Bush Broke the Law: Fitzgerald Should (and may) Ask For Impeachment

And it's not for the reasons you are thinking.

I may concede (still not convinced) that a President has authority to declassify intelligence information. ( UPDATE: Post #30 below from Carolinalady proves Bush broke this law too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=860800&mesg_id=861495 )

Valerie Plame's Identity was certainly part of the NIE. So he *did* authorize Libby (via Cheney) to discuss her identity with the press.

For just a second, let's say hypothetically that the President broke no law in doing so.

Bush still broke the law. The law that says you may not LIE to federal investigators about the facts of an investigation. This is one of the crimes that Libby is charged with.

How does this lead us logically to the conclusion that Bush lied to investigators (and hence, broke the law)? Because if Bush told the truth to investigators and Fitzgerald, then this case would be closed and it would end with Libby (and maybe one other). If that's true, then there would be no reason for Libby to make the further testimony that Bush authorized the leak. They'd be building a defense that Libby didn't lie to investigators, not that he had permission to do so. Libby is going to jail and he's obviously taking others with him who were involved (after all, the Aspens turn together). And he's doing it artfully, by giving information that counters their statements to investigators.

This revelation could take off all the heads of the current administration. And it's turned out to be a many-headed hydra at that. Thank goodness for Patrick Fitzgerald, our symbolic Hercules.

(on edit: )
Fitzgerald will indict anyone who he finds chargable and he will name Bush as an unindictable co-conspirator. He will say that the only recourse for punishment is to Impeach bush, but that he can not start that. That's what I meant by "ask".

The only problem I see are the cowards in Congress who have refused to hold Bush accountable. This case is a bit different from the NSA case as there was a clear attempt to harm someone. The defenders of Bush on the NSA can't say they would feel justified if Bush outed their spouse to defend his case for war.

and even when he talks to congress he specifically is not under oath.

qualifies as an investigator.

but that it was not under oath. Weasily, but that will be his excuse.

investigator while under oath, it's you cannot lie to a Federal investigator. You can't lie to anybody (grand juries, juries, judges, courts etc) under oath, but a Federal investigator you can't lie to, period.
That goes for customs officers too.

at that meeting in the oval office. I would love to see a transcript of that "meeting."

Impeachment is a constitutional procedure. It also has no requirement for actual law breaking either to qualify an impeachment or mandate one. Fitzgerald can ask for an ice cream sundae with as much authority as he can ask for an impeachment.

There will be no impeachment hearings while the repukes control the house.

an unindictable co-conspirator. He will say that the only recourse for punishment is to Impeach bush, but that he can not start that. That's what I meant by "ask".

The public is now presented with definitive proof that Bush committed treason and lied about it. This is the end of his career.

Fitz could name Bush as an unindicted co-conspirator and observer that the only legal remedy would be impeachment (until he leaves office.) I'm all for that, I just wanted to make clear that impeachment is a political process that has to be initiated in the house and that is not directly related to any infraction of the law.

Thanks! :)

that's my point. This is a political firebomb. It's big enough to force either impeachment or resignation, IMHO. Whether one can prove minutiae such as the chain of hearsay back to Bush, hardly matters. The bomb has burst.

"Lawsuit Against Clinton Can Proceed, Court Says
By Joan Biskupic
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 28 1997; Page A01


A unanimous Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Paula Corbin Jones can move forward with her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. The court's forceful decision rejected Clinton's argument that sitting presidents should have legal immunity from allegations involving their personal conduct.

The ruling not only has historic consequences for the institution of the presidency, it also could have a bruising political effect on Clinton...
"


The President can be both impeached and indicted. In fact, if the indictment is in regard to the same crime(s) as the impeachment, the impeachment in itself makes pardon impossible.

The same rules apply to all civil offices in the government: Pres, VP, cabinet, and on down the line.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
"The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Article II, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

http://www.law.emory.edu/erd/docs/usconser.html

here would be debatable and that the administration would claim that unlike the clenis's misbehaviors with women, bush's direct violation of criminal statutes was not personal conduct but conduct as the executive. I think actually he would be correct in that assertion, which is why he needs to be impeached and convicted and removed from office and then indicted and then tried and convicted and then sent to jail for a very long time.

of the matter is to make it so plain that every inmate in every insane asylum and every nit-wit, half-wit, dim-wit, moran and simpleton from every branch of religion can understand. Because to me it appears that the only reason junior is still standing is this audience.

but Stanley Hilton's $7 billion lawsuit against Bush for lying us into Iraq was
thrown out of court on the doctrine of "sovereign immunity".

Your logic is simple and impeccable.

wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall!

that he did NOT say he authorized Libby to discuss the contents of the NIE.

It was after bush* spoke to Fitz, when the story broke, that he obtained private council.

That's a political process. He is totally apolitical and does a damn FINE job at what he does.

We're FINALLY wrapping up the trial of our former Governor (R) here in Illinois. It's in the hands of the jury. It's been a long haul; a very long haul.

We have Fitzie to thank for upholding the rule of law. :)

an unindictable co-conspirator. He will say that the only recourse for punishment is to Impeach bush, but that he can not start that. That's what I meant by "ask".

under oath when they talked to ? Fitz? FBI?

Only perjury does. And Libby is guilty of both. Bush is only guilty of obstruction (which is a felony when involving a federal investigation).

of the charges against Libby.

the American people and stated that he didn't know who did this but that it would be hard to find the culprit - words to that effect, right after Plame was outed. A clever person could probably check the news reports on that date and get the actual quote. Best I remember is he said he didn't know who and that he would "deal with" - "take care of" it.

During that speech to the public he should have admitted he did it and then give his usual blather about how it was necessary for security purposes, no further question folks. How does he explain all this now?

Edit: Geez, MSNBC just showed it! Bush's quote.

...Protection Act, which is outside the purview of the "classification" debate.

Thanks for the reminder.

on that law as well.

I'm still trying to get a grab on the main points here.

Thanks in advance.

...http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html . It criminalizes and specifies penalties for those who knowingly disclose the identities of covert agents.

is that right?

...and a "covert" agent. Agents aren't classified documents; they can't be unilaterally declassified by presidential fiat. The question here, though, is whether and to what extent Bush's declassification of the NIE information included information on the name/employment of Plame. What is not in dispute -- except by those deluded souls in FReeperland -- is that the leak of the NIE was part of a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson after his NYTimes editorial accusing the Bush admin of manipulating/fabricating intel.

This isn't even about the actual ... er... "leakage". It's about the lying and the cover up afterward. This is what got Nixon, too. Even if he didn't "mean" for Libby to leak Plame's identity, he still lied about not knowing who the leaker was later on. He HAD to have known if he had declassified that document earlier. This defense is pathetic. They've really been going downhill on their spin. It used to be evil, but a little clever. Now, it's just muddled and crazy and, hopefully, ineffective, even on the zombies.

follow the news and the right wing infrastructure and history.

WHIG - White House Iraq Group.

Bush Cheney Powell Rice Libby Rove Matalin and a few others.

Formed to figure out how to justify a war in Iraq.

Every person there is co-responsible, but Bush and Cheney primarily, obviously.

The people have to know about WHIG. And they have to be able to process the rationale that Rove and Libby could NEVER, on their own, authorize the leak of Plame-Brewter-Jennings. They must understand the dealings of Cheney - his business relations with the very people that Brewster-Jennings was investigating. And Bush - who needed to be the War President on behalf of his corporations (who love the profits) and to secure his small base and the extra overflow of voters. And to further the agenda of PNAC and the barons who rule them.

Rove and Libby could recognize the need of their bosses and work 24 hours a day for that purpose, but they had no authority to operate independently of B and C. It doesn't work that way in any society, unless the underlings are pulling off a coup.

These criminals have destroyed America. It's time for justice.

Did Libby reveal this info to Fitz recently or was it back in 2005?

Testimony given last year... which is probably the testimony that contradicts his earlier testimony to that same grand jury.

undercover agent. That is the law. His executive orders can not supercede this law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

From another blog: an explanation:

Almost anything can be declassified by the president, or the head of the agency overseeing the particular information. But any classified information covered by statute does not fall under the allowance for declassification . The 1982 law, From the US Code in National Security, See: USC § 421 makes it illegal per statute for a covert agent's identity to be declassified by anyone up to and including the president unless the agent does so on their own volition. And even the covert agent must be given permission to do so.
So when you read Sec. 6.2 "General Provision" in EO 13929 -- that provision makes it absolutely clear that "Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended." So the US Code; Section 421 cannot be superseded by EO 13929.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/26764

I was unsure of the legalities of the leak... the spin is going at TOP SPEED. But it seems pretty clear cut in the law. Question now is, will Congress hold Bush accountable... I'm not very hopeful of that.

and the President can decide what is classified.

didn't say that Bush outted an undercover agent.

There is still no link between Bush and Plame. All the court document said was that Bush told Libby he could disclose the information in a certain document. Libby did so. During that conversation, Libby mentioned Plame.

It however, does NOT say that Libby got the information about Plame from the document that Bush authorized him to discuss.

In other words, it could be a case of "Hey, Miller, Bush gave me this piece of paper. See? Iraq WAS trying to buy yellow cake uranium! And oh, by the way, X told me that Wilson's wife is a CIA agent."

Of course it is possible that Wilson was mentioned in the document. If so...goldmine! Until then, statutes regarding covert agent's identities are irrelevant.

indicate that his misdirection of the investigation (and I like your reasoningof howwe KNOW it was misdirection) was deliberate. So he deliberately, cowardly, and with foreknowledge misdirected a federal investigation.

(At least he didn't get his rocks off in the Oval Office.)

NYT: "A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case."

Here's the link to Fitz's filing (PDF format): http://www.nysun.com/30561.pdf

*Edited to say: The NY Sun is getting hammered right now. You can't even get to their home page, let alone the PDF of the filing. I'll see if I can find the document mirrored somewhere else.

UPDATE: The Smoking Gun has a copy of the filing up here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com//archive/0406061libby1.html

There will be written proof, setting out what was and what was not declassified. I am willing to bet that they can never produce those written instructions.

and I've seen the publicly available versions of the NIE.

I didn't find evidence for the assertion in them.

Now, obviously I haven't seen the substantial still-classified portions of the NIE, but there should still be some substantiation for the claim: Was it made by somebody (preferably not by disgruntled agent Q. Anonymous) who's read the classified sections, or is it just conjecture that's acquired the status of fact?

It seems Plame's role in the Wilson affair was relatively minor, and Wilson's role wasn't especially highlighted until month's after the NIE was produced. Why an October 2002 NIE focusing on all things WMD in Iraq would crucially rely on Plame's identity remains unclear to me. And it also seems that if Plame's ID is readily recoverable from the NIE, the glaringly obvious deduction that the otherwise clever Fitzgerald missed, and even more foolishly denied, is that the crucial question is no longer who leaked Plame's ID--the question underlying his investigation--but the legal basis for his investigation at all.