Novak column on Libby recycled "no underlying crime" misinformation
In a July 4 column about President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak claimed that although former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the original source for Novak's July 16, 2003, column revealing Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "plowed ahead with an inquiry that produced obstruction of justice and perjury charges against Libby, though there was no underlying crime." He added: "Why did Fitzgerald pursue the investigation when he knew Armitage was the leaker and had determined there was no evidence of a crime?" But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, while Libby did not leak Plame's identity to Novak, he was reportedly the original source of the information for at least two other reporters during the summer of 2003. And as Fitzgerald clarified in a May 25 memorandum regarding Libby's sentencing: "The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including -- but not limited to -- Mr. Novak." Novak's suggestion that, legally, Armitage's leak of Plame's identity was the only disclosure that mattered also ignores that the statutes in question do not specify that the identity of a covert operative has to be published for a crime to have been committed.
Further, contrary to Novak's assertion that Fitzgerald "had determined there was no evidence of a crime," during an October 2005 press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald said that Libby's obstruction of justice had prevented the special counsel's office from determining if an underlying crime had been committed. Fitzgerald reiterated this point in the May 25 memorandum, writing that "the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby's false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred."
Novak wrote:
Even before he began his long investigation, Fitzgerald was aware that the leak to me that started the case was made by Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state. No proponent of the Iraq intervention, Armitage did not neatly fit left-wing conspiracy theories about Iraq policy. Consequently, he disappeared from the Internet blather about the CIA leak constituting treason.
Armitage was not indicted because the statute prohibiting disclosure of an intelligence agent's identity was not violated. But Fitzgerald plowed ahead with an inquiry that produced obstruction of justice and perjury charges against Libby, though there was no underlying crime.
[...]
Why did Fitzgerald pursue the investigation when he knew Armitage was the leaker and had determined there was no evidence of a crime? Why did Armitage, Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Justice Department fail to notify Bush about Armitage's culpability?
In order for Armitage to be the sole "leaker" of consequence, Fitzgerald's investigation would have to have been limited to the disclosure that led to his July 16, 2003, column -- the initial published report on Plame's CIA identity. In fact, as Media Matters previously noted, the statutes whose potential violation Fitzgerald set out to investigate, in particular the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), do not specify that the identity of a covert operative has to be published for a crime to have been committed -- only that the information be intentionally disclosed to someone not authorized to know it. Moreover, as Fitzgerald stated in his May 25 memorandum, his investigation "sought to determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including - but not limited to - Mr. Novak."
Evidence and testimony at Libby's trial showed that Libby -- while not the source for Novak's column -- was a source of information about Plame's CIA employment for at least two other journalists. As Media Matters has documented, journalist Murray Waas noted in his book The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square Press, June 2007) that former New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified January 30 that Libby had disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a July 8, 2003, breakfast meeting in Washington, D.C., well before Novak publicly revealed it in his July 14, 2003, column. Additionally, then-Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, in his first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the leak investigation, identified White House senior adviser Karl Rove as his original source for Plame's identity and Libby as his confirming source.
Novak's subsequent claim that Fitzgerald "determined there was no evidence of a crime" also ignores another of Fitzgerald's comments about the case. As Media Matters has noted, during Fitzgerald's October 2005 press conference, a reporter specifically asked whether the investigation was over and whether the probe would fail to "lead to a charge of leaking." In response to the first question, the special counsel said that the investigation had not concluded. In response to the second question, Fitzgerald compared himself to an umpire who, while attempting to determine whether a pitcher intentionally hit a batter, had sand thrown in his eyes. Following Libby's conviction, Fitzgerald stated in his May 29 sentencing memorandum that the investigation turned up substantial evidence indicating that the leak itself may have constituted a crime. Furthermore, in his May 25 memorandum, Fitzgerald stated that "Libby's false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred" and cited this as among the reasons he "was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson":
Nor is it of any consequence to Mr. Libby's conduct - perjury and obstruction of justice - that others may have engaged in similar disclosures of classified information for which neither Mr. Libby nor they were charged. At the end of the investigation, after all the information was gathered - including testimony of the reporters and relevant documents - a decision was made not to pursue substantive charges for the disclosure of classified information about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment. This fact does not support the logical leap that investigators knew at the beginning of the investigation that no such charges would be brought, nor does it have any bearing on the propriety of Mr. Libby's prosecution for perjury.
While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby's false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent.
In his July 4 column, Novak also asserted that "the leak to me that started the case was made by Richard Armitage," but Novak failed to disclose -- as he had in a July 12, 2006, column -- that his sources for the Plame column also included Karl Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow. Novak wrote in 2006:
One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
novak is trying to make himself seem not to be the treasonous walking vermin he is.
The question is -- people like Novakula actually BELIEVE this lie, or do they cling to it out of desperation?
In Al Franken's book Lies And The Lying Liars That Tell Them, A Fair And Balanced Look At The Right, he finishes by recounting a conversation he had on a plane with a priest. He explained what he was writing and the priest asked him if he knew the ultimate punishment for a liar. The answer was that they begin to believe their lies. I think that is apropriate in this case.
when novak had his rotten teeth pulled for his il fitting dentures, they forgot to get the infection taken care of and it evidently has spread to his brain and has obviously afected his body.
Novak is the one that should be in prison for treason.
To put it another way, if you willfully trip a cop chasing a bank robber that's OK according to these right wing clowns because you didn't rob the bank. Makes me feel safe all over.
Yeah its worse than that. Because you tripped the cop and no one was CAUGHT therefore no one was charged THERE WAS NO BANK ROBBERY. Planet Wingnut is a surreal place.
Worse still even...they're claiming the bank wasn't actually a bank.
If there was no underlying crime, then why did Libby commit perjury and obstruction of justice? Why would a person commit perjury if there were no crime by anyone to cover up?
The question of why has an answer... and the answer is the thing to focus on.
The broader and more important question is:
"Why did members of the Bush administration divulge the supposedly confidential identity of a CIA operative?"
That question's answer contains the reason for all of this, as the motivation behind everything that led to a conviction for:
"...making false statements to the FBI, lying to a grand jury and obstructing a probe into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity."
And the question of why was Ms. Plame's identity leaked, is more important and more damaging, than any question about whether that leak was a crime or not.
Because as cnn.com accurately cited just yesterday http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.libby/index.html
"The leak occurred shortly after Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had gone public with allegations that the Bush administration "twisted" intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq."
Whether or not the leak was a crime, is a matter of so little real consequence to the Bush administration and the American People, in the face of the reason for that leak... which again, was to try and intimidate someone who...
"had gone public with allegations that the Bush administration "twisted" intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq."
You know, if we just kept that point alone, in all of this... if we just kept to the genesis of the whole thing, we'd not only be digging at the Bush administration's most sensitive wound (and egregious lie) in this matter, but we'd be striking back (continuously I hope) at that very effort to 'intimidate', by hammering away and repeating, every chance we get, the TRUTH that the Bush administration tried to 'intimidate' into going away:
"twisted" intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
That's the origin, the genesis of the matter... and it's the 'Achilles heel' of the Iraq invasion... it's what caused the leak in the first place (legal or not who cares, damn the declassification and full speed ahead!), and the Bush administration is every bit as sensitive to that Truth today, as they were when they leaked Ms. Plame's identity to the press.
Maybe scooter libby isn't going away... but neither is this TRUTH going away either:
George W. Bush and his administration "twisted" the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
It's the reason George W. Bush and both Dicks (Cheney and Armitage) and scooter and novak and all the other liars did what they did... it's the reason, and we won't be intimidated from it... we won't be distracted or intimidated from the TRUTH.
<!--startclickprintexclude-->Distract, diverge, dilute.
Seems as if it worked for a while, and they haven't given up the attack on the truth as a defense to corruption.
What does
Benedict Arnold
Robert Hannsen
Aldrich Ames
Robert Novak
Libby
Cheney
Rove
and Bush
all have in common?
Answer they have all breached our security.
This just in, the right wing spinners, Beck, Rush, etc. are beginning to pull out the "why can't we all just get along" card. They must smell the fuel oil being poured on the torches from their castle balconies.
You must have seen Beck's piece at the end of the show when he was Paula's stand-in last night. What a bunch of crap - the most divisive, hateful, hurtful group of entertainers and politicians since the Klan or at least McCarthy is finally seeing their power wane and they come out with this Oz for all!
But there was no underlying crime.
Goooood puppy. Here's your biscuit.
Thanks to Libby's obstruction, perjury and the President's commutation deal, it is something that could not be determined either way by the prosecution.
That is what makes such an argument as "there was no underlying crime" seem more than a bit disingenuous to the people who have been paying attention.
What difference does it make? Libby could have been lying about the color of her hat and he would still have been guilty of a crime. It's a Red Herring.
I agree with you. That was my point, but I muddled it up a bit.
Baloney, you cannot possibly show or KNOW that is true and you dont CARE. You only care about the propaganda value of a statement reality means nothing to you. You are doing the job of a mindless propaganda parrot repeating what you obviously do not understand
This 'no underlying crime' meme is ALL OVER THE F*CKING MEDIA!!! Worse yet, these supposed journalist rarely... IF EVER... challenge it! It's as if they realized that IF THEY DIDN'T ALLOW THESE NEOCONS TO OPENLY LIE, then they'd lose access to them.
And people think FAUST sold his soul too cheaply.
They are taking their cue from the administation lying is just what they do.
It's amazing how presumably intelligent people can report the Valerie Plame leak investigation through such a narrow focus. Patrick Fitzgerald was charged with the duty of investigating whether any crime was committed with regards to the entirety of the circumstances of the leak. If Richard Armitage knew that Valerie Plame was CIA, then who else had that classified information? How did they obtain that information? To whom was that classified information disclosed? It's not that difficult to grasp the intended breadth of the investigation. Fitzgerald would not have been a very good prosecutor if he had said, "Case closed", simply because Richard Armitage admitted that he was Bob Novak's source. Also, we are still not privy to what other leads Fitzgerald was given confidentially. It really is terribly unfair to Fitzgerald the way he has been painted as an overly zealous prosecutor. Had Democrats been the subject of the investigation you can bet that the Republicans would have wanted no stone left unturned.
It also amazes me how presumably well informed people can continue to say that Valerie Plame was not covert. Since the Libby trial it has been revealed by Fitzgerald and the CIA that Plame was, in fact, covert; but that fact was classified and could not have been publicly revealed until now.
I am also amazed that the White House has NEVER denounced Scooter Libby's actions. Not once. Implicit in the White House's silence is affirmation that Libby was simply doing what was expected of him.
Simply amazing...
Fitzgerald has placed himself in a no-win position. People such as myself continue to wonder why no one was charged with the leak. If the evidence was insufficient to charge anyone, it seems his investigation, once concluded, should have permitted a report describing what element of the offense lacked sufficient proof to convince a jury of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. I don't see any ethical barrier to that. It leaves us speculating: was he waiting for the conviction of Libby to leverage the additional evidence he felt would be required to take on a sitting vice-president? Once Armitage more or less came forward, why wasn't he charged? Was Libby, indeed, the fall guy that would let Fitzgerald appear to have done his job well, when all along the fact was that everyone knew Libby would walk?
The rabid rightwigners that are saying Fitzgerald was oversealous, the jury that didn't want to convict only because it was obvious to them that he was, indeed, a fall guy, asking where are the rest of them, and the judge who concluded that the evidence was clear that mutliple crimes were committed, obviously have intentionally put their collective head in the sand to ignore truth, once again, but Fitzgerald knew this was coming all along.
I'd like to think the guy is where he is for completely ethical reasons. I just wish he would tell the public what his reasons are, clearly and specifically.
Olive, I don't think Fitzgerald could do that. My appreciation is that unless it was introduced into evidence at trial, grand jury testimony is still sealed, as are Fitzgerald's "interviews" with Bush and Cheney. Fitzgerald can't publicly hypothesize by saying, for example, "Had Cheney admitted this, or Libby admitted that, then so-and-so could have been charged with a particular crime."
The real investigation was who was Novak's source. If the source was someone from the State Department (someone who has no love lost for Bush), then your conspiracy theories of the Bush Administration being behind all of the leaking is simply wrong. Also, Fitzgerald asked the judge (and the judge dutifully complied) to sentence Libby as if he had outed a covert agent, not as if he comitted perjury (in remembering a conversation differently than Tim Russert and a drunk Andrea Mitchell). None of which was proven nor even addressed (other than in Fitzfong's closing argument with no proof supplied) in the trial. Of course, this opens up great grounds for appeal for Libby when Fitzgerald is introducing "evidence" in his closing arguments.
Finally, if you all were as upset about the New York Times leaking of our techniques in tracking terrorists as you are about this, I'd take your claims to be concerned about national security a little more seriously. But you're only concerned when you think you can indict Karl Rove or get a picture on the front page of the paper of a Bush admin member in a orange jumpsuit. This site is a hoot.
Among other inaccuracies in your post, I'd like to just point out the most obviously egregious: There is no "great" case for appeal there or do not remember that the Bush-appointed judges reviewing his request for a stay out of jail card was denied because there was absolutely no reason to believe an appeal would be successful. You obviously do not know the facts of this case or else you would not say these things, so please do some research and get back to us with some facts.
It's the right's usual machine gun of misinformation approach. Make so many false statements so quickly that some of them will have to be accepted.
DWright ( who tipped its dittohead hand with the "Fitzfong" reference) has obviously been subjected to hundreds of hours of Excrement in Broadcasting, as shown by its susceptibility to the flimsy :if/then" logical fallacy.
"If" the leak was from the state dept.(for whom there is apparently no love lost w/ Bushco), "then" all indications of guilt towards Bushco. are wrong.
Case Closed, mega-dittos, where's the nurse with my meds?.
You forget that Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice in addition to perjury. He hindered an investigation that was geared towards determining all of the facts behind the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity. Richard Armitage was not Robert Novak's only source. It is a matter of judicially determined fact that Scooter Libby lied. One must necessarily ask, "Why did he lie?" And I thought that Republicans favored strict law and order judges who adhere to federal sentencing guidelines as they are required by law to do.
What a bunch of bogus warmed over talking points. IF the source was Martians THEN we all owe Libby an appology. What he misremembered about the conversation with Russert was whether HE contacted Russert and told him Plames identity of whether Russert contacted HIM and Russert tole HIM about Plames identity. If he misremembers whole conversations THAT badly he needs to be working at Burger King not in a sensative Government position with a security clearance. Too much Limbaugh not enough reality
Damn, this one has so much bad info you have to pull it apart to get to it all.... I'll give it a shot.
The real investigation was who was Novak's source.
Uh.nope. It was into who was leaking classified information. Novak had more than one source, but betonf that, several other reporters recieved this classififed info. Hence the investigation.
If the source was someone from the State Department (someone who has no love lost for Bush), then your conspiracy theories of the Bush Administration being behind all of the leaking is simply wrong.
Except that there were at least 4 sources of the leak. Libby, Rove, Armitage and Fleisher all leaked the information.
Also, Fitzgerald asked the judge (and the judge dutifully complied) to sentence Libby as if he had outed a covert agent, not as if he comitted perjury
Which he was correct in doing. That is what the DoJ always does in an obstruction of justic case. You see, what you are obstructing is important. The more severe the underlying crime, the more severe the punishment for obstruction.
(in remembering a conversation differently than Tim Russert and a drunk Andrea Mitchell).
Huh? There was so much more evidence than that. He had a memo from Chaney discussing Plame, then a few days later "heard her name from reporters".
None of which was proven nor even addressed (other than in Fitzfong's closing argument with no proof supplied) in the trial.
You mena the underlying crime was not proven? Maybe becuase Libby obstructed the investigation! DUH!
Of course, this opens up great grounds for appeal for Libby when Fitzgerald is introducing "evidence" in his closing arguments.
Really? Becuase it was areday ruled that his chance on appeal was next to none.
Finally, if you all were as upset about the New York Times leaking of our techniques in tracking terrorists as you are about this, I'd take your claims to be concerned about national security a little more seriously.
So the leaking of informaion on illegal activities being conducted by our government is the same as leaking information with no illegal actions tied to it. You sir, are a hoot!
Much like with Iran Contra the bosses blame it all on the underlings and then pardon them. It's easy to claim no underlying crime when you won't let the public have the information.
Fitzgerald is in a pickle. He had to see the Novak-like ostriches coming before he sought Libby's indictment, and he had to know when he decided not to go beyond Libby's perjury that those of us on the side of light would have our paranoia sirens wailing again. How could we not once Libby's lawyer announced that Libby would testify and Cheney was subpoenaed and neither man took the stand? Libby was so smug all along we were certain that there was a deal and knew the deal was sealed when the lawyer absorbed the judge's wrath for not putting Libby on the stand, where he would have been the greatest danger to further indictments for the administration. Did Fitzgerald just throw up his hands and give up then? Does he honestly believe he doesn't have the evidence to prove one or more elements of the felonious leak charges against Armitage and Cheney? If so, why won't he spell out the elements and state plainly that there is insufficient evidence of those elements to sustain a conviction against a generic "anyone?"
I'd like to think that Fitzgerald has done all he can and that there is an ethical barrier to his disclosing that much, but I don't see it. If the ethical barrier is there, I wish he'd spell that out plainly enough for all to understand. Until he does, the issue of who should have been indicted and/or convicted and/or punished for what will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the public as a whole, and justice will not have been done.
whups. sorry, thought my first post went into orbit, zipped into cyberspace, vanished, disappeared ... but, I repeat myself. :)
Actually one of the main criticisms of special prosecutor's during the short existence of the special prosecutor law was when they would make public statements alleging guilt but giving excuses on why they wouldn't be able to convict. Virtually every one of them since the law was enacted made those sort of press release statements and was harshly criticised by the legal community for doing so. That sort of thing, along with the huge abuses of SP Ken Starr, were fundamental reasons that the law was allowed to expire.
So, in essence, Fitzgerald is being an ethical prosecutor by not standing on the courthouse steps and naming names without pressing charges.
The biggest underlying crime is that some people in country still regard Robert No-Facts as a reliable source of information.
Wow, good thing novak(aine) cleared that up for me. I had completely missed the part where Fitzgerald determined there was no evidence of a crime.