When a special prosecutor is called upon to investigate the source of a leak, we expect an investigation that will end when he finds the leaker. Nobody has a problem with that. But what are the consequences for that special prosecutor for ranging beyond that mandate and engaging in a witch-hunt after he has fulfilled the task to for which he was appointed. That is the question that needs to be considered at this point.

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 counselÂ’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick CheneyÂ’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. FitzgeraldÂ’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.

In other words, Fitzgerald knew the leaker FROM DAY ONE. The focus of the case should therefore have been limited to Richard Armitage and his legal culpability for releasing the Plame name, which Fitzgerald quickly realized did not constitute criminal conduct. At that point, the investigation should have been closed down. But Fitzgerald continued to investigate legal activity by the administration to rebut the demonstrably false charges of an administration critic -- activities which are essential to ensuring that the people of the United States are fully informed about the conduct of their government, which is in turn essential for the healthy functioning of our representative democracy.

What also needs to be investigated are tactions by others who knew of Richard Armitage's guilt in leaking Plame's name.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Armitage was up at 4 a.m. for a predawn workout when he read a second article by Mr. Novak in which he described his primary source for his earlier column about Ms. Wilson as “no partisan gunslinger.” Mr. Armitage realized with alarm that that could only be a reference to him, according to people familiar with his role. He waited until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, an old friend, was awake, then telephoned him. They discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV.

Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.

Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage was going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter, the people familiar with Mr. ArmitageÂ’s actions said. Mr. Taft asked Mr. Gonzales whether he wanted to be told the details and was told that he did not want to know.

As I see it, the other folks who need to be investigated here are Powell, Taft, and others who were aware of Armitage's misdeeds yet intentionally concealed them from the President. I exclude Gonzales from this group only because, in his role as White House legal councel, it was proper to decline being informed of teh leaker's identity. Such disclosure would have brought prompt presidential action which would have disrupted the investigation of the leak. Any disclosure of the leaker's identity should properly have come through either the State or justice Departments. That they did not allowed a viper to remain deeply involved in the policy process.

Here's a great analysis of the case at American Thinker.

And Fred Barnes lists all the "bad actors" in his Plamegate rogues gallery.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, Third World County, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Random Yak, Median Sib, Selective Amnesia, Stop the ACLU, Basil’s Blog; Comedian Jenée: People are Idiots , Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, Church and State, bRight and Early, Right Wing Nation; Jo’s Cafe, MacBro’s Page, Leaning Straight Up; The Amboy Times; Assorted Babble, NIF, Imagine Kitty, Oblogatory Anecdotes, The Uncooperative Blogger

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 832 words, total size 8 kb.