Novak's Original Source for "Outing" Plame?

[Bjorn]

Agreed, though I think that falls under the first category. I didn't delve into why Fitzgerald didn't find that a crime was committed, merely that he didn't.

Do you have a source for that?

As fas as I can see, he is saying that justice was obstructed as if he got "sand thrown in his eyes", he's not saying that a crime wasn't committed in revealing the name.

 

[WildCat]

Do you have a source for that?

As fas as I can see, he is saying that justice was obstructed as if he got "sand thrown in his eyes", he's not saying that a crime wasn't committed in revealing the name.

What would it take to convince you otherwise?

 

[Apollyon]

Do you have a source for that?

A source for what, to prove Fizgerald didn't charge anyone with the crime of outing Plame? Is that really necessary. I believe everyone is well aware of that fact. If I'm wrong and he actually did charge someone for such a crime, feel free to prove me wrong.

As fas as I can see, he is saying that justice was obstructed as if he got "sand thrown in his eyes", he's not saying that a crime wasn't committed in revealing the name.

So a crime was committed, it's just that Fitzgerald can't seem to come up with a valid reason to charge anyone involved in said crime?

 

[Bjorn]

A source for what, to prove Fizgerald didn't charge anyone with the crime of outing Plame?

No, that was not the question. The question was: "Hasn't it already been established that no crime was commited in the revealing of the name?"

I would be grateful if you could show me a source saying that Fitzgerald found that no crime was committed.

So a crime was committed, it's just that Fitzgerald can't seem to come up with a valid reason to charge anyone involved in said crime?

Well, you could read what he is saying about it himself:

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. The damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't to Valerie Wilson, it was done to all of us. As you sit back, you want to learn why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell a Press Secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused or did he intend to do something else? And where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now and if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you, we haven't charged it. So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is that it prevents us from making the very fine judgments we want to make.

Do you interpret his words to say that no crime was committed?

 

[varwoche]

Now that the left has found out that the person who "outed" Plame was not the pro-war neocon they hoped for but a person opposed to regime change...

I don't see how this absolves the administration from an ethics standpoint.

Whatever Armitage's and Powell's opinions may have been about regime change, State was onboard for the ride as evidenced by Powell's dramatic presentation to the UN.

And we can't erase the involvement of Libby, Rove, and Cheney. We're still left with the fact that a CIA agent working on WMD non-proliferation partially in covert capacity was outed.

 

[Apollyon]

No, that was not the question. The question was: "Hasn't it already been established that no crime was commited in the revealing of the name?"

I would be grateful if you could show me a source saying that Fitzgerald found that no crime was committed.

Then you misinterpret the statement. Fitzgerald has "established" that no crime was committed by not charging anyone for outing Plame. Nobody claimed "Hasn't it been explicitly stated that no crime was committed?"

One can establish that no crime was commited by reading between the lines and observing the resulting actions of Fitzgerald's investigation. It should be very obvious that if a crime were committed in Fitzgerald's opinion, someone would have been charged.

Why you are attempting to squeeze more out of the word "established" than what is there is a mystery to me and possibly a few others in here as well.

Well, you could read what he is saying about it himself:

Do you interpret his words to say that no crime was committed?

I interpret his words as saying it was unfortunate and probably even a travesty that her position was divulged. But ultimately how you want to parse his words is meaningless as only his actions are relevant in this case. Fitzgerald did not charge anyone for the crime of outing Plame. That is firmly established and a well known fact.

If you want to go on believing that a crime was committed despite nobody being charged, then believe what you will.

 

[Bjorn]

Then you misinterpret the statement. Fitzgerald has "established" that no crime was committed by not charging anyone for outing Plame. Nobody claimed "Hasn't it been explicitly stated that no crime was committed?"

One can establish that no crime was commited by reading between the lines and observing the resulting actions of Fitzgerald's investigation. It should be very obvious that if a crime were committed in Fitzgerald's opinion, someone would have been charged.

As far as I know, crimes are committed every single day where nobody is charged, most often because we couldn't find the one who did it. It doesn't make the crime undone.

Fitzgerald did not charge anyone for the crime of outing Plame. That is firmly established and a well known fact.

If you want to go on believing that a crime was committed despite nobody being charged, then believe what you will.

It is also "firmly established and a well known fact" that Fitzgerald is saying why he didn't charge anyone: Because justice was obstructed, "sand thrown in his eyes".

If you want to go on believing that where nobody is charged, no crime was committed, is JonBenet now alive?

 

[Apollyon]

As far as I know, crimes are committed every single day where nobody is charged, most often because we couldn't find the one who did it. It doesn't make the crime undone.

No doubt.

Now how many of those go through protracted special investigations for over 2 years as well as a grand jury process where all those involved have been identified by the special investigator?

It is also "firmly established and a well known fact" that Fitzgerald is saying why he didn't charge anyone: Because justice was obstructed, "sand thrown in his eyes".

Fitzgerald was making an analogy to what obstruction of justice is. If he really thought that Libby was trying to protect someone, he's got enough information to see through the sand. Besides that, he also goes on to explain that Libby is innocent until proven guilty, so at this point he can't even claim with any certainty that sand really was thrown in his eyes.

If you want to go on believing that where nobody is charged, no crime was committed, is JonBenet now alive?

Your statement would be analogous if they already knew everyone who was involved and THEN nobody was charged. Nor was Plame a murder case.

/takes a cool drink of apple-orange juice

 

[Rob Lister]

Weird take Bjorn. Since I am the source of the original statement to which you somehow object, let me just say...

While it is true that I cannot prove that no crime has been commited (what with that being proving a negetive and all), I can certainly say that nobody has been charged and ALL players are known.

We have [many] more than one person that admits to the act of either initially revealing or confirming Plame's identity. If that was a crime, why was nobody charged?

We've already had countless debates/threads on the legality of it (pointless, since only the charging/prosecution/conviction matters).

Are you suggesting Fitzgerald is involved in some sort of conspiracy or personal vendetta to clear all parties? If so, your suggestion is a bit...

I'll leave that hanging.

 

[Bjorn]

Weird take Bjorn. Since I am the source of the original statement to which you somehow object, let me just say...

While it is true that I cannot prove that no crime has been commited (what with that being proving a negetive and all), I can certainly say that nobody has been charged and ALL players are known.

We have [many] more than one person that admits to the act of either initially revealing or confirming Plame's identity. If that was a crime, why was nobody charged?

We've already had countless debates/threads on the legality of it (pointless, since only the charging/prosecution/conviction matters).

Are you suggesting Fitzgerald is involved in some sort of conspiracy or personal vendetta to clear all parties? If so, your suggestion is a bit...

I'll leave that hanging.

Your original:

"Hasn't it already been established that no crime was commited in the revealing of the name?"

I asked who had established that, and the answer was Fitzgerald. I have shown that he has not at all established such a thing.

I am not asking anybody to prove that no crime was committed - proving a negative can be difficult - I first asked for some evidence that "it has been established" that no crime was committed, and later, since Fitzgerald was answered, where he did so.

If there's evidence/sources for it, why not just post it?

By the way: I am, as usual, not a fan of conspiracy theories. Nor strawmen.

 

[WildCat]

I am not asking anybody to prove that no crime was committed - proving a negative can be difficult - I first asked for some evidence that "it has been established" that no crime was committed, and later, since Fitzgerald was answered, where he did so.

There was an editorial in today's Chicago Tribune that addresses much of this. To answer Bjorn:

Sources close to Armitage essentially have told The New York Times the book is correct: Armitage didn't know Plame was a covert operative and casually mentioned her to Novak.

...Prosecutors don't talk about people who weren't indicted--and the specifics of Fitzgerald's assignment as special counsel forbid him from issuing a final report in this case. That exercise would involve disclosing testimony before a grand jury--something that witnesses can do but that prosecutors, investigators and grand jurors themselves cannot.

So you'll just have to read between the lines to see that leaking her identity in such a matter was not a crime. As for Armitage, he's the only one who can answer.

 

[DaChew]

I don't see how this absolves the administration from an ethics standpoint.

Whatever Armitage's and Powell's opinions may have been about regime change, State was onboard for the ride as evidenced by Powell's dramatic presentation to the UN.

And we can't erase the involvement of Libby, Rove, and Cheney. We're still left with the fact that a CIA agent working on WMD non-proliferation partially in covert capacity was outed.

"partially in covert capacity"? She was partially covert?

"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

 

[varwoche]

"partially in covert capacity"? She was partially covert?

Yes.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Does anyone else find it noteworthy that Novak apparently has an ethical problem with revealing who gave HIM information, but not with revealing who gave the CIA information?

Now that the left has found out that the person who "outed" Plame was not the pro-war neocon they hoped for but a person opposed to regime change, will there tenor change? Hitchens points out - yes, it has.

Ultimately, isn't Novak the person who ultimately outed Plame?

I don't see how this absolves the administration from an ethics standpoint.

It brings the alleged motive into doubt.

 

[Apollyon]

Yes.

Nothing in the link claims she was "partially covert."

Please provide some proof that "partially covert" is a CIA designation.

 

[Rob Lister]

Nor is there anything unethical in 'outing' her, imo.

 

[varwoche]

Nothing in the link claims she was "partially covert."

Please provide some proof that "partially covert" is a CIA designation.

I wasn't referring to an official CIA designation but rather the purported facts on the ground. I could have used the words clandestine or undercover instead.