Powered by TypePad

« Indiana Wants Him | Main | Beep Beep »

August 29, 2006


JM Hanes


I wasn't getting snarky, just trying to be clear. I don't think Fitz has claimed he knew nothing about Armitage before the presser. He obviously knew about Armitage and Novak. I think it's pretty clear, though, that he didn't know about Armitage and Woodward before the presser. Whether he should have known is another question.






I was going strong on the new thread and look at the handy dandy new comment thing at the right and noticed everyone was linger here, sorry!


I think it's pretty clear, though, that he didn't know about Armitage and Woodward before the presser. Whether he should have known is another question.

And whether that should have altered his previously set course (indictment for obstruction) is yet another question.


I'm an getting re-aquatinted with the new laptop and seem to keep missing keys...sorry for the awkward grammar.

JM Hanes

I could probably use a little aquatinting myself. :)

Wilson's a liar

Cathyf: Sara -- if you've managed to miss this very important detail and you have been following the case closely, think about the average Joe Schmoe... This isn't some little detail -- I think that there is a pretty significant chance that if the first grand jury had known that Armitage had told a reporter about Plame 3-1/2 weeks before Libby claims to have heard it FROM a reporter, they may very well have refused to indict.

Jesus. You are absolutely correct. This puts Fitz in Ronnie Earle grand-jury-shopping territory. Maybe not all the way there, but it stinks just as bad. Earle also got his phony-baloney indictment that ended Tom DeLay's career from a second grand jury after hiding the no-bill from the first grand jury. But so what, he and his Democrat puppetmasters got what they wanted, even if the charges get thrown out or DeLay wins summary judgment at trial. Same thing here.


I think, was that Fitz should not be able to claim he knew nothing before the presser about Armitage's role because I don't believe that is true.
The fundamental logic of the presser is

1) Libby claims that he wasn't paying attention to the Mrs. Wilson angle until a journalist (Russert) volunteered it to him.

2) After the journalist told him, he discussed it with 2 other journalists, Miller on July 8 and Cooper on July 12.

3) No journalists other than Novak, Cooper and Miller knew about Plame before Novak published.

Conclusion: Following the chain of custody of the information, it was impossible for a journalist to tell Libby about Plame before he talked to Miller/Cooper because there were no reporters who knew it.

This is a logical argument, and it simply collapses into silliness when you find out that a reporter knew about Plame on June 13. There was plenty of time for Woodward and/or Armitage to blab it all around, and remember that Andrea Mitchell claimed at one point that it had been blabbed around widely.

I can't imagine that Fitzgerald would have said what he said in the presser if he had known that the information had been dispatched to the press corps as early as June 13th. I can't imagine Fitzgerald would have said all those things in the Tatel filing or to the USSC. Because (as has happened) once Woodward and/or Armitage talks, then Fitzgerald looks like either a liar or a clueless moron who can't figure out that he has the evidence that completely destroys the logic of the indictment.

I might believe that Fitzgerald might lie if he thought that he could get away with it, but no way do I believe that he would lie if he knew how easily he could be exposed as a liar and/or fool. I have to believe that he was truely ignorant. Whether or not he SHOULD have been ignorant is a different issue -- I just can't believe that he would knowingly "get out in front" that far (to paraphrase KR.)


Yes, I think we all agree that Fitz should have figured out that Armitage was the "first leaker" before he even called Libby before a GJ. His failure to do so is a huge question mark, but that doesn't mean he was lying when he said he believed Libby was the "first leaker", just that Fitz had totally failed at his main job.

P.S. I hope I wasn't coming across as snarky either.



Yeah I thought it was special that he called ma a stupid "community college" student...

Here is the man the media go to for expert analysis , who thinks it's OK to insult and disparage all registrants of Community College...classy.

Sara (Squiggler)

TS, I came to this story after the Tatel time, so I am not very up to speed on that earlier stuff. I'm gong to get out of this discussion. My only point was that I'm livid with Fitz because he "obviously" DID KNOW that at least one other blabber mouth was talking to a reporter and he still indicted Libby. And I think he also heard it from others, like Powell and then there is Grossman, a double snake. And I don't believe he didn't know every word in Miller's notebooks, which I bet included Armitage. Maybe one of the attorneys can tell me if just because Miller didn't have to answer questions beyond the scope of Libby, does that mean that Fitz wouldn't know what the scope beyond Libby actually was. He had to know. How could he not? What was it in Miller's notebooks that made the current judge think that there is potential impeachable material in there for the defense. Wilson's phone number? How 'bout Armitage's blabbering? Just asking.


One thing...I have not seen an actual report that Armitage was actually before a GJury....I have only seen speculation that it 1 to 3 times...does anyone have a sourced report that Armitage went before the GJ?


--I came to this story after the Tatel time, so I am not very up to speed on that earlier stuff. --

BEFORE I keep reading Sara...I just want to say that A- that's OK and B_ even if you had gone that far I wouldn't begrudge ANYONE for forgetting all that - I can't even remember OR keep up with all the crap.


WSJ calls for Bush to pardon Libby and shut the whole thing down.



You are very right to be outraged and frustrated and you raise really good points..

-- My only point was that I'm livid with Fitz because he "obviously" DID KNOW that at least one other blabber mouth was talking to a reporter and he still indicted Libby. --

Yep and it appears he was pretty dishonest --for some reason -- about this stuff to everyone including judges.

Sara (Squiggler)

cathyf, I have so little respect for Fitz at this point, I don't think I can concede even half of what you are willing to believe or allow for. I do not believe at this point that Fitz is pure of heart.


Sara...I DO beleive this was almst written for you


--All of this matters because it also casts doubt on the thoroughness and fairness of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's probe that began in December 2003. The prosecutor never did indict anyone for leaking Ms. Plame's name, though this was supposedly the act of "treason" that triggered the political clamor for a probe. Instead, he has indicted Mr. Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Mr. Fitzgerald has nonetheless also tried to spin an aura that Mr. Libby was responsible for outing Ms. Plame. In his press conference on October 28, 2005, the prosecutor asserted that "In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to [former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson." But we have since learned that Mr. Armitage also told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward about Ms. Plame--a fact that Mr. Fitzgerald never uncovered until Mr. Woodward came forward after he heard Mr. Fitzgerald make that false public assertion.--



Remind us never to get in a foxhole with either Mr. Comey or the Powell crowd.


Yes, Sara, that makes me livid too. Not so much that he still indicted Libby, but that he seems to have taken the investigation of Libby and Rove more seriously, even knowing that Armitage was the Novak leaker.
(I think it is quite likely others were talking too).

I guess if there's any Rep that deserves a free pass from the Dems on a questionable pardon, it would be Libby. After all, he surely never questioned Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich. :-)

Sara (Squiggler)

This is funny in a sick kind of way:

From WSJ

As for Justice, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case in an act of political abdication. That left then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey in charge, and he also presumably knew by October 2003 about Mr. Armitage's role as the leaker who started it all. Yet if the book's account is correct, he too misled the White House with his silence. Mr. Comey is also the official who let Mr. Fitzgerald alter his mandate from its initial find-the-leaker charge to the obstruction and perjury raps against Mr. Libby that are all this case has come down to. Remind us never to get in a foxhole with either Mr. Comey or the Powell crowd.

Sara (Squiggler)

TS, I agree. Actually the whole article.


See...great minds and all that.

Sara (Squiggler)

Clarice, if you are still around, I think the WSJ just made your job a whole lot easier. For sure, Fitz, the Libby team and everyone at the WH/OVP and everyone who counts will read that article. They don't seem to know that Armitage has now fessed up according the the NYT, but that may be a deadline thing. I think this story is going to hit bigger than I would have predicted.


Also...remember when the WAPO had the op-ed

"Good leak vs. Bad leak" and how the left just FREAKED? Well, now that Armitage is finally revealed...it's an OK leak, go figure.

Sara (Squiggler)

This whole investigation by Fitz has been based on the good leak vs bad leak premise, doncha think?

Thomas Morrissey


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.

For the sake of arguement, let's say it's mid October 2003 before Armitage talks to the F.B.I.

The F.B.I assisted Fitz in his investigation,I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest someone in the F.B.I might have mentioned something over to Fitz about Armitage, maybe he was distracted by the lack of heat in his apartment,or the F.B.I left a copy of the report in a pizza box, so Fitz never saw it.

In Fitz's own words

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.

That quote was from Fitz's press conferance,on October 28,2005.

Add to that Fitz's odd protection of Armitage's privacy,why do that,why protect him?


Arimtigae sayon on Charlis Rose -- to that pint he was not woried about his situtation with Fitz and that he had no lawyer (again to that point -- what was it like a month ago?))

Well according to the new NYT's

Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.

Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

Does this mean he HAS NOW lawyered up?

If so, then this LOOKS like a Fitz CYA....day late dollar short though.

Anyways, I look fr the Charlies Rose interview....

JM Hanes


I don't mean to sound like I'm defending Fitz. I've been apalled since I first compared what he said in his presser to what he charged in his indictment!


Here is Armitage on Charlis Rose video - free here




--Sorry, there isn'ta searchable transcript for this video.---

and show site has nothing more than this...



I would not like to see these various legal proceedings end before we see exposure in the following areas:

1-CIA, State and MSM duplicity and disloyalty to the President and the nation in a time of war.

2.Russert under oath where he is forced to give full account of his conversation with Libby. I still say it will not be much different in substance from Libby's except on whether the word "Plame" was used.
3. Libby reinstated.

4. Powell exposed.

5. Kerry, Wilson and their conspiracy exposed.

6. Wilson, Jeffersen et al African/French/ Iraqi activities exposed.

7 The true story of the forged document case exposed.

8.The Fritz performance examined.

9.The referral letter and reasons therefor examined.

That will be just the start. I disagree -this is ideally suited for a congressional hearing.


Well, paladin, I suggest you write Libby a check for a couple million dollars because he certainly hasn't the means to cover the cost of this on his own.

Dale in Atlanta

This from the NYT article today, where Armitage's lawyer "admits" that Armitage had a role as the leaker in Plamegate:

"He was also the source for another journalist about Ms. Wilson, a reporter who did not write about her."

Isn't this just PROOF, that Armitage's lawyer is admitting that Armitage was Judith Miller's source as well as Novak's?

Have you all seen this?

What does this do for the case against Libby now?

Dale in Atlanta

Never mind; I got disabused of this notion on another thread, that it was probably Woodward!

Okay, no more analysis for me, I got excited for a second, and it went to my head...

The comments to this entry are closed.