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 ...
Thanks...what a pile of loose ends.
Fitz certainly tried to suppress this information with his many objections.
Nice! Thanks!
W Are people in newsroom permitted to review it. RN All they have to do is look at it.
&&&&
Those are seventeen words that no one in the DBM want any Americans to know.
great circular reasoning there:
no one was charged with revealing classifed information. even the people who ADMITTED they revealed her employment status (Armitage, Wilson himself) and members of the press who repeated it, have not been charged or faced even the slightest scrutiny for it.
Yet, the CIPA proceeding found that Libby couldn't use information about Plame, because it's classified.
First - revealing classified information, with nothing more, isn't a crime. There is an intent element to every crime involving revealing classified information, and not every revelation of classified information is a criminal act.
Second, you seem to be hung up on IIPA, which you correctly note no one was charged under. IIPA relates to the intentional revelation of covert identity. It does not cover the revelation of classified information that relates to persons other than covert ops within the statutory definition.
Third, the Court DID have two and a half months of CIPA hearings about what could and could not be revealed, and one of the outcomes of that was that Plame's status would not be a part of the case. Maybe you believe that courts like to waste their time by deciding to keep out classified info that isn't really classified. If you believe that, you don't spend much time dealing with them.
Fourth, every time her status has come up in the trial, the CIA lawyers have gotten involved. I guess they are doing that to protect classified info that isn't even classified - that basically your take on it?
none of what you have said explains the REASON why her status could not be part of the case.
the explantion you are asking us to accept is - "because the CIA said so". That's not a reason, its simply an acknowledgment of what other facts show to be, a totally arbitrary decision.
Give me a REASON why her status should be exlcuded from this case? Don't just tell me - "because the CIA says so". The CIA is infested with people who are pursuing other agendas.
CIPA is the 'classified information procedures act.' It sets forth the methods for dealing with classified information in a public setting like a trial. Her employment was dealt with in CIPA proceedings. The 'deal' struck by the parties and the judge came out of CIPA proceedings. The indictment itself says her employment with CIA was classified. If this were not the case, it is highly unlikely that it would be handled by the court in a CIPA hearing. You, apparently, believe that it is common for courts to hold CIPA hearings about information that is not classified. It isn't.
1 - Because it is classified.
2 - Because it is not material to any charge in the case.
but that "classified" piece of information is being talked about openly by a whole slew of people - but its apparently "too much of a secret" to allow a man trying to defend himself from going to prison, to discuss in court.
It has come into the trial that she was at CIA and worked at CPD. What more do you think people are "talking about openly"?
Also - how exactly does that piece of information help Libby defend himself from the charge that he lied to the GJ?
the CIA is simply using this as a clever way to cover itself. They had employees engaged in a political operation against the administration, and they want to hide that involvement by claiming everything is "classified" when it comes time for a hearing in open court.
Its a nice setup - use the CIA to run part of your shadow government, because that agency can hide any revelation of the facts behind the "it's classified" shield. In the meantime, Wilson is at every cocktail party talking about it, the information is circulated in every DC news agency - and not a word is said about that.
But why trouble yourself with what the participants say about the conversation, when it can be spun some complete other way?
let Libby's lawyers deal with the issue of how its used as part of his defense, rather then having it arbitrarily excluded.
I haven't heard anyone from the Libby camp chomping at the bit to talk about her employment.
Maybe you know something they don't?
where are you seeing that in the article? the quotes I read there clearly show Armitage's "Everyone knows it" remark comes after his "His wife works in the agency" remark, thus that is clearly what he was referring to.
Is this transcript incorrect?
2:15 WOODWARD: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by
2:16 the agency. I mean that’s just —
2:17 ARMITAGE: His wife works in the agency.
2:18 WOODWARD: — Why doesn’t that come out? Why does —
2:19 ARMITAGE: Everyone knows it.
2:20 WOODWARD: —that have to be a big secret?
2:21 Everyone knows.
2:22 ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know [ ] Joe Wilson’s
2:23 been calling everybody. He’s pissed off because he was
2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So,
2:25 he’s all pissed off.
3:1 WOODWARD: But why would they send him?
3:2 ARMITAGE: Because his wife’s a [ ]
I don't know if the transcript is incorrect or not. And what I referenced is not "in the article" - it was in Woodward's testimony. He was asked directly what the "everyone knows" comments were in reference to, and he answered directly that they were in reference to Wilson being the envoy, and not the wife.
So how many millions has the rat democrat prosecutier spent on this crap?
At least you called it a rumor. Most folks around here would state it as Gospel truth.
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.