10 Replies to “Novak Kept Armitage's Identity Under Wraps [Dan Collins]”

1. happyfeet says:

   July 8, 2007 at 9:30 pm

   Specter kinda sorta suggests that the Senate commutation hearings may be enlightening:

   “Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?” Specter said.

2. Chris says:

   July 8, 2007 at 10:18 pm

   Dan,
   Slightly off topic but relating to an earlier thread. I kept asking the folks over at NQ why Armitage wasn’t prosecuted. No real answer other than his “intent” was deemed sufficiently acceptable, versus Libby, who was obviously acting out a nefarious bushco. plot. You can check it out here if you’re so inclined. I tried being nice later on but you’ll see I’m called every name under the sun for pointing out some inconvenient truths.

   http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/bobos-mailbox.html#comment-75272840

   Hilarity ensues. I would add that LJ almost banned me but then didn’t after we exchanged a few emails, fwiw. I think he’s sticking up (admirably, but misguidedly) for his friends.

3. heet says:

   July 9, 2007 at 3:29 am

   Man, you guys are nothing if not consistent. And Chris, your question WAS incredibly stupid and inane. Go read the IIPA and you will see that intent and prior knowledge of the agent’s status are both part of the law.

4. usedtobeap says:

   July 9, 2007 at 4:57 am

   The most telling part of the entire conversation is that Armitage never demanded that Novak keep his name secret. Novak just did that because that’s how Novak works … not because there was any agreement. Novak was under no “journalistic obligation” to keep Armitage’s name from prosecutors or the public.

5. McGehee says:

   July 9, 2007 at 6:31 am

   Man, you guys are nothing if not consistent.

   …says the troll.

   Wha’happen, Heet? Did the City of New London condemn your bridge and turn it over to a developer?

6. BumperStickerist says:

   July 9, 2007 at 7:16 am

   ‘Novakula’ would be an excellent name for a band –
   or the title for a revisioned ‘Kolchak, the Night Stalker’

7. Mr. Boo says:

   July 9, 2007 at 7:28 am

   “a revisioned ‘Kolchak, the Night Stalker’”

   Another one? I thought they already revisioned Kolchak once.

8. sherlock says:

   July 9, 2007 at 8:11 am

   Are we to believe that Armitage did not reveal his mention of Plame to Powell? At a time when Powell was a Cabinet Officer, and thus under direct orders of the Chief Executive to come forward if he knew anything about the affair? Has Powell or Armitage made any statements concerning this? I have a vague recollection that Armitage did indeed mention that he “told his boss he may have been the one” prior to being gagged by Fitzgerald. If so, was Powell also gagged? Interesting questions!

9. Chris says:

   July 9, 2007 at 9:01 am

   Heet,
   Good morning. I posted the IIPA over at NQ and will put it up here for you. Here’s the first paragraph again;

   “SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

   You can find the rest here: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

   It does say “intentionally” but nothing about the intent of the leaker being necessary. Again, it’s a simple question wrt Armitage. If Plame was covert and covered by IIPA, why wasn’t Armitage prosecuted? He told Novak, “intentionally”, see the Novak link on this post. And why did he keep his mouth shut for 3-plus years? Are you trying to say the intent of Armitage was ok wrt “outing” a covert agent and that’s why he wasn’t prosecuted? That’s nuts. Plame wasn’t covert, otherwise Armitage would have been charged and prosecuted.

   Or do you want us to believe that Libby had prior knowlege while Armitage didn’t? I don’t get it. The law is very specific and your heads are exploding over this. Libby is railroaded on a process crime, not one person charged with “outing” Val. Yet you act as if the world ended because David Brooks says he thought the punishment was excessive. Bizarre is all I can say.

10. Pablo says:

    July 9, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    It does say “intentionally” but nothing about the intent of the leaker being necessary. Again, it’s a simple question wrt Armitage. If Plame was covert and covered by IIPA, why wasn’t Armitage prosecuted? He told Novak, “intentionally”, see the Novak link on this post. And why did he keep his mouth shut for 3-plus years?

    And the answer is: everybody knew she was CIA. In fact, Armitage, in his conversation with Novak, the audio of which is in the public domain, said something to the effect of “Wilson won’t shut up about it”.

    I’m paraphrasing, to be certain. But you can Google it.

Comments are closed.