The NYT On The End Of Treason-gate - With Interpolations

New York Times/Sweetness & Light ^ | September 2, 2006 | N/A

[Sam Hill]

From the "Paper Of Treason," the New York Times [with interpolations]:

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

[In fact, there is nothing new in the information presented. The prosecution and probably our elite one party media, including the New York Times, have known all of this for three years.]

By DAVID JOHNSTON

September 2, 2006

[After three years of sitting on the truth of this story, the NYT publishes it on the day of the week the fewest people read the paper, and on the last holiday weekend of summer.]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days..

[Again, the prosecutor and almost certainly the New York Times (and Washington Post) knew this for a very long time.]

[]ut with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

[From Octorber 2003 to September 2006 is nearly three years.]

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.

[Meaning only nattering nabobs are interested in such arcane minutia. And The Times is here going to put an end even to that.]

Richard L. 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.

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

Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences.

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

The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years...

[Nearly three years. Why does the NYT keep trying to trim a year off of the record?]

[A]nd resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.

[The NYT neglects to mention the millions of dollars this investigation cost. The two grand juries empanelled. All to "investigate" a non-crime to which the DOJ and Fitzgerald already knew the solution.]

Moreover, Mr. Fitzgerald’s effort to find out who besides Mr. Armitage had spoken to reporters provoked a fierce battle over whether reporters could withhold the identities of their sources from prosecutors and resulted in one reporter, Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, spending 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify to a grand jury.

[Who else spoke to reporters has nothing to do with the investigation of how Robert Novak came to publish Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA -- which is what Fitzgerald was charged to uncover. None of the other reporters, Woodward (whom Fitzgerald never bothered to question), Cooper nor Miller ever wrote articles revealing Plames work for the CIA.]

Since this week’s disclosures about Mr. Armitage’s role, Bush administration officials have argued that because the original leak came from a State Department official, it was clear there had been no concerted White House effort to disclose Ms. Wilson’s identity.

[And it should have been clear to Fitzgerald and the media for three years.]

But Mr. Fitzgerald’s defenders point out that the revelation about Mr. Armitage did not rule out a White House effort because officials like Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, the senior white House adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with other journalists.

[Since The Times is the only one so far to make this claim, I guess they are the defenders they are talking about. And once again, if others had talked about Valerie Plame that is irrelevant to the investigation into Novak's leak of her employment at the CIA. Which even in itself was not illegal.] ...

This is excerpted due to New York Times content. Please read the rest at Sweetness & Light...

[Sam Hill]

This case as much as any in recent history demonstrates the danger of having a one party media. If we had a "watchdog" media, these facts would have come out almost three years ago. But we don't. And it didn't.

Heck, the New York Times even fired one of its top reporters, Judith Miller, because she would not lie to advance their agenda. The Washington Post trashed their star reporter Bob Woodward for the same reasons.

God knows what other lies the media are sitting on.

[Sam Hill]

Hopefully one of the last Plame pings.

[Rocko]

Excellent analysis.

[Irish Eyes]

Very good.. I guess that it is up to all of us outside the MSM to keep this story alive until next week. Great timing on the MSM's part to dump this all right before a 3 day weekend.

[Sam Hill]

Thanks.

One passage that struck me the most from the NYT piece was this:

Mr. Armitage cooperated voluntarily in the case, never hired a lawyer and testified several times to the grand jury, according to people who are familiar with his role and actions in the case. He turned over his calendars, datebooks and even his wife’s computer in the course of the inquiry, those associates said. But Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people said.

And as I said, to my mind this is the most damning revelation yet. Why on earth would Patrick 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.

[SERKIT]

Can the perjury-trap against Scooter be put to bed now? Can Fitz be sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct?

[Grampa Dave]

Sam the left wing mediots and bloggers will never give this bs up.

We will be hearing about this years from now re Bush/Cheney's so called involvement, when some of these liberals are in jail for this and other acts of sedition.

[bitt]

'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.'

absolutely.

[shield]

And Congressman King says soon they'll be NYT's reporters in jail if they're sources are not revealed.

[Grampa Dave]

[sgtbono2002]

I agree. The reasons he didnt drop this whole thing years ago is that he was bilking the American taxpayer and making an effort to make republicans look bad. he should be in jail

And the POS from Texas who set out to destroy Tom Delay should be siiting in the cell right next to his.

[HardStarboard]

One would think that Scooter Libby might consider some punative legal action against Armitage, Fitzgerald, Plame, Wilson and Company!

Whats the famous quote...: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

[Trainer]

One of the problems is that the radical left will not admit that they were wrong on this. Even the WashCompost has stated that it was armitage. But if you look at them, they will say...Yes it was Armitage, but don't you remember blah, blah, blah. They are so embarrased by this they won't even say a word on it.

Look at the MahaBlog (if you can stomach it -- i took some rolaids just before I did). Not only did she not talk about it, but only after someone chided her on it did she say something and when challanged she banned the person.

[Sam Hill]

"We will be hearing about this years from now re Bush/Cheney's so called involvement, when some of these liberals are in jail for this and other acts of sedition."

You're right. And that is the crime of it. They repeated this lie for three years (or longer), until it became ingrained as fact.

In fact, that would appear to the only motive for Fitzgerald's actions. Especially his swearing Armitage and others to silence.

I wonder if Fitzgerald will get rewarded for his efforts by the DNC. Will he be Hillary's Attorney General?

[Grampa Dave]

Hopefully Fitzy will be dragged into civil court by Libby and exposed as a liar and shyster.

Then besides losing personal funds, he gets disbarred.

[johnny7]

Thanks for the post... Plame/Wilson vs. Libby was actually, not much different than RatherMapes vs. Bush. This time... the DNC/MSM had a bonafied, CIA employee instead of an old, obsessed DNC activist.

There will be more.

[johnny7]

LOL...

[ChadGore]

The thing that is missing is Joe Wilson is a liar.

[YaYa123]

I distinctly remember when Karl Rove would not comment on his Grand Jury testimony, the MSM was quick to condemn his silence as a sign of guilt. They always reported, Rove could speak to reporters if he wanted to, there's no law against a person from revealing what is said to a Grand Jury. Of course Armitage never got that grilling from the media.

[yoe]

God knows what other lies the media are sitting on.

Which all goes to prove once more, the truth gets out on the Internet BUT not in the MSM. One question that should be forth coming, just who did Patrick Fitzgerald use for research, if anyone. The case against Scooter, Rove and Cheney was over after the first few months...only Harry Ried, Pelosi, Spector, Biden, Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton (FOPF?) kept howling into all cameras when everyone else knew that Wilson was a liar and his blushing bride was not a spook but was a has been kook.