The President is NOT authorized to declassify a Covert Agent.

[carolinalady]

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:

<snip>
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/resources/national-security-act/1947-act.html

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

[waiting for hope]

1. Great Post carolinalady!

:applause: :hi: from Wilmington!

[ksokol]

2. I think the key question here is

did the declassfied/leaked parts of the NIE contain info on Valerie Plame that would identify her?

Kerri

[pacalo]

7. Yes. The information was interlaced with Plame's name/status at CIA.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. It was? That's the first I've heard that one! In that case, HE'S TOAST!

[pacalo]

97. Remember the memo from Bolton's aide that was given to Powell

who took it with him to show the boy king on Air Force One pre-Novak? It mentioned Valerie Plame as Joe Wilson's wife, & more importantly, that she was a CIA operative. They were in full damage control mode at this point about the infamous 16 words in the SOTU speech, & I'd bet it was on this AF1 trip that the decision was made to smear Joe Wilson & ruin Valerie Plame's career at the CIA.

[rniel]

3. They'll just say

It's part of his WAR POWERS!!!

[pacalo]

4. A good start of saving it will be for us to put it on the Greatest page!

[Dora]

5. Kicked, recommended, and bookmarked.

Super work!

[myrna minx]

6. Thank you for this.

:hi:

[0007]

8. Randi Rhodes just read the whole thing.

[CottonBear]

10. Damn. I missed that because I had a meeting.

Work, the bane of the middle class. :( Work really cuts into my Randi Rhodes show listening time! ;)

[0007]

19. Work has a way of breaking up the whole day, 'eh?

[Me.]

9. Thank You

Many pertinent facts are being obscured today by spin and the smoke and mirrors distracting of the eye by the WH and unsavory media types today. David Shuster being a major exception.

[cynatnite]

11. Corporate media says...

Pres can declassify anything he wants. :eyes:

[carolinalady]

14. I think they are really "parsing" to use a Helen Thomas term-

this story. The president may be able to declassify the NIE information-I don't know about the process of that, however, it is my understanding that within that info contained the info about Plame-that part he was not allowed to release.

[cynatnite]

15. I do agree with you...

but I think corporate media and the RW talking heads will latch onto it and spoon feed it to the public.

[monarch]

20. But what does Daddy Bush say?

Is he really a traitor?

[jberryhill]

39. Right, so...

The issue is whether Libby disclosed Plame's identity or on his own initiative.

The papers filed today do not state that Bush authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity. The papers refer to "information" in the NIE, but not WHAT information.

[lyonn]

85. How does bush explain his own statements

to the press about his total ignorance with this issue? Claiming then he knew Nothing about it, that no one in his admin. would do such a thing when he knew Libby & others were told to spread the word. How could this NIE info be of value to bush without using Wilson's wife as the reason he went to Africa and why Wilson's findings were political not factual, which is what bush was trying to put out to the press. How does he explain how "unimportant" Plame's CIA position was? We still don't know how undercover she was or is. Seems to me bush would have made sure that word got out that she was not covert if she wasn't.

[klook]

98. THANK YOU!!

So now they're changing their story from "Outing a covert CIA agent was wrong but Bush knew nothing about it" to "This CIA agent wasn't really covert" to "OK, she was covert, but the POTUS has the authority to out anybody he chooses."

Most Americans don't want the President to be able to just make up laws on the spot, or negate existing law with a wave of the hand. Even the ones who want Bush to be able to do that understand that it sets a dangerous precedent, just in case their Reich doesn't last 1,000 years after all.

[Dr Fate]

28. They also once said that lying was an impeachable offense.

And we all know Bush lied when he claimed not to know about this.

[ClintonTyree]

55. Lying under oath...

bush and cheney would never allow themselves to be sworn in when they testified. What's the big deal? It's not like he got a BJ or anything! :sarcasm:

[MsMagnificent]

75. Is that not the mark of a true Dictator?

Whatever he says is legal, whatever he does is legal, whatever he declares is law; he cannot break the law because he is above the law or he is the law.

Bottom line, is that not the template of a Dictator? Obviously "following the rule of law" is mere lip service, and * needs not.

And what about his daddy, former head of the CIA, saying (if I remember correctly) that leaking a covert CIA operative was one of the worst forms of treason?

[gkhouston]

12. Nicely done.

I knew he didn't have the authority, but there's nothing quite like having the appropriate quotes at your fingertips. :applause:

[RedEarth]

13. Very interesting..... thanks

[BooScout]

16. He needs to be impeached and tried for treason. n/t

[young_at_heart]

17. Does Bush know the facets of presidential legalities (or illegalities)?

Before the 2000 election he was asked to name some foreign leaders and couldn't name them. I can't help but wonder how much he actually knows about all our laws, etc.

[stillcool]

32. I think one of his

brazillion lawyers would clue him in...as they've done for all the other illegal actions he's taken. It's a family thing.

[Catchawave]

18. Thanks for posting this carolinalady !

:hi:

I bookmarked your thread too. Please start a journal, if I could figure it out, anyone can. :silly:

[Catchawave]

23. Oh, and I sent it to Keith Olbermann too ! n/t

[glitch]

21. Excellent! K & R! nt

[keith the dem]

22. Thanks, Great research!!!!

Again, the info at DU is way ahead of the Mainstream Media.

[LNM]

24. kick. Thanks for posting!

[lala_rawraw]

25. Good work here:)

[Dora]

26. kick... this mustn't drop too low!

[Dr Fate]

27. Even if he is, he still lied. I was once told that was impeachable. n/t

n/t

[carolinalady]

30. I heard only if it involved sex! LOL. n/t

[Dr Fate]

31. No, the meme was: "It's not about the sex, its about the lying."

The GOP/media told us that over and over and over.

[carolinalady]

35. Now they say "it's not about the lying, it's about national security"

:puke:

[Imagevision]

82. Gonzaalez is probably guilty of knowing the facts as well...!

actually complicit!

[Tight_rope]

29. Excellent Post! Recommanded!

[bush_is_wacko]

33. Yes but the pResident is not authorized to conduct warrantless wiretaps

without FISA approval either (even in a "time of war"). Nor is the pResident authorized to override rules of torture. This pResident has done a lot of things he's not authorized to do and he has gotten away with ALL of it, so far.

As long a the thugs have control NOTHING will come of this. They know it the Democratic leadership knows it and the American people know it too.

It's time to hit them at the voting booth. Let's just hope the turnout is so HUGE that they can't possibly play war games with the voting machines.

In the event we manage to get them out of their seats we might then have some chance at a successful investigation, impeachment and convictions!

I wish it were as easy at it once was to impeach a sitting president but it just is not.

[skip fox]

34. Fantastic. But all past experience tells us that this band of crooks

in the administration will weasel out of anything. And if they manage to convince the people and the court that he DOES have that authority, what then?

He will still have to answer WHY he authorized the leak and how that was not out of political expediency. How can he do that? We should think this through as soon as possible to be ready for all contingencies.

Perhaps he'll say, I only authorized the leak about the tubes, not the name. That was a mistake Scooter made.

That seems like the logical tactic.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. excellent....now send this thread to that slimy Bush apologist, Jeff

Greenfield, at this moment doing a defense of classified Presidential leaking, without any mention of the laws you cite, prefacing his remarks by saying he's not a legal expert. He's a lawyer, but not a legal expert. Ha. he's often praised for his acumen, brilliance, the extra bit of esoterica he brings to the table as a result of his legal knowledge, but he BEGS off any special knowledge in this case, in order to defend presidential leaks through the years.

he is truly nauseating; total shill for the regime

[me b zola]

37. I really like how your post ended;

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


If it were not for hope, my headed would have exploded by now :evilgrin:

[autorank]

38. Well then,lets move right along to IMPEACHMENT. He stole 2004 too!

I'm sure that Federal code says he's not authorized to do that either.

When you have lots of money and power and you break every rule, you can win for a while but not
for long if there are people who pay attention. Despite the absense of street demonstrations
like the 60's/70's there are many paying attention, acting, forming public opinoin.

People like Al Gore for example...http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00122.htm


Great post, value added galore, RECOMMENDED. Thank you!!!

[robertpaulsen]

40. Fantastic! I wish I could recommend this 5 times!

If you know this, then Fitz has got to know!

IMPEACH THEM ALL!!!

[Kablooie]

41. Problem is he just broke the law, not a crime for this president.

It will have no real effect on anything at all unless we change congress.

[carolinalady]

42. Let me just say I am truly honored and humbled to make the

home page! Thanks- DUers.
:loveya:

[gglor]

63. Thank you for the info

[Never Forget]

43. Fingers crossed...

I had to see how Faux was spinning this. One of their talking heads (Victoria Tensing) said that the document that's mentioned in report has nothing whatsoever to do with the Plame case.

IF this is true, is Bush still in trouble?

[Loge23]

45. Terrific post - Nominated!

This is a great example of a carefully researched issue that can help all of us understand a little better. Thank you!
My take is that this is really no surprise - we all figured that Bush is involved in all of the scams coming out of this admin. What is surprising is Libby is really singing.
The strategy of Fitz may have been to hang Libby for being an accessory with the hope that he would left out to twist in the wind. That is certainly what seems to be being played out.
One more thought in relation to some of the posts earlier in the week:
How did Jason Leopold and his intrepid investigation covered over at truthout.org miss this one? (tongue planted firmly in cheek here)

[LNM]

46. kicking again

Sorry, too few post for me to recommend.

[lonestarnot]

47. Excellent carolinalady!

[Janice325]

48. Right now, on Tweety's Hardball, David Gregory is saying

(to the best of my understanding) that Bushie is allowed to declassify info.?????
Kicked and recommended.

[cascadiance]

49. It sounds like they're trying to work the diffusion of responsibility...

... angle so that the President, and everyone else can separately claim that they didn't know they were also releasing Plame's information and that they were only releasing the other info. Or that the review process was broken for those who reviewed and selectively picked what pieces out of the statement to release, didn't know they were supposed to keep her name out and/or who they should have gotten approvals for specific items being released.

They will try to make it ofuscation of responsibility were to work where they would claim something like "well it was accidental. We didn't realize that in releasing this document we were also releasing Valerie Plame's identity. However, in trying to do this defense instead of "Valerie Plame wasn't covert" that they'd done in the past, they are basically not consistent in that defense when folks like Rove and Libby were out saying that "Plame is now fair game" to reporters. A real responsible president (and surrounding administration) that might have made a monumental mistake and realized it afterward (if that was what it really was), would have reclassified this document, or at least the portion of it containing Valerie Plame's info and noted that to reporters who they'd given it to. They wouldn't be trying to further release it. After all, they've already done reclassification of documents when Ashcroft reclassified documents that Sibel Edmonds was trying to talk about when it served their purposes. So they can't be excused for not at least trying to "clean up" this release of information and claim innocence of not knowing they released sensitive information initially.

[Sgent]

50. Some thoughts

First off, I don't know why you are quoting executive orders -- they don't apply to a sitting President, only to his subordinates (in as much as he doesn't give them leave to ignore them).

The law is a bit more troubling. However, the President could argue in court that:

1) The consititution doesn't give the power to congress to prevent him from performing what he believes is in the best interest of national security.

2) He just authorized the entire world to have access to the information he disclosed -- as per Sec 601.

That being said, this could be impeachable politically, but I doubt any court would find him guilty.

Additionally, his spying on US citizens is different -- since the 1st & 4th ammendments modify the extent of his national defense powers since they replace any portion of the consititution that proceeds them.

[carolinalady]

52. I do not see how he can argue that leaking that info was in the

interest of national security since he disclosed it after he had started the war in Iraq. I could see (maybe) if he authorized it for the purpose of obtaining permission to go into Iraq to protect our "national security". As far as that executive order goes-it does apply to the President, in fact, a fair amount outlines the presidents classification authority.

[Sgent]

53. Executive Orders

can be recinded at any time by the president -- for any reason. It doesn't have to be formally done, merely a verbal command is sufficient to ignore an ex. order.

There is no such thing as an executive order in the constitution -- it is merely implementing regulations which are issued by a president. Any president can change or ignore them anytime he pleases.

[carolinalady]

56. True-BUT he did not rescind this order AND he can not violate

the national security act which he noted in his own order. An aside-he would really be in a pickle if he tried to claim that he rescinded the order since Dead Eye boldly told the Sheeples that he is allowed to declassify orders and he based that on the revisions * made to this order.

[On the Road]

103. If the Executive Order Continued to be Practiced and Enforced

afterwards, it would show that it was not rescinded.

But I agree that violating the statute is the stronger case.

[WiseButAngrySara]

51. Excellent post! Thanks! K & R & Bookmarked! ....n/t

[sellitman]

54. K & R

[Mugsy]

57. Sweet Karma if W is prosecuted under Dad's own law.

It would be just too sweet if W was prosecuted under his fathers own "Intellligence Securities Act".

:evilgrin:

[progressoid]

58. Facts facts facts. Laws laws laws. Blah blah blah.

Excellent post! :)

[Kablooie]

59. Bush *IS* authorized to reveal a covert agent!

He's authorized to break any law he wishes. This is just one more law
he's authorized to break.

Nothing wrong here, move along.

Damn it.

[Garbo 2004]

60. Good, but Libby didn't say Bush authorized disclosure of Plame's identity.

Just something people should remember since some people are making claims about Libby's testimony that are simply not supported by a reading of the actual source document (Fitz's court filing).

[Kablooie]

61. Ah. You didn't read it all....

quote:

Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8
(discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant
that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose
certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with
reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material
that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further
testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the
press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding
the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on
the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to
provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr.
Wilson.

[Garbo 2004]

62. Did you read also where Libby testified that he couldn't have leaked Plame

identity to Miller on July 8 because he didn't know (or forgot that he knew) Plame's identity? That was Libby's testimony. Libby didn't testify that he was authorized to leak Plame info because at the same time he was denying not only that he leaked the info but that he even knew it.

In fact of course he not only discussed Wilson's wife with Judy Miller on July 8 but also on June 23, a meeting he didn't disclose to the grand jury. But it is a distortion of his testimony as noted in the filing to claim that Libby testified that Bush authorized the disclosure of Plame's CIA identity. He didn't.

Also see pg 27 where Fitz writes that in Sept 2003, when Libby was begging the WH to have Scottie publicly "clear" him from involvement in the Plame leak, Bush was unaware of Libby's role in disclosing Plame's CIA employment.

[Igel]

109. That's all well and good,

but the relevance isn't obvious. It's inferred. Not even implied.

People have either (a) misconstrued how quantification works, and landed in a fallacy; or (b) assumed the NIE said something that it's not been shown to say. Or they've done both. Then they've taken their faulty reasoning as valid.

The argument assumed to be true by many has holes in it; assertions don't close the holes, and the logic that's been offered skirts the holes.

[autorank]

64. Outstanding post. Thanks. One point, one question.

From Executive Order 13292

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) restrain competition; or

(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security

This is a clear piece of writing. "In no case" means "never" to those of us outside the beltway. What can you "never" do? "Conceal violations of law...error" makes me think of violation of law in the pursuit of the war and selectively leaking information to justify the war. * probably released the nuke-scare material from the intelligence group he and Rummy created. Regardless of the source in his intelligence, he "classified" it to conceal his violations of law and also to mask his "administrative error" -- he put together a war based on bullshit and then hid it. Not only did he release classified information, it never should have been classified in the first place. (Since the AG is involved, it's another opportunity to see Gonzalez shine;)

Now for my question. "Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, "...alright, what does this act say about releasing nuclear intelligence gathered about a foreign country relating to our security. If there's clear language prohibiting this, then the language "nothing ... shall supersede" in this order. Did they follow the appropriate procedure to declassify the information? How would that work if the material should never have been classified in the first place?

Thank you again for a great post.

[EVDebs]

73. Lives of intel agents beside Plame are still at stake here...

all she associated with. Bush outted more than just Ms. Plame/ Ms. Wilson !

[autorank]

86. You are correct. I think some facts on that will surface the next time

* screws around with the prosecution. I'm fully convinced that Fitz is playing chess and the WH semi-pro hockey. Their strategy and tactics are weak. It's an ENDGAME now and, intuitively (like a Shark intuits), they know they're done for. They just can't stop themselves.

Lies, lies, lies...all the * lies are coming back in the form of previously video taped statements.

What a pathetic site he is...he'll fire any leaker; then he'll fire anyone "convicted of breaking the law." Guess Gonzo got to him and said, "Lay off numb nuts, you'll have to fire yourself."

It's the Grand Guignol of American politics, the one chance we have to clear the decks and focus on saving the damn planet (Gore was so right so long ago!).

...and, when Bush goes all of his judges go to because WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THE FINAL CASE FOR ELECTION FRAUD 2004!!!

[EVDebs]

93. What was the name of the company Bush outted along with Plame/Wilson?

Why did R's think that operation was 'expendible' ?

[autorank]

102. I don't think it was the R's who thought that, it was the Neocons...

Brewster Jennings & Associates was the company, in Boston. Nice work *.

He just had to get even so he trashed our WMD investigation. If there's a motive beyond his obvious dysfunction it's probably found in who Plame would have outed ... i.e., a domestic US company with Neocon ties. Oh no, say it's not so Champ! Afraid it probably is. I've found that thinking the worst of this administration really pays off.

Cheers

[donkeyotay]

95. We should remember the context of the time in which this was done

I don't have the details, but there was a leak that got the administration all up in arms. One result was that congress had additional procedures for being able to view the classified version of the NIE. If I recall, only a handful saw the contents of the classified version, yet this is apparently the same one the prez authorized Libby to leak.

It appears that the president used classification in order to conceal his false cause for war, or as autorank put it

he "classified" it to conceal his violations of law and also to mask his "administrative error" -- he put together a war based on bullshit and then hid it. Not only did he release classified information, it never should have been classified in the first place.

[KAT119]

65. Thank you, carolina lady!! K&R!!!

[Patsy Stone]

66. Nope. He sure isn't.

K&R

[Trevelyan]

67. Can we impeach him/them yet?? When??? What is the procedure for the

Federal Marshalls to drag him out of OUR WHITE HOUSE which he stole?

I daydream about that day, when is it coming so I can get back to more interesting daydreams???

[wookie294]

68. David Ensor, reporter on CNN, said the same thing today

David Ensor made the point that it's legal for Bush to declassify info about Saddam's WMD program (which didn't exist), but that outing Valerie Wilson's name was illegal. I'm hoping today's news about declassifying info on Saddam's WMD and leaking it to the media will lead to discovering that Bush also authorized Libby to leak Valerie Wilson's name, an illegal act.

[Trevelyan]

69. K&R Booked marked and Thank you...

:applause: :applause: :yourock:

[kestrel91316]

70. This president doesn't need authorization or authority to do ANYTHING.

He has already made it clear he is above the law because we are "at war". He can do anything he wants, any time he wants, and nobody has any say whatsoever in it. Period.

Silly Americans, thinking We the People still run things...........

[EVDebs]

72. Undeclared war, untruthful circumstances under WarPowersActof'73

with the Iraq situation, and possibly with the terror attacks of 9-11 if you read David Ray Griffin's work. The 'as he determines' aspects of the AUMFs contradict the WPAof'73's requirement for Congress to be consulted on all aspects etc. Impossible for them to merely delegate THEIR constitutional authority to another 'officer', the President or the executive branch.

[kestrel91316]

96. Funny. I still don't see Congress trying to STOP him.

They have, by their inaction, made him a dictator with TOTAL control. They have uterly failed in their responsibility to protect the Constitution and the US.

[EVDebs]

104. Congress totally under Republican control...don't forget this fact.

Dems can only make noise; they have no power to prevent any course this "ship of fools" wants to set sail on.

[fedupwithbush]

71. Thank YOU!

I was so excited when I read this story today after work. I was waiting to hear about a President(excuse the capitalization) outing a NOC. No one talked about that part. And I have NO doubt that Libby read about Plame in those pages. Bush authorized him to release what he wanted to plug up his holes in the WMD and Joe Wilson's story. Joe's wife wasn't important. I doubt these embeciles even gave her NOC status a second thought.

I'm sick about a lot of us being right in what we thought happened. It's always a shock when your nightmares come true. Bush and Cheney and everyone connected to them are a nightmare.

Now, will this stop them from bombing Iran? I hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And please let saner and more intelligent minds take over our government. Not just Repuglicans but a lot of DEMOCRATS TOO!!!!!!!!

If the Democrats don't get all over this, I'm now an Independent. No more laying down and kissing ass. I want some ass kicked!!!!!!!!!!

[Octafish]

74. Bush is a traitor.

Sneer, too.

And Condescenda.

And Frist.

And DeLay.

And Hastert.

And Scalia.

And the rest who support this crooked regime.

CHIMPEACH THEM ALL!

[chill_wind]

77. 23 Officials

23 Administration Officials Involved In Plame Leak

"The cast of administration characters with known connections to the outing of an undercover CIA agent":


http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal

Which brings me to a recollection and an ultimate point about all the day's media's painstaking parsing (ie CNN) and dissecting and effort to separate and sanitize the story by stipulating over and over the leak story today was about the NIE vs the Plame name leak:

Air Force One and the classified State Department Memo.

How quickly they've "forgotten" THAT piece of classified info, even though half of the media up to its neck in this was probably on that plane, as well. And how more naive than ever, it seems, that we should be expected to believe B*sh didn't know what was being circulated and phoned home under his nose. Bah.

[chill_wind]

78. PS carolinalady-- thank you for an excellent post and bookmark

Your journal will be superb.

[Octafish]

99. Plame Affair Makes Clear: The USA is run by TRAITORS

In government, business and the press.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4200507

BTW: A hearty welcome to DU, chill_wind. I like the cut of your jib.

[chill_wind]

107. Thankyou Octafish.

If I could make up my own questions for the WH briefing press gaggle as it relates to all this, one of the Q's at the very top of my list would be to have the WH account for their complete and total lack of curiosity in the genesis of the Niger Forgeries.

Especially, I'd like them to describe the extent and the resolve of the FBI to investigate Rocco Martino. (Talking Points Memo and The Leftcoaster did some intense coverage of this "mystery" over time).

Ah but that's all just so yesterday....

[keopeli]

76. This Is the Law That Bush Broke

Someone went to the trouble to spell it out for us all. I just love DU!

link to DU thread

link to the law

[Imagevision]

79. discloses information that identifies an individual as a covert agent

to any individual not authorized to receive classified information.

Bush: “If There Is A Leak Out Of My Administration, I Want To Know Who It Is. And If The Person Has Violated Law, The Person Will Be Taken Care Of”... <9/30/03>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[Up2Late]

80. Bookmarked for later reference

Thanks

[Clarkie1]

81. But there is no evidence * did declassify a covert agent.

"The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose 2003 exposure triggered an investigation that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby."

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

[Nothing Without Hope]

83. The Friday NYT says Libby did NOT claim Bush or Cheney authorized

the leak of Plame's ID, "only" of selected portions of the NIE - thus the NYT claims the earlier report is false. The page with the NYT article also has a link to a video of one of the authors (Sanger) talking about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/washington/07leak.html?ei=5094&en=98d2386b13fe4dd0&hp=&ex=1144468800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

Cheney's Aide Says President Approved Leak

By DAVID JOHNSTON and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: April 7, 2006

WASHINGTON, April 6 — Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff testified that he was authorized by President Bush, through Mr. Cheney, in July 2003 to disclose key parts of what until then was a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq, according to a new court filing.

The testimony by the former official, I. Lewis Libby Jr., cited in a court filing by the government made late Wednesday, provides an indication that Mr. Bush, who has long criticized leaks of secret information as a threat to national security, may have played a direct role in authorizing disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq.

(snip)

The president has the authority to declassify information, and Mr. Libby indicated in his testimony that he believed Mr. Bush's instructions — which prosecutors said Mr. Libby regarded as "unique in his recollection" — gave him legal cover to talk with a reporter about the intelligence.

(snip)

Mr. Libby did not assert in his testimony to a grand jury, first reported on the Web site of The New York Sun, that Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney had authorized him to reveal the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Libby is scheduled to go on trial next year on perjury and obstruction charges connected to the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name.

(snip)

Also note the blanket statement that the President has the authority to declassify secret information - which the current thread says is not true when it extends to certain areas such as outing covert agents. Close reading on this point - the exact nature of what Libby said he was "authorized" to reveal - is important. Here is a thread with links to pdfs of the documents:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x860418
thread title (4-6-06): LINKS for all 3 PDF COURT DOCS from FIBBY'S 04/05/06 filing(s) - HERE!!!
(The NYT only links to one court filing document: http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/uslibby40506grsp.html)

[orleans]

84. if this declassifying was legit then why did scooter

tell judy miller to refer to him (in her article) as a former capitol hill staffer?

because he knew there was something wrong about all this--THEY ALL KNEW!

[autorank]

87. Right on target orleans. The guilty always have a "tell" ... shows when

they lie. I think Libby's tell is that head cocked back just a little bit...some sort of Picasso thing he's got going ... he's a cubist liar;)

They're all going down and since they stole the election, they can take their damn judges with them.

[Ganja Ninja]

88. Once again the media is framing the issue all wrong.

Note how every story in the MSM is making sure we all know that "Bush has the authority to release classified intelligence". Now the debate becomes whether it's legal for Bush to reveal the name of a CIA agent or not. It's a trap people. Lets not bite on this weenie.

The real issue is not the legality but the reason. What purpose does it serve? How does it further the safety and security of the American people by outing a covert CIA agent and exposing their entire network? Why is an act that could be defined as treason necessary?

[magellan]

90. Exactly! Don't lose sight of the ball.

What was Bush**'s purpose in passing information to the media about Ambassador Wilson's wife? If it wasn't to punish Wilson and undermine his credibility re the fraud of their Saddam/Niger yellowcake evidence, then what was the point? How is naming Valerie Plame relevant to our national security?

Moreover, why didn't Bush** just come right out and say he declassified the information? Why all the huffing and puffing, "Anyone who leaks classified information will be fired"? Why let it progress to a fullblown investigation?

BushCo and their supporters are doing nothing but muddying the waters, hoping no one will recall the chronology of events and their evasion tactics. Because if you do remember -- if you can ignore the reeking crap they throw and apply a little logic -- then the conclusion is unambiguous: Bush** is a LEAKER and LIAR in CHIEF.

[Pacifist Patriot]

91. Yes! Thank you.

The lack of "why" questions is bugging the daylights out of me.

[glitch]

92. This post deserves it's own thread. nt

[Vinca]

89. In an honest government, all this might make a difference.

In the Kingdom of Shrub, if he happened to have broken a law his minions will rescind it retroactively.

[KyndCulture]

100. true statement.... nt

[leveymg]

94. Bush lied to Fitz. Declassification isn't the issue, now.

I've been trying to remind people not to get sidetracked into peripheral issues dealing with declassification. The case that Fitz has against Bush is actually much simpler than that. It all comes down to a single lie. All the rest about IAIPA and declassification authority is prone to obfuscation and spin by the wingnutters.

When dealing with communications with the opposition about potentially complex legal subjects, observe the KISS Principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

If we want to talk about the technicalities fine. They're a fascinating subject for analysis and discussion, and need to be understood. But, let's keep the public message on point. May I humbly suggest that the following is the core meaning and message about Bush's role in Plamegate. Obstruction of Justice is the crime for which Fitz could name Bush as an unindicted co-conspirator:

Even the President Can't Lie to a U.S. Attorney
by leveymg
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/6/15595/11171
Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:59:05 PM PDT

Bush's apologists still seem to think this is about the President's power to declassify. That's not the issue here. It's about a lie.

Some months ago, the President talked to Fitz about the Plame case. Bush said he didn't know about the efforts of his underlings to discredit Wilson. We now learn that Dubya ordered his men to leak classified CIA documents to do just that. That's called Obstruction of Justice.

Even a Freeper can understand that.

Case closed.

leveymg's diary :: ::

Libby has implicated Bush in the conspiracy to out Plame. But, the case is actually much simpler than even that. Dubya is going down, and there's no arguing legal niceties or Unitary Executive theory about it.

He lied to a federal prosecutor investigating a criminal case.

MORE . . .


_______________________________________________

BTW: For a technical discussion of the declassification issue, please see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/16/12759/5214 Bottom-line, the NIE leak to the press wasn't legal because the Agency Head didn't first approve declassification. While not consistent with law, this is NOT the issue that Fitz will nail Bush for. Here's the intro:

CHENEY HAD NO LEGAL POWER TO DECLASSIFY CIA DOCS
by leveymg
Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 09:07:59 AM PDT

Yesterday, Vice President Cheney claimed in a televised interview that he may on his own authority make public classified documents. This assertion comes in the wake of accusations made in Grand Jury testimony by Cheney's former Chief of Staff, I. Lewis Libby, that he was "authorized" by his "superiors" to release to Judy Miller and other reporters a classified CIA National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) related to Iraq WMDs issued the previous October.

The Vice President is quoted by AP as stating during an interview on Fox News last night: "There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.'' See, AP, 02/16/2003, "Cheney Says He Has Power to Declassify Info" http://www.nytimes.com/....

Cheney has simply arrogated to himself powers that simply do not exist in any law, regulation, or presidential order.

MORE Below.

[young_at_heart]

101. Do Bush/Cheney care about laws, regulations or presidential order?

Cheney's objective from way back was to increase the president's power and with that in mind, they will simply "dismiss" this and move on to other things. One can only hope that members of Congress will be pushed over the edge finally, in regard to "presidential powers.

[twaddler01]

105. funny, i read an article saying

that what Bush did was legal...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-legal7apr07,1,1919280.story?coll=la-news-a_section

[Ksec]

106. The games up . The pres clearly broke the law

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.

[onenote]

108. who did the pres disclose Plame to that wasn't authorized?

I'm guessing Libby has a sufficiently high security clearance. So I'm having trouble figuring out how chimpy falls under this provision?