I am sorry my work won't let me get to a news page so I could post it here. Some one else can since about every news service is running the story.
Do we trust Libby?
Do we ask the President to keep his word and dismiss from his staff anyone associated with this leak--ie himself. Oh, wait, he changed that to anyone prosecuted for it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Careful, Dan. There's no indication that the President authorized the leak of Plame's identity.
And, of course, the President has the authority to declassify anything.
quote:WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
That's the problem with not being able to get to a news site. All I have to go with are the headlines.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, the text of the executive order allowing the president (and amended by Bush to include VPs) I believe states that it does not apply to such cases as providing the identity of an undercover agent to the public.
At the very least, they tacitly allowed him to provide this sort of information, even if he wasn't provided it directly, and even if they would not have allowed him to divulge this specific information. They may be following the letter of the law, but for a spiritual man, I'd prefer if he followed its spirit more closely too.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, the text of the executive order allowing the president (and amended by Bush to include VPs) I believe states that it does not apply to such cases as providing the identity of an undercover agent to the public.
Yeah, but the President's executive orders are not likely to bind him legally. A presidential order contrary to an existing executive order can be seen as simply making a single exception to the existing order. This is similar to how a new law by Congress, by definition, cannot violate an older law by Congress.
BTW, Libby's testimony about what Cheney said to him about what Bush said cannot be introduced as evidence that Bush authorized it. Obviously we have no such restrictions in what we consider.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, does that mean that the president can essentially do anything? And any deviation from an executive order is just an exception, no matter how often the EO is excepted?
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, does that mean that the president can essentially do anything?
No - there are many things that constrain a president's actions other than an executive order.
quote: And any deviation from an executive order is just an exception, no matter how often the EO is excepted?
Any deviation expressly authorized by the President. This assumes that the order making the exception isn't blocked by some other restriction on the executive power such as an act of Congress or the Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So it sounds like although the President didn't specifically authorize leaking Plume's name, he did authorize putting Libby to leak information, leading to a situation in which Libby apparently thought he should leak the name.
It sounds a bit like how Rumsfeld didnt' specifically authorize torture in Iraq, but did authorize setting up a system in which torture seemed acceptable to some soldiers running that system.
I don't think these things break laws, but I do think we should expect our leaders to be a great deal more careful to avoid setting up situations in which subordinates think it is okay to break laws. Setting up a "culture of corruption" does indirectly lead to corruption.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So it sounds like although the President didn't specifically authorize leaking Plume's name, he did authorize putting Libby to leak information, leading to a situation in which Libby apparently thought he should leak the name.
Well, it sounds like a defendant in a criminal trial has hinted that this is might have happened.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
IF the NewYorkSun's story is correct, Libby testified that Cheney told Libby that the President had authorized the disclosure. Even if Libby's testimony were true, that does not mean that Cheney was telling the truth about Dubya's involvement.
The big IF because grand jury testimony is supposed to be kept secret. Which means that the DubyaAdministration will go after the NewYorkSun to find the leakers of that testimony: just as they have every time that a leak discloses criminal behaviour by the DubyaAdministration.
[ April 07, 2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It might not be illegal, but it certainly sounds irresponsible on the surface, and highly hypocritical coming from a President who claimed he was the guy to trust on security and safety and not the Democrats, and especially when he claimed he had nothing to do with it, and vowed to bring those responsible to justice.
I say again, it looks that way on the surface, but I await more information before officially going on record as tearing him a new one. Still, he's lost so much trust with a lot of the people of this country that I think more people than not will see this as entirely plausible and will be very ready to believe it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Grand Jury testimony IS supposed to be secret, but it depends on who did the leaking. If, say one of the jurors in the grand jury told a reporter, and that reporter told the world, it wouldn't be the reporter who got in trouble, it'd be the juror. At that point the reporter isn't bound or criminally liable. As I understand it, and as explained by Emily Procter on an early episode of The West Wing.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, but the reporter would be required to point out the leaker or face indefinite detention for contempt of court. And no, that isn't the way I think it should be. But it is the way the courts have been ruling: eg JudithMiller's jailing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which means that the DubyaAdministration will go after the NewYorkSun to find the leakers of that testimony: just as they have every time that a leak discloses criminal behaviour by the DubyaAdministration.
The witness in a grand jury can speak of his testimony. That is not illegal.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Bush: (Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03) Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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.
And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
quote: From the released documents: "Defendant's participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occured 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.
...
As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occcasion because it was thought that the NIE was "pretty definitive" against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was "very important" for the key judgements of the NIE to come out.
...
Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. [These untrue claims are what Wilson's cable refuted.]
...
In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that attribution of his remarks be changed to 'former Hill staffer." Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson. Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium. Later during the discussion about Wilson and the NIE, defendant advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Indict., Count One, P. 17.
Keep in mind that both Bush and Cheney have testified about this matter. It is unknown what their testimony was, however. The purpose of Libby's disclosure was to discredit Ambassador Wilson's statements on Iraq's nuclear intentions. Wilson had criticised US pre-war intelligence in the matter in public statements. (The documents the Administration relied on in claiming that Iraq had sought "yellow cake" uranium from Nigeria were later found to be forgeries.)
quote:truthout.com: Fitzgerald said the evidence he has obtained proves there was a coordinated effort by White House officials to discredit Wilson.
"There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003.
Although Fitzgerald makes it abundantly clear that Libby is not charged with conspiracy, he argues that Libby's suggestion that no there was no White House plot to discredit Wilson is ludicrous given the amount of evidence Fitzgerald has in his possession that suggests otherwise.
Also:
quote: A footnote in the court filing states that [NSA Security Adviser] Stephen Hadley was intimately involved in conversations and meetings that took place at Cheney's office where White House officials discussed how to respond to Wilson's statements about the administration's use of bogus intelligence that purportedly proved Iraq actively sought 500 tons of uranium from Niger.
and
quote:"The President had vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information. In that context, defendant proceeded to tell the FBI that he had merely passed information from one reporter (Russert) to other reporters while disclaiming any knowledge of whether the information he passed was true, and certainly unaware that he knew this classified information from government channels," the filing says. "Once that die was cast, defendant repeated the story in a subsequent interview and during two grand jury appearances.
Libby could be lying (no authorization), Cheney could be lying (Bush didn't give auth.), or Bush could be lying (vowing to fire any leaker when he himself authorized it). There are no other possibilities, unless more than one of them is lying.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well according the WhiteHouse, if Dubya authorized the leak, there was no leak. Hence there could be no leaker, and therefore Dubya wasn't lying.
quote:The White House refused to comment directly on the court filing, except to point out that Bush's very decision to disclose classified information means he declassified it... A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done...
Interesting that the WhiteHouse response went out of its way to avoid a direct Yes or No answer as to whether Dubya authorized the Plame leak, and went out of its way to point out that that such a leak is legal*. Given that response, is it safe to presume that the "senior administration official...comment"ing on this "active investigation" was given authorization by Dubya to ignore the "White House policy prohibit"ing "comment on an active investigation"?
* Which is rather interesting in and of itself. 1) Is there a paperwork trail declassifying Plame's status as a CIA operative, before the Plame revelation was actually made as there would be for other declassifications? Or is legality merely a convenient excuse thought up when the coverup began unraveling? 2) Was due consideration given that not only was Plame being burned, but all of the CIA's foreign sources who had been in contact with Plame? And that those who hadn't would likely reevaluate their openness with other possible USintelligence agents? 3) Given that the WhiteHouse has publicly announced that it is okay for the President, merely for the purpose of engaging in domestic political chicanery, to burn foreigners who aid the US, doesn't such a policy of deliberate breach of trust make it more difficult for foreigners friendly toward US interests to make the decision to actually aid the US? 4) By making it more difficult for foreign friends to trust the USgovernment, hasn't the WhiteHouse given aid to less-than-friendly governments and terrorists who wish to penetrate the security that the USintelligence services provide?
[ April 07, 2006, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That first quote smacks of saying:
"The President did not break the law since the very act of J-walking across the street automatically makes an exception to the law governing J-walking on that street."
In other words, it doesn't seem fair that the president gets to have changed the rules by default of breaking them, especially if he doesn't do it intentionally. I dunno, I'm not up on this story, I just hate Dubya.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That part is probably legal*, necessarily so. Though in this case -- if Dubya did authorize the leak -- there is a vast gulf between legal and honest.
And what is it with WhiteHouse-appointed prosecutor Fitzgerald seeking to block Libby's lawyers from obtaining a subpoena for Administration documents which Libby claims would exhonerate him? Have Dubya and Cheney already admitted to Fitzgerald that they authorized the leak then lied to the public, thereby absolving themselves from legal prosecution? Is Libby being prosecuted solely for perjuring himself in an attempt to coverup the authorization by his superiors?
* However it is illegal to report a crime (in this case, Dubya appointing a prosecutor to investigate an illegal leak) when it is known that there was no crime (which would be the case if Dubya had authorized the Plame leak). Moreover, it would also mean that WhiteHouse officials perjured themselves (through Fitzgerald) before the Court by claiming that a crime had been committed in order to obtain search warrants and subpoenas. In the case of eg JudithMiller's refusal to testify, there would be the further crime of false imprisonment under the color of authority, again through perjury committed upon the Court.
[ April 07, 2006, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, IS this is true, what is your view on it? Not the legality, but the bull he said about a leak, and his statement abuot firing anyone involved in the leaking of this information...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That first quote smacks of saying:
"The President did not break the law since the very act of J-walking across the street automatically makes an exception to the law governing J-walking on that street."
No it doesn't. Does Congress break the law when it passes a new law that contradicts an old one? No. Executive orders are created by the President. Jay walking laws are not created by the person breaking it. The two hypos are not parallel in any way.
quote:* However it is illegal to report a crime (in this case, Dubya appointing a prosecutor to investigate an illegal leak) when it is known that there was no crime (which would be the case if Dubya had authorized the Plame leak).
Appointing someone to investigate is not "report[ing] a crime."
quote:Moreover, it would also mean that WhiteHouse officials perjured themselves (through Fitzgerald) before the Court by claiming that a crime had been committed in order to obtain search warrants and subpoenas.
Again, we don't know that he authorized the leak of Plame's identity. Authorizing some classified information to be released does not authorize all.
quote:In the case of eg JudithMiller's refusal to testify, there would be the further crime of false imprisonment under the color of authority, again through perjury committed upon the Court.
Now you're basically making stuff up.
quote:Dag, IS this is true, what is your view on it? Not the legality, but the bull he said about a leak, and his statement abuot firing anyone involved in the leaking of this information...
It all depends on whether he authorized the release of Plame's name or not.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: It all depends on whether he authorized the release of Plame's name or not.
I agree with Dag on this one. And since there's been a year and a half of investigation with thousands of hours of grand-jury testimony, and so far there hasn't even turned up ONE PIECE of evidence that Bush authorized the leak, I think its time to think that maybe, just MAYBE, the President actually isn't guilty of serious crimes in every Washington scandal that breaks. Maybe we should concentrate on trying to debate the myriad real problems the country faces, instead of desperately trying to convict the President of something that the Federal Prosecuter has yet to classify as an actual illegal "leak." But that would spoil all of the partisan fun, wouldn't it?
quote: I dunno, I'm not up on this story, I just hate Dubya.
This is the root of the problem. There are too many people in this country so blinded by their hatred of the President that they refuse to consider such trifles as "facts" and "evidence." It was true of the Clinton-hating dittohead crowd in the 1990s (of which I was once a member, but have since grown up) and is even more so today.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Brian: last I checked, this testimony by libby seems like it may be tied into a presidential leak authorization, we just don't know yet.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Yes, but "seems like it may be tied into" is a far cry from "the President definitely broke the law by seriously compromising the identity of a top-secret agent for purely political purposes," which is what I've been reading.
I agree that we don't know yet, and thus I've been loath to get into this issue for fear of prematurely speaking. But as a matter of opinion, I'm skeptical of the President's culbability in this particular issue, considerent that an investigation of this magnitude has turned up so little evidence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If it turns out he authorized the leak, after the statement he made on the subject, he should be censured, even if there's a technical legality. The current leak investigation is hardly a witchhunt of him, what's come out so far is a coincidental finding in the efforts to determine who was involved in Libby (and possibly others) leaking this.
I agree that those clamoring about the president definitely breaking the law need to rein in, but that's a far cry from saying this investigation needs to end. It has turned up considerable evidence on the topic it is set to investigate; after all, that's why Libby is testifying to grand juries.
Basically, I'm somewhat unclear as to what evidence you're complaining about not finding.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"Basically, I'm somewhat unclear as to what evidence you're complaining about not finding." How about the evidence that President Bush is guilty of compromising the identity of a covert agent? So far, and as was posted earlier by Dagonee, all we have is: "There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But that's not the purpose of the investigation (unless it turns out they did so, in which case it sort of is). The purpose of the investigation is to find out who was involved in the leak. It is methodically going about doing that. What's the problem? Are they supposed to not investigate potential leads that point to the President or VP?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Of course not; and if they find Bush or Cheney culpable of criminal intent, then they should suffer the consequences. My biggest complaint is the huge number of people who have already decided that Bush is a criminal based solely on the evidence that they "hate" him.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not sure exactly what volume of people are involved, but yes, that's problematic, as I stated before.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
You and I are in agreement, fugu.
In my opinion--backed up by no facts, but by personal experience--the volume of people who have already indicted, tried, and convicted Bush in their minds is pretty great, and indeed is a reflection of the sorry state our current system is in.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not too surprised. My only qualms were with your statements that might be construed as impugning the investigation itself.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
No particular problem with the investigation itself; just people's tendency to jump to conclusions and make irresponsible, libelous accusations for partisan purposes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Maybe we should concentrate on trying to debate the myriad real problems the country faces...
I have to confess, Brian, that I laughed when I read this, because I recall your having been -- as you yourself mentioned -- a Clinton-hating dittohead not too many years ago. Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: But as a matter of opinion, I'm skeptical of the President's culbability in this particular issue, considerent that an investigation of this magnitude has turned up so little evidence.
Speaking purely in the hypothetical, IF the President had authorized the leak via Cheney and then Libby, how much evidence would there be? Only the conversation between the President and the Vice President, and the conversation between the VP and Libby. Libby seems to be saying that he was authorized to disclose the info. If the VP testifies otherwise, and the President does as well, regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not, then what Libby is saying is merely hearsay (hmm, maybe I should not use the term "hearsay" because I do not know the legalese use of this word very well) and not corroborated.
Very likely there is little or no evidence to find in any case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Maybe we should concentrate on trying to debate the myriad real problems the country faces...
There's two reasons that this investigation is happening. 1) Someone high up in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover agent to the press. In the opinion of the CIA (they were in fact the people who pushed for the investigation) this significantly comprised America's information gathering ability and was quite possibly in violation of the law. Even if it weren't technically illegal, without some pretty good justification, it was a terribly irresponsible thing to do, especially, as the administration constantly reminds us, because we are at war.
2) Instead of coming forward as saying "I was the one who did it.", whoever is directly responsible has opted to remain silent (and, consequentially working in the Bush administration). This whole thing could have been over months ago and at a much cheaper pricetag had this been done. I'm all for moving on. Just get this person to come forward, because that's what is keeping this an active issue. I won't even demand that they compensate the American people for all the money spent because they hadn't done so yet.
But then again, I consider a upper echelon member of the Executive branch hurting America's ability to gather information (and for what was quite possibly an attempt to punish a dissenter by going after his wife) to be a very important. I don't understand why it seems that other people aren't angry about this.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Oh, I still think Clinton was a horrible President, and I think lying about and trying to cover-up evidence in a sexual harassment lawsuit is a very serious offense--impeachable, that's debatible--but serious indeed. It's only my hatred of him that I've repented of
My beef is that right now there's a lot of people in this country getting their knickers in a knot over what the President may or may not have done, and being fueled by their hatred of him, they're accusing him of the worst sorts of crimes regardless of the evidence. I admit that it's easy to transfer your dislike of a person's potics to a dislike of the person himself--I myself was guilty of the same crime in the 90s.
But now that I've grown up (a little--I make no claims of maturity,) I realize that it's probably more effective debating the policies of a politician that you disagree with, not the person themself. This isn't to say that you shouldn't expect high standards of your elected leaders. If Bush is guilty of committing a crime for the sake of politics, then that is indeed reprehensible and should be punished accordingly. However, intense hatred of someone doesn't count as sufficient evidence to convict, and many people seem to have forgotten that.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
And that's, unfortunately, my last word on the subject till Monday, because I'm already way late for class and I have no internet at home.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But now that I've grown up (a little--I make no claims of maturity,) I realize that it's probably more effective debating the policies of a politician that you disagree with, not the person themself.
I hear this a lot. But, to be honest, most of the people I know who hate Bush hate him because of his policies.
I wind up having to have this conversation a lot, perhaps because some of the "ditto-heads" out there who hated Clinton did hate him personally and not as a consequence of any of his policies (which were, by and large, more conservative than Bush's). But in my experience, those liberals who "hate" Bush do so because they dislike his policy, not because they made the decision to loathe him for some personal reason.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:a lot of people in this country getting their knickers in a knot over what the President may or may not have done
Here's my problem with this idea. I believe that the President (and by extention those very high in the administration to whom he delegates his responsibility) needs to be held to a standard higher than "It's possible he didn't do it. You don't actually know that he did it."
I believe that it's incumbent on the President to earn the trust of the populace by acting in a consistently trustworthy manner. Obviously, I don't expect a President's term to be completely free of ambiguous situations, but I have major trouble with the thinking that "You have to trust me. I'm the President, so I should automatically have your trust." and "You can't definitively proove I did something wrong, so we should just move on."
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Dont'cha know? Since we're in a protracted time of WAR, the president can do whatever he wants. He can arrest people simply becuase they look funny (or looked funny at him), he can hold them indefinitely without due process, he can select the judge for the trials, and he can pass the judgement and sentence himself. He can also leak out any information he wants, wiretap anyone he wants, without telling anyone, ever. He can get the library to tell him what books you've been reading (while not telling you that he's been told).
Oh, and the "war" we're in? He started it, because he wanted to, and made up "pretend facts" (I wouldn't want to call them lies, of course) in an attempt to justify it.
But, while we're distracted by all of that, he's busy changing the rules of finance within the country, so that he and his supporters can vastly increase their wealth, while the "rest" of us (and our children, and their children, and so on, and so on) will be paying for it now, and for generations to come.
At least I'm not bitter about any of it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Suppose, Dagonee, that a coffee shop owner goes in one night after closing and grabs all the cash out of the till: perfectly legal. The morning manager notices that the cash is missing, and calls the police and the owner. The police speak to the owner, who makes no admission of knowing the whereabouts of the missing cash while endorsing his morning manager's burglary report. Is that not filing a false police report? Is that not the equivalent of what occurred IF Dubya had authorized the leak?
Actually, the shakier part was "WhiteHouse officials perjured themselves (through Fitzgerald)" because using lawyers to mislead the Court is legal under the US judicial system; ie is not perjury. It is perfectly legal for a lawyer to know that his client is guilty yet challenge the validity of the evidence-gathering processes and of the application of the legal process to prevent a conviction. It would take a rather deliberate&provable conspiracy between the client and lawyer to present known-to-be-false evidence to the Court before a misleading representation became perjury. So IF Dubya had authorized the leak: as long as Fitzgerald remained uninformed of that authorization, no such conspiracy existed and no perjury occurred.
And IF Dubya had authorized the leak: since the President used his power to hire the independent prosecutor and has the power to fire Fitzgerald, then Dubya knowingly used Fitzgerald as an agent to falsely imprison JudithMiller for a crime which never occurred.
But as I have kept emphasizing, 'if Dubya had authorized the leak' is a big IF.
[ April 07, 2006, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And, just a like a good little Democrat, Boothby shoots himself in the foot. I wouldn't mind so much, except I get hit with some of the shrapnel.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I hear this a lot. But, to be honest, most of the people I know who hate Bush hate him because of his policies.
Which I don't understand. If you think the president has bad policies, oppose the policies. I don't see why that should require hating the person too.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
...and how do I shoot myself in the foot?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pretty much by defintion. What you posted there makes your goals harder rather than easier to achieve. You make yourself and your issues dismissible by those who disagree with you, influence moderates to at least consider the idea that the "They're doing this because they hate Bush." idea may be correct, and embarrass and annoy less emotionally explosive confirmed opponents of the President such as myself.
To me, what's worse is that I see important, well-founded, and focused criticisms are for the most part being drowned out by the volume (both in terms of loudness and amount) of stuff like this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't see why that should require hating the person too.
Neither do I, to be honest. But many people apparently believe that you can judge a man's character by his policy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll be honest, I dislike President Bush based on his displayed character as well as disagreeing with many of his policies. This may not be an accurate impression of the real man, but from what I know and have seen of him, he reminds me quite strongly of the rich History or Business majors I went to college with who were secure that whatever happened, daddy would get them a job.
I don't bear him ill-will because of this, but this is a contributing factor as to why I find him terrifically unsuited for the Presidency.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
What are people supposed to use to judge a man's character other than his actions? Or a politician's other than his policies? Finding persons to be unsuitable for certain kinds of trust isn't the same as hating them. I admit to having friends that I consider to be untrustworthy (at least under certain circumstances), yet I still find their company to be pleasant/exciting/amusing/etc.
[ April 07, 2006, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, on this issue, I think the picture that we're getting is that it's likely that the President told the Vice-President to authorize leaking Valerie Plame's CIA status. According to people who seem to know, this would not be illegal because of the President's powers to declassify things.
However, assuming that this is true, does this really matter? I mean, even leaving aside the two years of evasion and mendacity on the President and his administration's part, I don't get how this being technically legal makes it at all okay. According to this, the President could decide to tell say Osama bin Laden all of the sleeper agents we have in al-Queda and it wouldn't be illegal. But, so freaking what? If he did this and people found out about it, he'd be out of office so fast the chair would spin.
It being technically legal for the President to do something like this would make it (assuming that this is the case) even worse because not only would it be damaging the interests of the U.S., especially during war time, but because it's an abuse of the power and trust that makes it so the President can do things like this without them being against the law. Do people disagree with this?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It certainly makes it harder for us to back him when he says things like, "We are only listening in on the conversations of terrorists with Americans. Trust me on this." or "We are making progress in Iraq. Trust me." or "The drug plan is helping millions of American seniors. Trust me that it is working well."
More, it hurts his ambitions for new legislation. "There is no way our guest worker program will cost American Jobs. Trust me." or "There will be no ecological damage done by our drilling in Anwar" or "There is nothing we can do to slow or prevent Global Warming."
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I dislike Bush because I think he is directly hurting America's future. The policies he has instituted directly hurt me now (less access to college loans, etc.) and will directly hurt me in the long run (paying taxes to finance this war and the incredible national debt). His policies directly hurt others (rendition, detainees, Iraqis, Afghanis, innocent Pakistanis caught in the explosion from our al-Qaida-seeking missiles), and so I oppose them in order to protect those people.
The issue here for me isn't that President Bush authorized declassification of a document and didn't tell anybody. The issue is that Bush declassified information and directed its dissemination to the press in order to discredit ambassador Wilson's public statements, which ultimately were correct (Iraq was not trying to buy uranium from Niger). The Administration's attempt to bolster the believability of the forged documents "uncovered by the Italians" was a backbone of the corpus of lies justifying going to war.
This leak is just further evidence of how the Administration was dedicated to justifying an unjustifiable war in Iraq through lies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding the big picture, but to me this is actionably more significant than most of other dishonest and/or irresponsible things that this administration has done or that we have good reason to believe that this administration has done.
To wit, if the President did this and if the situation was such that he didn't have an out from the law, he would be guilty of a felony and one which damaged our country's ability to defend itself. I think, in this case, impeachment would be inevitible.
As it stands, even if the President did this, he did not technically violate any law. However, I think that, in the ethical scheme of things, that makes this worse. So, at the very least, in the event that we find out that the President did direct the leaking here, I believe that the President should be compelled to testify, under oath, what the heck he was thinking, with at least a Congressional censure waiting if he is unable to offer a satisfactory explanation.
To me this seems clear as to what should be done. However, I've admittedly pretty strongly anti-Bush, so I'd be interested in reasons pro-Bush people such as Dag or Brian or anyone else for that matter could offer as to why this shouldn't be what happens in this case.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Nato, Wilson has his own agenda and he has proven to not be honest in his part of this story. From your own link:
quote: In a July 2003 op-ed, Ambassador Wilson recounted his experiences and stated "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."[10] However, as the president had cited "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," it is unclear how Wilson came to his conclusion, as it was the British Government, not Wilson, upon whom the president's statement was based.
quote: However, Wilson was later shown to have lied about his earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson had to backtrack furiously and said he may have "misspoken" on this, however after he was also found to have lied about his wife's role in his mission to Africa, his credibility is virtually nil on this point.
quote: 'For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690_pf.html
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Mr Squicky, a short answer to your question could be this has not been proven at all and all of your questions are based off of "ifs".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not an real answer, though, as part of the question is "assuming that these things are true". An answer to the question I posed doesn't rely on any of this being proven. Rather, it asks you what you think should happen if these things are proven. Thus, them not being proven isn't a reason to not answer the question.
If you don't want to answer it, that's a different story.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Mr. Squicky, The answer is as valid as your IF question. But to answer your question, IF President Bush, or any President, would 'out' a covert CIA operative for purely political purposes then yes, the President should be investigated and testify under oath.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, at the very least, in the event that we find out that the President did direct the leaking here,
I'd agree that this is the least that should happen if you added "of Plame's identity" after leaking.
I'm actually against compelling his reasons here - reasons are at the heart of executive privilege, but I'd vote to censure if he refused and we had solid evidence that he authorized Plame's name to be leaked.
However, my reasons for that are very case-specific; much of that is based on what he said afterwards as well.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Uh, Squicky...I agree with you.
If that's not shooting you in the foot, of course.
But do people still think that anything I wrote is false? Or are people just so tired of it that to make those points is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot?
And if what I wrote is true (and I believe it is all true), then why is this guy still in office?
And I don't know if I would say I "Hate" the man. Let's just say I wouldn't untie him from the train tracks, if you know what I mean. For the good of the country, mind you. And for God.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Aspectre touched on this a bit on the first page, but I just want to point out that Libby's testimony wasn't of Bush saying it was okay to leak anything, but of Cheney saying "Bush said it was okay." (Paraphrasing, obviously.)
I would not put it past Cheney in the slightest to invoke Bush's authority to a subordinate even if Bush wasn't even in the decision-making loop on this issue. No clue how likely that was what happened in this instance, but it seems like a valid possibility.
--Enigmatic
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Legally, I don't think that allowing the President to declassify information is the same as allowing the President to authorize the leak of classified information.
At least in the areas with which I am familiar, declassification is a specific process in which documents are made available to the general public.
If the President is able to disclose classified information or classify information at his whim, and chooses to do so for political reasons rather than National Security reasons, we have a very serious threat to democracy.
It is essential for the People to have unfettered access to information in order for a democracy to function. While I think that we can all agree that some information is simply too dangerous to be made publically available and should therefore be classified, the idea of restricting accesses to information is a threat to democracy and as voters we should demand checks and balances to prevent abuse.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB] [QUOTE]That first quote smacks of saying:
"The President did not break the law since the very act of J-walking across the street automatically makes an exception to the law governing J-walking on that street."
No it doesn't. Does Congress break the law when it passes a new law that contradicts an old one? No. Executive orders are created by the President. Jay walking laws are not created by the person breaking it. The two hypos are not parallel in any way. [QUOTE]
I don't need to you to tell me I don't have a law degree Dag. Please, I said it 'SMACKS' of the same thing, I didn't say it WAS the same thing. I believe I was trying to express my frustration with Bush's careless attitude towards all senmblence of propriety or conscientious thought, I wasn't trying prove some grand legal point. I know I'm "wrong," but I feel that what I said was right on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At least in the areas with which I am familiar, declassification is a specific process in which documents are made available to the general public.
But those processes are defined by executive orders, at least the ones I've seen. We've linked several in various threads here, and all were in that form.
quote:and chooses to do so for political reasons rather than National Security reasons,
I totally agree, but declassifying information which has already been alluded to in response to someone purveying inaccurate information is less problematic to me - assuming the National Security implications are evaluated dispassionately and even-handedly.
quote: I believe I was trying to express my frustration with Bush's careless attitude towards all senmblence of propriety or conscientious thought, I wasn't trying prove some grand legal point.
it's not about some grand legal point. Your explanation about "Bush's careless attitude towards all senmblence of propriety or conscientious thought" shows by how wide a margin you are missing the mark.
You've ignored every relevant aspect of what's involved here. What actually happened has a single actor granted authority by the Constitution and Congress. Your hypothetical had one person violating the laws passed by someone else.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QUOTE] You've ignored every relevant aspect of what's involved here. What actually happened has a single actor granted authority by the Constitution and Congress. Your hypothetical had one person violating the laws passed by someone else.
Look Dag. Can I just have my cake and step on it too? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jeffress said Fitzgerald's revelation about Libby's disclosure of information from a CIA National Intelligence Estimate "is a complete sidelight" to his accusation that Libby deliberately lied. "It's got nothing to do with Wilson's wife," Jeffress said in a brief interview, adding that Libby continues to expect to be exonerated at trial.
...
According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified before a grand jury that President Bush and Cheney authorized the release of that information shortly before Libby's meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003. The information was drawn from the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the CIA about Iraq's interest in weapons of mass destruction.
The article is focused on a particular angle - that the President's involvement makes it unlikely that Libby forgot a particular conversation. The pragraphs I quoted were pulled to highlight the type of information released, so it's out of context from the article.
Read the whole thing if you want to see them in context. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:...Libby...has testified that Cheney told him that Bush had authorized the leak... Libby...was assured by...counsel to Cheney, that presidential authorization to disclose the information amounted to declassification. ...the power to...declassify...flows from the president... In March 2003, Bush...delegat[ed] declassification authority to Cheney.
[ April 08, 2006, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:...Libby...has testified that Cheney told him that Bush had authorized the leak...
Yes. The question is, the leak of what? Apparently, not the leak of Plame's name.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually, I thought there were points more relevant than Plame*.
1) Suppose I state, "Dagonee told me that Bob_Scopatz said that the only proper way to eat octopus is smothered in Marmite." Even if my claim were earnest**, I did not state that Bob_Scopatz had said anything whatsoever. Everything I stated beyond "Dagonee told me" was merely spreading gossip. Similarly in the sentence containing "Libby...has testified that Cheney told him", the following "Bush had authorized the leak" is gossip: hearsay worthy of investigation, but not evidence of Dubya's involvement. ie Libby is claiming direct knowlege of what Cheney said, but not direct knowlege of what Dubya personally authorized.
2) If "Libby was concerned about the legality of sharing classified information with reporters", why did he ask the "counsel to Cheney" whether to follow Cheney's directive? If you had similarly strong doubts about your supervisor's orders, wouldn't you at least ask your supervisor's boss instead of your supervisor's assistant?
3) Since the President is the top level negotiator in any discussions with foreign countries, (and for various similar reasons) I can see no practical way to limit the President's power to declassify at will, whether for good or for ill. And I can understand a president granting a specific subordinate a free hand -- for a short period, for a specific purpose, over an extremely narrow area of classified information -- to facilitate the information-sharing necessary to accomplish an assigned task. However, there is no compelling reason in the best interests of the UnitedStates for a vice-president to have carte blanche to declassify secrets, ie unlimited authority to bypass normal declassification procedures. The only credible reason I can think of to grant a vice-president that type of power would be to allow him to play political hatchet man through abusing his access to classified information without fear of legal prosecution.
* I read nothing in that article to suggest that Plame's name was excluded from the declassification of "the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in the summer of 2003". Or that Plame was mentioned in that document. However if Plame wasn't mentioned there, it does raise the question of where or from whom Libby obtained that information.
** Earnestness implies only the belief that one is being truthful. And lest my fiction be mistaken for reality: No, I was not being earnest in my "Dagonee told me that Bob_Scopatz said" example.
[ April 21, 2006, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1) Suppose I state, "Dagonee told me that Bob_Scopatz said that the only proper way to eat octopus is smothered in Marmite." Even if my claim were earnest**, I did not state that Bob_Scopatz had said anything whatsoever. Everything I stated beyond "Dagonee told me" was merely spreading gossip. Similarly in the sentence containing "Libby...has testified that Cheney told him", the following "Bush had authorized the leak" is gossip: hearsay worthy of investigation, but not evidence of Dubya's involvement. ie Libby is claiming direct knowlege of what Cheney said, but not direct knowlege of what Dubya personally authorized.
This is accurate (assuming you mean "evidence admissible in court," which is certainly the relevant standard here.
It's worth noting that Cheney's statements to Libby would be admissible not as proof that Bush authorized it ("the truth of the matter asserted") but as evidence that Libby heard those words from Cheney ("state of mind" or "present sensory impression"). This could be relevant to the defense or prosecution for a variety of reasons depending on what the specific elements are to the offenses.
[ April 08, 2006, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Now it's "Bush didn't specify Libby should leak" but "merely instructed Cheney to 'get it out' and left the details to him."
Yeah, but separating evidence and hearsay is also applicable to everyday life and to interpreting everyday news items. When Gwen tells you "Bob said Stepanie overheard Jillian say that you are a stuffed shirt", that doesn't mean that Jillian said anything at all about you. All it means is that Gwen made some claims. Between TelephoneGame mangling of original comments, and some folks who tend to reinterpret comments as containing more malice than what was originally said, it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to assume that "he said that she said that she said that he said..." contains any reflection of reality beyond the fact that the first person told you "he said..."
[ April 09, 2006, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
With bold and italics being my own emphasis:
quote:Novak also claimed that investigators know who leaked the information, although he did not say how they know. "The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed." ...in December, Novak said President Bush knows his source, too. On Wednesday, he called those remarks "indiscreet."
IF Novak's statements are true, then Dubya and Fitzgerald have engaged in a conspiracy to commit perjury before the Court in order to illegally obtain information through illegal intimidation and false imprisonment under the color of authority of reporters.
Personally, I do not think that anything in Fitzgerald's legal career before his appointment as prosecutor for the Plame case would lead anyone to suspect that he could ever be so bloody-minded disrespectful of the Law or of himself as a lawyer so as to engage in a conspiracy to commit perjury/etc. Nonetheless: Cheney has admitted his part in the declassification of the "leak" containing material which is connected to the Plame leak. NeilSilver drafted, BethFrisa cleared, ThomasFingar approved, and CarlW.Ford signed off on the mention of Plame's identity in the June10th2003Memo to UnderSecretary of State Grossman and the July7th2003Memo to the Secretary of State ColinPowell. If neither Dubya nor Cheney authorised the specific disclosure of Plame's identity, then the Libby leak came from someone between Cheney and the six mentioned above. Thus by the DubyaAdministration's own admissions and Fitzgerald's own discoveries, the Libby prosecution cannot be the end of the matter.
[ April 24, 2006, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:IF Novak's statements are true, then Dubya and Fitzgerald have engaged in a conspiracy to commit perjury before the Court in order to illegally obtain information through intimidation and false imprisonment under the Color of Authority of reporters.
What perjury? What false statement, exactly, did they agree to have someone testify to under oath, under oath?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know what, I've been wondering for years and I just gotta ask, what the heck is up with omitting spaces between things aspectre?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He doesn't like line wraps in the middle of those word groups.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A prosecutor may not knowingly present false evidence to the Court, period: no swearing in to testify under oath necessary. IF Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed yet claimed before the Court that one had been -- as Novak claims -- Fitzgerald perjured himself before the Court.
Since Fitzgerald is acting under the authority&knowlege of the President, IF Dubya knew that the Plame leak wasn't a crime -- as Novak claims -- then Dubya has duped the Court into believing that a crime had been committed when there was none. Somewhat iffy inregard to whether that is an actual perjury: eg If a DistrictAttorney appoints an assistantDA to prosecute an innnocent man charged with burglary of the DA's house in order to coverup his own (the DA's) false insurance claim, has perjury occurred?
However, IF Dubya had told Fitzgerald that no crime had occurred, continued prosecution after that admission would have then become a conspiracy to commit perjury.
Personally, I can think of no reasonable circumstance under which Novak could have come to know that either Dubya or Fitzgerald were operating under the knowlege that no crime had been committed. More believable is that he was passing along gossip/hearsay from a source such as eg KarlRove.
Except for the fact that Novak has long been a Republican mouthpiece, which means that sabotaging a Republican presidency would be truly weird and self-destructive behaviour on his part, far more believable yet would be that Novak is engaging in speculation based on his assumption that the gossip he's heard from third parties is true.
[ April 21, 2006, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed yet claimed before the Court that one had been -- as Novak claims -- Fitzgerald perjured himself before the Court.
Fitzgerald was investigating whether a crime had occurred. Further, there were three leaks, one to Novak, one to Miller, and one to some other guy I can't remember right now. Even if Novak new that Fitzgerald didn't think the leak to Novak was a crime, it says nothing about Miller.
quote:Since Fitzgerald is acting under the authority&knowlege of the President, [i][/b]IF[/b] Dubya knew that the Plame leak wasn't a crime -- as Novak claims -- then Dubya has duped the Court into believing that a crime had been committed when there was none.
Nope. The President's opinion - which is all it could be - that a crime wasn't committed would not require him to halt the investigation. Investigations when the people in power don't agree that a crime was committed are actually very common, and considered good things when they involve potential wrongdoing in the Administration.
Imagine how people would react if Bush simply said, "I don't think a crime was committed, so I can't investigate."
BTW, it wouldn't be conspiracy to commit perjury. There's no way this meets the elements of that crime.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Imagine how people would react if Bush simply said, "I don't think a crime was committed, so I can't investigate."
While I don't agree with aspectre at all, that's hardly a fair extrapolation of what he's saying. Imagine how people would react if Bush said, "Here's who authorized the leak. Here's why it was, in our opinion, not a crime."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
My arguments are based on the IF of Novak's claims being true. Which I've already stated is doubtful. Could you explain what your elements of crime objection is?
IF Dubya knew that no crime had been committed -- and the President does have the power to declassify by whim; and by his own presidential directive, so did Cheney at the time in question -- then he should have: 1) Made no comment. 2) Said it was a national security matter and left it at that. 3) Said he (or his agent) had authorized the disclosure in the interests of national security. 4) Said that Plame's identity was legally disclosed through a series of authorization errors. 5) Said "Yep, Plame's identity was deliberately and legally disclosed. And that was a big mistake that I've taken steps to prevent from ever happening again."
The more interesting question is who amongst Dubya, Cheney, NeilSilver, BethFrisa, ThomasFingar, CarlW.Ford, MarcGrossman, CollinPowell, and KarlRove decided that Plame's identity should be disclosed, should be the exception out of all the still-classified blackouts on names in the various declassified papers. Or was the Plame leak just a BIG unintentional goof in the declassification process?
[ April 21, 2006, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While I don't agree with aspectre at all, that's hardly a fair extrapolation of what he's saying. Imagine how people would react if Bush said, "Here's who authorized the leak. Here's why it was, in our opinion, not a crime."
The point is that the executive thinking something is not a crime does not make him culpable for a prosecutor conducting a grand jury investigation to see if it is.
I didn't represent that as what aspectre was saying. It was a clear counter-example to the proposition that an executive who "knows" that a particular act was not a crime is somehow culpable if an investigation makes use of the grand jury subpoena power to investigate that act.
The only allegation is that Buesh knew it wasn't a crime. We have no other info to go on in considering this. Aspectre posited that if Novak's allegation were true, this would amount to a particular crime. I chose the most extreme version that fits the alleged facts to show that the alleged facts were insufficient to amount to conspiracy to commit perjury.
quote:My arguments are based on the IF of Novak claims being true. Which I've already stated is doubtful.
I understand that. Novak's claim is that Bush "knew" this wasn't a crime. To prove conspiracy to commit perjury, you have to show an agreement and one overt act toward fulfilling the agreement between two or more people to knowingly deliver false testimony in a certain type of proceeding. Even granting that Fitzgerald saying something to a judge that he knew to be false amounts to perjury (which it probably doesn't, but that's not my actual objection here), you have to identify what the false statement was agreed to be.
The agreement is an element, as is the false statement. Neither is proven by Novak's allegation that Bush knew that the leak was authorized.
quote:IF Bush knew that no crime had been committed -- and the President does have the power to declassify by whim; and by his own presidential directive, so did Cheney at the time in question -- then he should have: 1) Made no comment. 2) Said it was a national security matter and left it at that. 3) Said he had authorized the disclosure in the interests of national security. 4) Said that Plame's identity was legally disclosed through a series of authorization errors. 5) Said "Yep, Plame's identity was deliberately and legally disclosed. And that was a big mistake that I've taken steps to prevent from ever happening again."
I agree, but that doesn't amount to the crime you say it does.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)