Fitzgerald doesn't want to talk about Armitage

NBC News ^ | 30 October 2006 | By Joel Seidman

[Laverne]

WASHINGTON - Without ever mentioning him by name, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, in a court filing Monday, argues that a jury in the CIA/Leak trial should not consider evidence concerning why he did not charge former State Department official Richard Armitage with leaking Valerie Plame's name to reporters. It is a crime to intentionally disclose the name of a classified CIA operative.

Fitzgerald writes, "The fact that no other person was charged with a crime relating to the disclosure of classified information says absolutely nothing about whether defendant Libby is guilty of the charged crimes."

[Laverne]

Some new Fitzy Gate Info

[Laverne]

Scooter Ping

[Paladin2]

I still want Fitz to provide a complete minute by minute log of his "investigation" and a complete accounting of all gov't resources spent in this effort. What a crock.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

"The fact that no other person was charged with a crime relating to the disclosure of classified information says absolutely nothing about whether defendant Libby is guilty of the charged crimes."

I beg to differ with that interpretation. If Armitage "outs" Valerie Plame--the damage is done at that point. If, today, Scooter Libby or you or I proclaim that Valerie Plame is a secret agent, should we be prosecuted as well? Once classified information is leaked into the public domain, subsequent "leakers" are far less guilty than the originator, particularly when the classified information has already become public knowledge. Failure to go after the primary "leaker" while vigorously pursuing a secondary or tertiary "leaker" smacks of political persecution.

[Redgirl]

Fitz is hoping that if he ignores it (Armitage), it will go away.

[sgtbono2002]

The way Fitz is running this he should be in charge of a railroad somewhere . He is sure railroading Scooter.

This POS should be removed from any appointment he holds.

[digger48]

Fitzy's entire future lies with this....he's not gonna just walk away from it.

[Laverne]

I can't imagine that the judge would go along with this. Then again, I can't believe the judge just didn't throw this whole thing out. It is a persecution, as an up-thread poster suggested. This case should be dismissed. Fitzy looks like a fool in this.

[marlon]

I agree but I think Fitz must be thinking that he didn't charge him with leaking he charged him with perjury. Either way it's a crock, should be shut down or at minimum reopened with charges filed againts the Plame-Wilson's.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Sure. In a case in which the salient question was "who leaked he info", the fact that Armitage likely was the initial source is irrelevant. Incredible logic.

It's amazing to me that all of the 'ethics and human rights'-driven purists who have made such an issue of Guantanamo have no problem with the way Libby has been railroaded.

[colorado tanker]

Well, it has everything to do with the lie you told in your "press conference" fingering Libby as the one who leaked her name, Mr. "straight-arrow" prosecutor.

[shadeaud]

Where is the ACCOUNTABILITY in all of this. This is hardly anything of a highly classified nature. My feeling is that someone is being promised a high appointment after the '08 election. Today's politics reminds me of business as usual in Chicago, New Orleans and all of New Jersey

[Howlin]

Scooter ping!

[the Real fifi]

Fitz is pl;aying his game--On the one hand he wants to suggest that Libby had a motive to lie so his minuscule differences in testimony were criminal. On the other hand since Libby hadn't disclosed Plame's identity to the reporters--Armitage did (Woodward/Novak/maybe others) what motive did he have to lie about these conversations?

[Grampa Dave]

What a vile petty party hack POS Fitzy is.

[libstripper]

Fitzgerald argues that his decision not to charge Armitage or anyone else with disclosing the name of a CIA operative should not be grounds to acquit Libby, "It is improper for the jury to consider, or for counsel to suggest, that the decisions by the government not to charge additional crimes or defendants are grounds that could support an acquittal on the crimes charged in the indictment," the special counsel writes.

Oh, yes, "the decisions by the government not to charge additional crimes or defendants" are profoundly relevant. For Fizzy to prevail he must prove that any misstatements of fact by Libby were intentionally false. To prove intentional lying the government must generally prove that the defendant had a motive to lie. If Fizzy himself couldn't find any grounds to indict Armitage for disclosing Plame's identity, it's compelling evidence that, even in Fizzy's perverse view, there was no underlying crime. Hence, because Libby had no reason to fear indictment for a totally fictitious non-crime, he had no motive to lie about what he knew. Since he had no motive to lie, his explanation of defective memory becomes all the more compelling.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Has anyone ever seen Mike Nifong and Pat Fitzgerald in the same room, at the same time ?
Could they actually be one and the same ??

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Sounds like Fitzgerald has paying attention to the Duke case.

Poor Scooter.
When this is over, I hope he sues the hell out of the wilsons.

[ivyleaguebrat]

This whole case is very strange. Libby allegedly perjured himself; Armitage admits disclosing Plame to Novak.. Libby is charged but Armitage is not. Weirdness all around. Probably a political hit-job from the start.

Of course, Fitzgerald would be correct reminding a jury that one has little to do with the other. Say I lie under oath about the investigation of my friend.. The prosecution failing to make the case against my friend does nothing to excuse my perjury.

[McGavin999]

I don't know about you, but this is making my stomach turn.