I don't get it: If Armitage admitted to leak Plame's name

[question everything]

to Novak, why is he not on trial?

This is not a question of perjury or anything like that, but a clear violation of the law prohibiting such a disclosure.

What am I missing?

[rpgamerd00d]

1. My guess is probably the same reason little mobsters are prosecuted before bosses.

You get to use the conviction of the little one as evidence against the bigger one.

Just guessing.

[Duer 157099]

2. I have the same question

And further, why isn't there more discussion of this?

The only possible explanation I could think of was that he was unaware of her covert status (highly unlikely) -- since that *seems* to be the loophole in the law about blowing cover.

Note that he was also the one to "out" the A.Q. Khan network in 2001 (Armitage quoted in the June 1, 2001 The Financial Times as saying that "people who were employed by the nuclear agency and have retired may be assisting North Korea with its nuclear program." -- this was Armitage making public that the US intelligence community knew full well about what Khan was doing to assist North Korea (and Iran, actually) to obtain nukes.)

(read all about that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x103478

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x127688

[jtrockville]

3. OK to give CLASSIFIED State Department Memo to Novak?

...Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.)... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek

"Outing an undercover CIA agent" implies that you know the agent's status. Apparently everyone accepts that Armitage lacked this knowledge without further investigation.

But is it to give away classified information to a reporter?

[Beelzebud]

4. The whole case is so confusing, I've just tuned out until I hear the verdict/resolution/whatever.

[Hamlette]

5. for the same reason Fitz didn't go after Rove

couldn't prove he knew she was covert (or it had been declassified, if that is possible.)

The law is very difficult to prove and when Fitz let rove off we had discussion about it here and elsewhere on the web. I can't remember all the reasons given (speculated about?) at the time but I do remember reading the law and thinking it would be very difficult to prove.

The law was probably written primarily to protect against moles. It's not against the law to release the name of someone who works at the CIA, it requires more.

[Duer 157099]

6. I'm thinking about this, trying to sort it out, and maybe this is what is

going on:

I think, as many others have and are pointing out, that Fitz is going after a Conspiracy charge (and trying Libby right now is one way to get alot of testimony on the record, as well as simply doing the right thing by prosecuting Libby for perjery aka throwing sand).

It's beginning to make sense to me that Fitz is not going after anyone (seemingly) for the initial offense of blowing Plame's cover, since that had been virtually impossible to do in this case -- and especially now that it's known that Armitage was the first leaker, and it would be difficult to show that he did so with intent (to out a covert agent).

HOWEVER... he does seem to be building quite another case, one that shows knowledge and intent by Cheney and Libby (and others? Rove? Bush?) -- Conspiracy! Proving conspiracy is a totally different matter than the actual leak itself, in this case.

I think he's carefully building and supporting the case that Cheney (and Libby) had knowledge, motive and intent to reveal Plame's identity. And, if he can ALSO prove that (if it even needs to be proven) there was no "declassifying" of any info discussed, then they also cannot escape out that loophole.

I think this is what many have been saying, but I guess I'm finally seeing "the big picture."