Released Fitzgerald docs show that in Fall 2004, he was still actively investigating Armitage

[sabra]

Kind of debunks the RW argument that Fitz knew from the beginning who the leaker was, and that no crime had occurred...

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/useful-details-.html#comments

As predicted, Tom Maguire links to the two affidavits I made available yesterday without pointing out what those affidavits say: that in Fall 2004, Fitzgerald was still actively investigating Armitage and Novak and Rove and Libby on the Novak leak--because their stories all contradicted what the others were saying. Let me help you out, Tom, by quoting the entire passage on Armitage and the Novak column:

A brief discussion is in order to place the Libby conversation with Miller--and the evidence of a broader effort to disseminate information discrediting Wilson--in context with the Novak column and to address the assertion by Miller that Miller's interview may not be necessary "if the government has already interviewed or otherwise queried Mr. Novak."

Let me interject two points. First, Miller's complaint might as well stand in for the Libby Lobby, since the complaint is the same, that Fitzgerald shouldn't have to proceed beyond Novak. And second: note that Fitzgerald references "evidence of a broader effort" to smear Wilson. That means Fitzgerald saw the Novak leak--with or without Richard Armitage's role--to be part of a larger effort. Now back to Fitzgerald:

The investigation to date has conclusively established that columnist Robert Novak spoke to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on July 8, 2003, in the afternoon. In the course of that conversation, Armitage revealed to Novak that the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA. The investigation is still trying to determine precisely what was said during the conversation and Armitage's intent in informing Novak of Wilson's wife's employment.

See that, "investigation is still trying to determine"? That means Armitage may still have been on the hook for espionage or IIPA or what have you. In August 2004, when the Libby Lobby swears (!) that Fitzgerald should have been done investigating.

Armitage has been interviewed and has testified to the grand jury as to his account of the conversation. Novak has been interviewed several times and, when presented with a waiver form executed by Armitage (a form identical to the one signed by Libby), testified before the grand jury as to his conversation with Armitage. Novak and Armitage agree on several important facts, such as the time, date and place of the meeting during which the conversation took place, and the fact that Wilson’s wife and employment by the CIA was disclosed to Novak by Armitage in response to a question by novak as to why the CIA had sent Wilson on the trip. Their testimony diverges as to whether Armitage provided the first name of Ms. Plame, though both agree the last name, “Plame” was not provided. Novak recalls being told by Armitage that Wilson’s wife worked in the area of weapons of mass destruction --(redacted) Armitage does not recall discussing the area in which Wilson’s wife worked. Novak and Armitage give differing accounts of other materials not germane to the instant motion. The investigation of Armitage’s conduct is ongoing.

[TacticalPeek]

1. K&R

:kick:

[progressoid]

2. If only RWers would accept facts as a basis for decision making

[Richard Steele]

3. Problem is- once they do that, they aren't RWers anymore. K&R

[Supersedeas]

4. a broader effort that is lost on the Corp Media shills

[leveymg]

5. Both Novak and Armitage lied to the Special Prosecutor, or is Fitz being less than forthcoming?

Note the following sentence and parse it carefully:

Novak and Armitage agree on several important facts, such as the time, date and place of the meeting during which the conversation took place, and the fact that Wilson’s wife and employment by the CIA was disclosed to Novak by Armitage in response to a question by novak as to why the CIA had sent Wilson on the trip.

Several things are out of whack here:

1) Ambassador Wilson had traveled to Niger previous to the 2002 trip that the pair are referring to here. Wilson had previously been sent to Niger on behalf of the Agency following a 1999 visit to that country by A.Q. Khan.

2) Armitage is the Administration's South Asia and Pakistan point man. He was well aware why Wilson had been sent to Niger - it wasn't because he was married to Valerie Plame, it was because Wilson (and Plame) were already working on issues related to Khan, Iraq and more than likely, Iran, as well. Armitage was no stranger to CIA-CPD's ongoing monitoring of Khan. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1281780

3) Regardless of whether this was Novak's first acquaintance with the matter (I can accept the possibility that others might have "seeded" questions asked), why would Armitage disinform Novak by reference to Plame's employment by the Agency, unless it was to "out" Plame? Armitage could have simply said that Wilson had made a previous trip to Niger, and was familiar with the issues. That would have been more truthful on Armitage's part, and not revealed Plame's CIA employment. Why did Armitage say what he did unless it was with the intent to out Plame and her unit at CIA - there was no other conceivable reason to even mention Plame - and why isn't anyone else asking these questions that go to Armitage's apparent criminal intent?

4) If Armitage went out of his way to identify Plame as a CIA WMD manager, why should anyone accept that he's an "innocent" blabber-mouth, who inadvertantly tripped up in talking to Novak.

5) Why did Fitzgerald give Armitage a pass?