BUSH AT CENTER OF INTELLIGENCE LEAK

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

BUSH AT CENTER OF INTELLIGENCE LEAK

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:07 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040606Y.shtml" target="top">www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040606Y.shtml</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak<br> By Jason Leopold<br> t r u t h o u t | Report<br><br> Thursday 06 April 2006<br><br> Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said Thursday that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.<br><br> These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel's probe since its inception.<br><br> The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br> The sources indicated that the leak probe is now winding down, and that soon, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>new information will emerge from the special counsel's office that will prove President Bush had prior knowledge of the White House campaign to discredit Plame Wilson's husband</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat in order to win public support for the war.<br><br> The new information that surfaced late Wednesday places President Bush at the center of the probe for the first time since the investigation into the leak began more than two years ago and raises new questions as to whether Bush knew in advance the lengths to which senior White House officials went to discredit Wilson. <br><br> In the court filing, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to [former New York Times reporter Judith] 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." <br><br> "Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the filing further states. "Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document. Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. 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. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President's authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively." <br><br> In October 2003, three months after Plame Wilson's CIA status and identity were unmasked in print by columnist Robert Novak, President Bush said publicly that it was unlikely that the individual who leaked her name would ever be found.<br><br> "I mean this is a town full of people who like to leak information," Bush said during a press conference on Oct. 7, 2003. "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's lots of senior officials. I don't have any idea."<br><br> Details of President Bush's involvement in the effort to counter the former ambassador's claims came in a court document filed late Wednesday evening in US District Court in Washington by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, which was first reported by the New York Sun newspaper.<br><br> President Bush retained a private attorney when he was interviewed in the leak probe two years ago, specifically about whether he knew about it or had authorized it. <br><br> According to four attorneys who over the past two days have read a transcript of the President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to either investigators or the special counsel that he had authorized Cheney or any other administration official to leak portions of the NIE to Woodward and Miller or any other reporter. Rather, these people said the president said he frowned upon "selective leaks." <br><br> Bush also said during the interview two years ago that he had no prior knowledge that anyone on his staff had been involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson or that individuals retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters.<br><br> The 39-page court document Fitzgerald filed late Wednesday included previously unreported testimony given to a grand jury by Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby was indicted in October on five-counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators about how he discovered Plame Wilson's identity. <br><br> Libby testified that Cheney had received explicit instruction from President Bush to declassify a portion of the October 2002 NIE that said Iraq tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger and share that information with reporters like Miller and Woodward, whose previous work proved to be sympathetic to the administration and would help to discredit Wilson, according to the court document and attorneys and current and former administration officials close to the investigation. <br><br> Libby's "participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE," the Fitzgerald's filing states. "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."<br><br> "Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson," the court filing states. "Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare "on the record" statement, and to provide "background" and "deep background" statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson."<br><br> On June 27, 2003, two weeks before Libby's meeting with Miller and disclosing to her portions of the NIE, Libby met with Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, and leaked the portion of the NIE that dealt with Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Niger, which was first reported by this reporter in March. <br><br> A week or so earlier, Woodward met with two other government officials, one of whom told him in a "casual" and off-handed manner that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.<br><br> Woodward said the meeting with Libby and the other government officials had been set up simply as "confidential background interviews for my 2004 book 'Plan of Attack' about the lead-up to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for the Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006."<br><br> Woodward wrote a first-person account for the Washington Post after he gave a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald about information he had learned about Valerie Plame Wilson. It was a shocking revelation at the time. Woodward had publicly discounted the importance of the Plame Wilson leak and had referred to Fitzgerald as a "junkyard dog" prosecutor. He then revealed in November that he had been told about Plame Wilson's CIA employment in June 2003 - before any other journalist.<br><br> The Watergate-era journalist wrote that when he met with Libby on June 27, 2003, "Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02. This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger."<br><br> The information in the NIE about Niger was still considered highly classified and extremely sensitive, and although Woodward had been the recipient of classified information on other occasions during the course of gathering material for his books, the data he was provided with concerning the NIE had been authorized by Cheney in order to rebut Wilson. Woodward never wrote a story for the Post about the intelligence information he was given.<br><br> President Bush signed an executive order in March 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The executive order was signed on March 23, 2003, four days after the start of the Iraq war, and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seemslikeadream@rigorousintuition>seemslikeadream</A> at: 4/6/06 4:09 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: BUSH AT CENTER OF INTELLIGENCE LEAK

Postby antiaristo » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:06 pm

SLAD,<br>I've made another comment on a different thread (America's Shadow Sovereign) because it seemed appropriate for the specific area I wanted to highlight.<br><br>On this thread.<br><br>Those e-mails could finish Bush.<br>The relevant legislation is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. <br><br>This is unique in that it applies specifically to the President.<br>The one thing he cannot declassify is an intelligence asset.<br><br>Citizen Spook did some work in this area a while back.<br>Hopefully he will give us an update.<br><br>My take is this.<br><br>The Bush advisors know Bush is subject to the IIPA.<br>So they delegate the powers of the President to Cheney.<br>Cheney breaks the IIPA.<br>Bush keeps his distance, but watches what is going on.<br><br>Until now Bush has enjoyed plausible deniability.<br>Until now Cheney has enjoyed an invalid executive order.<br>They divided the crime between them.<br>Just as Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth divided the crime between them.<br><br>A clear conspiracy.<br>But WHO will act?<br>WHO will "put a constraint upon them"? <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BUSH AT CENTER OF INTELLIGENCE LEAK

Postby antiaristo » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:12 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Thursday, February 16, 2006<br>ESPIONAGE CANNOT BE DECLASSIFIED <br><br><br>Cheney and Bush cannot declassifiy Espionage Act violations. Which brings me to the most important Tresongate story so far ...<br><br>Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say by Larisa Alexandrovna<br>of Raw Story.<br><br>Raw Story reports that intelligence officials say Plame was working on Iran and that her outing has cost ten years damage. Where is the blogosphere? Where is Firedoglake? Aren't they supposed to be the foremost "authority" on all things Plame?<br>They're out hunting Cheney on this shooting thing which is going nowhere while the most important revelations about Treason are ignored. Plame was a NOC and she was working on Iran nukes info. But this sort of throws a shitload of question marks all over the "Bush Gang outed Plame to get back at Wilson" idiot spoonfed conspiracy theory for the masses which David Corn et al have forcefed "the nation".<br><br>Fitz knows the truth. He knows something is wrong with this whole picture.<br><br>Please repost.<br><br>Citizenspook<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Thanks antiaristo here's more

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:19 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040606R.shtml" target="top">www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040606R.shtml</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br> Evidence Suggests White House Conspiracy <br> By Jason Leopold <br> t r u t h o u t | Report <br><br> Thursday 06 April 2006 <br><br> Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing late Wednesday in the CIA leak case that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves several White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. <br><br> This is the first time the special counsel has acknowledged that White House officials are alleged to have engaged in a coordinated effort to undercut the former ambassador's credibility by disseminating classified intelligence information that would have contradicted Wilson's public statements. <br><br> Fitzgerald's court filing was made in response to attorneys representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak, who are desperately trying to obtain evidence from the government to prove Libby did not intentionally lie to the grand jury when he was asked how he found out about Plame Wilson and whether he shared that information with the media. <br><br> Furthermore, Libby's attorneys have argued that they are entitled to the evidence in order to prove Libby was not engaged in a "plot" to discredit Wilson. But Fitzgerald said he does not have evidence that would prove that theory. Instead, Fitzgerald said the evidence he has obtained proves there was a coordinated effort by White House officials to discredit Wilson. <br><br> "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. <br><br> 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. <br><br> "Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a "White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson," the filing states. "Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson." <br><br> Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was an undercover CIA operative whose identity was unmasked to reporters by several White House officials in what the former ambassador claims was an attack after he penned an op-ed in the New York Times in July 2003 exposing the administration's use of flawed intelligence on the Iraqi nuclear threat. <br><br> Fitzgerald did not name the other White House officials who were involved in the effort to undercut Wilson, but sources close to the case said that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley are the officials who were involved in the alleged plot. <br><br> A footnote in the court filing states that 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. <br><br> At one point during the meeting, Hadley discussed declassifying a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate and leaking it to reporters as a way of responding to Wilson's statements. <br><br> "The government is producing to defendant Mr. Hadley's notes of meetings and conversations in which both defendant and Mr. Hadley participated, and in which the potential declassification of the NIE was discussed," the court filing says. <br><br> Moreover, Wednesday's court filing lays out for the first time how White House press secretary Scott McClellan came to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove during a press briefing in October 2003, three months after Plame Wilson's identity was unmasked by a columnist Libby and Rove had been a source for. <br><br> The filing suggests that Libby lied to McClellan about his role in the leak when he was asked about his involvement in October 2003, and urged the press secretary to clear his name during one of his morning press briefings. Additionally, the court document states that President Bush was unaware of Libby's involvement in the Plame Wilson leak and that Libby also concealed his involvement from Cheney. <br><br> "During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President's Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him," the filing states. "When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the Vice President in having his name cleared." <br><br> Libby prepared notes for McClellan to use during his daily press briefing that could be used to clear Libby's name from being associated with the Plame Wilson leak. <br><br> "Though defendant knew that another White House official had spoken to Novak in advance of Novak's column and that official had learned in advance that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson's wife, defendant did not disclose that fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President) but instead prepared a handwritten statement of what he wished White House Press Secretary McClellan would say to exonerate him: <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> "As a result of defendant's request, on October 4, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan stated that he had spoken to Mr. Libby (as well as Mr. Rove and Elliot Abrams) and "those individuals assured me that they were not involved in this." <br><br> McClellan's public statement and the fact that President Bush vowed to fire anyone in his office involved in the leak was one of the motivating factors that led Libby to lie during an interview with FBI investigators in November 2003, Fitzgerald states in the court filing. <br><br> "Thus, as defendant approached his first FBI interview he knew that the White House had publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Ms. Wilson and that, at defendant's specific request through the Vice President, the White House had publicly proclaimed that defendant was "not involved in this." <br><br> "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. <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re:Nightline is covering this

Postby OnoI812 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:37 am

ABC nightline spotlighting this revelation right now <p></p><i></i>
OnoI812
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re:Nightline is covering this

Postby bvonahsen » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:48 am

In pervious statements to the press Bush has said that he expected to be impeached. I don't remember when this was but the idea struck me..... why does it seem like the administration is practically begging to be impeached? Is it a trap? Does he already know how the sumpreme court would rule? Or is there some sort of final act that is planned in cash articles of impeachment are filed?<br><br>I wonder. <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Re: Re:Nightline is covering this

Postby greencrow0 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:26 am

Impeachment would indeed be dicey with the Supreme Court and both houses slanted towards Bush.<br><br>Likely there will be a plea bargain and eventually a resignation in return for across the board amnesty on all criminal charges relating to the War on Iraq, 9/11 and all the other crimes.<br><br>Then he can go off into the sunset like Richard Nixon....<br><br>As to who would take over the reins of government? Kerry perhaps?...especially if it comes out that the election was fixed (which it was).<br><br>I note in tonight's news that Kerry is putting forward a motion in the Senate to bring the troops home before the end of 2006...can't remember if that was the exact date....anyway<br><br>we all know that Kerry is a fellow 'bonesman' and would cover up all the 'bones'. The most important thing is that the perps of 9/11 will get away scott free. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Juan Cole has a good analysis

Postby greencrow0 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:35 am

copied from juancole.com<br><br>Thursday, April 06, 2006<br><br>Bush: Leaker-in-Chief? <br>Bush as Johnson + Nixon <br><br>Irv Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff for trigger-happy VP Richard Bruce Cheney is now alleging that Cheney told him that W. himself authorized the leak of classified Iraq information. Although he is probably referring to the leak of the National Intelligence Estimate, his implication is that once he was given the go-ahead by Bush and Cheney to leak classified information for political purposes, tat led to his outing of a covert CIA operative's name. Both leaks were part of White House damage control over the Iraq scandal breaking in spring-summer 2003, as it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Bush had invaded the wrong country for the wrong reason. Ooops.<br><br>I have explained the whole scandal here, with pictures and links, and readers have told me that it is useful.<br><br>Late night comedian Conan O'Brian does a shtick where he has a silly computer program meld the faces of two celebrities to see what their kids would look like, only the program works to exaggerate the features of each, so that you always have a freakish result.<br><br>The news today makes me think that it would be worthwhile melding Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to see if the result looked like W. Because George W. Bush faces the weight of a long Asian land war gone badly wrong, just as Johnson did. And he faces the charges of high-level corruption and illegal wiretapping that dogged Richard Nixon. He has become both "Mah feller Amurcans" Bush and "tricky Georgie." W. has survived all this relatively well, given the dreadful facts of it. <br><br>Unlike Johnson, he does not operate a hated draft, but depends on gung-ho volunteers (some of whom are a little too gung-ho and have made a lot of unnecessary trouble in Iraq by shooting a lot of people for DWI, Driving While Iraqi). The volunteers' families and friends are not clamoring for an end to the war with the fervor that those of the draftees did in the 1960s and early 1970s. Johnson was in the end defeated by powerful challenges from within his own party, which caused him not to seek another term. Bush faced no such challenge in '04. His party has gone along with him. Of course, Tom DeLay is not exactly a paragon of virtue. The corruption of the party itself, which has few Robert F. Kennedys, has abetted Bush's continued dominance and free ride for his crimes.<br><br>Nixon faced an FBI willing to leak to the press to get him, a Supreme Court willing to order him to turn over tapes of his conversations, and a Democratic Congress willing to impeach him (well, a lot of Republicans were willing to, by the end, too). It is pretty clear that Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have all voted against making Nixon turn over his tapes, and maybe Roberts, as well. It is a different court, one that is willing to show deference to the imperial presidency, as Rehnquist openly admitted before he went out. Bush's party dominates both houses of congress, as well. The Senate Intelligence Committee under Pat Roberts has dragged its feet in investigating Bush administration crimes. The only strike against Bush is that the FBI still has a good deal of independence and has every reason to want to hold administration officials accountable for leaking Plame's name, since ruining undercover agents' careers can get them and their family's killed. It is mainly the FBI and an independent prosecutor (the appointment of which Bush resisted) that have shown integrity with regard to the Bush scandals, whether the AIPAC spying affair or Libbygate. (People call it Plamegate, but it is Libby who is the scandal here). <br><br>David Corn had speculated that Libby would graymail the government to stop his prosecution, by demanding all sorts of classified information that the Bush administration would not want to turn over. But I'd say that Libby has gone from graymail a step further to blackmail. He has signalled that he is not going down by himself, is not going to be a good soldier, and will drag Bush himself down with him if he can. <br><br>By the way, isn't anyone else outraged that Karl Rove remains in the White House after it was openly revealed that he personally outed an undercover CIA operative for petty political purposes? Why isn't the press demanding his resignation every day?<br><br>I predicted this "every man for himself" scenario last November. It seemed to me that the loyal thing to have done would have been to plead guilty, take three years of jail, and then have Bush pardon Libby just as he was going out of office. Libby is loyal to no one but himself, obviously.<br> <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: BUSH AT CENTER OF INTELLIGENCE LEAK

Postby OnoI812 » Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:09 am

Cspan 1 WJ<br><br>good discussion <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS">www.c-span.org/watch/inde...TV&Code=CS</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=onoi812>OnoI812</A> at: 4/7/06 6:10 am<br></i>
OnoI812
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:Kucinich To Introduce A Resolution To Demand Documents

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:30 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0407-13.htm" target="top">www.commondreams.org/news2006/0407-13.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Kucinich To Introduce A Resolution To Demand Documents<br>From White House On President's Role In Leaking Intelligence On Iraq<br>Kucinich To Introduce A Resolution Of Inquiry <br> <br>WASHINGTON - April 7 - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, announced today that he will introduce a Resolution of Inquiry to demand documents from the White House on the role that the President played in the leaking of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). <br><br>A Resolution of Inquiry is a privileged resolution used to obtain documents from the Executive Branch. Under House rules, Kucinich's resolution will be referred to committee, and action must be taken in committee within 14 legislative days. <br><br>Kucinich's resolution will seek documents, including telephone logs, email records, calendars, minutes and memos, regarding the role the President played in declassifying selected portions of the NIE and the leaking of the NIE to the press. <br><br>Kucinich released the following statement today on his resolution: <br><br>"This leak was not done in the national interest, but rather the political interest of the President and his Administration. Congress must investigate this gross abuse of power. <br><br>"With this latest revelation, the President's already sizeable credibility gap on Iraq has grown to a credibility abyss. <br><br>"The American public, and the Congress, have right to know the truth. My resolution seeks to compel Congress to perform its basic Constitutional duty, and provide oversight of an Administration, which quite clearly, operates without concern for the truth." <br> <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statem

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:53 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060407.html" target="top">writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060407.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statements to the Grand Jury Claiming the President Authorized a Leak of Classified Information:<br>The President and Vice President Are Not In the Clear Yet<br>By JOHN W. DEAN <br>---- <br>Friday, Apr. 07, 2006<br><br>Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has now revealed in court filings bombshell information that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told the grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame-Wilson's covert CIA identity. According to Fitzgerald's filings, Libby said that he was authorized by the President and Vice President to leak classified information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. <br><br>This revelation has been accompanied by a number of public misstatements, which call for correction. The most blatant of these is the claim that Fitzgerald's filing indicates that the President authorized the release of Valerie Plame's covert status at the CIA. In fact, the document is conspicuously silent on this fact. The filing does indicate that the President authorized the release of classified information, but it was different information - a National Intelligence Estimate that had been classified pursuant to an executive order. <br><br>In addition, conventional wisdom - if that label fits the consensus information that is surfacing on radio and television news shows - has it that this information does not reveal that the President or Vice President did anything illegal. But that claim, too, is not necessarily accurate. <br><br>At a minimum, the filing indicates that the President and Vice President departed radically, and disturbingly, from long-set procedures with respect to classified documents - and that the Vice President, in particular, exceeded his declassification authority. And it may indicate that they, too, ought to be targets of the grand jury. <br><br>Libby's Grand Jury Testimony Regarding Valerie Plame<br><br>As readers will likely be aware, Fitzgerald indicted Libby for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to federal investigators. In response, Libby has repeatedly sought discovery of government information that he argues is relevant to his defense. On April 5, Fitzgerald's office filed a response to Libby's third effort at discovery of such information.<br><br>In his response, Fitzgerald treated Libby's request as a mere fishing expedition, a fairly typical response by a party who does not want to give up discovery. But Fitzgerald also revealed crucial new information about his investigation and findings in opposing Libby's request.<br><br>The Plame controversy, readers will recall, began with a July 6, 2003 New York Times Op Ed by Joseph Wilson, taking aim at the Administration's claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Africa to be used in nuclear weapons. The Op Ed began, explosively, as follows: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, 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."<br><br>Fitzgerald's filing noted that the "evidence will show that" that Op Ed "was viewed in the Office of the Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq." <br><br>Undercutting Wilson's Credibility with Classified Information<br><br>Plainly, Fitzgerald believes Libby lied, and this will be the central issue at his forthcoming trial. Fitzgerald contends that the evidence will show that contrary to Libby's statements to investigators and the grand jury, not only did Libby know of Valerie Plame's work at the CIA before he spoke to journalist Tim Russert, but Libby also used that information as part of the effort to discredit Wilson's Op Ed. <br><br>According to Fitzgerald, Libby "undertook vigorous efforts to rebut" Wilson because "Vice President Cheney, defendant's immediate superior, expressed concern to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson's [CIA-sponsored] trip [to Africa to determine if Iraq was getting uranium from Niger] was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife." <br><br>This disclosure about Wilson's wife, according to Fitzgerald's filing, "was one way" to undercut the Op Ed - based on the hope it would be taken less seriously "if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism."<br><br>Another way to undercut the Op Ed was to use the top-secret information in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). A knowledgeable reporter like Judith Miller would understand that this information was the best judgment of the American intelligence community. <br><br>Fitzgerald reports that Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized … to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" because the information "was 'pretty definite' against Ambassador Wilson… and that the Vice President thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out." <br><br>When Libby raised the problem of discussing the NIE with Miller because of its classified status, the filing reports that Libby "testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized" Libby to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. (Emphasis added.) <br><br>The word "later" here, in the filing, is crucially ambiguous: Did the President authorized Libby's actions before Libby actually revealed the classified information to Miller, or afterward? The distinction may make a large difference in Libby's defense: If the authorization was retroactive, then Libby initially revealed classified information without permission to do so; thus, he would have reason to lie.<br><br>In addition, Cheney's counsel (now Chief of Staff) "opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document." (Emphasis added.) <br><br>Again, the language here is telling. The filing says that the President's actions "amounted to" declassification, not that the President had unilaterally declassified the material. To the contrary, it appears the material was not declassified for several days.<br><br>Can a President or Vice President Unilaterally and Selectively Declassify? <br><br>Assuming that Libby's testimony is accurate, did the President do anything wrong by so declassifying the NIE? Given the fact that the national security classification system is created by executive order of the president, it would appear logical that the president has authority to unilaterally and selective declassify anything he might wish. However, that is not the way any president has ever written the executive orders governing these activities. To the contrary, the orders set forth rather detailed declassification procedures. <br><br>In addition, there is law that says that when a president issues an executive order he must either amend that executive order, or follow it just as others within the executive branch are required to do. At present, we have so few facts it is difficult to know what precisely Bush did and how he did it, and thus whether or not this law is applicable. There is also the problem that no one has standing in court to challenge a president's refusal to follow his own rules. But voters may take note of the disposition of this administration to play by the rules, and put a Democratic Congress in place to keep an eye on the last two years of the Bush/Cheney presidency.<br><br>What is apparent, however, based on Fitzgerald's filing, is that no one other than Bush, Cheney, Libby and apparently Addington was aware of this unilateral and selective declassification - if, indeed, the NIE was declassified. The secrecy surely suggests cover-up. For example, Fitzgerald notes that Libby "consciously decided not to make [then Deputy National Security Adviser] Hadley aware of the fact that defendant [Libby] himself had already been disseminating the NIE by leaking it to reporters while Mr. Hadley sought to get it formally declassified." (Also, CIA Director George Tenet apparently was not aware of the partial declassification by Bush.)<br><br>Whatever authority Bush may or may not have had, however, it is crystal clear that Vice President Cheney did not have any authority to unilaterally and selectively declassify the NIE. <br><br>Recently, Cheney made the public claim (to Brit Hume of Fox News) that he had authority to declassify national security information. Learning of this, Congressman Henry Waxman asked the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress, which issues non-partisan reports, whether Cheney was right. CRS found that the Vice President has limited declassification authority, generally speaking. And their report shows Cheney had no authority in this instance - only in situations where the Vice President had been the authority to classify the material in the first place, could the Vice President have the authority to unilaterally declassify it. <br><br>The Meaning of Libby's Revelations - and Their Possible Consequences<br><br>Libby's statements regarding the President are clearly hearsay; he was repeating to the grand jury what he claims Cheney told him. Accordingly, Bush is probably still protected by Cheney. <br><br>Presumably, Patrick Fitzgerald asked both Bush and Cheney about their actions when he interviewed them. But what they said, has yet to be revealed. If Cheney lied to protect himself, in the interviews, then he could also have lied to protect the President. Or Cheney could have opted to take the fall, and leave the President out of it. <br><br>Many commentators are dismissing this situation as run-of-the-mill presidential/vice presidential politics. But I believe it is more serious. <br><br>From a political perspective, separate from the illegality, there is the hypocrisy: The Bush Administration has prosecuted and sent to jail officials who leaked far less serious information - as I discussed in detail in a prior column. It is actively, and currently, threatening to prosecute others who have leaked information about the president's illegal electronic surveillance of Americans. <br><br>Beyond the hypocrisy, however, is what the President, Vice President, Libby and no doubt others did to destroy the career of Valerie Plame. Maybe the administration has quietly settled with the Wilsons, who seem to have dropped out of the public eye. This would have been wise, because as the facts unravel, it increasingly appears that administration officials did indeed attack Mr. Wilson for his speaking out; the leak of his wife's identity does indeed seem to have been done in harsh retribution. Such a violation of civil rights is a crime.<br><br>Finally, even if Bush and Cheney both get away clean of criminal charges, or even the suggestion of criminal conduct, this is still devastating for the Administration. Illegal or not, the President and Vice-President's actions, as recounted by Libby, are ugly in the extreme. <br><br>After all, Fitzgerald's filings indicate that, at a bare minimum, these highest of officials played fast and loose with declassification rules as part of a scheme to take an uncalled-for revenge against a critic who dared to question an Iraqi war justification. Even more damning, is that the critic turned out to be right: Weapons of mass destruction have never surfaced, no uranium was sold by Niger to Iraq, and the Administration's call to arms was bogus. <br><br>There will be more devastating revelations from the Libby case, I am certain. I have written of this matter in the past, and anticipate writing more in the future. The Commander-in-Chief-can-do-no-wrong veneer is wearing off, thankfully. For a nation that cannot hold its commander-in-chief responsible is something other than a democracy. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statem

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:03 pm

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/" target="top">www.firedoglake.com/</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Continuing in our analysis of the Government’s Response of 4/5/06 (PDF), we turn to page 11 of the filing. In this section, Fitz points his analysis right back to the indictment itself — and reminds Team Libby that the four corners of the indictment are the important portion for discovery analysis.<br><br>The second paragraph on page 11 is guaranteed to give all the wingnuts fits, so I’m going to spend a little bit of time typing this in very slowly, so that even the most kool-aid imparied individual might understand: when Fitz says "…indeed, it is irrelevent whether Mr. Wilson’s wife actually did work at the CIA or actually did play a role in aranging the trip, or how State Department employees viewed the results of the Wilson trip," the only thing to which he is referring in that context is irrelevant to the particular charges in Libby’s indictment — namely perjury, obstruction and false statements. And he is correct — that information is irrelevant to the consideration as to whether or not Scooter Libby lied — under oath and/or to FBI agents — and blocked the further investigation of the case.<br><br>And let me type this especially slowly: Fitzgerald is not saying that whether or not Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA or was a NOC is irrelevant to the ultimate question of IIPA or Espionage Act violations. This statement is a very narrow, very purposeful legal argument based upon Libby’s current indictment and charges therein — and nothing else.<br><br>Fitz continues the discussion with regard to what is and is not relevent to the charges in Libby’s current indictment contrasted with what has been requested by Team Libby — and points out repeatedly that they are not entitled to every piece of information that Fitzgerald’s team has in their ongoing investigation, but only such information as is material to defending Libby against his current charges.<br><br>Nor has the defendant established any connection between the documents defendant has demanded and any relevent testimony Mr. Rove or Mr. Hadley could provide. The trial in this case necessarily will focus on whether or not defendant committed perjury. While defendant may prefer to put the conduct of others on trial, he is not entitled to do so. Nor is defendant entitled to discovery so that he may examine witnesses at trial regarding their conduct and the conduct of others that is not germaine to the issue of whether defendant lied and obstructed justice. (pp. 15-16)<br><br>Ouch. It’s painful for Libby, but it is true: you do not get to re-write your own history as the actions that you wish you would have taken. Your conduct is viewed by the court and the jury as it was done at the time. And no amount of finger-pointing today changes the facts as they were and are. You don’t want to be faced with your own criminal behavior? Don’t commit a crime. (It sounds harsh, and I know with this Administration there are a whole lot of people who have been swept into a net without any charges whatsoever — but that’s not what I’m talking about here. Apples and oranges. If you lie under oath to a grand jury — repeatedly — and to FBI investigators, you get what you have coming to you. But then, I’ve never been asked to provide a firewall for my bosses at the highest echelon’s of government…nah, you still get what you have coming to you.)<br><br>On page 18, Fitz calls the Barbara Comstock public wingnut "attack Valerie" argument for what it is — a smokescreen meant to shift the public and the jury’s field of vision away from the alleged criminal activity of Libby — or, in the words of the response, "to provide an irrelevant distraction from the issues of the case." (See my commentary above on the CIA employment issue/perjury.)<br><br>At the bottom of page 18, there is an interesting moment wherein Fitz discusses Libby’s current indictment in terms of what was "in context the state of mind of defendant and others working in the Office of Vice President at the relevant time, nor explain why defendant was likely to have forgotten conversations about the topic in which he participated." What an intriguing choice of phrase "an others working in the Office of Vice President, isn’t it? <br><br>Fitzgerald goes on to point out that "the evidence will show" (which is a classic opening statement phrasing at trial, just fyi) that:<br><br>…the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq. Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week following July 7, 2003. (p. 1<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Two things as I read this: (1) Fitz is confident he has the goods to back this up and (2) wasn’t the use of the parenthetical, almost portraying it as an afterthought for Libby and the Veep, on (and the President) a very interesting choice here? Maybe I’m just tired and punchy and reading too much into this, but I think we see where a great deal of the focus is for Fitz in the repeated references to the Office of Vice President. And I wonder how much of this pointed focus came about as a result of Rove’s machinations and how much information he may have given over to throw Libby and Cheney and pals at the Veep under the bus? Interesting, no?<br><br>What I read overall from page 18: "I’ve got you by the short hairs on this."<br><br>The final bit of analysis in this is coming up in Part III.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/07/hey-team-libby-part-i/" target="top">www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/07/hey-team-libby-part-i/</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Hey, Team Libby… (Part I) <br>By Christy Hardin Smith<br><br><br>While the above sign does pretty much sum up the Fitzgerald response brief, there are a whole lot of interesting tidbits that I know everyone wants to discuss and analyze. So I’m not going to stop here. But I did want to emphasize that the discovery process is limited to those pieces of information which are material to the charges within the four corners of the indictment and such material as is helpful to the defendant in his defense of these charges. Anything else is not relevent. Period.<br><br>Despite this, defense attorneys routinely ask for as much information as they can possibly think of, hoping against hop to get a prosecutor who will hand it over. Of course they do — wouldn’t you, under the circumstances? And prosecutors routinely fight requests for information which they feel are burdensome, irrational and designed to just be a pain for their offices. Of course they do — wouldn’t you? <br><br>But none of this gets to the real, meaty, strategery contained within this particular Fitz response. And I know that is what everyone is really wanting, so without further ado…<br><br>Before we get into any substantive analysis, I just want to say for the record that Patrick Fitzgerald and his legal team write a helluva brief, with just enough snark to keep a girl going into the wee hours. Truly some great work — sometimes, as an attorney, you just have to sit back and marvel at someone else’s work product. I say "Fitz" in terms of the writing and filing for brevity’s sake in my article, but there is an entire team of lawyers and investigators who work on these motions and this investigation, and they ought to be commended for the professionalism and commitment to the rule of law that they have shown. Each and every one of them. And I just wanted to say that for the record. <br><br>On Page 1 of the Fitz Motion Response (PDF), we discover that the government has already turned over more than 12,300 pages of classified and unclassified documents, has an additional 1400 pages of handwritten Libby notes ready to turn over for transliteration, and it preparing a whole slew of summaries for the PDBs as the Judge ordered for consideration. Fitz goes on to argue on Page 2 that the remaining issues of contention on discovery amount to the defendant attempting to end-run the usual rules (Rule 16 specifically — see here for the text of the rule and here for commentary – and attendant case law) in order to obtain what is called "open file" discovery — or where the defendant and his counsel simply get to rummage through everything the prosecutor has, no matter how irrelevent it may be to the case at bar. This is not what the case law and the normal procedures require, and not what ought to be done.<br><br>On Page 2, Fitz refers to the pending Libby discovery motions as "miscellaneous additional discovery." (which was really funny about 11:30 last night, btw) And he reminds Team Libby that under the Criminal Rules of Procedure Rule 16(a)(1)(E), the information requested must be "material to the preparation of the defense" and that an abstract relationship to its preparation is insufficient. (p. 3)<br><br>Accordingly, there is no general Rule 16 right to broadly fish through the government’s investigative file simply because the defendant makes a "conclusory allegation" of materiality. (p. 4)<br><br>This argument is repeated throughout the motion response. And Fitz gets right to the heart of things, and manages to poke at everyone else who is hanging out there in the wind in the unfinished, ongoing portion of the investigation.<br><br><br>Allowing defendant to attempt to replicate the government’s investigation is particularly inappropriate because the government’s investigation was broader in scope than the charges ultimately brought in the indictment. (p. 5)<br><br>Fitz goes on to nail Team Libby’s ass to the wall by citing the Court’s own opinion to back up his argument. And he pointedly refers Team Libby to "the backdrop of limited charges in this indictment" (emphasis mine) which are perjury, false statements and obstruction – which raises the big question in my mind as to whether there is more to come for Scooter and his cohorts. Kudos to reader rwcole for his early theory on Fitz’s limiting the charges in this indictment as a firewall to the rest of his ongoing investigation — I think it’s fairly clear that rw was on to something.<br><br>And then comes this huge shot across the bow:<br><br>Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. (p. 7)<br><br>Well, unless Scooter has been doing lots of planning all by himself (unlikely), it sure sounds like our boy Pat is sitting on some more evidence that he has plans for himself, doesn’t it? Talk about your wake-up call to everyone still hanging out there at the same time he administers a Team Libby smack. And shorter Fitz on the Colin Powell mumblings from Libby: oh, on your casting of aspersions, I call bullshit. (Truly, page 7 is worth a thorough read.)<br><br>There is also a consistent bit in the footnotes that is meant as a subtle jab at the lawyers for Libby. I point this out only because lawyers tend to have big egos (especially the high priced ones) and this sort of jab, despite being in the footnotes, would carry a bit of a public sting in this case. On page 7, in fn. 3, there is a sort of "Oh, by the way, sloppy lawyering in your motion, considering you misnumbered and mislabeled things. Just wanted you to know that I noticed. Ahem."<br><br>Fitz then moves on to the argument regarding discovery requests for those witnesses that Team Libby has identified as probable for the government — and he pretty much undercuts their claims on a number of them.<br><br>Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals — Mr. Tenet, Mr. Hadley and Mr. Rove — defendant is not entitled to discovery based on the need to cross examine those individuals. (p. 9)<br><br>Not to get anyone’s hopes up or anything, but most prosecutors do not like to call as a witness people they intend to indict. It leaves them open to impeachment on the stand during cross examination, because defense counsel have clear evidence of wrongdoing in the behavior that led to their indictment to lay out for the jury. I’m just saying. <br><br>There is so much more — and the meatiest bits are yet to come in Part II. Trying not to overwhelm everyone all at once this morning. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Did the NIE that Bush declassified contain Plame's name

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:32 pm

<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x880488" target="top">www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x880488</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Did the NIE that Bush "declassified" contain Plame's name? <br> <br>According to a February 11, 2006 post at Firedoglake cited by Stop The Bleeding, Plame's name was in the CIA national Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Scooter shared with Judy Miller ten days before it was declassified by the Agency. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x871455" target="top">www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x871455</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>This is the classified document that Libby testified Cheney and Bush authorized him to release. Now it comes together!!!! <br><br>By "declassifying" the NIE that Scooter shared with Judy Miller, Bush outed Plame. If this report is accurate, this is IT! Smoking gun<br><br><br>"The NIE - this is a document that traditionally takes up to 3 months to prepare and is always customary before our Country does big events like a war per say. Now according to Firedoglake, the WH wasn't even gonna have an NIE until Dick Durbin asked for one and the WH reluctantly complied and did it in 20 days or so vs the usual 3 months. - SEE FIREDOFLAKE link for better details<br><br>Now here is the fun part, the INR memo that has Plame's status all throughout it, was included as a footnote in the NIE but not in the White Paper of the NIE that went to Congress as requested. In addition to the INR footnote it completely contradicted what portions of the NIE was saying about yellow cake - important omission IMO. <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Smoking Guns; getting numb to them

Postby betty a free man » Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:22 pm

but speaking of DU, there is a poster who said he/she never got excited over any of the other scandels - because "I understand politics" but with this one he/she "smells blood."<br><br>He even challenges the mods to shows his past posts to show he has been right about everything.<br><br>Hope he is right. <p></p><i></i>
betty a free man
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests