ABC Analysis: 'Leakgate' or Just a Sideshow?

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1813491&page=1

'Leakgate' or Just a Sideshow?Libby Says Bush OK'd Leak of Iraq Intelligence; Unclear Whether President Broke Law

By JOHN COCHRAN

April 6, 2006 — Official Washington is scratching its collective head, trying to determine whether papers filed in federal court that were made public today drop a bombshell, pose a danger to the Bush presidency, or are just a sideshow in former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's legal troubles.

...

A little history is in order. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson claimed the authority to establish a classification system. In 1951, during the Korean War, President Harry Truman claimed in an executive order that the Constitution gave him the authority to set up a new method for protecting sensitive information connected to national security.

...

So, barring a court challenge, it appears that both Bush and Cheney have the power to say what is and is not classified.

So, if President Bush did not do anything illegal by giving Scooter Libby the green light, is the White House off the hook?

Not necessarily. Libby's claim could still cause political damage to a president who has spoken out strongly against leaks.

[OzarkDem]

1. Its not the crime, its the cover up

That's what will get them in the end - trying to hide and lie about their actions.

[Dr Fate]

3. In the '90s, the same media swore up & down that "lying" is impeachable

n/t

[debbierlus]

5. Exactly!

They LIED and LIED and LIED...

Already pages of their own words all over the internet (and some on the GASP MSM)...

[Dr Fate]

2. Lying is an impeachable offense: Crimes & Misdemeanors

He said he knew nothing about it-which was a lie- so, he broke the law, according to the GOP & media's own Clinton era standards.

[DBoon]

4. l'etat, c'est moi!

Said Louis VIX.

A later French monarch found out otherwise.

So might this gang.

[Gabi Hayes]

9. ha

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=779500

[niyad]

6. if it was a democratic, would they be "scratching their heads" and

wondering? NO, of course NOT, because they would have already hauled out the pitchforks and the tar. can this fawning, slavering, cult-like devotion to der chimpenfuhrer be any more obvious?

[lovuian]

7. Scooter smiling

[RufusEarl]

8. Giving out classified information is one thing,

and Bu$h can get around that one. But outing a CIA agent is against the law, and is not he same thing as giving out classified information.

[melissinha]

10. they undermined the CIA operation most of all....

But undermining her entire team and operation which are of national importance, not to mention the safety and security of the CIA operatives....

Sure I think the cover-up is really indicative of the corruption of the administration, the unwillingness of Congress to uphold its oversight responsibilities.... but we really need to beat down the purpose and scope of Plame's work that was undermined....

Let me repeat: No number of "the President had the authority to declassify documents" arguments can refute the fact that her operation was undermined, her team was left vulnerable.

[liberalnurse]

13. Bush Sr. set-up and signed the law

for outing a deep cover agent.

[NYC]

11. Bush, himself, said it was criminal at the time.

chill_wind Donating Member (132 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr-06-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. James E. Sharp - John Dean 2004- in Findlaw

Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 01:53 PM by chill_wind
on the significance of private counsel:


(....)

This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development. The President of the United States is potentially hiring a private criminal defense lawyer. Unsurprisingly, the White House is doing all it can to bury the story, providing precious little detail or context for the President's action.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush explained his action by saying, "This is a criminal matter. It's a serious matter," but he gave no further specifics. White House officials, too, would not say exactly what prompted Bush to seek the outside advice, or whether he had been asked to appear before the grand jury.

Nonetheless, Bush's action, in itself, says a great deal. In this column, I will analyze what its implications may be.

(....)


analysis at: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=860958&mesg_id=861438

[Atman]

12. Those incidents cited are lacking...

"During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson claimed the authority to establish a classification system. In 1951, during the Korean War, President Harry Truman claimed in an executive order that the Constitution gave him the authority to set up a new method for protecting sensitive information connected to national security."

Yeah? So what was the outcome? What was the final determination by the courts, congress, whatever?

During a vernal eclipse, the President can CLAIM the right to ship Democrats off to Mars, but that does't mean his claim would be upheld. Did anyone uphold the president's claim to being a direct decendant of God himself? Inquiring minds want to know!