Talk:CIA leak scandal criminal investigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Split from Plame affair
Per discussion on Talk:Plame affair, this page has been split off in the hope that the main page can be made a more useful size. This new page needs serious editting since much of the information was repeated in several places on the original page. I don't want to do too much of the cutting myself, but tried simply to neutrally copy the relevant text. Please feel free to edit severely - just remember, the talk is about making the web page the best it can be, and not the merits of the investigation itself! rewinn 08:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- how do we remove the gap between the introduction and first topic? i can't figure it out.Anthonymendoza 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- nevermind. i removed the template since it's already in main article. Anthonymendoza 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Anthonymendoza, good idea! But I already did this back in Oct 2005 when I created the CIA leak grand jury investigation. I think that CIA leak grand jury investigation is a quality article because it has been featured off and on on the current event page.
I merged Plame affair criminal investigation into CIA leak grand jury investigation because it is a duplicate in format and content. --FloNight talk 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not so. Much of the information on Plame affair criminal investigation is not on CIA leak grand jury investigation. For example, ."3 Journalists and Contempt of court" is notable. Until the article content are merged, the pages should not be re-directed or offered for deletion. Please feel free to move content from this page to that page or vice versa; which page survives and which becomes a re-direct is not very important, but maintaining the data is important. rewinn 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be pushy, but this article was a mistake and should not have been started because another one existed on the topic. CIA leak grand jury investigation was a direct split of Plame Affair last October. I split it for the same reason tht you split this one. It makes no sense to make a duplicate split on the same topic. IMO, the logical thing is to redirect the article to the existing one. FYI, the material from this article is not lost. It is in the Plame Affair, in the history of this article, (and on a word processor on my laptop ;-). There needs to be discussion about exactly how much off the topic of the criminal investigation the content should be. I think some of this article is too wordy and goes slightly off topic. It goes into details that are not needed making it too wordy. FloNight talk 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let's not personalize this with words like "mistake". After all, the title "CIA Leak et cetera" was a mistake because of its imprecision (does it refer to the Phillip Agee case? or perhaps some other leaks from the CIA?) and the page CIA leak grand jury investigation was not well linked from Plame affair which is why the editors didn't find it ... but so what? stuff happens and all that matters is what's best for the wikipedia.
- As for the existing data on the Plame affair page, if you look at the discussion you would see that the investigation stuff there is intended to be deleted from that page as soon as the split stabilizes, because the point of the split is to implement summary style
- I invite you to stabilize the splitpage by adding the additional information into whatever page you like and once all the data is preserved on that split page, re-directing the other split page to the one you prefer.
- Only after all the data is transferred from Plame affair to whatever, then I would suggest the editting-down process should begin. This multistep process is better than summary deletions because Plame affair in general is a contentious subject and deleting content frequently leads to unnecessary edit wars. rewinn 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why This Investigation Was So Long.
I'd like to see some explanation in the article about why the investigation has gone on as long as it has. Fitzgerald apparently knew within weeks that Armitage was Novak's source and that there was no crime in the leak of Plame's identity, so why did it go on for 14 more months? What are the real legal questions here? --RFabian 14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to know the answer too, but I don't know where we'd get the information except from Fitzgerald. Pure speculation (definitely not articleworthy without sourcing):
- Even if classified information has been disclosed by someone else, it's still classified and you are not supposed to disclose it again, or confirm it. The reason for that rule is obvious; otherwise it'd be too easy for people to pretend knowledge and ask for confirmation. If it is true that Rove confirmed the truth of some classified information that Novak told him, that's still a wrong thing to do and worth investigating (I say this without asserting what actually happened)
- The prosecutor's suspicions may have been aroused by the shifting responses given by some witnesses (e.g. it has been reported that Rove remembered something in his later testimony that he didn't recall in his earlier testimony.)
- Whether any of that factually occurred, or is the real reason, I don't know, but they may be partial explanations. rewinn 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The NY Times raises this here: [1] and notes that Fitzgerald knew 2 1/2 years ago that Armitage was Novak's source. Valtam 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merged version
I merged all of the content of both this article and the "CIA leak..." article, combining all of the information (such that no info from either article is lost), and reorganizing it chronologically. the proposed new version is as Talk:CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation/proposed_merged_version. please comment on it so we can get this process moving. Kevin Baastalk 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
