Skip navigation

The Armitage effect

Star prosecutor Fitzgerald faces tough battle in CIA leak probe

NBC Video: Politics
Burris: “I will not run”
  July 10: Illinois Sen. Roland Burris says that he is bowing out of the 2010 Senate race because of the burden of raising money to pay for a campaign.

Slideshow
  The Week in Political Cartoons
Msnbc.com’s political cartoonists take a look back at the past week.

more photos

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
updated 5:53 p.m. ET Sept. 20, 2006

WASHINGTON - It may be four months away, but already there are signs that the first trial to emerge from the three-year, $1.5 million, CIA/Leak probe may be an uphill battle for Patrick Fitzgerald, a meticulous prosecutor known for his stellar winning record.

Memory and alleged "misremembering," may prove pivotal elements in the upcoming trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, according to legal experts examination of probable defense strategies.

The possible testimony of the State Department's former number two official, and that of the first journalist to print the name Valerie Plame Wilson, could potentially sway a jury that there is reasonable doubt to the perjury charges against Libby.  He is charged with five counts of lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned about Plame and when he subsequently told three reporters about her. 

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Truth and consequences
In a bombshell announcement, which took nearly three years to come out, former State Department official Richard Armitage on Sept. 7th, publicly admitted that he was the first to leak the identity of Plame to reporters. Though Fitzgerald knew that, he chose to keep it secret. Now, can Libby benefit by the Armitage admission? Experts say yes and no.

They point out that the issue in the Libby trial is not who was the first to disclose Plame's identity to a reporter, but rather whether Libby told investigators the truth about his conversations with reporters. However, Armitage and columnist Robert Novak, whose statements about Plame are in disagreement, could enable Libby to argue that he, Libby, wasn't the only one confused in this case.

NBC analysis
CIA/Leak investigation on the cheap

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's three-year CIA/Leak investigation has cost the tax-payer the least amount of any Justice Department probe by an Independent Counsel in history.

NBC News has learned, that since the start of Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame leak, beginning in December 2003, the total cost to be reported to the GAO is about $1.5 million.

By contrast, the decade-long probe of former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros by Independent Counsel David Barrett, cost about $23 million.

Fitzgerald's office has incurred only about $400 thousand in total expenses above the salary and benefits for the personnel working for him.

The Ken Starr investigation of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky cost the tax-payer $64 million.

Emotion and relevance come into play
We asked two former prosecutors to layout the possible scenarios of Armitage's testimony before a federal jury in Libby's trial, now scheduled to begin on January 17, 2007.  Armitage is listed as a possible prosecution witness at the trial.

Solomon Weisenberg, a former prosecutor who worked with Ken Starr on the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton investigation, says Libby's attorney's can take full advantage of the emotional value of Armitage's admission. He says that while Armitage is not part of the case against Libby, he could open the door for the defense to argue that Fitzgerald conducted a sloppy investigation and has several witnesses who contradict each other.

Another former prosecutor, Larry Barcella, says that because the charges against Libby are all about lying, the issue of whether Armitage gave information about Plame to Novak deliberately or accidentally is irrelevant.

CIA leak background
In July 2003, Armitage told columnist Novak that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Novak mentioned it in a column on July 14, 2003. It's a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer. But Armitage didn't yet realize what he had done.

Armitage told CBS News, "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he (Novak) asked me, 'why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency."

Armitage says he told Novak because, it was, "just an offhand question. I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says.


Sponsored links

Resource guide