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]

"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."

Yep. And he never will.

Armitage is bullet-proof. He hates the "Neo-cons" almost as much as the media does.

Besides, as noted in the piece, Armitage was being seriously considered to be President-elect Kerry's Secretary Of Defense.

He is golden.

[Sam Hill]

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

That's it.

Raymond J. Donovan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_J._Donovan

[JOE6PAK]

Now THAT is funny!

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"Why on earth would Patrick Fitzgerald tell Armitage to keep quiet about being the leaker?"

One thing is certain.....in the course of the "investigation" Fitzgerald had plenty of contact with Plames associates/managers at CIA.....at least some of likely were/are members of the CIA anti-Bush cabal.....of which Fitz might well be an 'associate' member or perhaps was manipulated to disregard Armitage and right and wrong.

[PeskyOne]

Armitage is scum of the worst kind! When this story first broke, President Bush urged anyone in his cabinet who had information about this to come forward. Powell and Armitage sat on their duffs and did not; instead Armitage followed the direction of Fitzgerald who told him not to tell the President. His allegiance was to the President and not Fitzgerald who also should have told the President. I think Bush should fire Fitzgerald and issue a pardon for Libby immediately. I really hope the President will not be mealymouthed and try to be Mr. Nice Guy about this....it's time he took a stand for the people in his administration who have been hurt by the loony left and the biased MSM. If he wants to ignore the harm and damage they've done to him personally, so be it, but he owes the people who have been loyal to him more than just trying to act humble. There is nothing wrong with anger when it is against wrong doing! If this hasn't been wrongdoing, pray tell what is?!!

[Sam Hill]

Where are you hiding?

[Sam Hill]

Behold this pathetic attempt by the NYT to try to salvage something from the Wreck Of The Patrick Fitzgerald:

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.

Er, if Armitage only knew this from Libby's memo, how was it he told Bob Woodward about Plame a month before the Libby memo was written?

Try again, New York Slimes.

[Paladin2]

Powell is just as bad.

[Paladin2]

Powell is just as bad.

[Enchante]

Great points, Sam Hill - yes, the lying sleazoids of the NY Times choose a sleepy Saturday on Labor Day weekend to finally make some small accounting of the grotesque MSM mendacity in this affair..... though of course they are spinning and sliming their way to their new position which is that they did nothing wrong and merely asked questions. The gross failings of the virtually all of the MSM in swallowing Joe Wilson's rantings whole without question is a textbook case of journalistic malfeasance and sedition.

[Hildy]

What about Novak? He knew ... right? What's his culpability in all of this?

[Buckhead]

I agree that instructing Armitage to keep quiet is really scandalous. Probably threatened him with obstruction charges if he did. Fitz is a whack job.

[Sam Hill]

"What about Novak? He knew ... right? What's his culpability in all of this?"

Good point. He claims he was just protecting his sources. And I guess it would have put his livelihood at risk for him to name Armitage without his okay.

But, yeah, he's guilty, too.

Funny, he is another one who was never hauled before the Grand Jury, either.

It's almost as if Fitzgerald didn't want him to talk.

[Sam Hill]

"I agree that instructing Armitage to keep quiet is really scandalous. Probably threatened him with obstruction charges if he did. Fitz is a whack job."

If the NYT were a real newspaper, that would have been the headline -- or at least mentioned in the lead.

But of course they aren't a real newspaper.

[uncbob]

President will not be mealymouthed and try to be Mr. Nice Guy about this...

Knowing Bush he will probably have Fitz over for popcorn

[uncbob]

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.

How about rebut the LIES Wilson told

[pabianice]

[pabianice]

"Putz" Sulzberger -- Destroying 400 Years of Jewish Progress in America"

[PeskyOne]

That's what scares me! He, the President, has tried being Mr. Nice Guy, and it's only gotten him more contempt from the Democrats and they perceive him as weak. Now's the time to take off the gloves and show them he can be tough. I was taught never to pass the first lick, but afterward, I better make sure the person who hit me thought twice before doing it again. If you allow someone to step on you, they'll stomp on you the next time!

[bpjam]

I don't know if it is possible for me to despise them any more than I already do. They are the journalistic equivalent of ambulance chasers - they don't care what the truth is or what is right or wrong as long as they can find an angle to stay on the case.