posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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".
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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.
posted
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..."
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
