By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: September 2, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.
Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.
Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.
Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.
Let's review the bidding:
A Special Council was created to find out who leaked Plame's name and whether doing so was a crime. Fitzgerald knew at the beginning who leaked to Novak. So the next question would be: did Armitage commit a crime by "leaking" that information. Since no one has been charged with that crime, we can assume that the answer is "no."
Can anyone give me a rational answer why the investigation proceeded beyond that point?
2 comments:
I came across your site via the Riehl site. Your thinking is much like mine.
I have spent the afternoon wondering about the nasty response given to David Warren and yourself and me... and came up with this:
there are 2 ways of approaching this war with Islam. On the one hand, there is the 'smart-stupid' continuum. And our present safety behind our smart technological wall seems to support that mode of thought.
But then there is the 'courage-cowardice' continuum... and I am very much afraid that this is the one that we must adopt, if we are to maintain our civilization. I don't think being smart will be sufficient.
Heather,
You and I agree. But we must realize that ours is not a popular view. The blogosphere is praising the Fox boys I think partly because they do not wish to be seen as "negative" or "mean spirited." These poor guys were kidnapped, after all. We should rejoice at their safe return.
Yes .. but ... we can raise the issue of spiritual courage. And that will require a little spiritual courage on our part.
Post a Comment