News-Record.com

Stevens and Byrd...two peas in a pod.

two very ancient peas in a pod. they're probably just afraid of the intertubes.

Lex, I'm still waiting on you to blog about the latest revelations on the Plame "leak" case.

Which was not a leak. Which was not a crime. Which never should have been a case -- since the prosecutor knew who "leaked" it from the start.

You've written droves about this before -- seizing on minor screw-turning events as if there was (ah ha!) a constitutional crisis developing...

So, why not write when a major revelation clears the evil Bush administration?

Jim: Lex, I'm still waiting on you to blog about the latest revelations on the Plame "leak" case.

Yeah, well, I was kinda busy last week pulling together the story for Sunday's paper (about which more in a separate post).

Which was not a leak.

Funny; the CIA sure thinks it was.

Which was not a crime.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm keeping an open mind about that.

Which never should have been a case -- since the prosecutor knew who "leaked" it from the start.

Correction: The prosecutor knew one of the people who leaked it from the start.

So, why not write when a major revelation clears the evil Bush administration?

Well, other than the fact that 1) I don't owe anyone a post on any particular subject at any time, and 2) as I said above, I was busy last week trying to pull the Sunday story together, the reasons would be:

-- That Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's original source and Lewis Libby was Cooper's confirming source.

-- Therefore, the administration isn't "cleared" of anything, particular inasmuch as Armitage, irrespective of motive, is part of the administration as well.

Ah Lex... You speak like an organ of the DNC.

First, Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.

Armitage was Novak's only living source. The only other source was "Who's Who." The other people Novak mentioned simply confirmed his information.

The DOJ knew who leaked even before Fitzgerald was put in charge of the investigation.

Who else spoke to reporters has nothing to do with the investigation of how Novak came to publish Plame's employment at the CIA -- which is what Fitzgerald was charged to uncover.

Lex, you seem to claim the revelation about Mr. Armitage did not rule out a White House effort because Libby and Rove, the senior white House adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with other journalists.

But, once again, if others had talked about Plame that is irrelevant to the investigation into Novak's leak of her employment at the CIA. Which even in itself was not illegal.

What is curious is how Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it.

To my mind this is the most damning revelation yet. Why on earth would Fitzgerald tell Armitage to keep quiet about being the leaker? Robert Novak never understood why his source would not come forward and put an end to this preposterous charade.

The goal of a prosecutor is to get at the truth. Not to abuse his position to entrap others and to help propagate a smear campaign by the opposition party. For this act alone, Fitzgerald should face disbarment and probably jail time.

And Lex, please learn something:

Even the NY Times says that Armitage was not regarded as an ally of Cheney.

And by "not an ally" The Times seeks to downplay that Mr. Armitage is part of the anti-war, anti "Neo-Con" wing of our one party establishment. He was even considered as a possible Secretary Of Defense by the Kerry campaign!!!!

Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.

In other words, Armitage could not resign because the truth might come out -- and put an end to "Treasongate." Which, lest we forget, was to be this generation's Watergate.

Nice try Lex..

and...

why is "Scooter" Libby facing perjury and obstruction of justice charges, when Richard Armitage is not? Armitage never told Fitzgerald about his leak of Plame's identity to Bob Woodward, more than a month before Novak's column.

Of course we know why.

An Armitage prosecution would have been of no use to Fitzgerald's mission -- which was first and foremost to discredit the White House.

Does Fitzgerald really want to be Hillary's Attorney General that badly?

You've been had, Lex.

Ah Lex... You speak like an organ of the DNC.

Y'know, Jim, as often as we've disagreed, I've never impugned your integrity. If you've got evidence that mine has been compromised, bring it; otherwise, mind your manners.

The DOJ knew who leaked even before Fitzgerald was put in charge of the investigation.

So it seems. But that raises an interesting question: If the Bush DOJ knew two months before Fitzgerald was put in charge, why'd they appoint Fitzgerald ... and then keep him on after his grand jury's term expired? That's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know. But it suggests that even the Bush Justice Department thought there was, or at least might be, something else there. At the very least, it bespeaks desire to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I'd like to see more of that desire from both parties.

Who else spoke to reporters has nothing to do with the investigation of how Novak came to publish Plame's employment at the CIA -- which is what Fitzgerald was charged to uncover.

Actually, Jim, Fitzgerald's appointment was nowhere near that limited. The text of then-Acting Attorney General James B. Comey's letter reads as follows:

"By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department." [3]

In February 2004, Acting Attorney General Comey clarified Special Counsel Fitzgerald's delegation of authority to state that the authority previously delegated to him is plenary. It also states, "Further, my conferral on you of the title of Special Counsel' in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600." [4]

"Plenary" means, in plain English, that Fitzgerald legally can go wherever the investigation takes him. I do not know whether he has truly transgressed appropriate bounds, as you charge, but those bounds are, legally speaking, practically unlimited. They certainly go far beyond Novak.

and...

why is "Scooter" Libby facing perjury and obstruction of justice charges, when Richard Armitage is not?

I don't know, and unlike you, I admit that fact. One possible (but unlikely) reason is that Armitage wasn't asked.

An Armitage prosecution would have been of no use to Fitzgerald's mission -- which was first and foremost to discredit the White House.

That's possible, certainly. But where's the proof?

I'll give you this Lex...

Your last post -- in response to mine -- was one of the most level-headed you've given.

I'll admit I'm a bit caustic at times, but it's usually in response to your tone and unfailing flogging of Bush...

In this case, you surprised me -- and made me actually think. You might not be right.... and who knows... but, for a rare moment, I paused and thought "maybe..."

Later

Hey, that's all I ask. That, and "play nice."