Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Again he said he would take action (fire whatever) the person that leaked the Plame info not the NIE. People are unfortuantely confusing the two (albeit connected in motive to make the case for war in Iraq)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well that's not going to be good for the President..

Darn right! I'm never voting for him again!!

[dannubis]

Damn, haven't you guys got enough on Bush to get rid of him already ? I mean, Nixon was kicked out for less ...

[Pekka]

No give him a medal. He is hunted by evil libruls.

[DRoseDARs]

Is it "high crimes and misdemeanors" yet?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Two completley different leaks my friend. The NIE talked to only the WMD capabilities of Sadaam and the CIA estimates, not the outing of Plame in any regard.

To date the only charge capable of being placed on the President would be contingent on whether the President does not have the authority to declassify documents.

I'll not comment on that for now.

Exhibit A:

The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/cia.leak/

Exhibit B:

As president, Bush has the authority to release any classified document.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/cia.leak/

People are getting their leaks mixed up here - it might be a good idea to read more than headlines.

[Zkribbler]

As President, Bush Has The Authority To Release Any Classified Document.

But the joke is, he didn't release it. He supposedly ordered it to be leaked.

It's like the whole wiretapping thing. He had the power to go into a hyperfriendly secret court and get a wiretap okayed...up to 72 hours after it was planted. He just said, "Why bother; I'll just do what I want."

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

But the joke is, he didn't release it. He supposedly ordered it to be leaked.

If that were indeed illegal, top Dems would be shouting it from the rooftops, if not calling for impeachment. Instead, Schumer only had the following to say:

At the very least, President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role in allowing classified information to be leaked. Did they believe they had the right to do this and, if so, in what circumstances? Or is this just something that may have been done in order to accommodate the president's momentary political needs?

Sounds like it's a disingenuous use of intelligence for "political purposes" at best, or a legal gray area at worst. Not a crime, as much as I wish it was.

[DRoseDARs]

Darius, fix your links: Exhibit A and Exhibit B are the same link.

...

Some food for thought:

Originally posted by carolinalady
The President is NOT authorized to declassify a Covert Agent.*

There have been multiple threads today about Libby's disclosure to the grand jury. I have researched this before and unfortunately lost it all when my husband fried my laptop, so I got some more info today.

An interesting article "Was it illegal for President Bush to leak classified secrets to Bob Woodward" touches on the subject:


President Nixon famously stated during the Watergate era that when a president does something that means it's not illegal. The courts disagreed and Nixon was forced to resign. But was Alterman correct in his assessment of President Bush's culpability? HNN asked Steven Aftergood, editor of Secrecy News, a newsletter published by the Federation of American Scientists, what he thinks. He told us that Alterman's conclusion that Bush had violated the law "can't be taken at face value," adding, "though I suppose it is within an opinion columnist's editorial license." He went on:

There are several specific categories of classified information that are protected by statute -- communications intelligence, identities of covert agents, nuclear weapons design information, and some others. Those statutes are binding on the executive branch as well as on everyone else.

More at this link:

http://hnn.us/articles/1753.html

And also: From Executive Order 13292
Sec. 6.2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act.

(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.

(c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, officers, employees, or agents. The foregoing is in addition to the specific provisos set forth in sections 3.1(b) and 5.3(e) of this order."

(d) Executive Order 12356 of April 6, 1982, was revoked as of October 14, 1995.

link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

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.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

link: http://www.iwar.org.uk/sigint/resour...t/1947-act.htm

Ok now I need to figure out how to start a journal so I can save this gem!

*Yes, yes. DU blah blah blah. She did her research and provided links to the relevant sources, so just ignore where she's posting from.

[Darius871]

See my post above Dro, this is NOT about Plame. Bush can roast on a spit for all I care if they pin that on him. This is about some portions of a NIE.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Darius871
See my post above Dro, this is NOT about Plame. Bush can roast on a spit for all I care if they pin that on him. This is about some portions of a NIE.

To which I respond with another post from another place:

Originally posted by berni_mccoy
THE CONTENTS OF THE NIE ARE NOT THE ISSUE: BUSH COMMITTED TREASON

Remember the point to leaking ANY information was for one reason and one reason only. It was to discredit Joe Wilson, who spoke out because Bush used false intelligence, intelligence that BUSH KNEW was false in his State of the Union address (the 16 words).

The point of the leak was to QUIET ANY FURTHER WHISTLE-BLOWERS and CRITICS. Whether there is one leak or many, what the content of each leak was, DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is this:

Bush AUTHORIZED the ILLEGAL disclosure of classified intelligence to protect himself politically. And that, my fellow Americans, IS TREASON.

There is no way out of this for Bush except a Cowering Congress that refuses to HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Is it "high crimes and misdemeanors" yet?

oh come on

ITS NOT LIKE HE SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE






is that joke old yet?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
To which I respond with another post from another place:

Well I don't know what berni_mccoy's legal credentials are, but according to the OP Fitzgerald himself certainly doesn't consider it a crime:

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule.

http://nysun.com/timesleak.php

Disingenuous? Sure.
Hypocritical? I think so.
A serious dent in Bush's political capital? Of course, but what else is new?
Illegal? Apparently not.

[DRoseDARs]

We'll see. Further indictments are rumored to be coming down the line... so perhaps he's changed his mind with more evidence.

[Zkribbler]

If that were indeed illegal, top Dems would be shouting it from the rooftops, if not calling for impeachment.

Let's see....
You want the Dems to call for the Republican-controlled House to impeach a Republican President...
To be tried before the Republican-controlled Senate...
Based solely upon hearsay evidence...
In an election year?