Like his former boss, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage has developed a for telling the truth way after the fact:
"I think it was extraordinarily foolish of me" to have disclosed Plame's identity, Armitage said Sunday on CNN's Late Edition. He was agreeing with comments by Plame that he should have known better.
Armitage said there was no ill-intent on hispart. He said he spoke to Novak after seeing a reference to Wilson'swife in a memo, which did not name her.
Easy to say that after ruining a covert agent's career.
Federal Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Libby to 2-1/2 years in prison for lying and a $250,000 fine, and 2 years probation once his sentence has been served.
also ordered I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby topay $250,000 in fines. Additionally, the former aide will be onprobation for two years following the completion of his prison term.Libby must report to a probation officer within 72 hours of sentencing,unless Walton allows Libby to be free on bond pending appeal of thecase. Court is still in session while the judge considers the request.
White House Aide to Convicted Felon
Libby was convicted in March on four felony charges -- claiming he liedto the FBI and a grand jury, as well as obstructed justice -- relatedto the CIA Leak probe, the three-year investigation that revealed thebehind-the-scenes workings of the White House's inner circle. ...
: Blogged trial and sentencing. ''
It's sentencing day today for I. Lewis Libby. Today, Judge ReggieWalton will sentence Libby based on his conviction on multiple felonycounts after a trial and conviction before a jury of his peers.
, , they continue through 8. They give a play by play.
As far as I'm concerned, they can continue to round up the criminals on the Hill and keep locking them up. And I'd really like to see the excuses stop by their party members. On that note, Jefferson should be rammed into a freezer with his money.
I may have overdone the images, but these type of issues really chap my ass.
At the moment, we find ourselves engulfed in a late-spring presidential campaign preview. The was last night. Today, the Obama, Edwards and Clinton will attend a . It all ends tomorrow with the Republican debate. But there is another important story going on tomorrow that is worthy of some notice (depending on how you feel about government officials that lie to a grand jury).
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was already in March, will be sentenced tomorrow. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants Libby to serve in prison. Libby's lawyers want him to do instead.
As Time Magazine's reveals, last week Fitzgerald released proof of Valerie Plame's status as a trump card to convince the judge that Libby deserved a harsher sentence:
Thanks to Fitzgerald's brief advocating a stiff sentence for Libby, wefound out last week that the CIA did indeed consider Plame's identityclassified, at least for 18 months. The prosecutor has brought this upnow in apparent support of a remarkable claim: Libby should serve 30 to37 months in prison -- about twice what the federal probation officerecommends and way more than the probation favored by thedefense -- because the underlying (and uncharged) crime was so serious.
The Libby defense team issued one last for forgiveness:
"Mr. Libby is known for his fairness and generosity," the defense lawyers write, and "for his caring and unselfish nature."
One thing is for sure: there will be a lot of angry people at the CIA if the judge lets Libby off the hook. It will have sent a dangerous precedent that it is tolerable for the Executive to bully our agents in the field.
In court today, as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked the judge to give Scooter Libby the maximum sentence, a document was made public for the first time that proves once and for all that Valerie Plame was a agent when outed:
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employmenthistory at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in acourt filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates thatPlame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
In 2004, President Bush promised to fire anyone in his Administration that was involved in the leak. We know for a fact that Karl Rove was one of the columnist Robert Novak used when he Plame's identity. Bush has yet to follow through and fire Rove.
The judge is giving Patrick Fitzgerald a way out of the case (even though the case should be a slam dunk).
Think of it this way: no matter what, Scooter Libby will not be going to jail. If wins the perjury case against Scooter Libby, then President Bush is expected to pardon Libby. Or, Mr. Fitzgerald could just wimp out. This week, the judge gave the prosecutor that option, allowing him to dismiss the case if it :
The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursdaythat if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certainclassified documents at the upcoming trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libbycan jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can then move to dismissthe perjury charges against Libby.
JudgeReggie Walton cannot automatically allow classified materials to beadmitted at trial. He first must go through a series of closed hearingsunder CIPA regulations. CIPA, the Classified Information ProceduresAct, protects and restricts the discovery of classified information ina way that does not impair the defendant's right to a fair trial. Italso allows the government to propose a redacted version of aclassified document as a substitution for the original, having deletedonly non-relevant classified information.
Fine then. Give the grand jury a "redacted version" of the classified information. Either way, this trial shouldn't end, otherwise it sets a lawless precedent. Any charged public official whose case deals with classified information would be deemed too "nationally sensitive" and could "jeopardize national security." Is that a good precedent to set?
In other words, the judge is saying that protecting all classified information -- even though some is less important than others -- is more important than fully prosecuting those who misuse an institution of trust.
On Fox News Sunday, Editor of the Weekly Standard that Scooter Libby should be pardoned because it would cause a discussion that would divert attention away from the issues that voters are concerned about in this election season:
Bush should pardon Libby. He should do it now. It would be fantastic.The democrats would go crazy. We could have a debate for two monthsabout whether one should criminalize what was a totally innocentattempt to respond to, as Juan said, a mendacious critic of theadministration.
William Kristol is apparently the leading voice of the neoconservative movement. It's interesting how someone in a political movement that has proclaimed itself to be strong on national security would advocate pardoning someone who lied to a grand jury about his role in the leak of a CIA operative whose job it is to protect this country. Neoconservatives also believe the Wilsonian idea that liberalizing and democratizing the world automatically leads to peace. If that is so, then why would a neoconservative like Kristol want U.S. voters to be diverted and preoccupied during an election season? That is intriguing, especially from a man who has said to love democracy. ------------------------------------------------ Other sites blogging about this story: , , , , , , .
Reporter Robert Novak indicated on Meet the Press that he is upset with his source (who might be Richard Armitage) for choosing to remain anonymous. And I think that I just figured out the motivation for Isikoff's Newsweek article.
This weekend, a by Michael Isikoff indicated that Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, might have been the one that leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporter Robert Novak. The blogosphere has been buzzing all weekend about it.
So on the NBC Sunday program Meet the Press, host Tim Russert tried to get guest Robert Novak to confirm that Richard Armitage was indeed the source he used in his that led to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak refused to answer the question, saying that his source would have to "identify himself." However, without revealing his source, Novak did suggest that he was growing rather frustrated that his source has waited so long without saying anything.
After you watch the video, read what I wrote at the bottom -- because I have a theory about why the Isikoff article about his new book was written in the first place.
(YouTube)
--- Partial Transcript ---
RUSSERT: "Are you now prepared to say, confirm Newsweek, that Richard Armitage was one of your sources?"
NOVAK: "I told Mr. Isikoff, the very good investigative reporter by the way, I told him that I do not identify my sources on any subject if they are on a confidential basis until they identity themselves. I don't say somebody was or wasn't. I'm going to say one thing though I haven't said before, and that is I believe time is way past for my source to identify himself."
It's interesting how Robert Novak referred to Isikoff, who wrote the Newsweek article about Armitage, as a "very good investigative reporter." By phrasing it that way, Novak is giving us plausible reason to suggest that he even encouraged Isikoff to write the Newsweek article as a method of getting Armitage to hurry up and talk. Novak wants this leak story over with ASAP so that he can get on with his career. Armitage, or whoever Novak's source is, has been sitting on the sidelines for so long. By saying that he has no beef with Isikoff, who wrote a very detailed column and about the CIA leak story, Novak is sending the message to Armitage that the former CNN reporter has ways of getting him to talk -- such as getting reporters like Isikoff to write columns about Armitage. Putting it simply, Novak is pissed at Armitage. If I were putting money on it, I would expect Novak's source, assuming that it is Armitage, to out himself within the next few days or so. --------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about the CIA leak scandal: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
The book , which is now for sale, gives a detailed inside look at the Bush Administration's outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who at the time was listed under covert status. Author Michael Isikoff writes in the book about how former Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell played a central, yet accidental role in revealing Plame's identity to the press.
The , Isikoff previews the book and explains how Armitage realized that he outed Plame:
In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powellreceived an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department.Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across acolumn by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused ahuge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war criticJoseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had beentrying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnisthimself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided atantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senioradministration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitagewas shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who theleaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "indeep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversationwho asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'msure he's talking about me."
()
So apparently Armitage was used by the Administration to pass along information about Plame without knowing the implications of it. Simply fascinating. This comes just a few days after it was revealed that show Armitage met with Bob Woodward right before the reporter testified to the grand jury that an Administration official spoke to him about Valerie Plame.
I am sure that by the time Bush leaves office, thanks to books like this and many others, we will know the full extent of the White House's effort to discredit Joe Wilson. --------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
On Sunday's Meet the Press, Senator Charles Schumer, the head of the 2006 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, explained the double standard that the Administration and their Republican allies have on leaks:
----------- Partial Transcript -----------
SCHUMER: "Andrea, let me say a few things. First, you asked about a double-standard. There clearly is a double-standard. It's with the Administration. They leak things they want to leak. And when the Plame leak came out, there was no outrage.."
With all due to respect to Charles Schumer, there actually was genuine outrage on the part of George W. Bush during the Plame investigation. at a press conference one year ago from this month:
"It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before youjump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all thefacts," Mr. Bush said. "I would like this to end as quickly aspossible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in myadministration."
The only problem was that Karl Rove, who has in the Plame leak, is still working for this Administration. In other words, Bush has not followed through in his pledge to remove anyone from the Administration that was involved in outing a CIA agent, which is a federal crime.
There is a key difference between the Plame investigation and the New York Times story last week about the government monitoring financial records. The Plame investigation was a leak. The New York Times story, on the other hand, said about foreign terrorist surveillance. ------------------------------------------------------ Other blogs writing about this issue: , , .
In his latest court filing, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald included a line or two about Cheney that is the ultimate teaser for progressives, especially those in the blogosphere.
Fitzgerald is arguing that Libby lied to federal officials and the grand jury about how he learned the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent. Libby testified that reporters told him Libby's identity. But say they had a discussion with Libby about Valerie Plame long before Libby ever talked with reporters about Plame -- proving that Libby did not tell the truth about the whole ordeal.
The reason why this is a teaser is because Fitzgerald is suggesting that Cheney himself "directed" Libby to find a way to respond to Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times. Here is :
"..the annotations corroborate the government's other evidence indicating that these issues were communicated to defendant by his immediate superior, who also directed defendant during the critical week after July 6 to get out into the public 'all' the facts in response to the Wilson Op Ed."
In other words, it looks like Fitzgerald is trying to say that Cheney was responsible ordering the leak, even though the leak itself might have come from Libby.
Recent Comments