[VayaConDios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....Wasn't he involved in the cover-up of Richard Armitage leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent? ...

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humor me ... how would you describe his involvement in this sordid affair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plame was neither covert nor did he hide anything about Armitage's linking of the name. Fitzgerald knew Armitage had leaked the name to Novak before he asked Libby quesiton uno. I'm sure you'll dredge up some links stating that Plame was indeed covert. Funny that Armitage didn't get changed with any crime in fact Libby was the only person charged. It was a perjery trap pure and simple. Here's an article that states the issue better than I:

Fitzgerald never had any reason to believe that there was a crime to be solved in the "CIA leak case." Nothing in the U.S. code purports to make talking about Valerie Plame a crime. Fitzgerald never had any legitimate grounds for pursuing a criminal investigation because he never had even the theoretical possibility of a crime to investigate.


His own conduct strongly suggests that he knew this from the beginning. If Fitzgerald really believed that there was something criminal about revealing Valerie Plame's identity he would have filed charges against at least two defendants on the day he took over the case. Richard Armitage and Robert Novak were both guilty of discussing Plame and Fitzgerald knew it on day one. But he filed no charges. Why not? Probably because he knew that neither Armitage nor Novak nor anyone else had violated any law by talking about Valerie Plame.


Since Fitzgerald had no crime to investigate, the sole purpose of his investigation, even before it became his, was to keep asking questions until discrepancies in the testimony made it possible to convince a bent jury that somebody important lied under oath. This despicable game is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment and it cannot result in a lawful conviction for perjury.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be hard to believe, but sometimes when you're conducting an investigation you have to question more than one person about what happened.