The New York Times coverage of the “Scooter” Libby trial has been fanciful more than once, but the paper would now like you to believe that “For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder.”
Really? Jane Hamster was “damn near brokenhearted” at the end. Jeralyn Merritt seems to think there’s a good chance Libby will be acquitted and reports that the obstruction of justice charging Libby with lying about his July 12, 2003 conversation with Judith Miller has been dismissed, leaving the counts pertaining only to Libby’s conversation with Tim Russert and Matthew Cooper. Arianna Huffpo wrote that key witness Tim Russert’s “credibility had been so hobbled it needed a pair of crutches of its own.” Merritt has not only written that Cooper’s testimony won’t bring it home for special prosecutor Fitzgerald, but also suggested on CNN that Cooper was the leader of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.
Either liberal bloggers have a strange sense of “fun,” or the New York Times is reporting from Fantasyland. Possibly both.
Maybe next Fitzmas. ::snif::
It seems to have done nothing for her amazing lack of self-awareness, unfortunately.
Wait. The NYT is going to FDL for quotes? And no quotes from Tom Maguire? Good god, they have given up any pretense of balance. I know the slant of the story is what the leftists are saying, but they couldn’t bother going to someone who criticizes their coverage? Gotta love this line:
Ah. Yes. A “yeasty mix” of invective. That must be Times-speak for “barking moonbattery”.
This one, too:
Where, exactly, are the “sober, neutral drudges” working? Because all I hear from the press is left-wing spin and shrieking hysteria.
Whatever happened to Jason Leopold, anyway?
I’ll put up Tom MaGuire’s and my work (and the work of the crew at JOM) up against the entire NYT,WaPo,NBC,NPR,ABC,CBS crew for accuracy on reporting this case.The condescension in this piece it seems to me is a cover for fright.(Don’t even talk about that idiot David Shuster who just pulled lies out of his hind end.
They were outclassed and out researched every time.
Only one MSM reporter was consistently good and fair in his coverage:Matt Apuzzo of the NYT.He represents the last of his kind–a knowledgeable, accurate court reporter.
Most who have knowledge of the legal system already know how poorly the MSM understands it in general. Add in the political dimension and you get the MSM reportage (Apuzzo excepted). Even Huffpo, Merritt and people reading the lefty blogs seem to have figured out that not much will come of this trial (esp. politically) and that the journo witnesses were generally abysmal. In contrast, the MSM is so biased in favor of itself that they don’t grasp just how bad the journos looked on the stand.
I’m picturing a Dr. Seuss-like personification of the actual facts surrounding the Valerie Plame mess. He’s green and fuzzy and his heart is two sizes too small and HE STOLE FITZMAS!!!
JOM poster SBW, posted this at JOM and Althouse. It is a clip and save for anyone who wants the short form (absolutely correct) sum up of the case:
The NY Times put an article above the fold the other day about Scooter’s lawyers deciding not to call either him or Cheney. They posited that it was because they were afraid of cross-examination. I posit it was because they know they’ve already won. What a fuckin’ nightmare, burning wet pooch.
I’ve long felt that liberals weren’t truly content unless they were miserable, so I wouldn’t completely dismiss the Times’ assertion.
Wow. Do you folks really live in some benighted land where you don’t know what “fun” is?
I was in Washington, D.C. last week, staying at the FDL apartment with Jane, live-blogging the trial, and being interviewed by Shane for his NYT article. Since he spoke with each of us individually, his description that we were having fun probably came from the impression we gave during those conversations that we were having an absolute freaking blast being at the heart of the action.
The fact that Jeff is pulling various phrases out of context aside, haven’t you ever been “heartbroken” at the end of a basketball game, or a movie, yet had a great time watching it? I mean, you’re not that divorced from your own humanity, are you?
Incidentally, for research/accuracy devotee Clarice:
Uhh, you mean of the Associated Press, don’t you? LOL.
Interestingly, although I never spoke to him myself, Marcy had good things to say about Matt also. So the guy must have something going for him.
Swopa,
If you’re going to correct Clarice on the NYT/AP thing, you might want to avoid calling me Jeff. ‘Specially when my name’s right there in the title.
A criminal trial = a basketball game? You’re not that divorced from your own humanity, are you?
And yes, that’s a rhetorical question.
I’m sorry to hear that. Get well soon!
If you’re going to correct Clarice on the NYT/AP thing, you might want to avoid calling me Jeff.
Ha! Fair enough. As you might have guessed, I’m not a regular reader.
A criminal trial = a basketball game?
Well, y’know, I’m not the one on trial, so I’m a spectator in both cases, aren’t I?
And while there are real-life implications to this trial, there are for basketball games, too (players get injured, waived, traded & have to uproot families, coaches get fired, etc.). Most people aren’t so obsessed with feeling the world’s pain that this keeps them from enjoying the game.
Hell, I just got to travel to a different city, have a unique, close-up view of an interesting news event, and meet/hang out with intelligent and friendly people for a week. If you have a hard time understanding how I could have had fun, it seems like you’re the one who needs to lighten up.
I thought you said you were at the FDL apartment.
None of which is forced upon them by a government with overwhelming resources. Libby is being tried for allegedly lying to investigators and obstructing an investigation of a leak, despite the fact that Fitgerald apparently knew the identity of the leaker on his first day in the job. It is the ethical duty of a prosecutor to seek justice, not to win—which renders a criminal trial quite different from a civil trial, let alone a basketball game.
But thanks for revealing your cavalier attitude on such things; it certainly does explain how you had “fun.” I’ll keep it in mind the next time one of your fellow travelers is complaining about how bad the McChimpler Admin. is on civil liberties.
… despite the fact that Fitzgerald apparently knew the identity of the leaker on his first day in the job.
I guess we’re seeing the limits of wingnuts’ ability to comprehend logic here.
You’re right, Armitage came forward to Dept. of Justice investgators in early October of 2003 about his conversation with Novak, and Fitzgerald didn’t enter the picture until the end of December.
But Fitzgerald didn’t hire himself. Your question should be, why did a stalwart partisan Republican like John Ashcroft recuse himself three months after Armitage “confessed” and agree to the appointment of a special prosecutor?
Guess there must be a lot more to this case than the Armitage-did-it narrative explains, huh? Thanks for blowing up your own talking point.
Repeat that very slowly, over and over again. Eventually it will come to you.
Not fucking likely.
Why did Ashcroft recuse himself? Because Armitage was the No. 2 official at State—which, last I checked, is pretty high up there—at the time of the leak. Because Congressional Democrats and their friends in the media kept up a steady drumbeat of demands for him to recuse himself. Because had he not recused himself and fingered the relatively dovish Armitage instead of targets of public speculation like Karl Rove or Scott McClellan, liberals would have screamed “Watergate!” until their heads exploded. Because he was ultimately swaed by the argument over the “appearance of impropriety.”
Must there be “more to it” than that? The investigation was supposed to uncover who mentioned Wilson’s wife to Novak and it’s undisputed that it was Armitage. Moreover, Fitz and his investigators, with their unlimited resources, have not charged anyone else in the matter to date. Thus, as of today, there’s not much evidence suggesting there was “more to it.”
But who knows? Maybe if enough children hang their tinfoil stockings by the fireplace, Fitzmas will come someday. Of course, even if I believed the fevered dreams of the Left on this case, and Libby is convicted, is it more likely that Libby would cut a deal with Fitz to implicate others… or that Libby would just appeal and failing that, wait for a pardon from Bush? Under just about any plausible scenario, Fitzmas ain’t coming.
The mystery to me is why you continue to respond. It almost sounds like you’re now taking the proceedings—and my point about them—seriously, instead of as a basketball game. And I wouldn’t want to ruin your unusual brand of “fun.”
Nahh, B Moe & commander0, I’ll tell you what—why don’t you pretend I’m stupid and explain it to me?
Armitage had confessed in early October. Mystery solved, case closed, right?
Why didn’t Ashcroft just wrap things up and announce the identity of the culprit?
Perhaps more to the point, if you’re implying that Ashcroft recused himself just to show things were done impartially, why not do so when the investigation started in late September? Why wait three months?
Oh, look, Karl gets to answer the same question. Why did it take three months for Ashcroft to decide that “appearances of impropriety” had to be avoided?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with FBI agents suspecting that Libby and Rove had lied to them, and had arranged a mutual alibi with Novak?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with the Libby’s note that Cheney told him about Wilson’s wife working for the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA a month before Novak’s column?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with the copy of Joe Wilson’s op-ed, with Cheney’s underlining and handwritten questions about whether “his wife sent him on a junket,” which was found stashed in a safe meant for classified materials?
Are you sure it had nothing to do with Ari Fleischer demanding immunity before he would testify about claims that he called reporters from Air Force One(!) and talked about Wilson’s wife?
The mystery to me is why you continue to respond. It almost sounds like you’re now taking the proceedingsâ€â€and my point about themâ€â€seriously, instead of as a basketball game.
To play a game well, you take it seriously while you’re playing it—but it’s still fun. And kicking your ass with the facts, on your own blog, is big time fun.
Boy that would be a stretch.
Karl just did.
In the real world, after a lengthy investigation neither Rove nor Novak nor Libby has been charged with that conspiracy. But their Manchurian Candidate-style brainwashing of Armitage to agressively funnel the info to Bob Woodward as well as Novak was sheer genius on their part.
In the real world, there is no evidence that it caused Armitage to funnel the info to Woodward and Novak.
Having just observed the trial up-close, I’m sure you can cite me chapter and verse as to how Cheney’s handwritten comments on an op-ed in a safe inspired Armitage to funnel the info to Woodward and Novak.
On Dec. 19th, MSNBC reported that Fitzgerald has not asserted that Cheney directed Libby to leak Plame’s name to reporters.
Has that changed?
On Feb 4th, the WaPo reported:
Has that changed?
Which again had nothing to do with Armitage leaking to Woodward and Novak. I will admit, however, that Fitz was pretty good about immunizing the actual leakers in this case to go after Libby.
On that point, honest liberal legal scholars like Kathleen Sullivan and Cass Sunstein have noted the inherent danger of the “independedent” or “special” counsel. To quote Sunstein:
Of course, Sullivan and Sunstein are liberals who take the law seriously—rather than as a basketball game—so I can see why you might not get it.
Karl, thanks for the in-depth reply. I won’t have time to reply in full until later, but here’s a link with an excerpt of Libby’s grand jury testimony, showing Fitzgerald’s strong suspicion that Cheney authorized leaking of Plame’s identity. (It’s even clearer if you can find it on the audio, which was played in court.)
There’s a reason why the saying, “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich” became popular.
Yet, for all of Fitz’s strong suspicion (according to you), there is no indictment on, let alone proof of, the theory that Cheney authorized it.
And even if he did, so fucking what? Have you not yet noticed that outing Plame was not found to be a crime?
True, but to be fair, there was enough noise about the issue that it could have been a motive. For example, I presume this is why the actual leakers demanded (and got) immunity.
However, Fitz’s theories of motive at trial were that Libby was afraid of losing his job and that Libby had already lied to Cheney about his involvement. These theories run contrary to Swopa’s favored theory, i.e., that Cheney was behind it and Libby was covering for Cheney.
And that’s the funny thing about court proceedings; they require that you have facts to back up your theories. That’s why Fitz chose as he did, and why Swopa isn’t “kicking my ass with facts.” What Swopa has is the suspicions of others that never resulted in an indictment.
Well, first I should point out that we were talking about why Fitzgerald was appointed to begin with, and why he didn’t promptly shut his investigation once he found out about Armitage. So Fitzgerald’s early suspicions (and those of the FBI/DOJ staffers who preceded him in leading the investigation) are highly relevant.
Second, do you notice the contradiction between the two ends of your argument? On one hand, you rant about Fitz as an out-of-control, vengeful prosecutor, and on the other you list all of the charges he chose not to file. It seems to me that he investigated a lot of avenues, then exercised prosecutorial judgment and brought a case he considered to be appropriate and winnable.
I’d also note that if you look at Fitz’s track record, the first charges he files in an investigation often aren’t the last. You can ask the former governor of Illinois for more information about that.
And Fitz concluded that the evidence gathered in pursuit of said suspicions was insufficient to get an indictment from a DC Grand Jury against a high-ranking Bush Admin. official, right under the eeeevil Cheney. They may be highly relevant to you, but they are not relevant to Fitz, Libby or the jury. This is simply a repeat of your prior error, substituting speculation for actual evidence.
Actually, I don’t see him as vengeful. And I certainly don’t see him as a fool. No prosecutor of Fitz’s caliber wants to be laughed out of court. I do see him as falling into the same trap into which virtually every other “independent” or “special” counsel has fallen. Ambitious, prideful, unaccustomed to failure, not wanting to be seen as rolling over for the powerful, possible frustration at apparently not being able to support his suspicions, etc. The sort of factors that cause an otherwise top-notch guy to give press conferences suggesting Libby was at the beginning of the leak chan, when everyone now knows it was Armitage.
In this type of case, there is simply enormous pressure to prosecute someone, and he has brought what he thinks is the most winnable case (albeit with the weaknesses addressed in the original post). Suggesting that Fitz nevertheless exercised poor judgment under pressure is not the same as calling him vengeful or out-of-control, so there’s no contradiction. Rather, there is that nuance otherwise so appreciated on the left side of the aisle.
I don’t have to. I’ve followed that case from a very close distance. In that investigation, he started with low-level folks and worked his way up, as expected. But the criminality was more widely spread, so he could do it much more easily than here. Instead of starting with little fish (and their girlfriends) who can easily be flipped into cooperating witnesses, he’s trying to start near the top of the imagined ladder. The little fish in IL had no visions of possible pardons dancing in their heads, either. Not to mention you are now back in the realm of dreaming of a white Fitzmas someday, which seems increasingly unlikely. This is yet again substituting speculation and wishful thinking for evidence.
Strange that you accuse me of speculating when you agree with me about what Fitzgerald’s past practice has been.
I don’t know that Libby will choose to cooperate if he’s convicted in this trial, but I wouldn’t rule it out, either. And it seems like a sensible strategy if Fitzgerald has chosen to take things one step at a time—i.e., try Libby and see what happens from there.
And if you really think that Armitage was “the beginning of the leak chain” rather than Libby, I’d suggest that you reacquaint yourself with the testimony of the first few prosecution witnesses. Especially the parts about Libby and Cheney rattling cages throughout the government to find out about Joe Wilson in late May and early June 2003, and how that resulted in the creation of a State Dept. memo mentioning Valerie Wilson—a document that found its way to Armitage right before he talked to Bob Woodward, and to Dan Barlett on Air Force One in July.
I think it was an accident rather than a plan, but if Libby doesn’t decide to start doing oppo research on Joe Wilson, that document never gets circulated, and Armitage doesn’t blab to Woodward or Novak. Just so you know.
Good Lord, send this one some tinfoil.
If Plame hadn’t recommended Wilson, no one would have been rattling cages or circulating memoes about her at all, so maybe she started the “leak chain”.
It’s not strange that I’m saying you’re speculating, because it goes much further than talking about Fitz’s m.o. Your comments have been based on what the FBI agents suspected, and what they persuaded Fitz to pursue. It was suspicion. Nothing wrong with that per se; you don’t want gullible investigators. But suspicion is not fact. When push came to shove, Fitz didn’t pursue those suspicions in court, because there is no credible evidence backing them. There’s no evidence that Libby and Novak and others had some conspiracy of the sort to which you alluded earlier. There was no evidence that Cheney authorized a Plame leak. When you wrote that “there must be something more to it than Armitage did it” you were referring to unproven suspicions.
Rather, it’s undisputed that Armitage was the leaker, which is what the inestigation was supposed to be about. It’s the leak to Novak that was the crux of the matter, not who said what to who within the government beforehand. Say the chain goes back before the leak doesn’t make any of those earlier links illegal. Not to mention that no one got charged for the leak itself.
I do find it enormously funny that after the Clinton Admin., those on the Left want to pretend there is something remarkable about doing “oppo” on those making charges against you—particularly in the case of Joe Wilson, who was revealed as a liar by the Sen. Intell Cmte “Phase I” report, agreed to unanimously by such members of the VRWC as Rockefeller, Levin and Feingold. It’s section 2 of the report; I suggest you read (or re-read) it. When a liar makes false charges about you, inquiries get made. The Clintons did it even when the charges were true. It’s human nature, not to mention politics.
But the Left can’t let go of Fitzmas, believing there must be something more. Which is why you’re speculating that Libby has something to tell Fitz if he gets convicted. You say you won’t rule out Libby cooperating. But assuming for the sake of argument that there was more to it vis Libby, what is his incentive to cooperate? He can ride out the rest of the Bush Admin. on appeal and (even if he lost on appeal) get a pardon—which he would, especially if it was as serious as the Left imagines underneath all that tinfoil. And to be even more cynical, staying on good terms with Bush-Cheney sets Libby up for life; Fitz has no such goodies on his plate.
And that’s also assuming Fitz would want to pursue it further at that point. Libby would have to have a lot of independent corroboration to make up for being a convicted perjurer who cut a deal.
Your comments have been based on what the FBI agents suspected, and what they persuaded Fitz to pursue.
Yes, because if you’ll recall, the question up above was why the investigation wasn’t shut down when Armitage came forward… a subject that you seem to have veered away from rather than back up your argument about Ashcroft. (Really, I’d love to see you try to document the awful firestorm of public criticism you think existed between Christmas and New Year’s Day of 2003.)
Rather, it’s undisputed that Armitage was the leaker, which is what the investigation was supposed to be about.
“Undisputed”? Based on their actions, it’s clear that those Bush-hating liberals at the FBI/DOJ disputed this, since they didn’t shut down the investigation. Ditto Fitzgerald, who has explicitly pointed out in the trial that the investigation was broader than just the Novak leak —and that Libby was clearly aware of this when he was first interviewed by the FBI on 10/14/03, since he had a copy of a Washington Post article (published just two days earlier) on other leaks in his files, with the passages on the leaks underlined.
And that’s leaving aside the small matter that even Novak has avoided saying whether Armitage was the first person to tell him Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. (The only thing sourced to “senior administration officials” in the article is the claim that she suggested his trip to Niger.)
I do find it enormously funny that after the Clinton Admin., those on the Left want to pretend there is something remarkable about doing “oppo†on those making charges against you.
When the “oppo” involves the entire national security apparatus of the U.S. government, and outing a CIA employee, yes, I do think there’s something remarkable—and remarkably disgraceful—about it. If the Clinton administration had outed Linda Tripp’s husband, I’d say the same thing.
Really, one of the tragicomic aspects of this whole case is how in July 2003, with the unraveling of Iraq underway, North Korea and Iran moving ahead with their nuclear plans, etc., the “national security crisis” that gripped the entire Bush foreign policy team was Joe Wilson criticizing them (in his GJ testimony, Libby agreed that it was “discussed on multiple occasions each day” in the week after Wilson’s op-ed).
As both Marcy and I have written, if only Libby had been genuinely preoccupied with serious national security issues. Maybe he would have done a better job of handling them if he’d paid more attention.
But assuming for the sake of argument that there was more to it vis Libby, what is his incentive to cooperate? He can ride out the rest of the Bush Admin. on appeal and (even if he lost on appeal) get a pardon…
That happens to be my opinion, too. But Fitz seems willing to take his chances, and to let a potential perjury/obstruction conviction serve as a surrogate punishment, as the court opinion forcing Judy Miller to testify suggested:
Works for me.
First, don’t put words in my mouth. In talking about the factors leading to the Ashcroft recusal, I never limited myself to the period between Christmas and New Year’s Day of 2003. It was clear for a couple of months that the Dems were pressing for a special counsel. The investigation widened shortly thereafter. Journos including Murray Waas continued to beat the drum. It should also be noted that it was not simply the suspicions of investigators, but the fact that Ashcroft continued to be briefed on the investigation as it moved toward people like Rove, that helped drive the recusal. And some articles that discussed increasing suspicion by the investigators about Rove (and, to a lesser extent Libby) also noted that Comey had pledged during his confirmation hearings that he would personally see to it that the independence and integrity of the investigation would not be compromised in any way. He was confirmed as Deputy AG in December.
So those suspicions were one factor among many driving the recusal. And those suspicions have not led to an indictment of anyone besides Libby, as much as Jason Leopold may dream of it. And those suspicions were not pursued by Fitz as a theory of motive precisely because he could not argue something not based on evidence.
When I say that it’s undisputed that Armitage was the leaker, I say it because merely citing the apparently unsupported suspicions of the investigators does not make those suspicions into fact. The actual facts on the record point to Armitage.
The “oppo” certainly did not involve the entire national security apparatus of the U.S. government. And the “outing” occurred after the CIA’s token objection to Novak. The Clinton Admin did leak Tripp’s security clearance application to Jane Mayer and The New Yorker. And nothing happened to Ken Bacon whatsoever for leaking it. I assume that it was so traumatic to you that you blotted it from memory. Or maybe the way the Left and the media treat oppo leaks is situational. I’m sure you were all broken up over all those FBI files on GOPers sitting unattended in the WH safe, too.
I don’t think he’ll take his chances; I think he’ll quit while he’s ahead and invoke the “surrogate punishment” argument.
But if that “works for you,” why devote so much time to suggesting that there was some conspiracy between Libby and Novak, that Cheney authorized the Plame leak, etc? Because those are all well beyond punishment for the leak.
Excuse me for a moment while I roll on the floor, laughing my ass off.
I appreciate your research on the subject of Ashcroft’s recusal, but you’ve just proved my point—it was prompted by internal pressure at the DOJ over the findings of investigators, not any bending over backwards to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.” Yes, Comey’s appointment was crucial, because he became a high-level ally to the FBI/DOJ professionals who were already pushing for Ashcroft to step aside.
First, don’t put words in my mouth.
LOL. You mean like all the mentions of Jason Leopold and Fitzmas in this thread? You might want to invest on a mirror or two before you make comments like that.
The actual facts on the record point to Armitage.
The actual facts like what we just learned about Richard Hohlt, who faxed an advance copy of Novak’s column to Karl Rove? Why not fax it to Armitage, since he was the one who supposedly prodded Novak to print the Plame info (whereas his conversation with Rove was supposedly limited to “Oh, you’ve heard that, too”)? And why, by Libby’s own testimony, did Rove tell him that Novak was going to press the the Plame leak? Why, you’d almost think Libby, Rove, and Novak conversed after the DOJ investigation was announced and decided to make Armitage the fall guy.
I understand that you don’t believe that. But that’s just the softheaded, naive gullibility we lefties have learned to expect from wingnuts.
(P.S. The check is in the mail, and I promise to respect you in the morning.)
The “oppo†certainly did not involve the entire national security apparatus of the U.S. government.
It didn’t? Golly gee, I could’ve sworn that national security advisor Condi Rice was giving rebuttals to Joe Wilson in Africa the week after his op-ed (with heavy-handed hints that the press should look into who sent Wilson), and CIA head George Tenet was dragooned into issuing a statement pushing back against Wilson’s claims. Which cabinet-level officers were involved in the FBI files or Tripp controversies during the Clinton administration?
As I said, the Wilson op-ed in the NYT on July 6th was treated as a national security crisis by the spin-obsessed Bush administration. If only hurricane Katrina and the Iraqi insurgency had been handled with the same urgency.
… why devote so much time to suggesting that there was some conspiracy between Libby and Novak, that Cheney authorized the Plame leak, etc?
I dunno, because it’s fun, maybe?
But FYI, here’s a tidbit from your new friend Murray Waas, today in the National Journal:
Unlike Jason Leopold, Murray Waas has a firmly established track record of accurate reporting on this story (and is the only reporter, left or right, with legitimate sources inside the otherwise leak-free investigation). Still convinced that it’s all over?
Incidentally, you wrote up above:
And yet, here are some snippets from Fitzgerald’s closing rebuttal, courtesy of Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun:
Chalk one up for “Swopa’s favored theory,” I guess. And for the facts kicking your ass, again.
And it’s still a theory, not a fact. Either you cannot read, or you are unacquainted with the definition of a “fact.”
Let’s look at what you just quoted, m’kay?
Closing arguments are not evidence; ask any lawyer. Suggestions are similarly not evidence.
Moreover, Judge Walton felt compelled to admonish the jury not once but twice about Fitz’s closing going beyond the evidence.
What you quoted shows that Fitz is injecting matters not only beyond the evidence, but beyond the theory of motive he laid out in his opening statement. In his opening statement, Fitz suggested that Libby lied to Cheney and feared for his job; now he’s suggesting Cheney ordered the leak. He has no evidence of the latter, natch—that’s something he’s claiming he was obstructed from potentially dicovering.
So by Fitz’s own argument, Cheney ordering the “outing” of Plame is not a fact, however much you (or he) wishes it so.
And since I must have missed your prior comment:
Or I would think you are a conspiracy-theorist, because a conspiracy is precisely what you have described. You have no evidence of such an agreement, but are assuming it and then working backwards.
For example the new “factoid” you introduce here is about Hohlt. You ask why he faxed an advance copy of Novak’s column to Karl Rove. Here’s what Newsweek actually reported about it:
You ask why he didn’t fax Armitage. I could just as easily ask: Why would Holdt fax Armitage? Your assumption that Holdt knew Armitage was Novak’s source is backed up by what?
Re the recusal: You’re still assuming that the investigators’ suspicions were the sole driving cause of the recusal. As I noted, there were multiple factors driving it. You assume Comey totally bought into the investigators’ suspicions, when his motive could also (or partially) be a desire to avoid problems with his confirmation, ambition for the AG slot if and when Ashcroft left, etc.
Your lack of seriousness is betrayed by conflating a few cabinet-level officials with “the entire national security apparatus” of the US government.
And you would almost think that people like Condi Rice weren’t caught unaware by questions regarding the Wilson op-ed on the Sunday shows and decided they needed info to answer said questions in the future. Tenet was dragooned? Have a link for that?