Replies

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

Fitzy? You got some 'splainin' to do.

Fitzy? You got some 'splainin' to do.

Senator Leahy is hinting that the may call him to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Fitzgerald May Testify on Prosecution of Libby Case, Leahy Says
By John Hughes
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may be called to testify about his prosecution of former vice presidential aide Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said.
Leahy and Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the panel, indicated they want to ... quiz Fitzgerald on his handling of the case.
``I still haven't figured out what that case is all about,'' Specter said. ``There are a lot of ramifications that I think we ought to go into. Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?''

The Republicans blew their chance to subpoena Valerie and Joe to appear before a congressional committee and explain, under OATH, their various roles in the Niger affair.

If Plame were indeed a ‘covert agent’ of the CIA, her testimony would have been limited to her role in getting her husband, Joe Wilson, the job nomination to go to Niger.
(The CIA would have requested that no questions about her covert position be raised or mentioned, and the committee would probably have agreed to it). Apparently they didn’t.

However, no one knows WHEN Plame was a ‘cover operative’ or “agent”, and there is a great deal of significance in the difference betweent them.

Joe Wilson would have lied under OATH about who suggested him for his trip for the CIA, etc., and he would have gone to jail, but the Republicans, trying to be gentlemen in a whorehouse fight, missed their best chance to explode the lies that the Wilsons perpetrated, aided and abetted by the Democrats. Stupid is as stupid does.

Fitzgerald might be found guilty of malicious prosecution because he knew that Armitage, not Libby, revealed Plame’s name as a CIA employee, and failed to tell the grand jury about it (the grand jury would probably NOT have indicted Libby if they had known this). This is a crime by Fitz and he should pay for it (i.e. Nifong did the same thing in the Duke case, and see what was done to him).

Armitage should have had the guts to stand up like a man and say that he was the one who mentioned Plame’s name, not Libby. He is a coward!

If any congressional republicans have any remaining guts, they will raise the Fitzgerald and Plame/Wilson issues in upcoming congressional hearings and DEMAND that they be put under OATH to answer for their actions.

Gee, lunatic secrets leaker Sen. Leahy is doing that to White House staff right now, so why not demand the same rights of hearings and questioning of the Wilson crew and Fittzy?)

If you want to play in the big leagues, you’ve got to play to win. The Republicans have lost their desire to win, only to survive. Whimps, whusses, and losers.

I hope that Fred Thompson has the guts to raise the Plame/Wilson and Fitzgerald acts of misconduct and lying in his presidential campaign, and the COVERUP by the Democrats in their congressional hearings and press conferences.

Take no prisoners!!

What an extraordinary world that is inhabited by the likes of Novak, Armitage and Fitzgerald.

Novak conducts an interview in which no ground rules were established, he nevertheless assumes unspoken, unrequested ground rules and determines from his assumptions that he may not reveal his source. The unspoken ground rules do, however, not only permit him to publish the leak, but to do so would be in accordance with the desires of the leaker. None of this was ever revealed. Why not?

Novak watches the whole of the nation turn inside out as the result of his publishing disclosures made during that interview but he says nothing. He watches reporters go to jail to protect their sources who, Novak well knows, had nothing to do with the original leak, and, evidently, says nothing in private to the prosecutor or in public to the nation. He does not tell the world that the prosecutor already knows who the leaker was. He does not tell the world that the reporter in jail had nothing to do with the original leak. Why not?

As reporters go to jail and public servants are repeatedly brought before grand juries, still Novak says nothing in public to the effect that the prosecutor is running rabbits at a cost of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds and gross disruption of the national administration. Surely he is not proscribed from this public service even by his own assumptions about the ground rules of his interview with Armitage. Why not?

Novak does not tell the public that his leaker was not part of a neocon conspiracy, that his leaker was opposed in principle to the war, that there was no dastardly administration plot to punish Joe Wilson through his wife, Valerie Plane. Why not?

Novak continued to act on his assumptions about the ground rules of this interview, or more accurately put, he continued not to act because of his assumptions about the ground rules of the interview. By his own admission he did not return to Mr. Armitage to clarify the ground rules of the interview. We know this because he declares that he never spoke to Mr. Armitage on this subject again. Why not?

For his part why did Armitage not speak out? True, at some point he went to the special prosecutor and revealed that he was the leaker, but why did he not go to the president? Why did he not release his involvement to the public and save his president from the loss of public support and the consequent inability to conduct the war? Was He Bound by the Prosecutor ? Was be bound by a general admonition from the president? The prosecutor certainly cannot compel silence from witnesses. Why in the face of this national turmoil would Armitage feel bound to respect any such admonition from the prosecutor? If the president had issued such a directive, Armitage must have known that it was based on imperfect knowledge which he alone could rectify simply by informing the president. He did not. Why not?

Why did Fitzgerald continue with his inquisition? What was his brief from the Attorney General? Once he knew that Armitage was the leaker, he knew the there was no neocon plot to punish Wilson and Plame because Armitage was against the war. More importantly, he knew there was no underlying crime because Plame was not covert. Why did Fitzgerald persist?

Did Fitzgerald consider it to be his responsibility to criminalize the making of politics? Did Fitzgerald consider it a crime to be a neocon? To be for the war? To attempt to discredit your political enemies? The minute Fitzgerald knew there was no covert status, he knew there was no crime. At this point what was he conducting but an inquisition? Was this not a classic case of a special prosecutor conducting an investigation in search of a crime?

The only explanation for all of these questions that occurs to me is to recall at the time there was a classic media frenzy underway lead by the New York Times. Bush succumbed and the rest is history. All the rest of the players were caught in the maelstrom of a media storm which immobilized them from doing their patriotic duty.

Fitzy? You got some 'splainin' to do.

I guess that depends on the ground rules Fitz sets in order for him to testify. In the spirit of "cooperation, fairness and the need to get to the truth" which would probably wind up being a fancy way for Fitz covering his 6th.

I don't hold much hope of the Republicans stand up against this one either.

This sure seems to help Libby’s appeal.