Treasongate: Libby and the NIE "key judgements"

[ProSense]

Thursday :: Apr 6, 2006

Treasongate: Libby and the NIE "key judgements"

by eriposte

Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun (h/t Mary) has an article out that claims:

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.

Snip…

Gerstein actually provides a link (PDF) to Patrick Fitzgerald's filing. Follow me over the flip to see why Libby's testimony is extremely odd.

I read the portion of Fitzgerald's filing that discusses this. Here is what it says in full (emphasis mine):

(Page 23)

As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively.

Why is this so weird?

Well, because the key judgements of the NIE made no mention of the uranium from Africa claim at all! It was specifically agreed to at the IC coordination meeting on the NIE that the uranium claim should NOT be in the Key Judgments. So, releasing the Key Judgments would have actually made Wilson's case appear stronger!

more...

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007296.php#3_2_5

[ProSense]

1. More...

Snip...

Isn't that fascinating? The August 2002 CIA assessment (drafted by NESA) did not actually mention the uranium from Africa claim at all (as I also discussed in Sec. 2.1.1); only the September 2002 DIA report did (how's that for irony, considering that the CIA was blamed for the uranium claim by the Bush administration).

The question, then, is: how did the uranium claim get into the NIE?

Here's the relevant Senate Report discussion on this (emphasis mine):

Snip…

So, the uranium from Africa claim was in the body of the NIE but it was rebutted by INR in a text box in the Annex. See this PDF file which has the key judgments along with the text in the body of the NIE (on the uranium claim) and the INR rebuttal. What I wonder though is whether the Bush administration made it appear as if the text in the body of the NIE was part of the key judgments. (Now that I look more carefully at the PDF file, I wonder if that was really what happened). Enterprising reporters may want to take a look.

[acmejack]

2. My Goodness! Good, er Great, Catch!

What do you think *'s next set of poll numbers will be? I suppose only the brain dead support him now so they will probably remain unchanged, but then again there are that "surprised" 17% from that AOL Poll today on this matter!

[RedEarth]

3. kr........ very good

[ProSense]

4. Articles about leak:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2556803&mesg_id=2556803