When Armitage was Outed
Lee Jamison
In view of the previous article it seemed appropriate to mention one of my sources for information on this story, specifically the information about Richard Armitage. This is from the September 8th, 2006 edition of the Washington Post-
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701781.html
There are two statements I find absolutely amazing, considering the lengths to which Patrick Fitzgerald has gone to detsroy the career and life of someone who, it appears should never have been so much as questioned. (If it is purjury to fail to recollect when one first heard of the identity of someone, what is it to maintain [and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on] an investigation in search of a leak for which one already KNOWS THE SOURCE?)
"The confirmation of Armitage's role has provoked criticism of both him and the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who learned of it shortly after his appointment in 2003. Some have questioned why Armitage waited so long to speak up about it, and why Fitzgerald spent two years appearing to chase a question that had already been answered."
...and:
"Armitage said yesterday that he did not disclose his role before now because Fitzgerald had asked him not to. But word of his role eventually began to circulate, and on Tuesday, Armitage said, he asked Fitzgerald to be freed of that promise. Fitzgerald agreed."
How much of the coverage of the Libby trial has made mention of this set of fact? None I've seen on TV!
