Armitage saw the state department document that listed Plame's name on Air Force One. Her name was not listed as covert the paragraph that mentioned her name was marked classified.
I have seen no coverage that substantiates this. Do you have a link to a reputable source?
That is not a minor distinction. He knew he had violated the classification of that paragraph only after the investigation began.
If he only knew after the investigation had begun, then it doesn't substantiate your position that it was marked as classified.
Armitage was Novaks primary source. Novak called a contact in the CIA and ask if she worked there. That was his second source. The contact confirmed it but, according to Novak he did not call her covert and only that he hoped Novak would not publish her name. There was no attempt to formally dissuade Novack from printing the article. There was NO evidence presented that PLame was covert protected under the IPA at any time in the investigation.
The evidence that she was, in fact, covert has been extensively presented elsewhere; I'll be happy to dig up some links for you if you don't believe it. I have already convinced several here who did not previously believe it. Given that she had acted in a covert capacity, it endangers every source, some at least of which are (or rather, were) covert themselves to say the least, all of those links are now blown. That means we don't find out the information we might have gotten in the future regarding nuclear weapons, the worst imaginable threat faced by this country and the world. The heinous nature of this particular revelation, and its incalculable effect on future intelligence, is undeniable, except by partisans who will be eating their words potentially under a mushroom cloud over a major US city in the next decade. This is not hype; the danger is very real and very imminent, and the most likely harbingers of that danger have been silenced in an act of political partisanship. The national security of the United States has been irreparably harmed to protect a felon.
As far as whether the second source was the CIA, that is not the issue at hand; the CIA followed its policy in such cases. The White House violated not only policy regarding covert CIA officers, but also violated the law. We do not know and never will who precisely that was; but that they did so is also undeniable. Novak, with two confidential sources whose names he could not reveal, searched for any additional evidence he could find; but without that second confirmation, the CIA information would have been of no use since they had asked him not to publish. Any responsible editor would tell you as much. You need to learn more about journalism, even as it is practiced by the scum of the Earth like Robert Novak.
As I said before, the confirming source was the CIA contact
And as I have replied, that could not have been a confirming source in the eyes of a responsible editor.
and he/she did not tell Novak that Plame was covert
You cannot possibly be serious. Please think carefully about what CIA policy is and must be in such cases.
only that he/she would prefer that Novak not mention her name in print. If the CIA was concerned with her covert status it did next to nothing to protect that status.
Because they could not by policy for reasons that cannot possibly have escaped anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
That is bordering on conspiracy theory and I have seen no evidence to support it.
The only possible evidence would be from the mouth of Libby, who has perjured himself and obstructed justice to deny it to Fitzgerald and a grand jury. Your argument is sophistry.
Yes if Plame was "covert" then Libby would have had the clearance to know that BUT, to date Fitzgerald, outside of a few press conference has shown no court evidence that PLame was operating under covert status. Had he been able to show that then he would have charged Armitage with the crime since Armitage had the same clearances as Libby.
A violation of the act, as I have stated, and as the act itself states, requires that the violator
knowingly reveal the identity of a covert CIA officer. What matters is not whether Libby knew; that Armitage in fact did not know is patently obvious. What matters is that whoever told Libby DID. And that is a violation of the act, whether because they did not inform Libby that her status was covert, or because Libby knew and knowingly revealed it. It remains possible that the person Libby was protecting was himself; however, why then did he not take the Fifth? Since he did not appear on the stand, he could not have prejudiced the jury by doing so on it; and taking the Fifth cannot be presented before a jury as evidence of guilt, to do so would result in a mistrial, and probably a reprimand or possibly even disbarment for a lawyer (prosecutors are lawyers too) who did so. Not to mention possible contempt of court.
Libby was charged with perjury for saying that the first he had heard of Plame's identity was from Tim Russert not because he lied to protect anyone else.
Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice (and by the way it was TWO counts of perjury, not just one, so if it was all Russert, where did that second count come from?) for lying to the FBI and lying before the grand jury. Convincing evidence (published in the national press) was presented at the trial that Libby knew long before Russert talked to him; Russert's testimony was in fact immaterial (if sensational). That you appear not to be aware of this is an indication that you did not in fact follow the trial, and in that case, why are you arguing about it if you don't know what was said in it?
Hell it was no secret that Cheney contacted the CIA to ask why in the hell Wilson was sent to Niger and who made the decision.
In fact, Cheney contacted the CIA to ask that someone be sent to Niger to gather intelligence to determine whether Saddam had obtained uranium from them. This is a matter of public record, confirmed by multiple sources at the CIA and in the White House. When the White House didn't like the answer, they ignored it, and when Wilson published an opinion piece stating that he had gone and looked and it was not true, they sought revenge on him for telling the truth. That also is a matter of public record. And to obtain that revenge, they endangered, in fact permanently damaged, the national security of the United States, by compromising our ability to covertly make determinations of whether there is danger of undesirables obtaining refined uranium. We may well pay with the lives of all the US citizens in one or more of our largest cities in the next decade for their revenge. No one will be held accountable. It is an absolutely despicable act, and not least for its motive. It is arguably treason, because it places the national security below petty political disputes. And these ones WERE petty; the pResident was shown to have lied in a State of the Nation address. That certainly is nothing that every pResident since the institution of the State of the Nation has not been guilty of.
When Wilson did his unauthorized editorial
Then why is no one charging him? How is it that he is pressing a lawsuit based upon actions taken against him and his wife and family as revenge for that "unauthorized" editorial without being prosecuted for it? They certainly have every motive to do so, and the evidence indicates that if they felt they had the slightest chance of supporting such a charge in front of a criminal court and jury, they have enough political hacks in the DoJ to undertake it.
in the NYT that was the first the Administration had heard of the trip.
As previously stated, multiple sources both from the CIA and inside the White House have confirmed to multiple writers that in fact, the Administration had
asked that the trip be undertaken,
been informed of the negative result, and
ignored it. Which is precisely what Joe Wilson's column said; he was the first and foremost source, but by a legion not the only one.
They were pissed off to be sure but it was Wilson's writing a 2 page editorial about the trip in the NYT but not even bothering to provide a written report to Cheney or the CIA.
Multiple sources at CIA and inside the White House state categorically that you are wrong.
Yes he is a felon but he is the only one that Fitzgerald could get simply because the IPA did not cover PLame, Libby did not commit his perjury in regards to any other potential target be it Rove or Cheney. He lied about his conversation with Russert.
He lied to the FBI, and he lied to a grand jury. This is the purest form of obstruction of justice.
Why did he lie to the legally constituted authorities and perjure himself if not to cover a much more serious crime? What else could possibly make it worth it?
No it isn't sophistry it is fact.
A "fact" not in evidence. Got any?
Do you think Fitzgerald would have been satisfied with Libby had if he could have instead bagged Cheney or Libby?
He could not because Libby lied. ETA: you meant Cheney or
Rove; I should have said I understood that.
Armitage DID knowingly reveal her identity
The facts in evidence deny that conclusively.
he is not a virgin in politics and he sure is not an administration supporter. Yes and I believe he would have gone to jail had Fitzgerald not tried to be Elliot Ness and fight Libby getting bail pending appeal.
Fitzgerald is a PROSECUTOR, or had you not noticed? The prosecutor ALWAYS argues that merely the ACCUSED felon not be let out on bail. What about an actual convicted felon? What do you think this is,
Perry Mason or some such? This is real law, as practiced in the federal courts a hundred times every weekday. This is not merely not unusual; it is commendable.
I stand corrected on the potential punishments. However, The APPEALS COURT was not hearing an appeal it was hearing a request for bail pending appeal. The Court almost always provides that relief if the Prosecution does not object. When it was denied that spurred Bush to act.
That they did not provide it in this case was due, in their duly publicly published opinion, that Libby had the chance of the proverbial snowball in hell of winning the appeal.
The one set of evidence that was not presented in court was of the "crime" that was the genesis of the entire investigation i.e. the outing of a "covert CIA agent.
First, that evidence was not material to the case; furthermore, it could be argued that because there was no such evidence, it would be prejudicial to Libby's case to present it, and it would not be permitted because it could not be shown by evidence. And, most damning,
the reason such evidence was not available in open court because Libby lied to keep it out of open court.
Yes he was convicted of lying to the Grand Jury and to the FBI. I haven't seen any details of those lies that led to the obstruction charge
Lying to the FBI IS obstruction of justice. Lying to a grand jury is obstruction of justice. I sincerely advise you never to lie to the FBI, to a jury, to a judge, to a grand jury, or during a deposition. I would never think of doing so myself, not even to avoid taking the Fifth. If you once perjure yourself in a court, you should go to extreme lengths to avoid ever appearing in one again; every time you do, evidence of that perjury will follow you like a bad smell, and no judge will ever like you.
Jury verdicts are questioned every day in APPEALS COURTS. That is not heinous that is an invaluable part of our Justice system.
I never said appealing was heinous; if you want to argue, argue against my arguments, not ones you make up and attribute to me.
Well you believe with all of your heart that Bush is doing this to "protect" someone in the Whitehouse.
No, I believe it in my MIND, a far different thing. That's because I cannot imagine anyone being stupid enough to expose themselves to criticism of the nature and volume this act was bound to create, nor anyone being stupid enough to believe that it would not. Certainly not someone as smart as George Walker Bush.
I can't argue with that type of fervor but apparently Fitzgerald has determined there was no underlying crime and that Libby lied about it anyway. Libby should get the death penalty just for being stupid as a box of rocks.
Fitzgerald has determined nothing of the kind; Fitzgerald has determined that the only way to even find out of there ever was a crime had been blocked by Libby's perjury and obstruction, has stated so publicly, and has prosecuted Libby for it, and won the case. The purpose behind prosecution (and the threat of prosecution) in perjury and obstruction is not merely to punish the liar, but to get to the truth by threatening them with prison and large fines and public disgrace. By removing this threat, the pResident has also obstructed justice, though it is clear that under our laws he cannot be prosecuted for it. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an obvious fact.
