Posted on 02/12/2007 7:30:58 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Listening to the full Woodward tape of Under Secretary of State Richard Armitage leaking the news about Plame must be giving Fitzgerald nightmares. CNN has posted the full tape played at the trial and it is astounding. The part that got me was when Armitage said “His wife named him”, and Woodward asks, “Why doesn’t this get out?”. Then Armitage says, on June 13th 2003, basically what Andrea Mitchell would say months later when she was talking off the cuff on CNBC. Armitage laughingly says “Everyone knows”. In the words of Mitchell.
MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn’t aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
But Armitage goes further and explains HOW everyone knew. Woodward repeats back incredulously “Everyone knew”? and Armitage provides the hard evidence of who was talking about Plame” .. because Joe Wilson has been calling everybody! He’s pissed off ’cause he’s looked at as some low level guy…”. I predicted long ago, and again just prior to the trial, it would come out that Joe and Valerie were both sources for Kristof and others. Armitage is not saying ‘everyone knows’ who Joe Wilson is (though they did).
(Excerpt) Read more at strata-sphere.com ...
Just proving what we all knew: this entire thing was about Joe Wilson, not WMD.
I wish I thought he was suitably embarassed, but we know he doesn't have that in him.
...which is the fact that reporters are weasels. Like all the rest of us who work for a living, they are in the business of selling products or services. Most of us don't make the products we sell, and we don't actually do the direct selling. Instead, we do work in support of our employer's sales goals.
Reporters are different from other workers in two essential ways. (1) They are the people who make the product sold by their employers. News stories are products. Nothing more. Nothing less. (2) However, thanks to the way the courts have interpreted the First Amendment and libel/slander laws as they apply to reporters, news reporting enjoys an almost blanket freedom from the kinds accountability that checks the excesses of all other forms of enterprise.
When human beings have freedom without any accountability, they invariably abuse it.
But not until Joe gives his deposition.
I'm so glad Libby is playing this case out. He deserves a Medal of Honor for exposing this rat-icks' nest!
Where have you been??? I have been missing you...and I saw you were on the ping list for this thread.
So good to see you...and I want to know, that since that recording said that Joe was the one spreading Valeries name around...if the defense can call him to the stand.
Russert did a show in October, before the indictments, where Gregory denied that anyone had called him with the information about Plame. Ari Fletcher told the grand jury that he had in fact told Gregory. In hind sight, the tape of the show sounds like a rehersal for a cover up, and that perhaps higher ups at NBC were in fact involved.
good theory.. very good.
Thanks for the pings Howlin.
Good point!
I want to post some of Novaks testimony, as transcribed by firedoglake.com and posted by Bahbah yesterday, because this 'nugget' has not be picked up by any of this morning's editorial comment that I have seen.
Also note how hard the prosecutor was trying to prevent this bit of testimony from being made.
Cliff note: Novak's column published on Monday, July 14, 2003, was distributed by the AP to the 100 newspapers that printed it on FRIDAY. JULY 11, 2003. So when many reporters say they learned VPlame's identity from Novak's column, they may have read it any time between July 11 and July 14.
------
Libby Live: Mystery Witness
firedoglake.com ^ | 2/12/07 | firedoglake.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1783413/posts?q=1&&page=51
Maica note: W is defense attorney Wells; RN is Robert Novak
1:59
W Paragraph says CIA said counterproliferation sent him. Is it fair to say CIA said that.
Fitz Objection
Sidebar.
Novak with hand on chin, looking at screen.
Now sitting back, making his big grumpy frowning face. Puts on his glasses to get started again.
W: I want to see the front of the article. The date. Apparently there is no date.
W The article says Chicago Sun Times, July 14, 2003.
W When did you write your July 14 column
RN [voice slips] The morning of Friday July 11.
W After you wrote it, what did you do?
RN Immediately after finishing it, it was emailed to syndicate.
W What is it
RN Syndicate, sells these to indiv newspapers. An editor goes over it, after a while, calls me back, we discuss further changes I might want to make, changes the editor wants to make. Then in final version, is given to AP for distribution to clients who buy my column. Over 100 newspapers buy it.
W Based on your understanding, when 100 newspapers given column.
Fitz Objection sustained.
W Understanding of how it is distributed.
F Objection, incompetence.
Walton: how do you know?
RN I've been a columnist for 40-some years.
Walton: Overruled
RN Given to AP, it distributes to newspapers that buy it.
W When column given to over 100 newspapers
Fitz: objection
Walton: You don't know specifically what happened.
W With respect to usual pattern,
RN as soon as column is cleared, it is immediately given to AP it's on the wires within an hour.
W Usual practice, when would have it been on the wire.
Fitz Objection
Walton Sustained.
W WRT usual process, after you wrote article, what time on wire?
RN It depends on when I got it to the syndicate. My recollection is since I had busy afternoon, I wanted to finish it before noon, editing before 1, following usual practice it would have gone on immediately thereafter.
W Once it's on the wire, can they print it.
RN It is what is called an embargo, it is not to be printed until Monday morning's newspapers.
W Are people in newsroom permitted to review it.
RN All they have to do is look at it.
W No further questions
51 posted on 02/12/2007 2:29:17 PM EST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
Did a medieval event this past weekend. Am fighting off another virus, so I'm here to read updates on Carrie and the Libby stuff, then back upstairs to rest and stay warm. Can't wait for spring.
Give the girls hugs for me. Your lurking buddy... ;-)
Oh...dear, please take care of yourself.
Don't hold your breath. If the media won't get worked up over Sandy Berger's theft of documents from the National Archive, they sure as hell won't get excited over the *real* story behind Plamegate.
Why would Fitz object to Novak testifying about how his column is distributed?
Because his timeline shows that they knew Wilson's wife's name before he went on MTP that Sunday.
So everyone around Russert had access to that info well before he said he had it, under oath.
It's a perjury trap for Mitchell, Gregory and Russert. Tee hee. ;-)
http://www.keshertalk.com/archives/2007/02/a_few_facts_you.php
Novak made sure it got published to cover his arse.
Novak used the term "operative" attached to Valerie's name in his article and explained that around town it meant "Dem Operative" just like Joe.....not a secret agent.
The REAL secret agent in this Yellowcake hunt was Joe Wilson who submitted no WRITTEN REPORT and NO NON-DISCLOSURE.
FitzFong is the biggest sleazebag in this whole affair.
Because everyone in the news business could have read the column before it was published for us lowly readers to read.
It's becoming clearer every day that the story was flogged by DEMOCRAT operatives in the press to hurt Bush, and resulted in a political paralysis that may very well cost us a WAR....
"Bush LIEDt!tm" was based on a LIE...
The blood of THOUSANDS is on these people's hands. Do they have the coscience to realize it?
I am saying (I think) that Milbank edited out a part that they heard...assuming the CNN tape was what they heard in its entirety....ie...Dana Milbank doing selective reporting....
Well said!
Do they have the coscience to realize it?
No! The House of Representatives have just begun an entire week of debate on Not Supporting our country's efforts to contain extremism in the Middle East.
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.