpatory truth is beyond any explanation that accords the man respect.
Colin Powell's duplicitous behavior needs to be emphasized as well. The D.C. media's Golden Boy was prized because he would provide leaks detrimental to the Administration; does anyone in the reality-based world think Armitage acted independently of Powell? Further, although the media, Powell, Armitage and their Democratic handlers bear most responsiblity for this travesty, why did Fitzgerald continue to investigate after he knew no substantive crime had occurred? This may backfire badly on those who conducted this inquisition.
This is a non-exhaustive list of the winners and losers in the Valerie Plame Affair™:
Losers:
Armitage
Wilson
Plame
Fitzgerald
Powell
Woodward
Wilkerson
Corn
The New York Times (as the leader of the MSM)
Olbermann
Matthews
Tenet
Ashcroft
Comey
Cooper
Miller
Reid (D-Searchlight)
Pelosi (D-The American Board of Plastic Surgery)
Schumer (D-The Nearest TV Camera)
Winners:
Bush
Cheney
Rove
Libby
Anyone have additions to either list?
***
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Even if this is dropped tomorrow, he has suffered greatly so the anti-war and anti-Bush factions could settle petty scores.
Everyone on the winners list has suffered as a result of the actions of those on the losers list. But in Libby's case, it became much more difficult today to convict him of anything. That will make him a winner in the long run.
Hoo boy! I can't wait to see the lefty replies to those last two statements. But I'll stand by them.
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
but Libby faced (faces?) prison time, so his situation is different. But, yes, all those who originally were tormented have been vindicated.
Incidentally, is there anyone of the face of this planet more insipid and blank than Chris Matthews? For the record, any Republican who goes on his 60-minute DNC infomercial should have their party credentials examined.
Incidentally, is there anyone of the face of this planet more insipid and blank than Chris Matthews?
One day I think his giant pink head will explode. I could not imagine why he was spending so much air time night after night on this non-issue unless he was salivating at the thought of it turning into another Watergate.
Matthews is the luckiest man on TV, his poor excuse for a show has no real competition in that time slot.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Yes he will win but it will cost him much and it will deprive the government of his services. In the end the only winner was Fitzgerald.
out the window with this.
I don't mind charges of perjury, where the investigation is seeking to figure out criminal actions.
But from this revelation it becomes clear that-A Fitzgerald knew who the 1st leaker was from the beginning, and B Fitzgerald knew that an actual crime in the revelation of Plame's name wasn't a violation of law (or we would have seen an indictment against Armitage).
What this appears to be is a fishing expedition, that didn't get too far, and Fitzgerald wanted to indict somebody, so he was able to elicit perjury from Libby in a case where he should have closed shop long before he got to the "interview Libby" stage.
The case for perjury against Libby is as weak as a kitten.
Fitzgerald outright lied in his press conference to make it look like the leaker was Libby and that the perjury was to cover it up. Fitz already knew that Libby wasn't the leaker at all and therefore there was no incentive for him to lie.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
The whole thing was a ugly farce, Fitz, the sanctimonious Powell, Armitage, who comes off as a scummy weasel, Wilson/Plame who can't be insulted enough, "be afraid, be very afraid" said "Politics of Truth" Joe. Also the netroots, where are they now, and a media that can't match the morals of a rabid wolf.
Are there any liberals out there who have a dim notion that they were had, and not for the first time or the last. Or do they just take their marching orders and head for the next cliff, the one marked Reality Based Community.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
...have told reporters that Plame, by doing things like pretending to be an American Embassy employee (in Athens) in the early 90's, and later, by driving into CIA Headquarters everyday to a desk job, had already burned all her covert bridges behind her. Valerie Plame had as much chance of being a genuine covert agent in 2003, as today's MC Hammer has of earning a Platinum Record.
that she divulged her own covert status to Wilson during "a spirited bout of skanko-roman wrestling" (h/t to Seinfeld for that description)leads one to believe that she wasn't exactly James Bond.
Making the $1000 contribution to Gore using her "undercover" business address in Boston always struck me as a tad shady, too.
Eric Rasmusen is a loon. And you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Not to mention this is off-topic. If this is the apex of your debate I suggest you invest in more fencing lessons.
- rbv
Is that your way of saying you dispute Rasumusen's claim that Wilson actually said that to Vanity Fair?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...be nice. Don't you remember the shock of betrayal you felt when you first realized that there was no Santa Claus?
It's sort of like that for these guys, only... moreso. ;)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...we're getting somewhere between a trickle and a stream of reality-deniers wandering through in response to the Plame implosion: looks like you got tagged unfairly. Sorry about that.
I still think that said deniers are acting like kids finding out about Santa Claus, though.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
but having a large and obnoxious mouth.
If you'd read the link, you'd have noted the quote comes from the Vanity Fair profile.
Of course, that would have required shutting up long enough to read it. I recognize the sacrifice it would be. You can't be the loudmouthed dipstick at the end of the bar if you are reading.
Well, hope you learned a valuable lesson from this experience as your cyber-butt hits the cyber-sidewalk, but somehow I really doubt that you are capable of learning from experience.
that could not have figured out within 30 days that there was no crime committed? I assume it took Fitzy about 30 minutes to determine that and another 3 to determine that "stupid" would pay well for years to come.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The personal tragedies here -- Libby, Rove, Cheney -- are sad, but the big picture is tragic.
But, does anyone else wonder why "Flush" Isikoff still has a job?