Bush authorized the leak! Exclusive!

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Bush authorized the leak! Exclusive!

Postby Col Quisp » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:05 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/30561">www.nysun.com/article/30561</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury<br><br>BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun<br>April 6, 2006<br>URL: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/30561">www.nysun.com/article/30561</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.<br><br>The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.<br><br>Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry initially focused on the alleged leak, which occurred after a former ambassador who is Ms. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times questioning the accuracy of statements Mr. Bush made about Iraq's nuclear procurement efforts in Africa.<br><br>No criminal charges have been brought for the leak itself, but Mr. Libby, a former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was indicted in October on charges that he obstructed the investigation, perjured himself in front of the grand jury, and lied to FBI agents who interviewed him. Mr. Libby, who resigned from the White House and pleaded not guilty, is scheduled to go on trial in January 2007.<br><br>In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.<br><br>"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 occasion 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 judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.<br><br>Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.<br><br>Mr. Libby told the grand jury that he also sought the advice of the legal counsel to the vice president, David Addington, who indicated that Mr. Bush's permission to disclose the estimate "amounted to a declassification of the document," according to the new court papers.<br><br>One of the facts Mr. Libby said he planned to disclose to Ms. Miller was that the estimate, produced in October 2002, concluded that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium." This contention was sharply at odds with Mr. Wilson's op-ed piece which argued there was no evidence of such a procurement effort, at least on a trip he took to Africa at the CIA's request.<br><br>Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal. While Mr. Libby said he gave that information "exclusively" to the Times reporter at their breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, many of the findings of the estimate were formally declassified and discussed at a White House press briefing ten days later, on July 18, 2003.<br><br>The court papers filed by Mr. Fitzgerald do not make clear whether Mr. Bush knew the disclosure was destined for Ms. Miller, though they indicate Mr. Cheney knew that fact. Mr. Libby is also said to have testified that five days late Mr. Cheney authorized the release to the press of information about a cable about Mr. Wilson's strip.<br><br>Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald and his staff, but it is not known how their accounts of the events compared to that of Mr. Libby.<br><br>In an interview with Fox News in February, Mr. Cheney, who has a reputation for secrecy, acknowledged that he has sometimes pressed for the official release of classified records.<br><br>"I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions," he said.<br><br>Asked if he had ever "unilaterally" declassified material, Mr. Cheney replied, "I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."<br><br>While prosecutors initially said Mr. Libby was the first government official to disclose Ms. Plame's identity, it subsequently emerged that a Washington Post reporter, Bob Woodward, learned earlier about her CIA employment from another government official. Neither Mr. Woodward nor Ms. Miller wrote about Ms. Plame at the time. Another journalist, Robert Novak, first disclosed the employment of Mr. Wilson's wife in a syndicated column released on July 14, 2003. The columnist based his story on interviews with Mr. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and another official who has not been officially identified.<br><br>Prosecutors argued that Mr. Libby covered up his role in the disclosures because "he knew the White House had publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Ms. Wilson." They also noted that Mr. Bush publicly declared he would fire anyone found to have leaked classified information.<br><br>The new court filing quotes from handwritten suggestions Mr. Libby gave to the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, urging the spokesman to proclaim the vice presidential aide's innocence with the same vigor that the press secretary previously denounced as "ridiculous" suggestions that Mr. Rove might have had a hand in leaking Ms. Plame's identity.<br><br>Mr. Libby's note, as typed up by the prosecution, reads like a stanza of verse:<br><br>"People have made too much of the difference in<br>How I described Karl and Libby<br>I've talked to Libby.<br>I said it was ridiculous about Karl<br>And it is ridiculous about Libby.<br>Libby was not the source of the Novak story.<br>And he did not leak classified information."<br><br>Mr. McClellan did not adopt the talking points verbatim, but did tell reporters later that Messrs. Rove and Libby "assured me that they were not involved in this."<br><br>Mr. Rove has not been charged with a crime, but remains under investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald's office.<br><br>View the Government's Filing (PDF). <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Col Quisp
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 2:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush authorized the leak! Exclusive!

Postby sunny » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:26 am

Wow! This is huge news. I notice teevee isn't covering this revelation, big surprise. Of course, Bush can claim he had the right to unilaterally declassify the material w/out going thru proper channels, but if he lied to Fitz, this could mean trouble.<br>Yea! <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Bush authorized the leak! Exclusive!

Postby antiaristo » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:39 am

sunny,<br>Don't get too exited.<br>This is a lawyer's trick.<br>"Libby says Cheney said Bush said..."<br>In law, it means nothing.<br><br>The electoral cycle will be upon us before anything substantive happens in this case. Then it will all be conveniently forgotten.<br><br>Sorry to be a damp squib, but the systen does NOT work. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush authorized the leak! Exclusive!

Postby dbeach » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:46 am

"The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. "<br><br>Of course it helps that his poppy was CIA director from 74-76.<br><br>my confidence in Fitzgerald is at an all time low and sinking from there.<br><br>Many will cheer this announcement which may be candy for the masses <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Bush authorized the leak! Exclusive!

Postby greencrow0 » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:47 am

Hi sunny<br><br>Yes, in former days...this would have been BIG news...the kind that would have sent Bush scurrying to his bunker to hunker down with a battery of lawyers.<br><br>But now?<br><br>Yawn.<br><br>The MSM gatekeepers are fully in charge.<br><br>I believe it's so bad now that they can leak definitive information that there was CD at WTC7 and the Bushies will just chuckle and say....sooooooooo...<br><br>What of it? <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

this now makes it libby's word against cheney's word

Postby hmm » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:49 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Mr. Libby <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>is said to have testified that</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>it may look like he is blaming Bush directly, but to me it looks like he is leaving it to Cheney and that Bush is then Cheney's "out" or leverage.<br>Both Cheney and Bush seem to have the legal argument in their favour, that they both have the authority to declassify.<br>Both Bush and Cheney were not under oath when they were questioned.<br><br>Cheney could even claim he lied to Libby if he wants to protect the president? <p></p><i></i>
hmm
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: this now makes it libby's word against cheney's word

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Bush/Cheney may have had the authority to declassify the NIE information, but did they have the right to reveal the name of a CIA undercover operative and the operation itself? I thought the purpose of the law in question was to protect the welfare of the operatives. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: this now makes it libby's word against cheney's word

Postby isachar » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:10 pm

How many people died or were imprisoned because of Bush/Cheney/Libby blowing the cover of Ms. Plame and her NOC WMD monitoring operation?<br><br>As far as I know, there has never been a damage assessment of the exposure of Ms. Plame's status and that of her WMD-monitoring team. Gee, I wonder why? <p></p><i></i>
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

...

Postby Ted the dog » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:23 pm

"As far as I know, there has never been a damage assessment of the exposure of Ms. Plame's status and that of her WMD-monitoring team. Gee, I wonder why? "<br><br><br>There probably has been one...we'll just never actually SEE it. Not until all the major players have passed on 30 years from now. <p></p><i></i>
Ted the dog
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

...

Postby Ted the dog » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:03 pm

I can't seem to acces the NY Sun's webpage...through the link or by just typing it in. <p></p><i></i>
Ted the dog
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ...

Postby FourthBase » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:39 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration">news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ...

Postby Col Quisp » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:55 pm

It may be hearsay BUT there are exceptions to the hearsay rule that would allow it to be evidence (the "state of mind" exception is one that springs to mind -- to prove that Libby acted as he did based on what he had heard from Cheney about Bush saying it was OK to spill it because he had declassified it.)<br><br>Bush and Cheney lied to the grand jury and to the public when they said there was no White House involvement. And as Chiggerbit says, the real issue is how this leak led to the outing of Plame and the deaths of who knows how many spooks.<br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Col Quisp
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 2:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:tangled web

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:09 pm

"I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better." - Scott McClellan, October 6, 2003<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html" target="top">www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <br><br><br>"If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous." - Scott McClellan, September 16, 2003<br><br>"The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier." - Scott McClellan, September 29, 2003<br><br>The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." - Scott McClellan, September 29, 2003<br><br>"...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... 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." - George W. Bush, September 30, 2003<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cialeak.html" target="top">www.pbs.org/now/politics/cialeak.html </a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>"And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of - this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked - and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth. ... I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth. You hear all kinds of rumors. And the best way to clarify the issue is for full participation with the Justice Department. These are professionals who are professional prosecutors who are leading this investigation, and we look forward to -- look, I want to know. I want to know." - George W. Bush, October 6, 2003<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-3.html" target="top">www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-3.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><br>"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out." - George W. Bush, October 7, 2003<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-2.html" target="top">www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-2.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?<br><br>THE PRESIDENT: That's up to -<br><br>Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?<br><br>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts. - George W. Bush, June 10, 2004<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html" target="top">www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>"As the President talked about earlier, there are a lot of senior administration officials in Washington, D.C. And the President wants the career officials at the Department of Justice, who are charged with looking into matters like this, to get to the bottom of this. And we are doing everything we can to assist them get to the bottom of this." - Scott McClellan, July 11, 2005<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cialeak.html" target="top">www.pbs.org/now/politics/cialeak.html </a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>"It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts." - George W. Bush, July 19, 2005<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680" target="top">www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680 </a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>LINKS for all 3 PDF COURT DOCS from FIBBY'S 04/05/06 filing(s)<br>http://www.nysun.com/30561.pdfhttp://www.iforensics.org/du/show_ca ... doc_02.pdf <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seemslikeadream@rigorousintuition>seemslikeadream</A> at: 4/6/06 1:10 pm<br></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Re:tangled web

Postby Col Quisp » Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:34 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>classified information</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better." - Scott McClellan, October 6, 2003<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>If the Prez "declassified" the document, then there's no leak of "classified" info. The weasels.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Col Quisp
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 2:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re:tangled web

Postby StarmanSkye » Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:58 pm

"I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better." - Scott McClellan, October 6, 2003<br><br>www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html <br><br>**<br>Lies lies lies lies lies lies lies ....<br>But I sorta doubt anything will come of this -- The system is totally corrupted, broke, sabotaged, dysfunctional, busted, compromised, rigged, etc.<br><br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests