Posted on 09/01/2006 8:50:56 PM PDT by rightgrafix
It has been speculated that this fiasco was an audition for AG in a hillary! administration.
Fitz told Armitage to not say anything??
And Armitage did not know Novak .. but agreed to meet with him as a favor to a friend ????
oh .. and one more thing .. before my dang computer crashes on me again
This article reads like a prepared statement
This is all a cautionary tale for how politically committed activists can go so far overboard for "fake but accurate" conspiracy theories. These days, we are seeing it happen again and again on the left, but I see no reason, unfortunately, it might not happen someday on the right.
Mr. Fitzgerald may also point out that Mr. Armitage knew about Ms. Wilson’s C.I.A. role only because of a memorandum that Mr. Libby had commissioned as part of an effort to rebut criticism of the White House by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV.
and this:
On July 6, 2003, a week before the Novak column, Mr. Wilson wrote a commentary in The New York Times saying his investigation in Africa had led him to believe that it was highly doubtful that any uranium deal had ever taken place and that the Bush administration had twisted intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
Mr. Armitage spoke with Mr. Novak on July 8, 2003, those familiar with Mr. Armitage’s actions said. Mr. Armitage did not know Mr. Novak, but agreed to meet with the columnist as a favor for a mutual friend, Kenneth M. Duberstein, a White House chief of staff during Ronald Reagan’s administration. At the conclusion of a general foreign policy discussion, Mr. Armitage said in reply to a question that Ms. Wilson might have had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger.
Scooter commissioned and disbursed a report about Plame and Wilson in TWO DAYS???
That's what jumped out at me from this article too.
If that is true --if it's not just Armitage-spin, trying to do damage control by deflecting the dishonor-- it's even more damning for Fitz.
Never heard of this 9-11 presentation .... PING >> ON NOW!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694196/posts?page=57#57
Sorry .. I'm spellbound here .. will read your post, though, tomorrow. Did you sustain any storm damage ? Hope not and all's well.
I think it's safe to say that whoever prepared this article for the Times .. has a problem with timing and facts
With that .. I'm giving in .. this dang computer can't stay up more the 5 minutes at a time .. grrrr
If anything big hits the news .. please ping me? ... Thanks
Spellbound?
(Nope, aside from leaves etc. on the deck, we're fine.)
First, what was the purpose of even naming Fitzgerald if there wasn't any crime committed? Why would anyone need the political cover of an independent investigation if there hadn't been a crime? Comey had this to say on the day he named Fitzgerald:
...I can't tell you about the details of any criminal investigation because our goal is to make sure that anyone we're pursuing doesn't know what we're doing, and also, anyone who might not be charged with a crime is not unfairly smeared.
And here are some comments regarding the authority he was giving to Fitzgerald, specifically mentioning things like issuing subpoenas to a members of the media and granting immunity.
...An outside counsel, according to the regulations, has to alert the attorney general to any significant event in the case; file what's called an "urgent report." And what that means is just as U.S. attorneys have to do that, he would have to tell the attorney general before he brought charges against anybody, before maybe a significant media event, things like that. Fitzgerald does not have to do that; he does not have to come back to me for anything. I mean, he can if he wants to, but I've told him, our instructions are: You have this authority; I've delegated to you all the approval authority that I as attorney general have. You can exercise it as you see fit.
So, in short, I have essentially given him --not essentially --I have given him all the approval authorities that rest --that are inherent in the attorney general; something that does not happen with an outside special counsel. Exhibit D
And a little more than a month into it, Fitzgerald received this letter from Comey:
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30,2003, delegation to you of "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" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated andlor prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. 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.
Sincerely, IS/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General Exhibit B
That's an excellent point and I think you're right. I also think they're sending a message to the Wilsons to drop their civil suit before members of the press have to start making depositions.
How about this for a question:
If, as this article states, Armitage talks to Taft who talks to Gonzalez, why the heck did we get a SP in the first place?
Gonzalez wasn't the AG at the time .. and IIRC didn't Ashcroft recuse himself or was that something else?
Plus .. Chuck Schummer was demanding the CIA (Tenant) request an investigation .. which he did
There has been some speculation that the entire Wilson/Plame story is a diversion from more sinister actions:
The African Connection: Rep. Jefferson and Joe Wilson
That does not specifically explain Fiztgerald's actions, but it does help to understand the timing of all this distancing from Wilson that seems to be going on. The court decision about the Jefferson documents seized from his office was due (according to the above link) on the very day that the Armitage connection was more or less confirmed in the Isikoff/Corn story. That the Jefferson decision has not yet been announced is interesting . . .
Not only that, what crime had been committed?
If Fitzgerald had granted immunity to anyone would we have known about that?
I copied this article from the Las Vegas Sun at the time this was posted by Not gonna take it anymore.......primarily for the links. The same Sun article now provides an abbreviated, less detailed report. Not gonna take it anymore, do you remember this additional information from your original post?
The NYTimes connection to the Holy Land Foundation & Global Relief Foundation cases could be one of the reasons they didn't point a finger at Fitzgerald.
Court OK's Look at Times' Phone Records
Las Vegas Sun ^ | August 01, 2006 | DAVID B. CARUSO
The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed that the government planned to freeze the assets and search the offices of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation.
The LA Times Covers for Fitzgerald
Had the Los Angeles Times disclosed Fitzgerald’s connection to this story, it would have highlighted the absurdity of the simultaneous assertion by Fitzgerald in the Libby case that Libby was not to be trusted with classified documents, a charge utterly devoid of evidence. (Libby was never charged with mishandling classified information in any respect. Even the government’s witness, Judith Miller, testified that he was always scrupulous in handling classified information.)
Luckily for Fitzgerald’s reputation, the Los Angeles Times failed to disclose that it was he who was the supervising Attorney in that case. Strangely, the article appeared on February 16 here. But since last week, when it was discussed on the Just One Minute website, a leading forum for critics of Fitzgerald, it no longer seems accessible online or on the LA Times archives. But it has been reproduced here.)
A Second Fitzgerald Blunder
The news for Fitzgerald got worse last week, as he was forced to drop a high profile prosecution of a prominent businessman with an impeccable record whom he had wrongfully charged with criminal conduct, in a case remarkably redolent of the same kind of sloppy handling which characterizes the Libby case. The Washington Post reports:
“Charges have been dropped against Northern Virginia businessman Frank L. Cowles Jr., who was arrested in November on allegations of conspiring to defraud a hedge fund out of $25 million.
“A U.S. District Court judge in Chicago dropped criminal charges against Cowles on March 1 after the U.S. attorney’s office there filed a motion to dismiss. Cases continue against two men who were charged with Cowles for allegedly defrauding a Chicago-based fund.
“‘For someone who has been absolutely clean and honorable all my life, the charges came as quite a blow,’ Cowles, 76, said in a telephone interview.’ The only thing I’ve ever had on my record is three speeding tickets when I was 18,’ he said. ‘After a very, very exhaustive 3 ½ -month investigation, they came up with the right conclusion.’ Cowles’s attorney, Robert D. Luskin of the law firm Patton Boggs in the District, said the complaint against Cowles was a mistake and that his client had been the victim of a scheme that cost him a great financial loss.’ This was a mistake,’ Luskin said. ‘The person that was thought to be the predator was actually the prey.’”
You may recognize the name of defense counsel, Robert D. Luskin. He’s Karl Rove’s lawyer in the ongoing Plame case.
Fitzgerald’s Name Mysteriously Absent – Again
But for mysterious reasons the Washington Post (like the Los Angeles Times before it) neglected to name the prosecutor who made the mistake of charging the prey as the predator, forcing an innocent man to resign from an important position and spend a great deal to defend his name. The prosecutor in the Cowles case is Patrick Fitzgerald. And I think it obvious that in the Libby case as in the Cowles case, Fitzgerald has confused the prey and the predator.
TENET
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.