Experts: Alleged Bush leak legal, unusual

Lawyer for a couple of the we-found-Atta guys. That in itself is enough for me to be wary of anything he says.

These idiots are so full of shit. Of course it's illegal in several ways. There's also the Intelligence Identities Act, which is separate from the document classification issues. We don't have the absolute proof on the IIDA yet, but we probably will.

Besides the legal question, this is a political bombshell. His career can't survive this one.

That's treason, not legal.

http://www.tomharkin.com/nl/CensurePetition.htm

song and dance that the sheeple will flutter around doing the "HOP"

When Fitz interviewed them, did they tell Fitz they approved the leak? :shrug:

I think numerous crimes were committed involving the leak. This bullshit about presidential authority to instantaneously "declassify" material diverts from all the other crimes involved i.e. fraud, intentional misrepresentation to congress among any federal statutes relating to endangering national security (which, there must be a number of those) and, of course, the usuals such as obstruction of justice.

It angers me to no end that, "experts" rationalizing away this administration's gross abuse of power are given priority on news pages all the damn time.

this one. WHat's next?

hello, fascism.

I thought that it was on firedoglake http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/06/censure-time-to-do-the-right-thing/ but I can't find it now.
Anyway, the linked topic is her latest on the Plame case and it's the topic that the site got the Koufax for.

what exactly would their reason be for releasing this information to the media? Why did they lie about it saying they wouldn't tolerate leaks? Why isn't the media asking this president those questions? Would he go under oath and deny it?

Why are the democrats still running away from censure?

The democrats should make a very big statement today about all of the LIES! If they don't. :grr:

and have the list of remarks by Bush referencing the Leak! :)

ETA: it's up to us to try and get the Democratic Memo circulated. Mediawhores aren't going to be too interested. :(

Okay, say it IS legal. That still doesn't answer the core question:

"what exactly would their reason be for releasing this information to the media?"

That gets to the crux of the matter. They need to explain why they did it. If it wasn't done to punish Ambassador Wilson and dint his credibility for exposing the fraud of their Saddam/Niger yellowcake evidence, then what was the rationale?

the 'revenge' angle just doesn't make sense to me. Oh, revenge against Wilson could be a motive... except when we factor in exactly what type of work it was his wife was doing.

Plame (as far as I know) was involved in reporting to the CIA the production, sale, transport, and deployment of WMDs in the ME. As far as I'm aware, that was one of her primary goals, and also just happens to be one of the major stated goals of the * War on Terra(tm).

Why would the * admin out her, if she was and had been for some time working toward those same goals?

I think Plame and her operation found something, or were on track to exposing something, that the * admin did or was about to do regarding those same weapons. I think she was outed to cover something up or keep something covered up.

Her outing was far too serious to be simple revenge against Wilson, IMO. I think there are other motives behind all this.

Bush would authorize Libby would leak information to Miller. Miller would write her article in the NYT based on this leak. The next day Cheney would go on television news and cite that article as further evidence justifying the case for was. As if the article were from an independant source. I don't know if this is illegal use of government information. But Bush, Cheney, Libby and Miller had to know what was going on. It is probably not illegal. It is not lying either. The only remedy is exposure and a political cost. If there is one. Which I doubt.

come right out and admit it instead of the charade of "We don't tolerate leaks and we'll fire whoever did it." Though I wouldn't agree with this stance, I'd have more respect for "I did it, and I'd do it again."

If this really was legal all along, why was an investigation called in the first place? Why did *shrub make the statements he did? Why did the CIA insist on the investigation? If it was "legally" declassified, why wasn't the CIA notified? Thats a question I'd like an answer to.

JG

But, of course, he said nothing publicly.

He had his medal coming and a nice, quiet retirement to look forward to.

Who needs the hassle?

Fitzgerald's not asserting that Libby testified that * authorized the release of Plame's information. Just the release of a more complete version NIE from late summer 2002 (apparently partly released in 10/02). If Libby had said the former, he'd have said: then there'd be the question as to whether release of the Plame info was legal.

As to why the NIE was released, that depends on the arguments being waged at the time and the info in the NIE.

I'm not sure if I authorized the release of information (say, for a company I was in charge of) I'd call that release a leak. But then we're into semantics: a leak is usually the surreptitious release of confidential information, and I don't know if the "surreptitious release" or the "confidential information" part is the crucial bit. But the presumably legal declassification wasn't known to the CIA, which bothered to declassify and release the NIE a week or two later.

He has given up on being considered a good president, he's given up on winning the hearts and minds of the electorate and he's given up on any policy goals he might have had.

He's now working the loopholes in the system to avoid impeachment, the hague and nadcuffs. ;)

The President can declassify the NIE (as long as it doesnt contain information that can't be declassified - though that ibnformation can be redacted).

A truly honest response from the Bush camp would go like this:

"what exactly would their reason be for releasing this information to the media?"

To defend the decision to go to war.

"Why did they lie about it saying they wouldn't tolerate leaks?"

Its not a leak if the President authorises it, it is a sanctioned dissemination of information.

This is not a legal scandal, it is a political scandal. He didnt break any laws, he contradicted himself, and his policy, and he mislead the American public during an election season. This isn't about whether he broke laws or not, it is about the fact that the American public should be able to trust their president not to LIE to them.

____


The fact is the Republicans WANT dems to try and argue he broke the law, because that can easily be defended and in the process make the Dems look bad. What the Dems should be arguing is not that he broke the law but that he breached the public trust. Its not that he lied to the prosecutor, but that he lied to the people, his boss.

He did what was best for HIM not what was best for the country, and in the end neither he nor the Republicans that support him, despite knowing what he has done, do not deserve the trust of the American people.

himself said. In this sound clip, Bush is quoted saying about the Plame leak, "this is a serious charge, we're talking about a criminal action.":

http://www.awolcowboy.com/mp3/Bush_quotes_CIA_Leak.mp3

nowhere in Libby's testimony does it say that he outed Plame, or that Bush authorised the outing of Plame. What the testimony says is that he was authorised to disseminate certain parts of the NIE. The parts he says he was authorised to disseminate do NOT include Plame's identity.

Don't fall for it, you are being played. They WANT you to say Bush authorised Plame's outing, so that when they point at the evidence and show it does NOT say that, YOU will look stupid.

Good posts here, Karmakaze.

By definition, an authorized leak is not a leak at all. Bush needs to be held accountable not for a legal transgression, but a violation of public belief in his honesty.

The Plame angle is a MacGuffin.

Peace.

Are actions that would constitute high treason by any other person legal - if performed by the President?

I just know Gonzales will write something good. Kind of like on the Mozart side? I can hardly wait!!

might have more of a taste for Mahler.

you're talking about the release of the NIE.

The CIA classifies and declassifies the NIE's based on executive authority delegated, IIRC, in a presidential executive order. I'm guessing that Clinton when he originated the EO in 1996 or thereabouts didn't deny himself the ability to classify or declassify documents, and that * didn't either when he reasserted nearly identical procedures years later.

Yeh it's only legal when it's a REPUBLICAN! doing it. if a republican was found to have murdered someone they would find a way to say it was legal.

we must never give up on this. we must play his words again and again on the media.

it's lies, pure and simple. he's a fucking liar, and we have total proof.

What he says and what he does are 2 entirely different things.

bush said he didn't know WHO was the freaking leaker and that he would fire that leaker

three quick points:

1. when the news first broke about the LEAK - bush flapped his lips about 'hunting down' the leaker.
IF the LEAK was "legal" - i.e. the information was DECLASSIFIED at that time then why hunt down the leaker, why call for an investigation -- why didn't bush just come out and say 'although the information was leaked, it was declassified information, so no crime or harm was done'.
Question: when was the information actually declassified? before or retro-actively after the leak?

2. Plames identity was exposed. Plame was covert. if her status as a covert agent was declassified - don't you think she should have been told about it before it hit the freaking papers? Why wasn't she notified?

3. bush lied...again

Libby denied leaking Plame info to Judy Miller, denied he even knew Plame's identity at the time. So he certainly did not claim to the grand jury that Bush authorized him to leak info that he claimed he didn't know.

Furthermore, pg 27 of Fitgerald's April 5 filing with the court states that as of Sept 2003, Bush was unaware of Libby's role in the disclosure of Plame's CIA employment.

Fitz's filing is the source document of the stories in the media and it does not indicate that Bush "declassified" Plame's CIA identity or authorized its disclosure. It does cite Libby's testimony that he was told Bush had authorized declassification of selected portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD and that he was authorized to pass that info on to Miller.

IMO the NIE story was Libby's cover story to explain his having talked to Judy Miller on July 8. Unfortunately for Scooter, Miller got tired of jail and told the grand jury that Libby told her of Plame's employment with the CIA not only on July 8 but at a previously undisclosed meeting on June 23. Which is one of the reasons why Libby is under indictment.

identity was declassified or authorized to be disclosed? Libby didn't. That's not in the court filing. Which is precisely my point.

People are equating the supposedly executively authorized selectively released NIE info with Plame's classified identity. They're not the same. Libby did not testify that Plame's identity was declassified and authorized to be disclosed.

Of course....they back-dated it!

Wish I had read further down the thread because you are asking the same questions I asked in a response to another poster. It just doesn't make sense. This means that the information wasn't declassified at the time it was leaked.

JG

As President, Bush could declassify intelligence information with an Executive Order, which Cheney has already indicatated was in effect. The crux is........did Bush authorize the leakin of Plame's identity? If they can tie that little tidbit to him then he does down for the count....because her identity as a covert agent was protected by statute that cannot be superceded by an EO.

At the very least this episode exposes yet again that the Bush Administration will sink to the lowest of the low to get what they want. They will look the Amrican people in the face and lie through their teeth on any issue, they are the lowest most vilest hypocrits imaginable.

I'm a pessimist too. I let my hopes rise briefly yesterday when news of this broke.....all for fucking nothing...Bush will slide by yet again. America is fucking doomed.

...otherwise, they wouldn't have tried so hard to deny they did anything wrong.

The problem is he also revealed the name of a CIA agent, which he is not allowed to do. That was signed as an executive order by Ronnie back in '82. HE BROKE THE LAW!!!

On the less legal side he has stated he would get rid of anybody in his administration that did this. Declassifying for shits and giggles is not always the best policy, even if you have the power to do so. If I remember correctly, more than 50% of the country wants him impeached if he did this.

Detailed evidence has emerged for the first time
suggesting that Bush played a direct role in authorizing 911?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/07/LEAK.TMP

http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2003/lavanguardia062203.html

http://www.911blogger.com/

The Bush Administration's War on Terror is also based upon a pack of lies.
We now know for a fact that the mainstream version of the attack against
America on 9/11, which was presented to the American people by the government
and by the mainstream media, is a huge pack of monumental lies.
There are mountains of indisputable evidence to support this on the Internet
and in articles and books, where millions of Americans are waking up to the
truth. However, as with virtually every important issue, you will not hear
one peep about this in the controlled corporate mainstream media.

http://www.karlschwarz.com/

Laws apply to Presidents, not Kings.

purposes. just plain arrogant.

Almost 3 years later, millions spent on an investigation, multiple lies by multiple administration officials, even jail time for a NYT's reporter, all because Bush wouldn't tell the truth to begin with?

I think they have a much bigger problem on their hands at this point, regardless of whether or not the President can declassify anything he wishes.

begins, it was in my local rag too.

It's the fact that he LIED about it. Acted like he didn't know anything about it. He also said it was a CRIME. Hold him to what he DID say, hold him to what he DID do.

He lied. That's all we need. That's what got Scooter in trouble, that's what got Nixon. George Bush, by his very words and actions, has lied about this for 2 years.

And if one of those lies was to Patrick Fitzgerald...well...game over, folks.

But yes, it would be interesting to know what Bush did or didn't tell Fitz.

in a time of war? Isn't that considered to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Didn't Tokyo Rose spend time on Jail for a similar situation and the freeper types are always harping on Jane Fonda. Well, fellas, what's the difference between Jane and george? Huh? Can anyone one of you pick your knockles up off the ground to scratch your overhanging forehead and come up with some sort of answer that comes within 5 miles of logic? Is there one in your psychotic band that can clear the film from your beady eyes and see the truth?

to advance a political agenda.


And it's OK for any President, for any reason, to issue an XO on how information is classified or declassified - and said President can do so for political gain.

So even if it means bringing harm to the country, a President can do anything they want to do - for political gain.

And people dare call America a government by the people, for the people, of the people?

LMAO

Keep your deMOCKracy. I'll pass.

.... wonder if lying about leaking classified info will get them bent out of shape.... I think we know the answer, don't we.

....much worse than outing a CIA agent.:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

The idiot boy can do anything and everything at the urging of "Dirty Trick Dicky" and claim "National Security" or "War Against Terrorism" and we are all supposed to bow down and say something like, "Yes, of course, the law applies to everyone else but Dirty Trick Dicky and Idiot Boy".:sarcasm:

:banghead: :spank: :grr: :banghead: :spank: :grr:

Everything about this case is wrong... no matter how they try to spin it.

Bush should resign.. he IS disgrace

Sorry. Nice try though, you f'n sleazeball.

They WANT you to argue it is illegal, because it isnt. When they turn around and PROVE it isnt illegal it makes you look wrong and untrustworthy. What you should argue is that, yes it is legal, BUT it is still a breach of the public trust.

He didnt break any laws, what he did was breach the trust the people gave him. He lied to THEM, not some prosecutor. He broke THEIR TRUST, not some law.

That is the best way to fight this in my opinion, because even if the repugs prove it was legal, that doesnt detract from the charge that he lied to the people for his own benefit.

and that's all that matters.

There's plenty of war crimes to put him in jail for, when the time comes.

Why didn't he just say, "it's my perogative, I told them." Plus freepers: what he wanted to "correct" was Joe Wilson's TRUE claims that the Niger stuff was BS!!

HE'S A LIAR!

"We're going to find the person who did this blah blah blah"

As John Kerry said, Bush just spent the past two years looking for himself.

OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, George Wanker Bush.

They don't exactly have any credibility on this issue....

Just sayin'

authorizing the declassification of this information. Then it is legal. If he cannot produce the signed document declassifying the NIE, then it is illegal. There is a legal procedure for declassification.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html

"The President may direct the agency head not to exempt the file series or to declassify the information within that series at an earlier date than recommended. File series exemptions previously approved by the President shall remain valid without any additional agency action."

It is my belief that 'direct' here would require a written directive resulting in a 'Declassification guide'. I'm not a lawyer - did I mention that? Feel free to read through the directive.

do or say anything, and it is legal because he did it. If the president is not above the law, I would guess that there would be procedure involved in his exercising rights to declassify. If he was within the law and his rights as president, why did he lie about his actions, and why did the CIA declassify the information 10 days later? Of course, the assumption being made is that the NIE disclosure included information about Plame, not totally unreasonable since that is the issue being investigated, but possibly wrong. We wouldn't know without seeing the classified version of the NIE.

From carolinlady's thread on the front page
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x863042 (With my addition of emphasis)

Then an excerpt from the National Security Act of 1947 as ammended:

TITLE VI - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER
INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES

SEC. 601. <50 U.S.C. 421> (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/sigint/resources/national-security-act/1947-act.html

Clinton bent the truth about consensual hanky panky & was impeached.

nm

He can't just make law by saying something. Perhaps he can declassify things, but that would have to require a formal declaration - signed documents, etc. Otherwise, there is not a rule of law, but a rule of kings.

The legality of declassification - ie leaking, is not the issue.

W lied to a federal prosecutor regarding an investigation. Now that is clearly illegal.

Look everybody seems to think that Libby said he was authorised to leak Plame's identity.

HE DIDN'T!!!!!

He said no such thing! He said that Bush authorised him to leak (although an authorised leak isnt a leak) certain parts of the NIE THAT DID NOT CONTAIN PLAME'S IDENTITY!!! This is very important. If you claim he broke the law by lying about leaking Plame's name, YOU will look like a fool, because there is no evidence he did that, not even in Libby's testimony.

Don't fall for it! They WANT you to say and think that. They want you to make yourself look like a fool.

himself said. In this sound clip, Bush is quoted saying about the Plame leak, "this is a serious charge, we're talking about a criminal action.":

http://www.awolcowboy.com/mp3/Bush_quotes_CIA_Leak.mp3

of an undercover intelligence officer? How can he by fiat declassify a CIA's undercover identity without violating that law. All the arguments in favor of Bushit all boil down to "as president, he can do what he wants." Tell me again, how that differs from a dictator??

:shrug:

on the investigation that didn't need to take place? Whatever --- these people make me :puke:

If Fitzgerald was appointed to see if anybody leaked the name of a covert agent in an effort to see if the law prohibiting those in the executive from leaking classified information(did he break the law) and it is clear as day now that the President authorized this undeniably illegal action... how is it all of a sudden legal? There was unanimous consent that if the president, the vice president or their aids leaked this information, they would be held to criminal investigation. Now that they BROKE the law, it's all of a sudden legal?

I have a sneaking suspicion Fitzgerald isn't going to buy this. That is, if he's still looking to see if any laws were broken :shrug:

He needs the Jeff Gannon treatment.