There's a problem with Kondrake's statement. Armitage apparently was told to "keep quiet" by "the prosecutor," but when Armitage came forward to his bosses and the Stete Department told the Justice department that they had information about the person who originally talked to the press Fitzgerald wasn't yet appointed. Was it Fitzgerald who told Armitage to "keep quiet?" If so that would have been several months down the road to the debacle that is Fitzmas.
Let's assume that it was Fitzgerald who told him not to talk. That means he left the Bush administration in the dark, despite his oath of office, without any injunction from the prosecutor, for several months. And Colin Powell reported directly to the President and knew the truth and didn't say anything during all that time.
I think we know why Colin wasn't invited back.
Nor should he have been. I think it's pretty clear that Armitage and Powell (whose reputation should be in the commode)were content to let the President and other completely innocent people in the Administration twist in the wind for years. That was a horrible, inexcusable thing to do. And I'm rethinking Mort's statement in light of your comments. As I have said in previous discussions, I don't think that a prosecuter has an enforceable power to tell someone not to talk. A judge would, but would be unlikely to impose a selective gag order outside of a national security issue. But assume for a moment that Fitz actually did something like that, how does it look in light of his complaint that Libby was "throwing sand" in the eyes of the investigators. Oh what a tangled web we weave....