Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Snag in Bush authorization of leak?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:16 AM
Original message
Snag in Bush authorization of leak?
I was all excited about this until I read:

"There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity."

Link

Is AP raining on my parade, and Bush didn't authorize the leak of Plame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. That is the way I am reading it too
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. It still shoots the hell out of his denial of knowing...
the identity of the leaker. Bush and Cheney both gave testimony early on. The question is, did either or both of them perjure themselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. They both said there were no leakers in the WH. Now there is proof
there is a leaker...at least on Iraq stuff and the authorisation came from Chimpy himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jedicord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Was it "sworn" testimony?
Probably not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. June 24th 2004, he met for 70 minutes with Fitzgerald...

Some lawyer out there might be able to help us out, but I believe it would be very much impeachable if he made false statements during that interview.

http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/062504_grand_jury.shtml

June 25, 2004 1600 PDT (FTW) – Washington, DC. Well-placed U.S. government sources have revealed that the secret grand jury, led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, will soon issue explosive indictments in the criminal investigation of who leaked the name of Valerie E. Plame, a CIA clandestine agent and wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, to members of the media. On June 24, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed President Bush at the White House for 70 minutes, an indication that Fitzgerald's investigation is nearing completion and that indictments may be imminent. Bush was seated with his recently-hired criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp, during the interview
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellenfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. the filing is available at thesmokinggun.com, if you haven't read it.
i haven't read it yet.

ellen fl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, it's confusing
It gets back to my original feeling when it first happened.

There's always been either more or less to this than meets the eye. It should not have devolved into this baroque guessing game.

Not that many people involved. How hard would it have been to just gather them into one room and say "What the hell happened, and who did it and who knew about it?"

The White House is like all the old days of trying to read what was happening in The Kremlin based on who was standing next to whom on the balcony during the May Day Parade.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. Libby is making an accusation. The prosecutors must...
investigate this accusation now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC