Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Economic Populism At The Times | Main | Shopping For Bombshells »

August 30, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d83466ad0b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some Silly Reaction To The Armitage Story:

» Did Fitzgerald lie? from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
With the revelation that Armitage is the leaker, it turns out that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may have not been the paragon of truth everyone has put him up to be. Fitzgerald knew in the early days of his p... [Read More]

» PlameFlop from The Right Nation
Christian Rocca, su Il Foglio di oggi, racconta agli italiani (che non hanno avuto modo di leggerla da nessun'altra parte) la patetica conclusione del "Plamegate", lo scandalo che - nei sogni bagnati dei liberal di tutto il pianeta - avrebbe dovuto f... [Read More]

» PlameGate Still On? Keep Dreaming from Decision '08
Jeff Greenfield has a particularly weak story up on PlameGate with the thesis that the revelation of Armitage as the original Plame source doesnt mean the investigation is over.  After reciting the historical backdrop in a cursory fashion, here... [Read More]

» Patrick Fitzgeralds Jaworski Complex? from Gay Patriot
Like many conservative bloggers and even liberal pundits and editorialists I have been wondering, since I read that former United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage leaked the information about Valerie Plame to columnist ... [Read More]

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 http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=083006E>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!

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08302006.html>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.

Thomas Morrissey

cathyf

There was nothing snotty about my post,as you state the F.B.I knew Armitage was the leaker in question in 2003,Fitzgerald was assisted in his investigation by the F.B.I.

Are you sugessting it is plausable that the F.B.I who knew of Armitage's role said nothing for over two years?

Sue

Rush Limbaugh is calling for the AG to get involved and end the Fitzgerald investigation.

JorgXMcKie

TM, I think you must have misquoted your lede.

re: "Patrick Fitzgerald's three-year manhunt": shouldn't that more properly be 'three-year manurehunt?

cathyf
Fitz has a Libby-Reporter contact discussing Plame that predates the INS memo.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused the right to confront his accuser. Keeping an accuser secret would be a gross violation of Libby's constitutional rights.

Of course on the other hand, if the Appointments Clause doesn't apply to Fitzgerald, maybe the Bill of Rights doesn't, either.

Charles

Thomas Morrissey,

So are you saying Fitzgerald lied at his press conference bringing charges against Libby? He knowingly called Libby the first leaker to damn him in the eyes of the public when he knew all about a previous leak?

I am not a fan of that press conference on many levels but even I doubt Fitzgerald would have done that.

cathyf
Are you sugessting it is plausable that the F.B.I who knew of Armitage's role said nothing for over two years?
I'm suggesting that the FBI knew, in October, 2003, that Armitage told Novak on July 8, 2003, but that they did not know, until November, 2005, that Armitage told Woodward on June 13, 2003.

Your question as you constructed it is nonsensical. If you use ambiguous euphemisms like "Armitage's role" instead of exact descriptions of exact things Armitage did, then your questions easily become nonsensical.

jwest

TM,

Although your comment is still up on the FDL thread, you do realize they will scrub it clean later this evening.

(with bleach, lye and other caustic cleaning agents that remove even the slightest trace of dissent)

Harry MacD

Maryrose:
The question I was trying to frame is what crime were they investigating since they knew about Armitage from the beginning? Was it never anything more than Libby's *alleged* false statements and obstruction?

I am curious to know if Fitz ordered Armitage not to talk about what what he'd done. If so, then Fitz is even more cuplable. If not, Armitage, Powell, et al deserve whatever scorn is heaped upon them.

Regards,

JM Hanes

Thomas:

"Are you sugessting it is plausable that the F.B.I who knew of Armitage's role said nothing for over two years?"

That they knew of Armitage's role in leaking to Novak, absolutely yes.

Per my comment in the Times thread, I believe that's also one of the reasons they were back-dooring their grand jury witnesses into the courthouse.

clarice

He might well have asked Armitage not to talk nbut he was free to ignore it, and the circumstances warranted he do just that. In any event, I do not see how Powell was hamstrung into failing to tell his boss , the President, who had ordered everyone in the Administration to come clean to him. Certainly, had he known he'd not have allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor.

JM Hanes

Harry:

"Was it never anything more than Libby's *alleged* false statements and obstruction?"

No, it wasn't. One of the first official things Fitzpatrick did was to ask Comey for an explicit expansion of his powers to go after ancillary crimes like perjury.

Chants

The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused
the right to confront his accuser. Keeping
an accuser secret would be a gross violation
of Libby's constitutional rights.

Libby is absolutely entitled to confront and subpoena witnesses. And the prosecution is required to provide this information upon request. Prosecutors now do it without a request.

Libby would also be entitled to his own statements to be used against him. He may already have them. He may already have the names of other witnesses to be used against him. All of these disclosures may not have been part of the discovery litigation we have been able to see.

Not bloody likely. I mean not bloody likely that there was some contact predating the INR memo of June 10, 2003.

But that is my own Devil's advocate's leading theory.

Epphan

Would the FBI sit on the information for more than two years? I guess not, which just shows its investigative team was pretty piss poor...and info gathered during the investigation was/is useless.

larwyn

Just able to connect now so will
have to catch up.
Breaking in with:
Crazy Larry sighting

On CSPAN
"The U S Role in the World"
Sponsored by
National Interest Magazine

When I turned in LJ was speaking of
"5 yrs w/o MORAL AUTHORITY IN THE WORLD" --- how do you say hypocrite.

Someone from Cato is also there and
panel is large and can't immediately identify others, but it was mentioned that the group is oppositional.

Don't know who is speaking now but he just mentioned "hubris" and stirring up terrorism (he's from Cato - supposedly Libertarians)

Probably al la Conyers' fake hearing.

Freaknik

Wow! And for this Bush hired his own attorney and got questioned by Fitzgerald?

And the FBI knew it was all Armitage before Bush hired an attorney?!

Wow-either Bush is an idiot or there's more to story.

Must be more since Libby is still going to trial.

Thomas Morrissey

cathyf,

The point is this,the investigation was compelled by Novak's column,Armitage was the substantive source for that leak,the F.B.I knew this in the Fall of 2003,Fitz must have had this knowledge early on in his investigation.

Information implicating Libby and his June conversations with reporters would have to have come up after Fitz knew this.

Knowing Armitage was the original leaker,he could have gone to the same lengths in subpoenaing information,as I am sure he did with Rove and Libby,which would have led him to the information the A.P recieved in it's F.O.I.A regarding Armatige's schedule,and then to Woodward.

This gives at least the appearance of Fitzgerald ignoring seemingly obvious lines of investigation in favor of following a certain theory of the case involving Rove and the O.V.P.


Patton

To be COMPLETELY FAIR to Fitz, this is what he ACTUALLY SAID in his presser (Everyone keeps citing his first use of the words 'first known' but that's not all he said:

""""FITZGERALD: At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly. """

FITZ CLEARLY SAYS FIRST OFFICIAL, not first known official.

In addition, he cites NO clear evidence that Libby told Miller anything. Since Miller can't remember anything of that meeting from her own memory, she just speculates on what's in her notebook.

It could very well be as Libby says, that MILLER DISCLOSED IT TO HIM, NOT THAT OTHER WAY AROUND.

What Fitz is saying is he believes Millers sketchy testimony of her notes...BUT ONLY BECAUSE HE HADN'T DISCOVERED WOODWARD.

JM Hanes

Thomas & Epphan:

Perhaps I should clarify: The F.B.I. sat on the info publicly. Fitzgerald had their info, and he sat on it in almost every conceivable way to sit on it there is.

Tom Maguire

From cathyf at 12;11:

Look, I don't buy the "oh poor Fitzie he missed that tiny little trivial detail" argument. .

LOL - I sense that. In my sometime role as Fitzgerald apologist, he was limited by DoJ guidelines regarding the treatment of journalists - he was not allowed to simply haul their sorry action into court and get their story.

However - it does not appear that Fitzgerald diligently pursued the question of who else in State knew about Plame, and with what reporters did they meet. Apparently, the Armitage appointment calendar for June, with Woodward on it, was news to Fitzgerald, although the AP got it - maybe instead of subpoena power, we should have simply given him the Freedom of Information Act.

And I wonder if Fitzgerald really grilled the attendees of the State-WH meeting which featured Libby and Grossman - in principle, everyone there was a potential leaker.

Thomas Morrissey

JM Hanes

Per my comment in the Times thread, I believe that's also one of the reasons they were back-dooring their grand jury witnesses into the courthouse.

Fitz does semm to have been exceedingly cautious,including his inexplicable shielding of Armitage.

Contrast that with Rove,who's role in the leak to Novak was not even a complete sentance,and then only in confirmation.

He was publicly raked over the proverbial coals,and was kept under a cloud of criminal suspicion and legal jeapordy,yet Fitz extends the courtesy of anonimity to Armitage even though he was the locus of the investigation.

clarice

In the pre trial proceedings it struck me he was even unaware of the lifetime friendship between Grossman and Wilson/Plame, Tom.

JM Hanes

Patton:

But that's not the end of the story, because Miller said she had something from someone else too, but just couldn't remember who. In light of the presser quote, the fact that Fitzpatrick apparently agreed not to pursue questions about sources other than Libby in order to obtain Miller's testimony seems damning in retrospect, doesn't it?

Ranger

Some ruminations on Fitz and the investigation.

First, the decision to appoint Fitz put a definate trejectory on the entire project. Fitz basically investigates three kinds of things; Political Corruption, Organized Crime, and Terrorism. All of those are conspriratorial in nature. In Fitzland, everythig is a conspiracy. Putting Fitz on the case meant that it would be a search for a conspiracy.

1 x 2 x 6 was specificly designed to do two things:

1) Point the investigation in the direction of the White House/OVP.

2) Make sure that investigators looked at more than just the Novak leak.

Investigators dropped Armitage as a suspect in their search for the "first leaker" because his leak to Novak was after other reporters had already heard about "Wilson's Wife" and Armitage wasn't in the White House/OVP, thus he did not fit the 1 x 2 x 6 profile.

The only reason Armitage comes forward at all about Novak is because 1 x 2 x 6 made it look like Novak was part of a 'Neocon' plot and Novak responded by writing his "no partisan gunsliger" column that made it clear his leak did not come from the White House. Armitage came clean about his leak at that point, but it was already safe for him because 1 x 2 x 6 had put the investigation on it's conspriracy track.

JM Hanes

Ranger:

Yes, plus they already had testimony from Libby that was all over the map. That would tend to confirm suspicions of a conspiracy to which Libby was a party of to which he could conceivably lead them.

cnj

It appears that barring an order from Bush that will kill the trial, Fitz can get a conviction if and only if he made sure that all members of the jury are under age 35.

topsecretk9

I really think the 1x2x6 was Wilson and it was more hype for his cause than anything, with a willing friendly to lend credence...because if you think about it 1x2x6 was 'speculation' as the downgrading "revenge" to "pushback" illustrates.

I think 1x2x6 was just one of the many media bites in the butts for listening to Wilson.

Sara (Squiggler)

Thomas Morrisey - Despite the rude remarks made to you, I'm with you. I find it absolutely incredible that Fitz did not know and I believe now that he did lie at his presser and lied knowingly and with malice. I am of the opionion at this point that Fitz is a #1 slimeball partisan hack masquarading as a prosecutor. This was a conspiracy, one set in motion by the CIA cabal/MSM group who has done this on several occasions. So, don't take the insults ... you are on the right track, IMHO.

Sara (Squiggler)

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.

The only response to this is GAG!

Fitz is a sleazebag liar!

Sara (Squiggler)

TM, you seem 100% convinced that Fitz and company knew nothing and therefore "innocently" went after Libby as the first leaker based on his conversation with Judith Miller. I think this starts you off on the wrong foot. We know that Miller's notes don't really incriminate Libby. What we don't know, because they have been disallowed and the pertinent sections have not been made public, is what else her notes cover and who they talk about. My bet is that the leaks from Armitage are to be found there and that Fitz was well aware before indicting Libby.

She was protecting someone's identity. And, as the subsequent release shows, it is hard to think that her rather innocuous conversations with Libby were what was at stake, especially in light of him releasing her and she still being willing to sit in jail and then insisting Fitz limit his questions to Libby material only.

I think that is why the judge has said he will allow the full Miller stuff in rebuttal. The trial had already been time limited to nothing before the Libby/Miller timeframe, so anything before that couldn't come in as relevant under the current rulings, but that doesn't mean it isn't there or that Fitz is innocent.

Freaknik

Remember when Bush said that he thought Delay was innocent even though Delay had already been indicted?!

Wgy can't he do it for ole Libby?

Gary Maxwell

OT Fox just had up a Gallup poll of generic choices of registered voters for choice of party to lead Congress. Taken August 18-20. Democrats prefered only 47% to 45% with an undecided of 7%. That does not sound like a tidal wave to me. Plus its registered voters (not likely voters) which usually skews to the Democrat Party's favor.

Anyone think that the foiled plot in Britain and the recent revelations on Plamegate and the whole expose on the staging of news in the Middle East has had a steeling effect on the electorate. I do. What if Republicans actually gain seats? Wont that blow a few minds?

Harry MacD

Help the clueless - what the heck is 1x2x6?

clarice

From your mouth to God's ears. Maybe a photoshopped snap of Valerie and Sir Chickenheart would be a good idea.) JUST KIDDING

topsecretk9

HarryMacD

Spet. 28, 2003 (see TM handy timline and links to the right)

A WAPO story had an Adminstration Officaial (1) saying 2 WH Officailas (supposed Rove and Libby) (2) called at least (6) reporters...for revenge

cathyf
In my sometime role as Fitzgerald apologist, he was limited by DoJ guidelines regarding the treatment of journalists - he was not allowed to simply haul their sorry action into court and get their story.
In order to prove the counts of his indictment, Fitzgerald needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no reporter in a position to tell Libby about Plame prior to Libby's first discussion with Miller or Cooper about Plame. DoJ guidelines (which Fitzgerald is not obligated to follow, and didn't follow) would have prevented him from collecting the evidence needed to base a well-founded suspicion that the charges in the indictment are true. Ok, so what you are saying is that because of the DoJ guidelines, Fitzgerald gets to skip the whole investigating thing and just make up whatever shit he wants to be true? As clarice has explained over and over -- in every other situation, when guidelines, or people's civil rights prevent an investigation from discovering necessary facts, then the investigation is stymied and ends. Here, in a freakish parody of our legal system, the presumption of innocence has been tossed away and replaced by the presumption that whatever information the prosecutor didn't get proves Libby's guilt.

(Ok, ok it's not quite fair to say that Fitzgerald did no investigating. He clearly stuck his nose into all sorts of private executive branch business, and after ascertaining that it had nothing to do with any legitimate law-enforcement purpose, he put it in press releases and handed it out for publication.)

Ranger

Harry,

I'll take a stab at explaining it.

1x2x6 is shorthand for the formulation, presented in the WAPO by individuals willing to speak to reporters, but not investigators (thus protecting the individuals from criminal liability) about a conspiracy in which a senior member of the administraion directed two political operatives in the White House to leak the information about "Wilson's Wife" to the press. Those two operatives then called six reporters to "push the story."

Patton

"""LOL - I sense that. In my sometime role as Fitzgerald apologist, he was limited by DoJ guidelines regarding the treatment of journalists -"""

This is not true. He was given AG status by Comey and as such, the AG does not have to follow those guidelines. Fitz DECIDED ON HIS OWN with NO GUIDANCE from anyone how to treat journalists.

topsecretk9

Instaheh linked--- but good question, and timely, since the civil judge just mocked the super-secret celebrity couple for asking to be exempt from the most basic of rules so they could obscure their super secret residential address

Armitage Abode [Kate O'Beirne]

For almost three years, at every minor twist or turn of Plamegate, there were media stakeouts at the offices and homes of of the suspected leakers that invariably made the evening news and played in constant loops on cable. So who's on Armitage driveway duty? Richard Armitage isn't being hounded to answer questions about his role in Plamegate because the media wishes he had no role. Such a bummer for all the reporters who are now bored with the whole subject.
Posted at 3:40 PM

Patton

And Fitz made this statement to the court back in 2005:

"First, Cooper’s own article noted that the conduct of the
officials involved an attack on an administration critic, not whistleblowing.""

So Armitage was committing an ATTACK ON AN ADMINSTRATION CRITIC???

And since when is "attacking a critic" a federal offense under DOJ guidelines??

topsecretk9

Media: more pliable then a can f fresh playdough...


via the corner

The real cabal [Rich Lowry]


The Armitage revelation and way he and Colin Powell handled it—in the most self-serving way possible, with maximum damage inflicted on the administration—demonstrates what the real cabal in the first Bush administration was. It was Powell and Armitage, and their minions like Lawrence Wilkerson and Carl Ford. These people spent countless hours sitting around and figuring out how they could leak and use anonymously sourced hits within the press to undermine Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove (and, later, when he was up for the UN job, John Bolton). Powell was always very shrewd about it and left no fingerprints. Since Powell and Armitage didn't have strong policy motivations, they turned everything into a personal turf war, which went a long way to embittering and making dysfunctional the first administration. Yes, Bush and Rice should have stopped it, but a lot of the blame goes to Powell and Armitage for engaging in this kind of bureaucratic tribal warfare in the first place. Of course, the story in the press was always that Powell and Co. were the embattled, innocent victims—but that was partly because they were feeding so many of the reporters. It's outrageous that because this small group was so adept at leaking and so adept at working the press that they managed to get the administration's "neo-cons" portrayed in the media as an out-of-control cabal. When these officials were just supporting the policy of the administration that Powell and Armitage and their small group of allies so disdained and did so much to undermine.
Posted at 5:38 PM

Extraneus

Isn't it cute that Armitage is allowed the inveterate "gossip" description? Kind of like ol' forgetfull ditzy Sandy Berger, isn't it?

"We were all laughing about it on the way over here," the former president said of the investigation into Samuel "Sandy" Berger on classified terrorism documents missing from the National Archives. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe. But ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers."
cathyf
The trial had already been time limited to nothing before the Libby/Miller timeframe, so anything before that couldn't come in as relevant under the current rulings
I know that the judge has already ruled on this, but doesn't the June 13th date of Armitage's blabbery prove that this ruling, if allowed to stand, deprives Libby of his right to a fair trial? Shouldn't this be a reversible error on the judge's part?

So, we know that Team Libby will come up with stuff even better than we can imagine, but it is fine to let the imagination roam. Something like:

IMAGINED WELLS: Your honor, we would be quite happy to agree to limit ourselves to things that happened between June 23 and July 12, as long as Mr. Fitzgerald is willing to stipulate that between June 13 and June 23, Mr. Armitage and Mr. Woodward told 1,562 different journalists about Ms Plame. Oh, yeah, and to specifically stipulate that those journalists included Mr. Russert, Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper.

What the heck -- if Fitzgerald gets to simply make shit up, why not everybody?

cathyf
And since when is "attacking a critic" a federal offense under DOJ guidelines??
Gee, Osama Bin Laden was an administration critic, too. Is Fitzgerald going to bring up the USAF on charges for bombing Tora Bora?

(Bombing Tora Bora -- now THAT is "attacking a critic"!)

Userfpc

This is how I read the indictment: Libby's "lies" were what he told the FBI/GJ, but the substance of the "lie" is in what he said to reporters. Thus, when Libby tells the investigators he responded to Miller/Cooper/Russert(?) et al, "Yeah I've heard that from other reporters," he was lying and had in fact said something else to them.

The part that I fail to understand about Fitz' case is that it pits each reporter's exact memory of the discussion against Libby's. But each reporter who spoke to Libby was only trying to get confirmation of Plame's identity, which Libby gave, albeit indirectly.

Having gotten confirmation, the reporter either could run with or was closer to running with the scoop. Depending upon the reporter's listening skills (or ethics), the precise words might not have been material. In other words, the reporter might have thought, I got the info I need, the hell with quoting exact words in my notes.

Bottom line, Fitz needs reporters to prove that what Libby said to them was different from what Libby told the FBI/GJ he said. Based on the above, I can't see how that happens. I recall reading that Miller even admitted that her notes sometimes intentionally included misinformation to test officials.

Syl

cathyf

LOL

You're on a roll!!!

Clarice

Isn't she, though?

Larwyn

Curt of http://www.floppingaces.net/ has gone to check out the
DUmmies, so you don't have to.
He's got more than these gems:

UPDATE II

Here is one of them trying to be a writer for the Times by coming to his own convoluted chain of events that lead to…..


leveymg Wed Aug-30-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. It’s looking more and more like Marc Grossman is the original source of Plame’s identity, at least within the circle that was trying to get dirt on Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame.

Grossman, who is a lesser known (but important) neo-con, changed the name Valerie Plame to Valerie Wilson on a State Department document that he incorporated into the 7/10/03 “INR” document that Grossman prepared and Armitage faxed to Powell about AF-1. The INR identifying Valerie Plame was then passed around by Bush’s aides. Libby received the original document naming Plame in a fax from Grossman before Libby had his famous breakfast meeting with Judy Miller on 7/8.

But, Grossman was responding to an inquiry from Libby who was originally told about Plame by Cheney. So, the chain of custody goes back to you know who, Dick Cheney.

Yup, its still Cheney’s fault.
This one believes it to be a White House conspiracy to find a fall guy:
.......
And this one still believes in Santa Claus:
AngryAmish Wed Aug-30-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
28. This is a distractionWait until Rove is indicted.
These guys slay me.UPDATE IIIThis one gave me a headache:
Kagemusha Donating Member Wed Aug-30-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Well, I had a thought a minute ago…Novak called the CIA and asked about Plame apparently, and he was told they weren’t talking about her, and they didn’t want him talking about her, either, or suggesting things about her.Could Novak have simply decided, “Ok, I know she works at the CIA, they won’t admit it, ergo, she’s covert - great, I’ll put that in my column!”Maybe he called a couple of other sources like Rove or Libby (or both) to get a wink, wink, nod, nod, confirmation that she worked at the CIA without their saying she was a NOC. So he decides she’s a NOC (non-official cover = covert) based on the CIA refusal to discuss her, which they wouldn’t do if she was NOT a NOC, and prints she’s a NOC with the CIA spokesman as his unwitting “source” by process of elimination.And Fitz can’t know for sure if the confirmation to Novak, taking advantage of Armitage’s f-up, was a conspiracy or not with Libby throwing sand in his eyes.
Please someone get him his schizo meds….stat!

And a great write up post follows.

FloppingAces

topsecretk9

Well this is kinda interesting....this is Wilson, November 3, 2003 (just after the investigation started)


TN: But the question again: Is Karl Rove the leaker?

Wilson: I don't know the name of the leaker. I will say this: the CIA is an executive branch agency that reports to the President of the United States. The act of leaking the name of a national security asset to the press was a political act. There is a political office that is attached to the office of the President of the United States. That office is headed by Karl Rove.

It is a useful place to start asking questions. Now, nobody has told me the name of the leaker or who authorized the leak. I did not know until I saw the Washington Post article that there were apparently two waves. There was the wave of the leak, two by six, two leakers to six journalists. And then there was a subsequent wave when Karl Rove and perhaps the communications office were pushing the story.


It was my understanding that via the WAPO that is was the Fitz team investigators who started calling it "one by two by six" sometime in February 04, because they were persuig the source of this...hmmm. I'm telling you, I think Wilson was the 2x6er

Sue

Top,

That just took Rove out of the 2 in the 1x2x6.

topsecretk9

Sue

Funny you should say, because it appears that Wilson knew this and said as much at the same interview, Nov. 2003, just after the investigation started...(in fact it looks like Wilson knew the specifics even before Fitz - that Army was leaker)

TN: Regarding the revelation of your wife as a CIA operative, do you think Karl Rove was behind the leak?

Wilson: Scott McClellan has admitted that Karl Rove spoke about it to the press after the leak took place. Now the only thing that we're disputing now with these guys is whether or not he used the term "fair game" or not. Now my contemporaneous notes from a journalist who called me say that that is precisely the term he used. My credibility, my batting average with this administration on truthfulness is about 3 for 3 so far.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame