Dumb question..... Why wasn't Richard Armitage charged

[aceman2373]

with outing a CIA agent?
Didn't he admit to being the source of Novaks column which started this whole mess?
I'm confused

[merh]

1. He didn't out her.

Cheney did

[blogslut]

2. oh brother

Is it raining in here?

[Canuckistanian]

3. That's what I wonder too

The Armitage to Novak transfer of information was where the real traceable crime took place.

If you say that Armitage didn't know Plame was covert, then charge whoever told him.

[Mandate My Ass]

4. Because Wilson lied. His wife wasn't covert, just a desk jockey

There was no underlying crime, it was just partisan politics on Joe Wilson's part and nepotism on his wife's. Cheney is a saint and Libby is a martyr. :eyes:

[emulatorloo]

9. Yes the repub apologists just keep repeating that mantra -- hoping the lies will become true!

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/07/libby-trial-our-youtube-swan-song

<snip>

Of course, now that Fitzgerald has proven his case, cue the right wing nut jobs who are already wearing hair shirts and bleating "free Scooter." Wells' sentimental bag o'bullshit about "poor Scooter" did work I suppose, because the jury had a lot of sympathy for him. But technically he's no fall guy, if the definition of such is " A gullible victim; a dupe." Scooter lied, he lied consciously, willingly and for the purpose of obstructing justice. The wingnuts simply prove that they are shameless athoritarian cultists who believe in nothing, certainly not the rule of law, who reflexively genuflect before anything that preserves their own power. It must be loaded into the DNA of their knee cartilige or something. They meaning of the words "obstruction of justice" certainly evades them, and people like Andy McCarthy who actually pretend to care ought to be ashamed of his cohorts at the National Review.

<snip>

[sabra]

10. you forgot Clinton... it's got to be his fault too :-)

[Mandate My Ass]

12. Oh certainly, oh yes indeedy

The freep in my office still howls about the Clenis at every opportunity, "It wasn't about the sex, it was about lying under oath. Perjury is a serious crime." I asked him about the Libby verdict and he said "Oh, I haven't been paying attention to that, I really don't know anything about it."

How very conveeeeeeeeenient. :eyes:

[emulatorloo]

5. Because as I understand it HE COOPERATED WITH FITZGERALD from the very begining

Armitage came to Fitz and testified honestly and gave the investigation information.

[napi21]

6. To be guilty ofouting a covert agent you have to KNOW the agent

is covert. Armitage apparently didn't, and even if you THINK he did, no one could ever prove it.

[rodeodance]

18. ah--------thank you.

[underpants]

33. That is what makes this whole thing so ridiculous

That law is virtually impossible to break. Surely it was written that way on purpose. You have to know that they are covert and since you can plead the 5th the prosecution would have to prove that you knew it-that can't be done even withOUT the 5th.

They were either (or both) so cocky that they could get away with it and did it just for spite/bullying OR they are really that incompetent that their guy ends up getting busted for something it is next to impossible to get busted DOING.

Amazing.

[sabra]

7. Donate to DU and then use the search feature....

tons of posts related to this question

[librechik]

8. he apologized very nicely

isn't that enough? I mean just because the program to watch the middle east for loose nukes was destroyed and agents likely killed over it and a carefully crafted network of intelligence was demoliswhed, and a senior CIA agent's identity compromised during wartime just to punish her for having a husband who dared to contradict the VICE, I mean

what harm was really done? So they let him go.

[solara]

11. The Libby trial wasn't about "outing" Ms. Plame it was about obstruction and perjury n/t

[havocmom]

15. and the reason THAT is a crime is that it subverts finding truth

Libby/cheney don't want the truth out. Prosecutors can't prosecute well if people lie to investigators & grand juries.

Whole point for Libby lying & obstructing was to prevent Fitz's team from getting to the bottom of the leak.

Thank you, solara, for reminding what it was Libby did. He obstructed justice and lied. He prevented investigators from getting to the truth. He didn't get away with the leak, he got busted for subverting justice.

[solara]

21. You're welcome.

Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice. The next questions should be "Why did Libby lie?" or "What justice was Libby obstructing?" "What was Libby covering up?" "Who was Libby protecting and why?"

Ahem.

Most of us already KNOW the answers to these questions...but we are a nation of laws and the laws must be served (often a slow process) especially when the people prosecuting for the law must be absolutely impeccable in their investigations and certain of their facts in order to win.

This is going to be the "ride of the century" and although it seemed a little slow to start, it is aleady gathering speed and momentum. I see a lot of weird twists and turns and some MAJOR bumps ahead. But BushCo is going to go down in a big way.

Keep the Faith


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE

[havocmom]

22. good summation of the situation in Blackhatjack's reply to another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=368081&mesg_id=368380

[solara]

23. Love the poker analogy and yeah, I agree, excellent summation.. thanks

[Hepburn]

13. I think I have the Armitage thing figured out...but am not sure.

Please...if I have any facts wrong, someone correct me, OK?

As I understand it, Armitage went to the FBI approx 3 months before Fitz was appointed and Armitage spilled. Ashcroft was in charge of the investigation at that time ~~ or at least the Ashcroft-led DOJ was in charge. Since Armitage spilled and apparently told the truth, the decision to NOT prosecute was made back then. As I understand it, once someone has been given a "no prosecution" pass by the DOJ unless other facts arise, they are out of the picture. Apparently nothing later came up that showed that Armitage told anything but a straight story or that he was covering for anyone, etc.

It also appears that Armitage was not part of the WH cabal on the outing of Plame and he did not received his info on Plame from the WH but from another source.

Further, the fact that Armitage was a leaker ~~ that does NOT exculpate others who did leak or those, like Libby, who tried to cover for other leakers and, as we saw, got charged with perjury and obstruction and convicted on 4 of 5 counts.

FWIW.

[aceman2373]

16. Thank you.

I don't understand the anger around here sometimes. I thought it was a valid question.

[Hepburn]

28. IMO...

...the RW fanatics have been pushing this talking point over and over. I got it thrown in my face a few times on another board ~~ from the Bushbot Kool Aid drinkers.

Not a bad question you asked at all ~~ I had to do a bit of research and once I got a few facts ~~ like WHEN Armitage came clean ~~ it made sense.

I have heard it both ways that he knew and that he did not know of Plame's covert status. IMO, that does not matter. Once the DOJ gives a "no prosecution" letter, that is the end of it...unless something like lying, etc., comes up.

Fitz had NOTHING to do with the decision on Armitage as I see it. A total non-issue anyhow: Whether Armitage leaked or not ~~ that does not exculpate others that did and it most certainly does not exculpate Libby for perjury and obstruction or false statements.

[librechik]

34. What about all that stuff where he said he suddenly realized the leaker was himself?

That was way after Fitz was involved, that was just last year.

And I don't get where people get off saying well that's it, it was Armitage, when "at least 2 WH officials leaked."

[Tin Man]

14. BTW, for anyone wondering about Armitage's "slip" - remember he's a signator to the PNAC letter

In fact, Armitage signed in the first row.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

So now whaddaya think? A simple "accident" that Armitage told both Novak AND Woodward?

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Didn't he tell Pincus too?

A guy doesn't get to Armitage's level by making the same stupid "slip" three separate times.

[Garbo 2004]

20. And what did Armitage tell Woodward? That the Niger claims were crap and State and CIA were right

but the WH overruled CIA and put the Niger claims in the SOTU anyway. He confirmed what Wilson was saying. Which is the opposite of what Libby and Rove would later feed to the media.

Armitage isn't a "good guy" but he wasn't part of the WH op to support the Niger yellowcake claims by discrediting Wilson's info.

[Tin Man]

26. Armitage told Woodward that Plame worked CIA and was responsible for sending Wilson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uArie7ZoZX8

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. He wanted war with Iraq as that was one of the first priorities of Rebuilding America's Defenses

and Joe Wilson was a roadblock.

www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Peace Patriot]

19. What I could see of Fitzgerald's strategy is that he and his team spun a web around

the main focus of their investigation--Dick Cheney--by getting the operatives of the conspiracy to fess up to their roles, and convicting Cheney's top aide (who was also an aide to Bush), Scooter Libby, on perjury and obstruction. They thus point a big red arrow at Dick Cheney, whom they believe masterminded the outings. And they pressure Libby to stop protecting Cheney. The statute on outing agents is technically difficult to prosecute. You have to prove that the outer knew the outed's status, and I think you may have to prove malice as well (not some inadvertent blurting out of top secret info) (...ahem). Fitzgerald and team built the case for Cheney's malicious motive ("get" Joe Wilson; his secret agent wife was "fair game"). The operatives (Libby, Rove, Armitage, Fleischer) were following orders, and, if you had to choose between prosecuting them (the lesser evils) and nailing the mastermind, which would you choose?

But nailing the mastermind is not easy either--because of his position and power--and because people like Libby are covering for him. Libby is the doorkeeper--the blockade against holding Cheney accountable. And, given this circumstance, the remedy is impeachment. There is not much more a prosecutor can do, except remain vigilant, pending further evidence--which is what Fitzgerald is doing. I expected him to issue a GJ report, naming Cheney, but he has apparently decided that this matter is more appropriately handled in the political/Congressional arena. In the trial, he said there is a "cloud over the VP's office," put there by Libby's lies. A cloud is not evidence. He has to have evidence to prosecute. And, although new evidence against Cheney certainly came out in this trial, it is not sufficient to actually convict Cheney--but it is certainly sufficient to impeach him, investigate and remove him from office, for gross malfeasance. He may not have technically broken the law--as to the kind of proof required in a court--but it was his OBLIGATION and sworn duty to PROTECT people like Plame and her WMD counter-proliferation network. He grossly violated that duty. Viciously violated it. He as much as sold their names to "the enemy" (illicit weapons dealers worldwide). He is a traitor--but has no doubt covered himself--some memo he wrote to himself, somewhere in his dungeons, or that he got Bush to write--giving him the power to declassify a covert agent, and an entire deep cover network, so that it wasn't, technically, a crime. That's why it's a matter for Congress, not the courts.

[garybeck]

24. AND WHY WASN'T CHENEY INDICTED?

People are jumping up and down cheerleading for Fitzgerald. Personally I think he let people get away with murder.

[Dave From Canada]

25. Good question. You'd think he (armitage) should be in the same boat as Libby.

Or even worse. I have no idea why, maybe others are privy to that information.

[shield20]

29. Because Libby was charged with perjury/obstruction - period.

Armitage COULD have been charged with giving the ID of a covert agent IF Plame was covert AND if he knew that (she may or may not have been - some say yes others no).

"Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller"

Armitage would been in the same situation.

[merh]

31. She was - won't don't you go read the court's rulings, you will

find that the Court recognized, AFTER READING CLASSIFIED MATERIALS in camera (in private), the court determined she was classified/covert.

Fucking get a grip, educate yourself and don't come here spouting right wing talking points.

You won't last long if you do.

[Duer 157099]

30. I don't have time to find the source right now, but

recall that Armitage was also the person who "outed" the AQ Khan story, which had a direct impact on the work Plame et al were doing to keep tabs on the Iranian nuke story.

Just sayin' -- it's a connection that should be factored in

[BuyingThyme]

32. For one thing, he didn't really do it.

Armitage was tasked with explaining how Novak (and others?) got the classified information. But, in reality, Novak got it from Cheney (from Libby).

Armitage ran to the Justice Department to provide cover for Cheney, hoping it would end there. He also ran to Bob Woodward to put preemptive (false/contrived) evidence on audio tape.

The reason Armitage was selected is because he was known to be at odds with Cheney's policy. This strategy negates a criminal motive. No motive, no crime.

As for Novak, he just say whatever they tell him to say.

It's a scam. This is how they do things. Don't underestimate them.