Some Silly Reaction To The Armitage Story

A couple of reactions to the Armitage story have lit my fuse.

First up is Investor's Business Daily:

Did Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald Lie?

Plamegate: Patrick Fitzgerald's three-year manhunt to track down who blew Valerie Plame's CIA "cover" has been exposed as a costly sham. He apparently knew all along that his man was not Scooter Libby.

...

The latest revelations raise a question of far more gravity: Did Fitzgerald publicly lie? Let's look at the facts:

• The indictment of Libby that Fitzgerald extracted from the grand jury states that "on or about June 23, 2003, Libby met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. . . . In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, Libby informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA."

• In the Oct. 28 press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald claimed that "in fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

• That assertion is apparently false. A soon-to-be-released book, "Hubris," by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and The Nation magazine's David Corn, finds that Armitage revealed Plame's identity in a meeting with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward a week before the Libby-Miller meeting in June 2003. In a Newsweek preview of the book, Isikoff cites "three government officials, a lawyer familiar with the case and an Armitage confidant" as sources for when the Armitage-Woodward conversation took place.

...

• Isikoff notes that "Armitage himself was aggressively investigated" by Fitzgerald. So Armitage fessed up at the outset. Fitzgerald long ago knew whom Armitage talked to and when. And he knew it was Armitage, not Libby, who was responsible for outing Plame (whose status as a secret CIA operative was dubious at best).

• Fitzgerald's contention in October that Libby was "the first official known to have told a reporter . . . about Valerie Wilson" may therefore have been a lie.

However - although he was wrong, and singularly slack in his investigation, as of Oct 2005 Libby was the first official known to Fitzgerald to have leaked, just as Fitzgerald said.

Oh, stop.  I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for belittling the investigatory ineptitude that allowed Fitzgerald to overlook the leak to Bob Woodward by Richard Armitage. (And I want to copyright "What else did Fitzgerald not know, and when did he not know it?")

I suppose that is a "lie" in the "Bush lied" sense, but I don't think anyone can argue that Fitzgerald knew the statemetn was false when he made it, or intended to deceive others, or made it with reckless disregard for the truth.  Fitzgerald was wrong, but it was not a lie.

The other post that caught my eye was by Christy Hardin Smith; since Byron York has embraced the concept of "the firedoglake theory of the case", it is probably worth seeing how that bellwether of the left is covering this.  Not well, but the errors are predictable.  Here are two:

Armitage realized he was the source of the initial leak, and he immediately went to the State Department’s offices of legal and intelligence affairs, owned up to what had occurred, and discusssed his errors with the FBI before Patrick Fitzgerald was even appointed as Special Prosecutor.

...as a prosecutor, I can honestly tell you that when you have a genuinely contrite person in front of you, who has owned up to all their activity, put everything out on the table, and you have all the facts to look at — both the prosecutor and the criminal investigators are more likely to work with that person in terms of using them as a witness against others, cutting a deal, everything.

Well, now that we have her general opinion,what does she think of Armitage, who sat on the news about his leak to Woodward (despite reported prodding from Woodward) until the grand jury expired in October 2005?  Is that "contrite"?  Is that what it takes to "own up"?  What would concealment and obstruction look like?

And this "Keep Anger Alive" passage seems to be nonsense:

Back in October of 2005, I had this to say — and I still feel the same today:

Why has your cover been blown? Because you work as a CIA colleague of the wife of a man who dared to question the veracity of the President of the United States on a matter of national security, a matter of an exaggerated claim that was inserted in his State of the Union address to bolster his case for war in Iraq. And the President’s cronies and hatchet men decided to out this man’s wife for political payback, as a lesson to anyone else who would dare to question their decisions and as a means to staunch the bleeding from this initial salvo of criticism. Damn the consequences.

Again, does Ms. Hardin Smith want to attempt to relate her feelings to the facts of the Armitage situation?  Armitage did not "own up" to his full involvement, but he was not a crony or hatchet man engaging in political payback, either.

Please - write a new script.

Comments

[danking70]

Someone get the font doctor, stat!!!

[Sorry, what did you type there? OK, I fixed it]

[Walter]

TM,

I think the question of Fitzgerald misrepresentations to the courts depends on exactly what he was investigating.

If the investigation were to determine who leaked the information to Novak, I'd agree that the pursuit of Miller, Cooper, & Russert's testimony with regard to Libby and Rove was unwarranted. However, if the investigation was to determine whether a conspiracy existed to punish Wilson (or the CIA) by disclosing classified information, the investigation would not end with Novak's sources.

It's important to remember that the DoJ took no action on the initial Plame referral. Woodward and others have said that no significant harm was done by her identification.

But, after two months, Tenet himself wrote a letter to the DoJ requesting a formal investigation. What had changed or emerged in those two months?

Several news reports had come out which stated that the leak was done for revenge or punishment. (WaPo and NYT for example). Several news reporters said that they had the information, but did not use it, because of the nefarious motives of those who provided it to them. (Cooper and Pincus).

As a matter of institutional integrity, Tenet had to defend the CIA. His letter, which got action (as opposed to the initial referral, which got none), obviously had some different content.

Now, some of the additional effect could be attributed to the source. The Director of Central Intelligence has much more clout (and the President's ear on a daily basis).

Isn't it possible, however, that his letter also referred to the reported efforts of rogue officials disregarding the classification procedures in order to retaliate against a whistleblower?

This would be consistent with the distinction that Fitzgerald draws between the initial whistleblower's treatment of classified information and the disclosure of classified information in order to discredit the (even Fitzgerald admits) (possibly well-intentioned but misguided) whistleblower.

You have to remember that, while the Armitage disclosures are new to us, Judge Walton has known about them for some time. Libby filed motions to discover this and J. Walton read and evaluated Armitage's testimony in camera (for himself, without showing it to Libby). He does not think it relevant to Libby's defense.

Judge Walton has known about the referral for some time. Libby filed motions to discover this and J. Walton read and evaluated the referral documents in camera (for himself, without showing it to Libby). He does not think them relevant to Libby's defense.

On the one hand, the fact that J. Walton required Fitzgerald to submit the referral and Armitage's testimony to him over Fitzgerald's objections shows that he has some of the same questions we do. On the other, the fact that he said that Libby couldn't see them shows that the documents satisfied his (if not ours) doubts.

Just speculation, but even stupid lawyers would rarely leave themselves open to easily disprovable misstatements even in a district court motion hearing. In submissions to the USSC or the DC Circuit, few lawyers would take such chances.

Cecil was kind enough to correct me a few months ago when I speculated that the referral could have encompassed the overall climate of anti-CIA leaks. With luck, he'll do so again if necessary.

[Christopher Fotos]

That's the evil "span" style that Typepad imports into some cut-and-past jobs. It'll be right before "plamegagte" in the html coding. The problem is that sometimes it's inserted before each and every paragraph break, and it takes a lot of patience under the html tab to weed them out--everything runs together.

Have I cursed at this before on my blog. Oh yes.

[clarice]

Prosecutors--especially federal prosecutors are held by the courts to a higher standard. You are right, that the quoted portion did not amount to a lie, but like his affidavit to the Ct of Appeals in the Miller case (even before we had the Armitage information) the presser was a masterpiece of disingenuousness, skillfully misleading the Court and the public about the investigation, the charges, the need for Miller's testimony, etc. After these revelations, these statements look even worse on the candor scale.

[Fact Book]

NASA was more fun until they moved the executive program to Langley, like the CIA analysts going to DIA........

http://www.furdell.com/archives/000085.html

[cathyf]

It made you so upset that you lost an 'l' in your "silly" !!!

[clarice]

Walter:Isn't it possible, however, that his letter also referred to the reported efforts of rogue officials disregarding the classification procedures in order to retaliate against a whistleblower?

This would be consistent with the distinction that Fitzgerald draws between the initial whistleblower's treatment of classified information and the disclosure of classified information in order to discredit the (even Fitzgerald admits) (possibly well-intentioned but misguided) whistleblower.

Whistleblower? What a crock that has always been. There is a Statute protecting whistleblowers. It sets out the procedure for whistleblowing. My version does not say you whistleblow on the Op Ed pp of the NYT.

No, the Hitchens (I believe) had it right. Tenet's referral was of the standard sort filed by the thousands every year. DoJ sat on it for two months because it was meritless...no statute had been violated. Then Tenet sent another letter, strongly urging action. Hitchens thinks it was to cover his ass for bad Iraq intel. I frankly don't know why he did it. But this was a sham from the outset.Even so, I think DoJ would have stuck to its guns had not Mitchell broke the story and the Schumerites made a stink. Who leaked to her? Was it the cabal at the agency or the Comey crowd who was at odds with the OVP?
I'd sure like to know.

[Walter]

Clarice,

Just quoting Mr. F. Please don't take it out on me!

[Dean Esmay]

A "sily" reaction?

[Maybe a "sly" reaction? I am losing the battle with Typepad right now...]

[Howard Cronin]

Christ Almight, is there NO sanity left in the world?

"From top to bottom, this has been one of the most disgraceful abuses of prosecutorial power in this country's history."

More disgraceful than, say, multi-millions spent investigating a Presidential blowjob? Which was ALSO taking place during a war, by the way.

Fitzgerald has been thorough and meticulous in this investigation. Leaks have been slim to none. And he's not over-reached as far as who he is prosecuting. If he were really partisan, he could've gone after Rove... with the realization that charges would be eventually dropped. But he never pushed for a Rove indictiment... much to his credit.

It's one thing if you want to go after Wilson, and show how easy it is for HIM to stretch the truth, but Fitzgerald has conducted himself quite well. To impune him like this is sheer stupidity.

[topsecretk9]

--More disgraceful than, say, multi-millions spent investigating a Presidential blowjob? Which was ALSO taking place during a war, by the way.--

People can have opinions about the Starr investigation, but for gawd sakes he was not investigating a blow-job, he was brought information that people were being asked to lie in legal proceedings and being rewarded with fat jobs _ JUST LIKE THE PROSECUTED WEB HUBBELL...it was a pattern of conduct that Starr had already investigated. Quibble about this and that, but at least be honest about what he was investigating.

Also...the left demonized Starr from day one, even suggesting that his humming religious hymns was proof of his evil...so high horse an all.

[Ranger]

Mr. Cronin,

If he was so "thorough and meticulous in this investigation" how is it that he missed the basic fact that Armitage talked to Woodward at least two weeks before Libby supposedly committed the "first leak" to Judy Miller? That seems a rather big oversight when you are putting together a case against Libby as the "first leaker." I think it is pretty clear he should have figured out that Armitage was the "first leaker" before going forward with the Libby indictment.

The fact that the prosecutor is resisting defense discovery motions by arguing that he has no intention of trying to prove much of what is in the original indictment indicates that if he had presented what he knows now to the Grand Jury back then, there never would have been an indictment against Libby.

[Maria]

Ranger-How do you know that Fitzgerald "missed the basic fact..."? We don't know what Fitzgerald knows, and when he found out.

[clarice]

A commentor on Lucianne posted this, unfortunately without giving a cite--for the Grossman trackers:

"From the Blogosphere's Dark Side: - "Grossman has provided FBI investigators and Fitzgerald with detailed information about the behind-the-scenes effort by Libby and other White House officials to undercut Ambassador Wilson's credibility. Grossman testified before a grand jury that the leak of Plame Wilson's name and CIA status to reporters was an "act of revenge" against her husband's criticism of the administration's use of the uranium claims in President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address.
Grossman, now vice chairman at The Cohen Group, an international lobbying firm in Washington, DC, was traveling Thursday."
(Make that William Cohen, Clinton Sec.Def.) "

[Bob]

"Mr. Cronin,

If he was so "thorough and meticulous in this investigation" how is it that he missed the basic fact that Armitage talked to Woodward at least two weeks before Libby supposedly committed the "first leak" to Judy Miller?"

It's the same logic the left uses when claiming Clinton only lied about sex. Their small brains can't distinguish between the facts and what they want to believe.

Helps them think Fitzmas is still coming!

[verner]

Fitzgerald may not have told a lie, but at this point, if he had any principles what so ever, he would drop the charges and cut Libby loose.

He had not a clue about what was really going on when he indicted Libby. Now he does. And considering the harm done to this administration, and the country, it needs to end. As long as he has Libby in the dock, the conspiracy nuts have something to chew on--and it's Fitz's fault.

Fitz has already done enough harm. His case against Libby has been whittled away by Wells. I don't see how he could win it, especially when taking in to account that Libby's explaination is completely plausable, the star journalistic witnesses are horribly compromised, and Fitz can prove absolutely no motive on Libby's part. Let it go, move on. Fitz owes it to the President, the country, and most importantly to Libby.

Fitz has conducted himself in an honest, non-partisan way? Doesn't look that way to me.

[Bob]

Speaking of frauds!

"CEO William Caldwell delivered the same message: "we do not destroy the embryo. That's the whole purpose of what we perceive to be a major scientific breakthrough." Ronald Green, a bioethicist at Dartmouth who heads ACT's Ethics Advisory Board, gave it his blessing. "This technique overcomes this [ethical] hurdle and has the potential to play a critical role in the advancement of regenerative medicine."

But their claim was false. None of the embryos described in the paper had survived. Talk of breaking the impasse was a con."

[Ranger]

Maria,

We know this becuase Woodward has come forward and told us that he recieved a leak about "Wilson's Wife" before the prosecutor alleges that Libby talked to Judy Miller about it. After the presser, Woodward called his source (now confirmed as Armitage) and said he needed to set the record right. Woodward also had stated that he requested repeatedly, over the course of a year, that Armitage release him from his pledge of confidentiality so that Woodward could write about it, but Armitage refused. Armitage only came forward because Woodward told him he was going to the prosecutor regardless to correct the time line put forward in the presser.

[Sue]

Ranger-How do you know that Fitzgerald "missed the basic fact..."? We don't know what Fitzgerald knows, and when he found out.

Then you think Fitzgerald is a liar? Because at his press conference, he plainly said Libby was the 1st known official to reveal Wilson's wife to a reporter, that reporter being Judith Miller. We know Armitage talked to Woodward prior to that. So...did Fitzgerald know and decided to lie? Or did he not do a thorough enough investigation to find out about Woodward/Armitage? You decide...

[clarice]

OUCH--Cliff May on the real scandal:
"Re The Real Scandal [Cliff May]

NRO’s excellent editorial, as well as very good one in the WSJ this morning, inspires these thoughts:

It is now clear that the White House did not, as charged, conspire to expose the identity of an undercover CIA agent as a way to punish Joe Wilson and discourage other whistle-blowers.

The truth is that Joe Wilson and David Corn imagined this conspiracy – and brilliantly made it into a major story and a multi-million dollar, tax-payer funded federal case.

Or – this can’t be dismissed — perhaps they knew all along that what they were alleging was false but found it a convenient way to attack and undermine an administration they hated and opposed.

As I’ve written in the past, it is obvious that Wilson has been Corn’s major source from the start, and that Wilson provided Corn with information on his wife, Valerie Plame — information that Bob Novak did not receive from Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. In particular Corn learned of Plame’s undercover status and details about the work she did and the covers she utilized. (Why that leak of classified information to Corn has not been prosecuted is a mystery to me.)

It would be good for an investigative reporter to look into all this but I guess Michael Isikoff is disqualified since he decided to write a book about the Wilson/Plame affairs with David Corn as his co-author. What could Michael have been thinking? Or smoking?
Posted at 1:15 PM"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTA2YWQzOWEyMTkyNzdmNTA1MTBjYzA2ZDQzZTk2NGQ=

[Walter]

Clarice,

The cite is to Jason at Truthout in April.

Even repeating it at Lucianne doesn't give it more credibility.

[Bob]

The moonbats won't let go!

The Armitage Confession & the Niger Problem I Am a Curious Yellowcake

Having a lowly former ambassador undermine a statement by the president might anger a White House, but the attack that ensued, which appears to have been orchestrated by the White House and the Vice President, was so virulent, involving the criminal outing of Plame and the jeopardizing of all her contacts and her critical work on nuclear proliferation, including in countries like Iran, that clearly more was involved than just administration pique.

[maryrose]

verner:
I agree with you. The only explanation that makes sense is that Fitz bought revenge against a whistlblower theory. This has been disproven so now they have to downplay Armitage's crucial role in this travesty.
The leaker is Armitage. Fitz was charged with finding the leaker. He has done so and decided not to prosecute. Case closed. Libby should be re-instated immediately, the left be damned.

[JohnH]

When Fitz got started, he already had the FBI interviews, right? So maybe the FBI agent who interviewed Libby didn't like Libby and told Fitz, "This guy is pretty slippery, and I think he is covering up what he knows."

Then even if Fitz knew that there was no "outing" crime, he could have thought that there was some substance to the OVP conspiracy idea.

Just trying to fit the facts into a (relatively) innocent explanation. Of course, now that more facts have come out and Wilson has been shown to have lied about so much, Fitz is in a bit of a pickle.

[Howard Cronin]

- topsecretk9 -

I'm not saying that the Starr investigation wasn't justified. Plus, I was oversimplifying the "reason" of the case, based on how it was resolved.

The point is, to demonize Fitzgerald for doing his job is EXACTLY like the Dems demonizing Starr for doing HIS job. They're both wrong.

Everybody seems to think Fitzgerald didn't know any of this or that, but the thing is -- we don't KNOW what he knows or DOESN'T know. My only complaint with Starr was the amount of leaks that kept coming out... but Fitzgerald has kept a tight lid on this investigation. For people to question Fitzgerald's intelligence or knowledge, when NONE of us know anything for sure, just makes the questioner look idiotic.

[Walter]

Cecil,

I'll correct myself. The DoJ began its investigation two days before 1x2x6 appeared in the Washington Post. Still think there's more to the referral than "Here's an article. Looks like it refers to stuff it shouldn't".

[Howard Cronin]

"Libby should be re-instated immediately, the left be damned."

No! It's things like this that hurt the conservative cause. The fact is, we have a rule of law, and NO ONE should lie when they are under oath - not the President, and not Libby. As 'topsecretk9' pointed out, the Starr investigation has NOTHING to do with Clinton's sexual affairs... but when asked under oath about it, he lied. And justice demanded that he pay a price. To claim that Libby is above this law is the height of hypocrisy.

[gm]

Can someone please tell me what war we were in when Clinton was under investigation for lying under oath or sexual dalliances? (depending on whether you kind of respect the legal system and think the nation's chief executive should have credibility or whether you want to use the press to press a leftist agenda)

[Clarice]

If it seems, Howard, that we are rolling our eyes, it's --well--because we are.

No one thinks that lying is a good thing or even obstructing an investigation is.
But we have been minutely examining the case for months--some for years-- and on the substance of the charges are in general agreement they are very, very thing gruel, something no prosecutor with any judgement would have brought.

I am sorry if you think we are rude or giving your moral objections short shrift, but that is why we think your arguments less than persuasive.

[Tom Maguire]

When Fitz got started, he already had the FBI interviews, right? So maybe the FBI agent who interviewed Libby didn't like Libby and told Fitz, "This guy is pretty slippery, and I think he is covering up what he knows."

That is my guess - I don't think Libby came across as Mr. Credible with his "I forgot, but Russert reminded me" story.

Russert's different version surely didn't help; Miller remembering a June 23 meeting that Libby forgot didn't help.

[Sue]

we don't KNOW what he knows or DOESN'T know.

We know he didn't know about Woodward and Armitage. Either that or we know he is liar. Libby was not the first known official to reveal information about Plame.

So, I ask you what I asked someone earlier, which is it? Liar or incompentent?

[Jane]

I'm convinced that the only route to go from here is after the journalists. Wilson should rue the day he ever brought that civil suit.

Lemme at 'em.

[cathyf]

Fitzgerald keeps filing motions saying that this is a case about perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice, and that all of these "crimes" happened in the course of Libby explaining how he heard about Plame and how he talked about Plame. Ok, fine. Let's judge Fitzgerald's behavior by Fitzgerald's standard. Libby's story, in essence, is that he first heard it from official dull bureaucrats who write and talk in dull bureaucratese, and he didn't appreciate that it was particularly significant, so he didn't pay any attention to it and forgot it. Then, a professional journalist, whose profession revolves around the task of making information interesting and engaging, told him about Plame in a way that wasn't as boring, and so he thought it was interesting enough that he remembered it. Then later, other reporters discussed it with him, and since he now remembered it, he was able to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

The only thing that was ever implausible about Libby's story was that if there weren't any reporters who knew about Plame, except for the ones Libby told, then there was no way (without violating the laws of physics) for any reporter to have been telling Libby about Plame before Libby told any reporters. Whether or not any reporters were in the position to be tutoring Libby on the sexy details of Plame-behesting is entirely a question of WHEN various people told reporters. How many reporters doesn't really matter -- if Army told 1000 reporters on July 9 then that doesn't provide a possible source for what Libby said on July 8.

Fitzgerald makes all sorts of assertions which rely upon the single logical predicate that no journalist knew about Plame during a time period which would make Libby's story possible. This is a fact that can be investigated, and a logical person would have thought that he had spent two years finding out if this thing was likely to be true or false. It is now obvious that Fitzgerald does not know. He brought an indictment, even though he did not know the one thing that must be known in order to have even a well-founded suspicion that what Fitzgerald has asserted in the indictment is true or false. And the reason that he didn't know is that he made no attempt to find out.

Look, I don't buy the "oh poor Fitzie he missed that tiny little trivial detail" argument. This was it -- this was the ONLY piece of data which would support his indictment at all, and it appears that he made no attempt to pursue it. So he spent 2 years, umpteen gazillions of dollars, shredded press freedoms, imprisoned a woman for 84 days. And at the end, he produced an indictment which critically relies on the ONE piece of information that he didn't bother to try to find out.

[Bob]

Howard... also keep in mind that Clinton's lies were proven, whereas Libby so far has only been accused of lying based on a "he said - he said" situation... very different animals!

[clarice]

Another blockbuster:The Powell-Armitage-Wilkerson Cabal

The Powell-Armitage-Wilkerson cabal

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5986

[Harry MacD]

Libby had already allegedly lied to the FBI and obstructed their investigation when Fitz was appointed.

Since there was no underlying crime and this was known immediately, the only crime left to support the investigation seems to be Libby's false statements and obstruction. Yet even granting that assumption, there is no legitimate explanation for Fitz calling Libby the first leaker when his investigation knew for a fact that wasn't true.

Was Fitz elliptically referring to that in his various court filings that AJ Strata has discussed?

[topsecretk9]

I would note a few distinctions...

The Bush Administration gave FULL cooperation with this investigation, even to the point of issuing waivers of confidentiality...and Fitz as much as acknowledged he had full cooperation, no stonewalling etc.

Gonzalez and the Administration played way above board as even David Corn acknowledged with regards to WH Counsel Gonzales

To this point no one has leveled any substantial criticism of Fitzgerald

As information becomes clear it appears there are a number of aspects that people have at least some right to question Fitzgerald's investigation

He does not walk on water, despite the fact he answers to no one

[Thomas Morrissey]

T.M
Help me out here, in an earleir post,The 'Hubris' Of Richard Armitage,

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.

you stated:

First, let's note that the outline of Armitage's story (he had no idea he was Novak's source until he read an Oct 1 Novak column, after which he huddled with Colin Powell and the State Department counsel and then called the FBI to apprise them of his role) merits a bit of skepticism.

So the Armitage/Novak timeline, July 8,2003 Dicky inadvertantly blabs to Novak, he reads Novak's column on Oct 1st,2003.

This prompts Armitage to speak to Powell, State Department Lawyers and the F.B.I.

That was in October 2003

Were you sceptical about Armitage's speaking to the F.B.I?

If not, how can it be explained that the F.B.I knew Armitage was the original Novak leak, the focus of the investigation,before it even began,and Fitz never knew until after Libby was indicted?

[lurker]

"No! It's things like this that hurt the conservative cause. The fact is, we have a rule of law, and NO ONE should lie when they are under oath - not the President, and not Libby. As 'topsecretk9' pointed out, the Starr investigation has NOTHING to do with Clinton's sexual affairs... but when asked under oath about it, he lied. And justice demanded that he pay a price. To claim that Libby is above this law is the height of hypocrisy."

I don't think anyone here has claimed that Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Bush are or wer above the law. It's that we're convinced that Libby told the truth all along and that this lawsuit was frivoulous right from the start.

[lurker]

"Libby had already allegedly lied to the FBI and obstructed their investigation when Fitz was appointed."

The key word is "allegedly" and Fitz has to prove that Libby lied.

But the gotcha is that Judge Walton whittled away Fitz's witnesses down to Russert by impeaching Cooper and Miller.

Therefore, what's left? "Libby said one thing, Russert said another thing".

Not much of a argument there.

[Daddy]

Anyone here know if Sir Chickens**t admitted to doing it "at Dick Cheney's behest"? Well anyhow, now that Armitage has confessed (gosh, he must feel wonderful, confession being good for the soul and all) does that free both Novak and Woodward to tell about all the particulars of what and where and how they learned all this stuff from him? Will Armitage now be put under oath to swear whether or not he also harmlessly 'gossiped' to Mitchell or Russert or Cooper or Pincus or even Joe Wilson the man himself? My guess is that from here on out, with the exception of Novak and Woodward, we are going to see a case of mass amnesia infect reporters for the NYT and the Washington Post. This mass amnesia is currently being carried along by that pseudo-hurricane just off the North Carolina coast. It'll make landfall near DC by tomorrow, and New York the day after, afterwhich all these reporters memory banks will be washed clean and they'll only be able to mutter "Katrina, Katrina, Katrina".

[Don]

I second Mr. Morrisey. How could Fitzgerald not be lying about Libby?

[cathyf]

Thomas Morrissey:

If not, how can it be explained that the F.B.I knew Armitage was the original Novak leak, the focus of the investigation, before it even began,and Fitz never knew until after Libby was indicted?

Armitage told the FBI in October, 2003, that he had leaked to Novak on July 8, 2003. Armitage told Fitzgerald in November of 2005, after the indictment of Libby, that he had leaked it to Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003. (After Woodward gave Armitage an ultimatum and told him that Woodward was going, and Armitage better go right then if he wanted see Fitzgerald first.)

The essence of the logic of Fitzgerald's indictment is that no one other than Libby told any reporters before July 8, 2003, while we now know (from Armitage's schedule) that Armitage told Woodward on June 13th.

Thomas Morrissey, you need to catch up with the facts. People here are happy to explain things, but the snottier you are in asserting things which are false the snottier will be the corrections.

[clarice]

To my knowledge Sir C still has not released Novak or Woodward to discuss this with anyone outside the Special Prosecutor's office.

[J2]

cathyf - hep hep

[Jane]

Will Armitage now be put under oath to swear whether or not he also harmlessly 'gossiped' to Mitchell or Russert or Cooper or Pincus or even Joe Wilson the man himself

Think depositions - civil case.

And remember Clinton lied under oath is a civil deposition. He lost his bar card for that.

[maryrose]

TS:
Very good point.
HarryMACD:
Libby did not lie to the FBI or gj.

[jwest]

I still want full credit when Fitz does his 180 degree spin to indict Wilson.

Now that the storyline has changed, Fitz either needs to find a criminal or go back to Chicago and open a hot dog stand. His career won’t survive a dismissal of charges against Libby without finding an alternate villain. Fitz is the new Brownie, unless he acts fast.

He needs a Perry Mason moment that people can grab hold of. Right now, half the country (republicans) thinks he’s an idiot and the other half will scream for his head when the Libby case is dropped. Our boy Fitz won’t have a friend left.

It’s said prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich just for shits and giggles. Watch what happens when you throw in the motive of prosecutorial self-preservation.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

On the other hand The Australian pretty much understands the significance (though getting a couple details wrong):

The truth destroys CIA leak fantasy

With such zingers as:

' From Le Monde to the Guardian, from Balmain to Carlton, no right-thinking progressive ever doubted the conspiracy theory that the Bush White House had decided to punish Mr Wilson for becoming a critic of the war by outing his wife.

' Of course, as a conspiracy theory it never made any sense. Far from damaging Mr Wilson and Ms Plame, the publicity made them celebrities.

' Mr Wilson, furiously writing opinion pieces for The New York Times and boasting about his wife, did everything he could to draw attention to himself, not normally the way the spouses of covert agents maintain their covert status.'

[Chants]

The big brow-scruncher for me has long been this.

Why, after the Libby indictment, does Armitage get a pass while Rove and Libby get hounded?

Am I to really belive that Fitz is so dumb he can't see the inconcruity?

The only thing I can think of that poke a hole of daylight is this:

Fitz has a Libby-Reporter contact discussing Plame that predates the INS memo.