Question regarding the Plame leak investigation:

[Make7]

In June 2004, the following questions and answer regarding the Plame investigation took place at a press conference:

Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html

So, if the recent allegations are proven to be true, that Bush himself authorized the leak, then will he follow through on his pledge by firing himself?

:) Make7

[Minnesota Libra]

1. Be careful what you ask for - we would get Cheney in the WH, yuck nt

[johnnie]

4. Cheney will go with him I would think

Libby said he was authorized through Cheney by georgie. I would have to guess that Cheney will be investigated also for all of this.

[Minnesota Libra]

6. Dicky boy is more adapt at working out crap behind the scenes that........

...never seems to get the light of day. Bush is not so slowly destroying himself but Cheney - now that is one SOB I truly fear.:hide: Remember, Cheney has been at this hiding crap a whole lot longer that idiot boy. He learned under "Dirty Tricks Dick Nixon":freak: and yes Nixon was forced to resign. But Cheney went on unscathed:argh: and now we are seeing the mature "Dirty Trick Dicky":mad: and he's not going to quit any time soon either.:spank:

[rodeodance]

2. umm.. Do you think Gonzalas is looking for the facts?

[Make7]

8. No, but it's not his investigation.

When Ashcroft recused himself in December 2003, the Deputy Attorney General (who was acting Attorney General at that time) appointed Fitzgerald as special counsel, granting him almost the same powers as an Attorney General would have.

- Make7

[boobooday]

3. He's still trying to smoke himself out

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

Might be a while . . . it's hard work . . .

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

[Make7]

9. Hadn't thought of that....

.... I might expect to see some results sometime around January 2009.

:) Make7

[magellan]

5. Bush** has taken the position that there's no one to fire

...because no one leaked classified information; he had declassified it, ergo it was okay to disseminate.

The problem with that is twofold.

1) Why was releasing Valerie Plame's name to the press so important?

2) Why didn't Bush** just say he declassified the info when the leak first came to light, instead of talking about firing people and wasting resources and taxpayer money on a long investigation?

Lies, lies, lies.

[Make7]

7. The question that was asked was essentially...

"Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have...leaked the agent's name?"

It doesn't matter if it was legal or not related to this question.

But on a more realistic note, wasn't he questioned regarding this matter? If he was asked direct questions and withheld the information that he knew, could that not be considered obstruction of justice? Or at least making false statements to federal officials.

- Make7

[magellan]

10. He answered yes to the original question

But remember he modified his statement last year, saying, "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

The only value to his initial, broader statement -- that he would fire anyone who leaked the identity of a covert agent -- is in respect to his change in tune last year above, which was probably spurred by the realization that insisting Wilson's wife wasn't covert at the time of the leak wasn't flying with the public. It shows intention to move the goal posts. Bush** zigged to lay the usual semantics groundwork for just the sort of excuse being handed to us today.

Yes, Bush** was questioned. And yes, if he didn't mention that he had declassified the material and authorized its dissemination to the press (which seems probable as this defense was never mentioned before this week), then I suspect it could be regarded as an obstruction of justice. But I'm no lawyer.

Does that make more sense?

Boy, I'll bet Fitzgerald is loving the hell out of this. These suckers just keep digging their hole deeper. If they keep it up all he'll have to do is exhale and the whole rotten lying lot of them will fall in!!

[Make7]

11. I'm still not sure that a crime has NOT been committed.

I'm no lawyer either, but logically speaking I would think there is some procedure that needs to be followed to declassify information. Although since the President would seem to be the ultimate authority regarding approval of such decisions, it is possible that he can declassify something just by deciding to.

But what would prevent an incoming President of declassifying anything he desires simply to score political points by revealing the previous Administration's misdeeds? What would restrain a President from using his ability to declassify whatever he wants in order to politically blackmail his opponents? Does the sitting executive really have unlimited powers regarding this? That just doesn't sit quite right with me.

Nevertheless, claiming that the President declassified Plame's identity is possibly short-sighted as an overall strategy. He would basically be admitting that he outed a CIA agent for political purposes. I wonder if the CIA is in possession of any information that the Administration would prefer to keep secret. Would some agents within the CIA see the President's example of leaking for political gain as a tactic to be employed more aggressively by themselves? Perhaps someone within the agency would rather let the public know that the Administration has misused the intelligence produced by the CIA than to act as a scapegoat.

I don't know if picking a fight with the intelligence community is such a good idea for the Administration. Although I wouldn't mind seeing it happen myself....

I think Fitzgerald is enjoying this very much. All he needs to do is let them keep talking, and then just point out the lies. I hope he gets some big fish out of this whole mess.

- Make7

[magellan]

12. If you haven't seen this thread, you might find it of interest

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2558090

John Dean's perspective vis a vis a criminal act in this matter, not only by Bush** but by Cheney too. In fact I heard him speak on one of the corporate news channels Thursday night, and he said that while it's true the president can declassify material, there are procedures to follow. One he threw out as example was the need to advise Congress and the CIA of the intention to declassify this NIE, which (not surprisingly) wasn't done.

Judging from the portions of the NIE that weren't publicly disseminated -- dissent over Saddam's true nuclear capabilities and what the aluminum tubes were for -- it's not surprising that they didn't consult outside the executive branch as they should have. The phrase 'cherry-picked' comes to mind again. I can't think of a single other reason why Bush** and his buddies are always so sure they're right, and can produce the evidence to prove it, yet in every case they turn out to be dead wrong.

There was also a thread earlier on Friday that outlined the procedures for declassification, but I can't find it now. But part of it basically said the president can't declassify material for political purposes...which would answer your question about why presidents don't have a habit of doing this to show predecessors up.

There's no doubt in my mind that the entire exercise by the Bush** administration leading to Plamegate was politically motivated. If Fitzgerald is the man of integrity he seems to be, and he's permitted to finish the investigation, I believe he'll top this tree. But he has a lot of work still ahead of him before he can reach the highest branches.