New Questions About Inquiry in C.I.A. Leak

The New York Times ^ | September 2, 2006 | By DAVID JOHNSTON

[Peach]

I'm still wondering about the motivation of Korn and Isikoff for writing this book and outing Armitage. They are both partisan gunslingers so what do they have to gain for the democrats?

Two years ago it was reported that Kerry was considering Armitage as Secretary of Defense.

If Korn and Isikoff are convinced Kerry is going to run again and stands a chance to win, maybe they don't want Armitage in that administration because he's not quite "left" enough.

[cpdiii]

Novak's piece is what set it all in motion. It didn't begin with Miller. And for all we know, she was lying along with Russert and associates.

This part has puzzled me. Libby had absolutely no motive to lie about where he heard the information about Valarie Palm Wilson. Russert says they did not discuss Valarie Palm. Either Russert is lying or Libby was mistaken about which reporter he talked with. However, to have a perjury rap prosecuted he would have to have been very definite about talking with Russert. Otherwise, he would have said "to the best of my memory it was Russert I spoke with about Valarie Palm."

I THINK RUSSERT IS LYING!

[mware]

Agreed if the president fired him he would be played out like the Saturday Night Massacre under the Nixon administration.

[Dolphy]

Fitz had no legal right to prohibit Armitage from telling anybody what he had done in the matter, nor had Armitage any obligation to follow Fitz's illegal "order."

Could Fitzgerald have granted Armitage immunity or would that have been made public?

[Txsleuth]

It may have been a "flop" because of what you said..and Bush got reelected anyway...

However, OUR tax money has paid for this sham for 3 years...I want my money back..

And LIBBY's career was ruined, plus HIS expenses for alledgedly lying and obstructing "justice" for a case that never had MERIT and the SP KNEW the person who he was going after BEFORE the grand jury ever got the case.

So...for THOSE reasons, WE need to do whatever possible to make sure this story doesn't DIE, or go away.

I am going to contact my Congresscritters to find out if any kind of charges can be brought against any of the players, like Fitzy!

HE has wasted MILLIONS of taxpayers dollars..and should be made to pay them back.

[mware]

"Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage was going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter

I am not sure but I dont think Armitage's name was mentioned.

[bert]

..Was Armitage Judith Miller's source as well?.......

It is said the whole exercise was a fiasco. But it must be rmembered that Judith Wilson was actually jailed.

The precedent is in my view a great historical event. From now on sources must be given up if a grand jury asks. We should rejoice at this change in the rules by which the game will be played.

[Txsleuth]

I hope not...sounds like a GREAT fantasy.

[Txsleuth]

Another thing that ticks me off...and should tick of President Bush's Administration...it that it is rumored that when Judith Miller went to jail..one of the "deals" that she made to eventually testify...

was that they couldn't get her for tipping off a Muslim foundation that was funding terrorists that the feds were getting ready to bust them.

NOW, in my mind, that is obstruction....she was an "accessory" to a crime, IMHO>....but that was the "deal".

That deal never needed to me made...Fitzy already KNEW who the source was...and all that accomplished was Judith Miller getting away with a crime herself.

[Txsleuth]

What we have here is another possible "Barrett Report" case...where taxpayers pay MILLIONS for an investigation that in the end, may never be exposed completely.

Clinton has probably had a strong hand in both cases.

[Howlin]

I posted your little find at Amazon. :-)

[Sal]

This tells me that Fizgeralds has some personal political or personal career goals involved in all this. To find out the answer on day one and end the the whole case would not serve his purposes, so the big question is: What is Fizgerald's purposes for going past the first couple of weeks?

There has been speculation that he was offered the AG position in a Democrat administration if he could help bring about that administration. Didn't work out and yet he still didn't end the charade.

AmeriBrit brought up the possibility of blackmail. I wouldn't rule that out only because of certain observations.

1) Fitzie had a good reputation on both sides of the aisle and a very successful career and that's a lot to risk for an uncertain pay back with an enormous down side if caught.

2) Fitz is a very experienced and confident (even arrogant) prosecutor. Does anybody here think he routinely breaks out in flop sweat when he appears in court or on TV? But he sure did in his "news conference".

IMO this indicates (not proves) that he knew he was lying and maybe he even understood that he was participating in treason (undermining a pres and CIC in time of war). What could make a person take that kind of risk?

If anybody has observed him in action and knows that he does routinely break out in sweat while working, I'll take it all back. Meanwhile I'm wondering what they've got on him and I'm pretty sure it's not taking pens home from the office.

[Darkwolf377]

After a week or so of silence, watch for the New Improved Democrat Position on this--"We've been had. Why didn't Armitage, who served under the President's Secretary of State, step forward? Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed by the Attorney General for a job he clearly botched. We call for an inquiry into the inquiry."

[aculeus]

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.

Ah the unintentional comedy of the Sulzberger whores.

[Sal]

I THINK RUSSERT IS LYING!

I think most of us here agree with you. The interesting glitch is that Russert was never put under oath so he's not subject to perjury charges. Legally he's home free.

OTOH if this goes to trial and he's put under oath and has to tell the truth, the SOB will expose himself as a partisan LIAR who deliberately ruined a man's life both WRT finances and reputation.

If so, Libby can sue Russert's fat ass right off. Also, one of the left's most established operatives is blown out of the water with loads of collateral damage to the left.

Also, Fitzie will have to explain why he didn't put Russert under oath and yet took his word over Libby's.

Please, please, please let there be a trial.

[Darkwolf377]

Mr. Taft asked Mr. Gonzales whether he wanted to be told the details and was told that he did not want to know.

I guess it's just an honest mistake that the Times doesn't mention that Gonzales isn't supposed to ask--in other words, he was sticking to the law. Here they make it seem like he just didn't ask, and was possibly neglecting his duty.

F-ing shameless, these people.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Now it's time to prosecute that bastard Fitzgerald.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Yesterday the Wash ComPost trashed Joe Wilson and Fitzgerald, and now the NYT's...

They're trying to cover their own asses. They are as guilty as anyone by participating in an obviously fraudulent political witch hunt. The only good news is that their circulation and stock prices continue to sink into the tar pit of historical irrelevance.

[FreedomPoster]

>>The only good news is that their circulation and stock prices continue to sink into the tar pit of historical irrelevance.

The Times is hurting pretty badly.

The Post, not so badly, but still down substantially from their peak.

[Gritty]

GWB ought to fire Fitzgerald...

Gimme a break. Not only will he not fire him, but he won't even say a harsh word about this sordid affair.

In fact, he is more apt to give him another position in his meandering Administration.