On Sunday, November 11, 2007, on CNN’s “Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer, Richard Armitage joined Valerie Plame Wilson in driving the final nails in their own political coffins as collaborators in Patrick Fitzgerald’s political show-trial against Scooter Libby with a jury drawn from one of the most intense hotbeds of political hatred for George W. Bush– i.e., Washington D.C. (Hat tip to Bryan Preston at Hot Air.)
(If image link for video doesn’t appear above, click here
Fitzgerald’s appointment was for the purpose of discovering, and prosecuting if warranted, whoever “leaked” to the press the status of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee who promoted her anti-Bush husband, Joe Wilson, for a “mission” to Niger to investigate intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had attempted to acquire “yellowcake” uranium. The witchhunt nature of such prosecution becoming undeniably clear when, in the latter stages of Fitzgerald’s relentless pursuit of Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, “Scooter” Libby, it became public (no thanks to Fitzgerald) that almost immediately after he was appointed, he learned the “leaker” who disclosed such information to columnist Robert Novak, a staunch critic of Bush’s decision to topple Saddam, was none other than Colin Powell’s deputy, Richard Armitage, who also was a staunch critic of Bush’s decision to topple Hussein. Thus, Fitzgerald knew almost at the beginning that the “leaker” was an opponent of Bush within his administration; that the recipient of the leak was a commentor likewise opposed to toppling Saddam; and that the subjects of the leak– Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson — were likewise staunch opponents of such policy. Thus, the “leaker” was politically simpatico with the subjects of the leak rather than a Bush administration official opposed to their views.
It’s difficult to imagine what else would be necessary in order to render Fitzgerald’s subsequent investigation and prosecution of Libby — especially after Fitzgerald having instructed Armitage to keep his mouth shut — anything less than a political witchhunt of the kind we came to expect in the China and the Soviet Union. As Bryan Preston aptly noted, Valerie Plame describe the action by Armitage (whom she knew to be an opponent of Bush within his administration) in “leaking” her name to Robert Novak as “foolish” but had consistently described the allged “leak” by Scooter Libby as “criminal” conduct equivalent to treason. For questions that Fitzgerald should be required to answer to a bar association (as was Nifong), go to http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2007/20y07m03d09-01.asp. See also http://PoliSat.Com/Wilson-Plame.htm as well as Wilson-Plame–CIA-APM or, if you prefer wmv format this version of Wilson-Plame–CIA-APM.
–Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
text
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
jacklove said,
Next, Plame’s different characterisation of the actions of Armitage and of Libby are irrelevant to the prosecution and have no basis in law. That Libby did or did not leak her identity to the press was never the issue, as you point out in the earlier paragraphs, and as has been acknowledged by Fitzgerald himself.
Ultimately, you miss the entire point of the prosecution, which was to the evasion, misdirection, obstruction, and perjury by Libby himself. Fitzgerald had concluded there was no national security breach for various reasons; however, in the investigation, it was realised that Libby was not fully honest with either the FBI or the grand jury. Hence, the prosecution. Under oath, you can always refuse to answer on fifth amendment grounds, but you can never make things up.
Comparisons to Nifong are simply not valid. Nifong continued his prosecution for a crime long after there was no evidence to support it, and did so willfully. Fitzgerald had the “smoking gun” evidence that Libby had lied under oath, not that he had breached a national security issue.
November 14, 2007 at 12:35 pm