Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Media
CNN wants to be extra sure you know why Lewis Libby is on trial.
Paragraph Five:
Libby is accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
Paragraph Fourteen:
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
Also, there’s still no mention of Richard Armitage in the “Key players” feature, though he does make an appearance in the “Timeline” sidebar:
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage publicly acknowledges for the first time that he was the source to first reveal Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak, but says he did so inadvertently.
UPDATE: This Raw Story interview with blogger Tom Maguire of Just One Minute is a nice overview of the whole Plame ordeal; about halfway through, he brings up some interesting questions concerning the State Dept, specifically Armitage and Colin Powell. The interview is well worth reading, especially since Maguire, the go-to conservative blogger on this case, typically does a poor job of getting to a point, summarizing information, reviewing material and writing clearly enough for more casual readers to follow.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Tom Mac hit that sucker over the wall onto Waveland Avenue. Agree with your characterization otherwise–thought it was just stupid ole me.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Mick: And your point is?
Richard Amitage told the truth. Scooter Libby told lies. Um…in your translation of the bible, which of these two people should be punished?
["Allegedly", of course, until the verdict comes in. But I imagine you will deny Libby's culpability even after that.]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
My point is Armitage is a “key player” in the Plame leak, and that CNN is an incompetent news source.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Richard Amitage told the truth.
Does omitting to tell the prosecutor that he’d told Bob Woodward about Plame a month before he told Novak not count as a lie? Just wondering.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I don’t know. Did Armitage omit that? My recollection was that Armitage stepped forward voluntarily virtually the moment that he realized he may have been “the” or “one of the” leaker[s]. I think he deserves some credit for that. Whereas Libby weaved and dodged and lied through several sittings before the FBI and GJ.
Mick: The trial is about perjury, not leaking. The key players in a perjury case are the accused liar, and those whose testimony can prove that he told a lie(s). Likewise the charge of obstruction of justice. Where does Armitage fit in, specifically?
I hope you are not saying that Fitzgerald should ignore (not prosecute) someone who’s evidently lying to his face, cause it just isn’t that big a deal?
February 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
And, speaking of leakers, the trial showed that Ari leaked, too. Ari wouldn’t step forward without immunity. It now seems clear that Ari needed that protection. I don’t believe Armitage asked for that protection. So if you are going to make hay about leakers (over perjurors), let’s talk about Ari, not so much Armitage.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The “key players” feature is under the heading “CIA leak probe,” and includes such “players” as Robert Novak, who received the leak from Armitage, another “key player.”
February 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Bob, before you begin the knighthood proceedings with old granite head would you not agree that Fitz should have considered obstruction charges against him for failing to inform about Woodward?
It certainly calls his credibility into question.
Woodward says he told Pincus BEFORE Novak knew. That stipulated would mean the story was ‘out there’ before Fitzgerald said it could have been, which means other media types could have known congruent to Libby’s testimony, ergo, he had no reason to lie.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
A.C., your comment assumes facts not in evidence, and makes logical leaps and bounds…I just don’t even know where to start.
So I won’t.
I won’t be surprised, however, if there are more indictments in the pipeline.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am
A.C., your comment assumes facts not in evidence, and makes logical leaps and bounds…I just don’t even know where to start.
So I won’t.
It’s apparent you haven’t been following the trial very close then. Woodward’s tape with Armitage was played in court, and he testified that he told Pincus about Plame thereafter. Pincus denied that, but like Fleischer, Fitzgerald decided not to explore those inconsistencies for some reason.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
A.C. I have been following the trial closely, and I was aware of the Woodward tape, etc.
I still say your earlier comment assumes facts NOT in evidence, and borders on illogical.
Just take your most recent sentence, for instance: “Pincus denied that, but like Fleischer, Fitzgerald decided not to explore those inconsistencies for some reason.”
You don’t know what Fitz decided to explore or not, or whether he had other evidence supporting Pincus’ account, or maybe just not enough evidence to indict - or even if he is actually finished with the indictments.
One thing is notable about the way he works: He keeps his cards and strategy close, and doesn’t go into evidence and areas that are not directly relevant, unless he has to. (That may be a sign that he has more indictments up his sleeve, and is pursuing them in a specific order…)
So it’s presumptive of you or I to criticise him for NOT indicting someone and NOT going down some path or another.
Sticking to the case at hand, which is about perjury and obstruction of justice. As we learned in the late nineties, these acts are nothing less than high crimes and misdemeanors, and even a president shouldn’t be cut any slack. Therefore, you and Mick (I presume) as much as I are all anxious to see justice done — are we not?
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:13 am
…You don’t know what Fitz decided to explore or not, or whether he had other evidence supporting Pincus’ account, or maybe just not enough evidence to indict - or even if he is actually finished with the indictments…
Fair enough, I don’t know for sure. But it’s pretty clear Fleischer was an important witness for Fitz and he didn’t want to poison his testimony by digging too deep into why he denied telling Pincus.
It’s no coincidence that Woodward claims HE told Pincus, and Armitage didn’t tell Fitz he told Woody.
…Sticking to the case at hand, which is about perjury and obstruction of justice. As we learned in the late nineties, these acts are nothing less than high crimes and misdemeanors, and even a president shouldn’t be cut any slack. Therefore, you and Mick (I presume) as much as I are all anxious to see justice done — are we not?….
That’s illogical. A president is held to the highest standard since he’s the chief law enforcement officer and should set the example. I’m not saying others should be excused from perjury, but I believe that comparison is somewhat specious.
As to justice being done, we are seeing it played out now. Somehow you seem to think Scooter is presumed guilty before being proven innocent.
March 4th, 2007 at 7:23 am
That’s illogical. A president is held to the highest standard since he’s the chief law enforcement officer and should set the example. I’m not saying others should be excused from perjury, but I believe that comparison is somewhat specious.
Oh, I don’t know if I agree with “specious”. There are differences, yes, but the least of them IMO is the fact that Clinton was president but Libby merely worked in the White House. This is America. All of us are held to the same standard. Equal justice and all that.
How about the interesting parallels: The Starr investigation was about supposed irregularities in the Whitewater land deal. But no charges were ever brought on that (in fact the Clintons were cleared). Instead, they wanted to impeach him for perjury on his lying about a BJ.
And how about this difference: 3,000+ American soldiers did not get killed because Clinton lied and covered up his illicit BJ. But the Plame leak was all about protecting another lie, which led to war and thousands dead and wounded on both sides.
If he’s a D, the hypocrites demand justice. If he’s an R, they want us to look away.
To me, the Libby trial is unjust in one sense: If his conviction is all that results, then the greater criminal — Libby’s old boss — walks away scot free. Whereas I’d gladly give Libby a free pass if he’d just roll over on his boss.