Even is W. is not guilty, he has to answer WHY he authorized the leak.

[skip fox]

And he has to explain just HOW this authorization was not politically expedient but part of the poeple's business.

I mean, perhaps he can persuade the public that he has the authority of diclassifing by autorizing this type of leak, and even if he did not mislead the prosecutor during Fitzgerald's interview with him (even though his refusal of being sworn in and hiring an attorney imply a guilty conscience), he still has major questions to answer:

Why did you declassify?
Was it not political?
How was it part of your duties?
How was it part of the poeple's business?

I know, these questions fall into the political, not the legal, realm, but we should consider all the possibilities.

[niyad]

1. hasn't he said he doesn't have to answer to anybody for anything?

[electropop]

2. The political realm is actually the more important one.

Doesn't matter whether he was under oath with Fitz. He lied on TV, to our faces, repeatedly. Remember, impeachment is a political matter, not a legal matter. The standards of evidence are based on emotion, not technicalities, in an impeachment.

[Chiyo-chichi]

3. I hope that the WH press corps will not let up until he answers those ?s

[NYC]

4. And why did he not admit it immediately?

If it was an acceptable thing to do, why did he hide it for all this time?

Edit: And why didn't he tell Libby it was okay to admit everything, if it was so legal? Why put Libby in the position where he is being prosecuted, and had to resign?

[skip fox]

7. NYC. I like the way you think. Of course, these are great questions.

:)

[NYC]

11. We want answers!

Where's Helen Thomas? :)

[skip fox]

5. To be ready, we would do well to imagine what he will answer.

One guess:

I authorized the leak, thereby legally declassifying the information, but I only meant they could release information about the tubes. Bringing Plame's name into it was not my intention, but probably a mistake that Scooter made, thinking that I meant to to release everything.


How might we respond??

[Beetwasher]

6. Actually, The Important Thing That He MUST Explain Is WHY HE LIED TO THE

FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. That's the crime. Not the leak, the lying to the Feds:


"According to four attorneys who over the past two days have read a transcript of the President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Rather, these people said the president said he frowned upon "selective leaks."

Bush also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters."

[skip fox]

9. That's assuming he did. I assume so as well, but remember, he hired

a private attorney. Perhaps he just said, "On the advice of my attorney, I refuse to answer that question" repeatedly. That's what I'm afraid of.

[Disturbed]

12. The President is NOT authorized

The President is NOT authorized

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-securi...

[eleny]

8. And why the hell didn't they inform Ms. Plamme?

It's only her - LIFE!

[NYC]

13. The lives of others as well.

Anyone who associated with her is now "suspect" for having associated with her. How many of those people may have been killed for this? How many were deemed spies because they associated with her even in an innocent (non-spying) capacity? How many people who worked for her front company, Brewster Jennings, were put at risk? Perhaps an innocent cleaning lady at Brewster Jennings was interrogated or killed.

Also, our lives. She was investigating weapons of mass destruction. Bush and friends have told us repeatedly what a serious threat WMD are to us, American citizens. The very possibility or unproven suspicion of them was enough to invade a distant country, and inflict upon them Shock and Awe.

[eleny]

20. I'm on a crusade with this issue

Thanks for replying! :hi:

[NYC]

22. Don't let it get swept under the rug.

If it was so legal, why didn't he speak up to keep Libby from losing his job, committing perjury, and obstructing justice? Pretty hard to explain, don't you agree?

[Ksec]

10. It was classified. He leaked classified info.

If he declassified it would have to be in an official capacity, lets see it chimp/

[saracat]

14. What do you mean"even if he is not guilty" ?

Of course he is guilty. There is no but about it. He does NOT have the authority to out a covert operative!

[skip fox]

17. I hope you're right, but just saying it's so doesn't make it in court,

much less even get it into court.

[Neil Lisst]

15. Good point. He's still lied for two years about his role.

[Garbo 2004]

16. Bush'll claim he did it in the interests of national security, of course.

You silly. ;)

That and "unitary executive power" and divine right. God told him to smite Wilson and he did. ;)

[debbierlus]

18. Fitz interviewed him in 2004

For 70s minutes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3668-2004Jun24.html

And, I am guessing he lied his pathetic little azz off.

Obstruction of justice at the very LEAST!

[skip fox]

19. But, emember, he'd hired a private attorney and refused to be interviewed

under oath. He could have said, "On the advice of my attorney I'm sorry but I can't answer" repeatedly coping his smug smile after each such response.

[robertpaulsen]

21. According to DU's carolinalady, he is most definitely guilty!

The President is NOT authorized to declassify a Covert Agent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x863042