http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-novak20.html and from back in February, per the WaPo, this nugget: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401796.html "But Walton said the source's identity is not relevant, and there is no reason to sully the source's reputation because the person faces no charges." remind me again what this was all about? -- Novak: Feds know who outed CIA agent April 20, 2006 BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter Robert Novak said Wednesday that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald knows who outed a CIA agent to the Chicago Sun-Times columnist but hasn't acted on the information because Novak's source committed no crime. Novak also hinted that he personally didn't rely on the Fifth Amendment -- which protects people from testifying against themselves -- in Fitzgerald's investigation. Fitzgerald is investigating who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Novak and other reporters in an effort to discredit her husband, a critic of the Bush administration. Novak made his remarks at the first of an occasional series of forums jointly sponsored by the Sun-Times and the University of Illinois at Chicago. Sun-Times political writer and Channel 5 reporter Carol Marin, who moderated the forum, immediately asked Novak what he could say about the Plame case. Novak acknowledged the swirl of speculation regarding his actions in Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak, including whether he testified before a grand jury, revealed his source to Fitzgerald or made some sort of a plea bargain by fingering someone else so he could stay out of jail. But he called the speculation "ridiculous," declining to reveal his actions. "I'm not going to tell you because it's none of your damn business," he said. To reveal more if probe ever ends Still, he did say, "If I had gone before a grand jury and taken the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Fitzgerald would have that on the street in about two minutes." Novak also claimed that investigators know who leaked the information, although he did not say how they know. "The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed." Novak said he doesn't believe his source violated laws forbidding the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity. A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment on Novak's remarks. At an appearance in December, Novak said President Bush knows his source, too. On Wednesday, he called those remarks "indiscreet." Novak said he would reveal more "in time, when this investigation, if it ever ends, ends." On the midterm elections this November, Novak said it was "possible, not probable" that Democrats would retake control of the House of Representatives. But he said the Republicans and their leader are in trouble. "The edge seems to be right now to the Democrats," Novak said. "...President Bush is not what I would call a skilled politician. He seems aloof, almost arrogant." Despite the historically large gap between Republican and Democratic voters on whether they approve of the job Bush is doing or the war in Iraq, Lyn Ragsdale, head of UIC's political science department, agreed that "there is not going to be a huge seat swing in 2006."
Fitzgerald agreed to investigate because he's known all along that no crime was committed? Something doesn't add up.
Basso, it is difficult to tell if you are not very smart or just intellectually dishonest or both. In the off chance you really don't understand, I'll break it down once more- Fitzgerald is investigating a crime (the leak of a covert CIA agent's identity). If in the course of this investigation witnesses lie or attempt to mislead the investigators it may be impossible to prosecute anyone for that crime. This does not mean a crime was not committed. Prosecutors will charge a witnesses with perjury to compel them and other witnesses to testify truthfully, so they can get to the bottom of the more serious charges. Currently, this is where it stands in the Plame case with the perjury charges against Libby. Novak's contention that no crime was committed literaly means less than nothing and the fact that you are wasting the time to post it is laughable.
and yet, the judge seems to think no crime was committed by the leaker, per the wapo article linked to. fitz may have found a crime, but it wasn't the one he was originally charged w/ investigating, but then that's always been the problem w/ the SP statute, isn't it? Ken Starr anyone?
Yet Fitzgerald's official filings which I would think hold more weight than Novak's suppositions, he believes there was a crime committed related to the leaking of Plame's name, or least enough evidence of one that it is worth investigating. The judge of Libby's case is not the judge of the case that would involve the leaking of Plame's identity. So the fact that he mentions the leaker isn't facing charges is correct in the case of Libby, but may not be the case when investigation is over.
I think pigs are too heavy to fly. They would need enormous wings, and they would still be too heavy. Just trying to stay on topic. Keep D&D Civil.
Yes pigs flying has as much relevance to the conversation as does the judge's comments regarding a libel case compared to whoever the judge would be on the leak case. You are the one that brought up the judge's comments. But those comments to have anything to do with the trial of the leaker either positive of negative, so it didn't really make sense for you to use that as a defense.
My theory to explain the above. Bush or Cheny outted Plame. They are claiming that they have the right to slectively declassify documents in order to suppress truth sayers, or deceive the American people into war.
They have been reports from anonymous sources that said the President never authorized the outing of Plame. If Bush/Cheney testified in front of the grand jury under oath that they did no such thing, changing their story now implies perjury. (AND we all know that perjury is NOT an impeachable offense.)
