SubscribeNY Times Opines On The End Of “Treasongate”
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.]
[B]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.]
Even so, the Fitzgerald critics say, the prosecutor behaved much as did the independent counsels of the 1980’s and 1990’s who often failed to bring down their quarry on official misconduct charges but pursued highly nuanced accusations of a cover-up.
[Fitzgerald certainly has behaved like Lawrence Walsh. But not Kenneth Starr. But there is a reason the Independent Counsel act was allowed to lapse. Because of the misconduct of Walsh and other politically motivated Torquemadas -- like Fitzgerald.]
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.
[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.]
Mr. Armitage has not publicly commented on the matter. The people who spoke about Mr. Armitage’s thoughts and action did so seeking anonymity on the grounds that the criminal case was still open and that their remarks were not authorized by the prosecutor. A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment.
[It looks like Fitzgerald has told everyone who knew the facts to sit on them. He wanted the lie of "Treasongate" to sink into the psyche of the citizenry for three years.]
Mr. Fitzgerald, who has spoken infrequently in public, came close to providing a defense for his actions at a news conference in October 2005, when Mr. Libby was indicted. Mr. Fitzgerald said that apart from the issue of whether any crime had been committed, the justice system depended on the ability of prosecutors to obtain truthful information from witnesses during any investigation.
[What an utter lie. The DOJ had all the truth they could possible want out of the investigation before the politically ambitious Fitzgerald was made Special Prosecutor. They were charged to investigate who leaked to Robert Novak, and they almost immediately knew that Richard Armitage was the culprit. There was no crime.
The case should have been closed almost before it began. But Mr. Fitzgerald saw an opportunity to make a name for himself, and he swore everyone who knew the truth to secrecy, so that he could pursue his lofty goal.]
The information about Mr. Armitage’s role may help Mr. Libby convince a jury that his actions were relatively inconsequential, because even Mr. Armitage, not regarded as an ally of Mr. Cheney, was talking to journalists about Ms. Wilson’s role.
[And by "not an ally" The Times seeks to downplay that Mr. Armitage is part of the anti-war, anti"Neo-Con" wing of our one party establishment. He was even considered as a possible Secretary Of Defense by the Kerry campaign.]
But the trial, scheduled for early next year, may be focused on the narrow questions of whether Mr. Libby’s accounts to the grand jury and the F.B.I. were true. Judge Reggie M. Walton of Federal District Court, who is presiding, has resisted efforts by Mr. Libby’s lawyers to give the case a wider political scope.
[The trial should be dismissed. It is a textbook case of a "process charge." But the same people who will press for its continuance are the same people who said Bill Clinton's perjury and subornation of perjury to a Grand Jury in a sexual harassment case was "no big deal."]
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.
[At long last, Mr. Johnston, have you no shame? How did Armitage have time to see Libby's commissioned report before Novak's column? And, even if he did, Libby's report was completely legal and indeed pertinent information that the administration had every right to know. But, lest we forget, Armitage didn't know Plame's status at the CIA. Only that she worked there. Which would indicate that he saw no such report about her.
And how is it Mr. Armitage was able to tell Bob Woodward about Valerie Plame more than a month before Libby wrote his memo or Novak wrote his column?]
Mr. Fitzgerald was named as a special counsel to investigate whether the leaking of Ms. Wilson’s identity as a C.I.A. officer was part of an administration effort to violate the law prohibiting the willful disclosure of undercover employees.
[No he wasn't. He was put in charge of the DOJ's already ongoing and routine investigation into how Plame's employment at the CIA came to be published in a newspaper column by Robert Novak.]
Some administration critics asserted that her identity had been disclosed in the Novak column as part of a campaign to undermine her husband. Mr. Wilson was sent by the C.I.A. in 2002 to Africa to investigate whether the Iraqi government had obtained uranium ore for its nuclear weapons program.
[Some administration critics assert that President Bush was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center with explosives on 9/11. That also has nothing to do with what Fitzgerald was supposed to be investigating.]
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.
[Please note that in the earlier section of this article The Times claimed Armitage got his information about Plame from Libby's memorandum. It's doubtful Libby's memorandum was even written by July 8. July 6th was a Sunday, so it is highly unlikely Libby's report was written so quickly. But The Times will clutch at any straw.]
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.
At the time of the offhand conversation about the Niger trip, Mr. Armitage was not aware of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status, those familiar with his actions said. The mention of Ms. Wilson was brief. Mr. Armitage did not believe he used her name, those aware of his actions said.
[What undercover status would that be? If Armitage had seen Libby's report, he would have known Plame's status. And he would know that she was not "undercover," despite our media's constant repetition of that canard.]
On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Armitage was up at 4 a.m. for a predawn workout when he read a second article by Mr. Novak in which he described his primary source for his earlier column about Ms. Wilson as “no partisan gunslinger.” Mr. Armitage realized with alarm that that could only be a reference to him, according to people familiar with his role. He waited until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, an old friend, was awake, then telephoned him. They discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV.
[So all of the top people at the State Department have known the truth for almost three years. Did Mr. Fitzgerald swear them all to secrecy so that he could entrap some of the other (pro war) administration officials? Why did they co-operate?]
Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.
[In other words, Armitage could not resign because the truth might come out -- and put an end to "Treasongate." Which, lest we forget, was to be this generation's Watergate.]
Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage was going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter, the people familiar with Mr. Armitage’s actions said. Mr. Taft asked Mr. Gonzales whether he wanted to be told the details and was told that he did not want to know.
One day later, Justice Department investigators interviewed Mr. Armitage at his office.
[That would be October 2, 2003. Almost three years ago. The top people at the DOJ knew this for three years. And yet they allowed this fraudulent "investigation" to continue.]
He resigned in November 2004, but remained a subject of the inquiry until this February when the prosecutor advised him in a letter that he would not be charged.
[Why not? Because there was no crime committed? No laws broken? Something they must have determined by October 3, 2003.]
But Mr. Fitzgerald did obtain the indictment of Mr. Libby on charges that he had untruthfully testified to a grand jury and federal agents when he said he learned about Ms. Wilson’s role at the C.I.A. from reporters rather than from several officials, including Mr. Cheney.
[Then it was all worth, according to the New York Times.]
Mr. Libby has pleaded not guilty to all the charges and his lawyers have signaled he will mount a defense based on the notion that he did not willfully lie.
[How foolish of him. Everyone knows he is guilty as sin. Haven't they been reading the papers or watching the news for the last three years?]
New York Times publisher, "Punched" Sulzberger.
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 perpetuating.
And why is "Scooter" Libby facing perjury and obstruction of justice charges, when Richard Armitage is not? Armitage never told Fitzgerald about his leak of Plame’s identity to Bob Woodward, more than a month before Novak’s column.
Of course we know why.
An Armitage prosecution would have been of no use to Fitzgerald’s mission — which was first and foremost to discredit the White House.
Does Fitzgerald really want to be Hillary’s Attorney General that badly?