'Newsweek' Says Armitage Was Plame Source for Both Novak and Woodward

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Corn
LOL (or should I say: BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! as a tribute to Conjob) , this should stay up at the top for a while. Where's Harvey, Conjob, and BOBD....errrrr, I mean BBond anyway? This issue was of the upmost in importance to those funnay fellas. What kind of punishment do you think they will be happy with regarding this act of treason!!!

bwahahahaha! PWNT. I predict the following lib resonse: "Armitage is lying. Rove did it and paid off armitage to say he did it." LMFAO!!!! ROFLCOPTER!

 

[Red Dawn]

Witch Hunting, reminds me of the Republicans during the Clinton Administration.

Just because it looked like something Cheney and Rove would do it didn't make it so. They didn't get to where they are by being stupid and careless.

 

[Pabster]

And the lefties bailing out continues

Plamegate is all of a sudden small print last page news. Funny how that works!

 

[umbrella39]

Wonders who the other source was . . .

 

[Darkhawk28]

When will the right-wing traitor-supporters answer my own simple question I made earlier in the thread...

Why all the lying and obfuscating if everything was so innocently done?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What I find so funny about all the ass-slapping and self-congratulation I see in this thread is that the White House could have eliminated all of the suspicions by just cooperating with the authorities fully and being open with the public. Instead, the President of the United States hired a criminal defense attorney. I think the Plame issue was worth investigating (certainly more so than Clinton's philandering), and the White House's persistent veil of secrecy made it appear that where there was smoke, there was fire.

What I continue to wonder is whether you guys actually like and admire President Bush, or if this is just residual orneriness. To a man, every one of the conservatives I've conversed with by PM on the subject has admitted President Bush is a POS. Ah well, at least you have your pride . . .

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
When will the right-wing traitor-supporters answer my own simple question I made earlier in the thread...

Why all the lying and obfuscating if everything was so innocently done?

Lying and obfuscating would be declaring executive privilege, trying to delay this case until after the president leaves office etc.
Everyone in the Bush administration cooperated with the special prosecutor. So far the only claim of criminal conduct that we know of is Libby making some statements that are not consistent.
Look at the actions of Novak, he could have refused to name the sources of his article by claiming first amendment protection. But his sources told him to go ahead and tell Fitzgerald their names.
I think the administration has been pretty open about this since the beginning, they had nothing to hide and it shows.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
And the lefties bailing out continues

Plamegate is all of a sudden small print last page news. Funny how that works!

It's funny how reality works? Hell, when you're wrong, you're wrong...at least for those of us man enough to admit it. It's really a shame it's not a trait shared by YOUR side of the fence

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
When will the right-wing traitor-supporters answer my own simple question I made earlier in the thread...

Why all the lying and obfuscating if everything was so innocently done?

Lying and obfuscating would be declaring executive privilege, trying to delay this case until after the president leaves office etc.
Everyone in the Bush administration cooperated with the special prosecutor. So far the only claim of criminal conduct that we know of is Libby making some statements that are not consistent.
Look at the actions of Novak, he could have refused to name the sources of his article by claiming first amendment protection. But his sources told him to go ahead and tell Fitzgerald their names.
I think the administration has been pretty open about this since the beginning, they had nothing to hide and it shows.

Please, I could practically HEAR Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" every time Bush got up to defend the administration during the whole Plame situation. I'm not saying they couldn't have been worse about it, but their actions just seemed incredibly suspicious at the time.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
When will the right-wing traitor-supporters answer my own simple question I made earlier in the thread...

Why all the lying and obfuscating if everything was so innocently done?

Lying and obfuscating would be declaring executive privilege, trying to delay this case until after the president leaves office etc.
Everyone in the Bush administration cooperated with the special prosecutor. So far the only claim of criminal conduct that we know of is Libby making some statements that are not consistent.
Look at the actions of Novak, he could have refused to name the sources of his article by claiming first amendment protection. But his sources told him to go ahead and tell Fitzgerald their names.
I think the administration has been pretty open about this since the beginning, they had nothing to hide and it shows.

Please, I could practically HEAR Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" every time Bush got up to defend the administration during the whole Plame situation. I'm not saying they couldn't have been worse about it, but their actions just seemed incredibly suspicious at the time.

Looking back on it now it almost looks like they were doing it with a wink and a knowing smile... The words weren't "I did not have sex with that woman," they were, "I wonder how much rope they'll take before it snaps tight."

It wouldn't be the first time this administration did something like that.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Wonders who the other source was . . .

Welcome to July.....

 

[shira]

You know, something just doesn't make sense about this whole situation: If Armitage was the inadvertant source of the leak, and he told Powell, the FBI, and Fitzgerald early on, then why didn't Fitzgerald put the investigation to bed immediately?

This might have started with Armitage, but there's more here than meets the eye.

 

[rhatsaruck]

For the dimwits and those suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder I refer you to the NPR timeline of the CIA Leak Case, a veritable Cliffs Notes on this topic:

"Oct. 25, 2005: Citing lawyers connected to the case, The New York Times reports that Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about Plame from a conversation with Cheney in the weeks before her identity became public in 2003. Libby's notes from that conversation, which took place June 12, 2003, contradict Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he first learned about Plame from journalists, lawyers told the paper. The previously undisclosed notes are now in the possession of prosecutors."

"Nov. 15, 2005: Washington Post editor Bob Woodward testifies that a "senior administration official" told him about Valerie Plame and her job at the CIA nearly a month before she was first named in Robert Novak's column. The revelation would make the source, who Woodward refused to identify, the first official to reveal Plame's identity to a reporter."

Cliffs of the NPR Cliffs article:
1. Libby and Cheney knew about Plame's status by June 12, 2003 and possibly earlier. Libby lied about this under oath.
2. Woodward learned about Plame's status well before Armitage's babblings to Novak.

On to ProfJohn:

"This whole Plame afair is a big waste of time and money".

Interesting.

1.No one is saying that the "outing" of Plame was an actual crime.

Special Counsel Fitzgerald would disagree with you.

if this isn't the definition of a "fishing expedition" I don't know what is.

Interesting.

Everyone in the Bush administration cooperated with the special prosecutor. So far the only claim of criminal conduct that we know of is Libby making some statements that are not consistent.

So "not consistent" that Libby's actions warrant charges of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of false statements, and two counts of perjury related to an investigation of acts of treason against the United States committed by a senior member of the Bush administration.

Let's not forget Whoozyerdaddy:

My guess is Libby will be acquited after all of this.

When his handwritten notes of a conversation with Cheney contradict his sworn grand jury testimony?

Acts of treason against the United States are deadly serious matters. Open minded citizens of any political persuasion would want alleged acts investigated (and, if necessary, prosecuted) to the fullest extent of the law. Especially if those acts have been committed by senior members of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

I said "open minded citizens" would welcome such an investigation. It's clear from their comments that ProfJohn and Whoozyerdaddy don't fall into that category. They've revealed themselves as glib, slick, dismissive partisan players who place political interests on a higher pedestal than our nation's national security interests. To them I say: STFU.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: rhatsaruck

1.No one is saying that the "outing" of Plame was an actual crime.

Special Counsel Fitzgerald would disagree with you.

If that is the case then why has he not brought one criminal case against anyone for outing Plame? We all know who did it, and he has known for 3 years and yet he has charged no one.
There are a lot of legal questions floating around the whole outing of her that raise the question as to whether or not it was as crime.
For Example: for it to have been a crime she would have had to been "under cover" with in a certain time frame, and she would have to have done X,X and X etc.
That is why Fitz has not charged anyone with leaking her name, he can't not prove there was a crime.
Here is some nice background on this:

Much of the media attention has focused on whether one or more senior officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 USC 421-426). (See Intelligence Identities Protection Act for the full text of this act.) However, proving a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act involves several elements which may be difficult to establish in this case. Some legal pundits felt that Rove was unlikely to have been in violation of the narrowly-worded Intelligence Identities Protection Act &mdash.

In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose the identity of a "covert agent." To be considered a covert agent, one must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." § 426(4)(a)(ii). (See [4] and [5] for the definition of covert agent.) Plame hasn't been posted overseas in the last five years.

Everyone in the Bush administration cooperated with the special prosecutor. So far the only claim of criminal conduct that we know of is Libby making some statements that are not consistent.

So "not consistent" that Libby's actions warrant charges of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of false statements, and two counts of perjury related to an investigation of acts of treason against the United States committed by a senior member of the Bush administration.

There is no act of treason. If there was please explain to me why no one has been charged for anything remotely relating to treason.
You could try and charge them under the Espionage Act, but that is pretty weak as shown here

On October 28, 2005, Lewis Libby resigned from his position in the White House. This followed immediately after he was indicted on five criminal felony charges including obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury. Special Counsel Fitzgerald indicated that he considered the charges grave, as they represented a fundamental attack on the legal system. Also mentioned in the indictment, but not charged was "Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793," which is the Espionage Act (from the indictment page 2, section b stated [14]).

If he wanted to get him for the the espionage act he would have charged him for it, the fact that he did not charge him for breaking any law besides the ones relation to the legal process show that Fitz does not have the evidence to make any more serious charges stick.

Let's not forget Whoozyerdaddy:

My guess is Libby will be acquited after all of this.

When his handwritten notes of a conversation with Cheney contradict his sworn grand jury testimony?

Acts of treason against the United States are deadly serious matters. Open minded citizens of any political persuasion would want alleged acts investigated (and, if necessary, prosecuted) to the fullest extent of the law. Especially if those acts have been committed by senior members of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

I said "open minded citizens" would welcome such an investigation. It's clear from their comments that ProfJohn and Whoozyerdaddy don't fall into that category. They've revealed themselves as glib, slick, dismissive partisan players who place political interests on a higher pedestal than our nation's national security interests. To them I say: STFU.

rhatsaruck, we have had your investigation, and it turns out that there was no big conspiracy to out Plame in order to discredit Joe Wilson.
Here is some more great background information on this whole mess:

The unusual circumstances of this case led a number of media organizations to file a friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) brief on behalf of the journalists who were subpoenaed (Matthew Cooper, Judith Miller, and Time Inc.). In this brief, lawyers representing 36 media organizations, including ABC News, AP, CNN, CBS News, WSJ, Fox News, USA Today, NBC News, Newsweek, and Reuters, argued to the court that "there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Protection Act in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper." [1] Victoria Toensing, the principal author of the amicus brief, also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as a previous undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the Novak article.

I think you are ignoring one of the key points of this whole discussion thread. For 3 years certain members of the press and left wing blogers have been salivating over this story and just waiting for Rove etc to be arrested and charges with crimes.
We now know that isn't going to happen and all of a sudden the same people going after this story every day have decied that there are better things to cover.
Where is the front page New York Times story setting all the facts straight and point out that this wasn't a case of trying to get Wilson, but just a big misunderstanding???

 

[ProfJohn]

Great stuff on this whole mess from Newsweek:

"The disclosures about Armitage," Isikoff writes, "gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone."

Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat," Ford recalls in "Hubris," to be published next week by Crown and co-written by the author of this article and David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation magazine.

Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged. Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.

In otherwords, Fitz thought that no crime had been commited. Armitage is THE source, everyone else just confirmed the story. You can't charge Libby, Rove etc with "outing" Plame if you don't charge Armitage.

 

[Corn]

I wonder why the mods deleted the Plame Civil Suit thread that I bumped yesterday............

 

[jlmadyson]

And the plot thickens....


Plame Sues Armitage Over CIA Leak

NOVAK: ARMITAGE DID NOT TELL ALL

One-time covert CIA officer Valerie Plame on Wednesday sued the former No. 2 official at the State Department for violating her privacy rights.
The suit does not accuse Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state in the Bush administration, of participating in an administration conspiracy to blow her cover.

Plame added Armitage's name to a civil suit in U.S. District Court against Vice President Dick Cheney, his former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and White House adviser Karl Rove.

Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, say the White House leaked Plame's identity as retribution for Wilson's criticisms of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Armitage admitted last week that he told two reporters in 2003 that Plame worked for the CIA, but he said the disclosure was inadvertent. Armitage said he knew of no plan to leak Plame's identity; some people said that admission disproved the conspiracy theory.

By adding Armitage's name to the suit, Plame's lawyers set up a different scenario. They contend a White House conspiracy existed, but that Armitage's leak was independent of it.

Armitage is accused of violating Plame's privacy rights. He is not accused of violating the Wilsons' constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom of speech _ allegations that remain against the White House officials.

Wilson discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Such a claim wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has investigated the leak for years and has not charged anyone with intentionally leaking Plame's identity. Libby is under indictment for lying to authorities about his conversations with reporters.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

If it was an "accident" like they claim, then why all the lying and obfuscating?

Good question, although at this point any response is pure speculation. Perhaps, given the nature of allegations and the mood of the nation, the White House felt compelled to spin this controversy under the rug and failed.

My take on the article is that Armitage inadvertedly leaked information that he did not know or realize was sensitive...shame on him perhaps, but certainly not the conspiracy theory that many simply assumed was the case.

Then again, this whole fiasco has been nothing but speculation.

Novak disagrees with you Real Story behind Armitage's Role:

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ??thought?? might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson

Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.