Special Report misled on the alleged roles of Armitage, Rove, and Libby in CIA leak case
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that Michael Isikoff and David Corn, in their new book, "seem[ed] to clear him [former deputy State Secretary Richard Armitage] from any intentional wrongdoing." But Angle then contrasted Armitage's situation with that of Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "who only confirmed what Armitage had originally told reporters, [but] are accused of maliciously attacking [former ambassador Joe] Wilson."
On the August 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, during a segment on a new book by Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff and The Nation's Washington editor David Corn identifying former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as columnist Robert D. Novak's original source for the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that Isikoff and Corn "seem[ed] to clear him [Armitage] from any intentional wrongdoing." But Angle then contrasted Armitage's situation with that of White House senior adviser Karl Rove and former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "who only confirmed what Armitage had originally told reporters, [but] are accused of maliciously attacking [former ambassador Joe] Wilson." In fact, Rove and Libby were reportedly the original sources of the information for at least two reporters. Angle also claimed that it was "odd" that Libby, but not Armitage, was indicted by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. However, Angle's suggestion that Libby was indicted for leaking Plame's identity is untrue -- Libby was charged with lying to federal investigators and the grand jury about his role in the controversy and then of attempting to cover it up.
Isikoff and Corn's book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown), is due out in September.
Then-Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, in his first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the CIA leak investigation, identified Rove as his original source for Plame's identity and Libby as his confirming source. Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller identified Libby as her primary source for Plame's identity. Corn noted in an August 27 entry to his "Capitol Games" Nation weblog that Armitage's role in the Plame leak -- whatever it may have been -- does not undermine the allegation that there was a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish, or seek revenge against" Wilson, Plame's husband, who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction. Corn wrote:
The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage [sic] had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.
The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was -- as Hubris discloses -- based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife.
Armitage's role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson's CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson's wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Also, Angle noted that it was "odd" that "Libby was indicted, but Richard Armitage, the original source, was not," and he aired a clip of Republican lawyer Victoria Toensing pronouncing it "a puzzlement" that "the prosecutor decided that Scooter Libby and Dick Armitage were to be treated differently under the law." Fitzgerald, however, secured an indictment against Libby not for leaking Plame's identity, but for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI relating to the leak investigation. Armitage has not been accused of those crimes or any other, as Corn noted:
The unnamed government sources also told us about what happened three months later when Novak wrote a column noting that his original source was "no partisan gunslinger." After reading that October 1 column, Armitage called his boss and long-time friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and acknowledged he was Novak's source. Powell, Armitage and William Taft IV, the State Department's top lawyer, frantically conferred about what to do. As Taft told us (on the record), "We decided we were going to tell [the investigators] what we thought had happened." Taft notified the criminal division of the Justice Department -- which was then handling the investigation -- and FBI agents interviewed Armitage the next day. In that interview, Armitage admitted he had told Novak about Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA.
[...]
Fitzgerald, as Hubris notes, investigated Armitage twice -- once for the Novak leak; then again for not initially telling investigators about his conversation with Woodward. Each time, Fitzgerald decided not to prosecute Armitage. Abiding by the rules governing grand jury investigations, Fitzgerald said nothing publicly about Armitage's role in the leak.
From the August 28 edition of Special Report:
ANGLE: The official explained Wilson's wife, who worked on these issues at the CIA, had suggested him for the mission. Even though Corn and Isikoff say Armitage was the original source, they seem to clear him from any intentional wrongdoing, saying that the initial leak seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent came from a man who had no attention of harming anyone.
But Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, who only confirmed what Armitage had originally told reporters, are accused of maliciously attacking Wilson.
[...]
ANGLE: There are two odd things about the events as they are now known. One: why "Scooter" Libby was indicted but Richard Armitage, the original source, was not.
TOENSING: It is a puzzlement why the prosecutor decided that "Scooter" Libby and Dick Armitage were to be treated differently under the law.
It must HURT to be this stupid! Are there just too many big words for these people? How can they not tell the difference between indictment for lying as opposed to leaking. This is just flat-out manipulation-as-usual for FOX.
It's a puzzlement why idiots like Toensing don't hae the slightest bit of knowledge of what Scooter was charged with. Lying! Not leaking you ma-roon.
Corn was the one that exposed the allegation that Plame was covert (since Novak didn't mention it).
Let's hope he wrote in the book who told him that little piece of information.
Corn is a sadsack with an axe to grind.
By the way, Angle's question since MMFA couldn't quite get it was if Fitz was looking for the leaker, why didn't he charge the acknowledged leaker? He never once said Scooter was charged with leaking the information. MMFA just tried to put words in Angle's mouth.
Under that logic why didn’t Angle ask why wasn’t Rove indicted too. They are just trying to obfuscate the issue with these flawed premise questions. They weren’t able to indict anyone for the leak even though there were at least three different original sources that we know of who leaked to three different people. According to Fitzgerald he could not get to prove certain elements of the statute because of lack of cooperation and perjury. The person who he believes he can prove perjured and obstructed was Libby so that is why only Libby is currently indicted on perjury charges. Hope this cleared up any confusion for you—Angle is playing games and you fell for it.
Not a very convincing piece by Media Matters ... This post reads like a bitter effort to revive a scandal when there never was one to begin with.
The piece to read on this topic today is by Christopher Hitchens at Slate: "Flame Out".
My 2 cents. Thank you.
There?
Trying to pretend there is NOTHING WRONG with exposing a CIA asset working on Weapons of Mass destruction. Show of hands: who here belives that if a Clinton white house operative had done the very same thing these same wingnuts would be in here demanding the death penalty for treason?
If the exposure of this 'agent' is such a vital matter and serious offesne, then why has prosecutor Fitzgerald completely ignored the self-admitted source of this leak? Even Armitage had admitted to his superior [Colin Powell] that he had violated his security trust according to Isikoff and Corn.
The evidence says Fitzgerald knew the actual source of the leak no later than 4 months into his investigation because Armitage had reported his own gaff to his superiors who notified the Justice Department and had Armitage debriefed by the FBI. Why do you suppose that the investigation continued, since its ostensible purpose was to identify this leaker, after the source was identified? Hasn't it occurred to you that Fitzgerald was engaged in a grave abuse of authority and a violation of the public trust?
put agent in 'quotes'? are you claiming she was not an agent? the cia says she was. for you to be questioning that, undermines your argument.
Plame's actual assigment was a desk job in an air-conditioned office in Langley, Virginia. This involved no foreign travel for official purposes nor did it involve any personal risk out of the ordinary. She was in fact, not a field agent or station officer of any kind in the time frame in question nor had she been for over 5 years.
So how do these facts undermine the hypocrisy demonstrated above? The hypocrisy charge is based on Solon's claim this was a serious offense worthy of prosecution, yet he supports the premise that the actual leaker, Richard Armitage, should be excused while the prosecutor conducts a witch hunt against the administration, which conduct serves neither the stated purpose of his charter nor the public interest.
So once again we come to the point: Why is Scooter Libby a defendant and not also Richard Armitage if the crime was improperly disclosing Valerie Plame's employement at the CIA? Clearly, Armitage is responsible for this disclosure and not Libby or Rove either.
why libby is charged? because he lied to the investigators and that was well within fitzgerald's mandate to look at. you can't have someone deliberately lie in an investigation and then say let it go. and the proof that libby was attempting to keep his name out of this was the fact that he asked judith miller to not identify him as working at the white house, but instead as a "former hill staffer". and, once again, the right wing does not get to decide plame's status. the cia does and they said her identity was classified information, whether she was overseas on not. and maybe you can tell me, why did at least half a dozen reporters say that they were told by different white house officials, before novak's column, about plame's employment at the cia?
I asked why Armitage has not been charged, if there indeed was a crime committed, since clearly, he is responsible by his own admission for the disclosure of Plame's status to both Novak and Woodward.
You blather on obout Libby
you asked "why is scooter libby a defendant". you asked. i answered.
Does nothing to excuse what Libby and Rove did. Your weak nonsense about Plame NOT being an agent is also WEAK. She was a NOC agent whatever she did was classified you have no idea what she was or was doing. Lets see who MIGHT have a better idea of her status than some guy posting on a website. I know THE CIA. And THEY sent this to the justice dept. If YOU are better informed than the CIA what THEIR agents status is then what are you doing wasting your time posting nonsense on a website? The intelligence community needs your valuable assistance immediatly.
I appear better informed on this topic than you by a wide margin. All the claims I have made are easily confirmed by google searches. Try them for yourself. Of course, this assumes you know how to operate a search engine. These items are all common knowledge amongst informed circles.
Again, it was you who alleged this outing was a serious crime deserving of censure. Why then do you continue to demand Rove and Libby be prosecuted when Richard Armitage has admitted he was the source of the confidential disclosure. the 'serious crime' is the disclosure. The probable cause for the investigation was the disclosure. The disclosure was resolved 4 months into Fitzgerald's investigation. Why was Armitage not indicted if this disclosure was indeed a crime ? Why did the investigation carry on for two more years after the case was solved?
I will provide you with some ugly answers: The disclosure was in fact not a crime since it did not occur sufficiently soon after Plame's last foreign assignment to saisfy the law governing such disclosures. The real motive of the investigation is not to find and punish this leaker. Had it been so, the investigation would have concluded with the positive identification of the leak source. Since the Whitehouse staff was targeted by the investigation despite the fact Fitzgerald knew full well the leak had actually originated inside the State Department with Armitage, we can safely conclude that the real objective was to attempt to tarnish the President by finding or creating some pretext to prosecute one or more members of the Whitehouse staff for ancilliary offenses discovered or created by this investigation. What we have here is a good old fashioned witch hunt. This is all simple deductive reasoning.
BTW: How do YOU know I DON'T work for the CIA?
did half a dozen reporters say they were told, they didn't bring it up, by white house officials about plame working for the cia, before novak's column? that's a lot more than one guy saying it one time to one reporter.
Lets go through this s l o w l y. There are more aspects to showing it was a crime under the statute than JUST exposing an undercover CIA agent. The book isnt out yet but from what Corn seems to be saying Armitage did not INTENTIONALLY expose her. Libby DID, Rove DID. No matter WHAT Armitage did there is NO QUESTION, as admitted by Rove and Libbys lawyers that they WERE the ORIGINAL source for the leak to the Miller and Cooper. There were other factors yet besides intention that Fitzgerald thinks he cannot prove.
Here is where your basic stupidity becomes embarrassing to any sentient BEING. Are you REALLY claiming that the SECRET activities of a NOC agent that the CIA will not talk about are available on a google search???? WOW. That is galactic level stupidity. Here it is in the simplest, in deference to your obvious intellectual shortcomings, terms I can use. CIA employs Wilson. CIA says Wilsons identity secret. Fitzgerald investigates ( sorry about the big word geta a five year old to explain it to you) and ALSO says Wilsons status secret. YOU are moron pounding keyboard. YOU dont KNOW her status better than CIA and Fitzgerald.
Is that plain enough for you?
If Armitage had never existed the Libby and Rove leaks would have played out exactly as they did. Plame WAS a CIA operative that is why the CIA sent this to justice. As an attempt to excuse their inexcusable behavior that was desperate and weak
novak said she was an "operative". that has a different meaning than "agent". when novak wrote she was an operative he was revealing the identity of an undercover agent. so said the cia. corn did not reveal her identity. novak had already done it. and if there is nothing to this, why did so many reporters say they were told out of the blue about plame, before novak's column.
Has to be the dumbest and most desperate attempt at cover I have ever SEEN. She WORKED for Brewster Jennings, her NEIGHBORS didnt know she was CIA. She was a NOC operative with an industrial cover as an Energy analyist. On the WHAKO, logic free world of Planet WINGNUT that means when Novak exposed her as a CIA agent it wasnt REALLY exposing her until Corn mentioned the OBVIOUS point that IF she was CIA then she was a CLANDESTINE CIA agent. I am contacting the Geneva comittee torturing logic that brutally HAS to be illegal.
and she was not currently covert, but of course you know that.
You can continue to hang on to a shred of hope of getting Rove, but I told you all along that Wilson was slimey and the leak came from someone other than Rove, Cheney or Bush or Scooter for that matter.
said her identity was classified because the network she set up was still in operation. they decide, not you. and it was not "old news" when novak revealed her identity.
How is Wilson slimy and what would that have to do with his wife being outed?
Who knows more about who is covert and who isnt among the CIA's employees. The CIA or someguy posting at a message board. Man, thats a tough one.
the Hitchens piece right away- I've caught him at least 10 times on TV and radio over the last year, and it's been the same thing every time. Indignant sniffling and whining that the lowbrows around him don't just buy his lies and GOP talking points.
A British accent doesn't make yer BS any more tempting.
I had another feeling about the "latest developments" in the Plame case, and I think the righty posters here are confirming it for me.
Throw out a patsy (Armitage) at the right time. This will prove that all those ridiculous accusations about the Bush henchmen were wrong, while cancelling out Ken Starr by making Fitzgerald an agenda-driven special prosecutor and a waste of tax dollars.
I'm no psychic, but I think I see this one coming down the 405.
what glee among the right wingers. the bush administration exposed the identity of an undercover operative specializing in wmd, destroyed the spy network that took years to build, and made people all over the world reluctant to deal with us because they could end up dead if they had contact with someone outed by our own government. and no one "involved" in this, and many in the bush administration are, has been fired as bush promised. nor have their security clearances been removed, the ones they signed that said they had to know for sure that information [like plame's status] was already declassified. and i still need an explanation as to why, if this was just one inadvertant slip, other members of the bush administration were telling, unasked, her identity to other reporters. don't forget though, they're keeping us safe.
Once again proof that in Washington it is not the crime that kills you it is the cover up.
It is a axiom in Washington you think the Right would be familiar with given Watergate and Iran-Contra. However, R'wingers seldomn learn anything.