A question regarding freep response to libby testimony....

[pepperbear]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610359/posts

Of course I believe they're rationalizing, but then again, there are some things I don't understand about how executive power works.

The prevailing sentiment is, if * OK'd it, it isn't a leak or illegal.

IS THIS TRUE?

[IdaBriggs]

1. No, but its a pleasant fantasy, isn't it? Didn't his papa make it a DEATH

PENALTY CRIME?

:evilgrin:

[Joanne98]

2. That would be my first guess on what they're trying to do!

I don't know if it will work though.

[Atman]

3. No.

There are very specific guidelines and rules (don't know if they're "laws") regarding who, how, why and when classified information can be de-classified. Period.

For starters, whomever signed off on the initial classification must be part of the decision to DE-classify. Right off the bat, that excludes the POTUS.

Freepers are, as usual, grasping at anything to hold them afloat.

[robinlynne]

5. Ah nice.

I like that. I was already getting depressed about how quickly they can spin everything.

[marylanddem]

4. If Bush obstructed justice by deceiving investigators,

whether under oath or not, he obstructed justice.

[Kingshakabobo]

11. Did he, in fact, meet with investigators?

It's hard to keep all the scandals separated in my brain. I remember he sat on Uncle Dick's lap for the 9/11 commission but I can't remember if he met with Fitz.

[marylanddem]

18. Someone on another DU thread stated he did - I assumed it was

true, but I might be wrong...

[Virginia Dare]

26. met with him June 24, 2004 for 70 minutes..n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

28. THANKS! n/t

[Goblinmonger]

6. But lying to an office of the court

and hindering prosecution are crimes. If it isn't illegal, why did he play the :shrug: "who knows who leaked" game. Why didn't he just say he did and it's legal?

[BOSSHOG]

7. If the president ok'd killing your family would that be alright?

He okayed it is the ultimate spin coming from the ultimate spin machine. bush's base has as much integrity and credibility as he does - none!

If it was okay to declassify Plame's status then it would be so easy for mcclellan to step to the microphone and tell the world what the benefit of that action was.

[pepperbear]

13. boss, that's a great point as a a matter of fact

I didn't think of that: if it was "OK" for the pres to leak, than it would've been OK 3-6 months ago when the subpoenas were being distributed.

on edit spelling

[BOSSHOG]

16. I think it was Mark Twain who said it so succinctly

"Always tell the truth and you will never have to remember anything." There is a challenge going to free republic. One then has to remember all kinds of stuff. They are unconcerned with facts, only beliefs. They believe they are right and bush is good, end of argument.

[tandot]

8. So, freepers say that since Clinton OK'd Monica's blowjob, he shouldn't

have been impeached? WOW.

[Atman]

9. Oh, SNAP!

Good point.

By that fucked up Freeper logic, any bile spewing from a president's mouth (or his noodly appendage) should be perfectly LEGAL!

[BOSSHOG]

17. Blowjobs for the crew!!

While inport blowjobs are authorized for all hands except for the duty section; they will get relieved when relieved. Ahoy Maties, what the Captain decrees is LAW! AAArrrggghhh!

[The Magistrate]

10. The Wretch Can Declassify Anything He Pleases, Sir

But if he lied to a U.S. Attorney about whether or not he aided, or even knew of, the circulation of a document he de-classified, even when not under oath, he committed a felony.

"LET'S GO GETY THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Atman]

12. Please cite your source, Mag

That is absolutely not the way I have heard it, will all due respect (and I certainly DO respect your opinion, I just don't believe you're correct on this one).

[The Magistrate]

21. Regarding Which, Sir?

Both the Executive's ability to declassify and the crime of lying to a federal investigator are common knowledge.

[Atman]

22. Obviously it is not "common" knowledge.

I don't know it, and I've read and heard opinions directly contradicting your assertion.

[Atman]

29. Magistrate, I've learned more since your reply...

My guess is you're referring to Bush's Executive Order overturning the previously EXISTING LAW prohibiting anyone from outing a CIA NOC.

IOW, Bush himself signed an order saying he didn't have to obey the law.

Bush created a law especially for himself exonerating himself from the laws he was about to break.

You may call the resulting manifestations "legal," but then you'd have to agree that his spying was legal, and every other illegal thing he has done was "legal" as long as he said it was.

Executive Orders have a place in law. But not when they are specifically ordained to break another law. Bush broke the law and "Executive Ordered" himself out of prosecution. The letter of the law may be there, granted. But clearly the intent of the law has been violated.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. It's not the action, it's the cover-up.

It's ALWAYS the cover-up.

If, indeed, he declassified that information, why was there an investigation? Why not just produce the document approving the declassification?

But here's the thing - it wasn't declassified before it was leaked because to do so would be an egregious abuse of power. There would be no other reason to declassify the identity of a covert CIA agent at that time except to use for political purposes. That's why it wasn't declassified, that's why it's illegal, and that's why it's always the cover-up that puts you into jail. :toast:

[Atman]

23. Just one of the MANY angles in which Bush is FOOKED here

All the same arguments the righties used to pillory Clinton for his hummer now apply in spades to Bush. Every single one.

[janx]

15. NO.

But let them have their fun.

[salin]

19. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE... RULE OF LAW... DEFINITION of

"LEAK"... sound familiar :D Ironic, eh?!

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Still Lied To Investigators

And, conspired to let others lie to investigators. Both are crimes. Ask Martha Stewart.
The Professor

[warrens]

24. In that case, if Nixon authorized a break-in at Dem HQ

It's OK and he finished his term. That logic is very flawed. The president has the power to declassify documents in the public interest. I doubt he can do it to smear opponents, or in this case, to punish an opponent by attacking his wife.

[Supersedeas]

25. Declassifying for the purpose of leaking info to the Press as part of a

political dirty tricks campaign -- THAT is within the President's authority?

[noamnety]

27. It's not true

Individual facts aren't classified in a vaccuum - the entire program has a classification guide. So the PROGRAM guide would say that the identification of covert agents is classified at such and such a level. (And it would describe the classification of a whole range of related information)

When you classify something, it goes into a Security Classification Guide that's all fancy with approving signatures and such.

Declassifying a portion of the program would necessitate a revision to the class guide, with more signatures, and it would need to be disseminated to the other people who need access to that guide.

In other words, you don't secretly declassify part of a program, but let everyone else in the program believe it's still classified. It's - for one thing - wasteful, because resources are spent at the lower levels still trying to protect something that no longer needs protection. It's the equivalent of hiring security guards for an empty warehouse. In addition to that, guidance needs to go out so people understand which parts of the program still remain classified. Is the agent's name declassified, but her mission is still classified? What of the company she supposedly worked for? What of the funding?

So, in summary:
Process = document which aspects of the program are declassified, which remain classified, and disseminate that to those with a need to know.

Rationale = to avoid wasting resouces, and give clear guidance to avoid additional unintended security leaks.