Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

National Journal ^ | 2.9.06 | Murry Waas

[conserv13]

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war.

[harpu]

Yes, yes, and yes.

[kms61]

the lefty bloggers are having multiple orgasms over this.

[M. Thatcher]

remember this dude?
No

Here's just a sample

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0291.htm

Washington Weekly 5/4/98 ".Survival of the Clinton administration has also been contingent upon successful corruption of the press. The most prominent Clinton operator at this time is Murray Waas, gaining fame in the mainstream media for finding a psychic in Arkansas whose son had seen money given to Whitewater witness David Hale. Murray Waas has actually been doing opposition research for the Clinton administration for several years. His journalistic "scoops" (or are they merely ventilations of White House FBI files?) include research into the background of Kenneth Starr and into the background of Clinton critics. In this research, his Mafia-style methods have become apparent. Waas threatened to have reporter Michael Lewis killed after Lewis wrote a New Republic story looking into murder and drugs in Arkansas--a story that was unflattering of Waas [3]. Who does Waas know who would be able to enforce such a threat? .."

The Independent - UK Mary Dejevsky 11/27/98 ".THOUSANDS OF sensitive documents relating to US national security have been leaked, according to reports on the Internet yesterday. But America's mainstream media, preoccupied with the Thanksgiving holiday, seemed not to want to know. The documents, as many as 20,000 pages of them, are said to detail efforts by the Clinton administration to conceal the extent of Iraq's weapons development plans, White House approval for exports of sensitive satellite technology to China, and information about the incentives offered by Washington to North Korea in return for curbing its nuclear programme - terms that North Korea has in the event ignored...Verbatim details from the papers were not available yesterday, and Murray Waas, the reporter said to have the papers, could not be reached. Drudge suggested that Waas, who writes for the pro-Clinton Internet magazine Salon, was reluctant to divulge the contents while Bill Clinton faces impeachment proceedings.."

also see

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468063/posts

[Let's Roll]

And if he didn't authorize it, he should have ... similar to if it's not true, it should be.

[You Dirty Rats]

testified to a federal grand jury ... according to attorneys familiar with the matter

These attorneys (or this report) are either lying or guilty of a felony by disclosing secret grand jury testimony. In either case, though, the story can't be disproven because of the same secrecy.

In other words, this is a cowardly attack on the White House -- not the first time and won't be the last.

[You Dirty Rats]

Of all people, VP Cheney would never authorize the disclosure of ANY classified info for ANY reason. Classified is Classified. period. End of discussion.

Ironic, isn't it, that this story smears Cheney for revealing secrets when they themselves are revealing secret grand jury testimony.

[Kimberly GG]

Would you summarize this to mean:

The leaking of Plame's status of employment with the CIA, covert or not, classified or not, was ITSELF ALONE, never a consideration of criminal wrongdoing.

But rather, the investigation is into whether or not there was the BELIEF that her status of employment with the CIA was covert or classified and so it was (purposefully) released.

[Cboldt]

Would you summarize this to mean:
The leaking of Plame's status of employment with the CIA, covert or not, classified or not, was ITSELF ALONE, never a consideration of criminal wrongdoing.
But rather, the investigation is into whether or not there was the BELIEF that her status of employment with the CIA was covert or classified and so it was (purposefully) released.

No. I would summarize the footnote as that "If we assume Plame is covert under the statute, that alone isn't enough to convict Libby under the 'outing the covert agent' statute. We would also have to find that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work, and we have no evidence of that."

In other words, as of August 27, 2004, Fitz wasn't planning to charge Libby with outing the agent.

While interesting, the fact is a distraction from the actual charge, which is "Libby lied to investigators by concealing that he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA."

[pnome]

That's a very good question I think.

[Freedom is eternally right]

This is in Fritz's response to Libby's attorneys request for documents.

At this time we do not intend to offer any evidence of "other crimes" pursuant to Rule 404(b). As we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") to such reporters in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003 (and caused at least one other government official to discuss the NIE with the media in July 2003). We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors. We expect that such conduct will be the subject of proof at trial in that we intend to introduce Libby's grand jury transcript in evidence and Mr. Libby has testified that the purpose of his July 8 meeting with Ms. Miller was to transmit information concerning the NIE. Our anticipated basis for offering such evidence is that such facts are inextricably intertwined with the narrative of the events of spring 2003, as Libby's testimony itself makes plain. At this time, we do not intend to offer the evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b).

I don't understand what this means "We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified". Weren't they listening to his testimony?

[Cboldt]

I don't understand what this means "We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified". Weren't they listening to his testimony?

That phrase is the subject of the statement. The object is "that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed [blah blah blah]." It's the object of the statement that is relevant to the prosecutor's argument here.

There is another similar subject/object pair: "Mr. Libby has testified" that "the purpose of his July 8 meeting with Ms. Miller was [blah blah blah]."

The prosecutor is limiting the relevance of the testimony/evidence that Libby was authorized to discuss NIE, to make it mere foundation for explaining why he was meeting with Miller and other reporters. That is, he had a reason to meet with them, this is what the reason was, and the reason happens to relate to the fact that Plame worked at CIA.

Rule 404 is a rule of evidence. 404(b) says:

(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm

I think Fitz is saying that the evidence that Libby had permission to discuss the NIE is not intended to show "anything," it's just an unavoidable disclosure.

[shield]

LOL...more crapola coming from the left...wonder why no one is reporting on Rockefeller...who is #1 in the investigation of leaks that's actually done harm to this country and our troops.

[stocksthatgoup]

Grand Jury Leaking?

[KevinDavis]

Anonymous should be fired..

[Political Junkie Too]

...that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information...

Question: Who decides what is classified and what is not? If Cheney is Vice-President, can't he decide on his own authority to release classified information? And what about other White House "superiors" to Libby? Who's that? Cheney? Bush? Rove?

Doesn't President Bush get to decide what's classified and what is not, or is there someone more superior than him?

-PJ

[Freedom is eternally right]

If I remember correctly when I read Libby's attorneys request for documents, they wanted assurances that he wouldn't be charged with disclosing this info. (The closing sentence in my last post was a joke. I love legal jargon!)

[longtermmemmory]

this is more about jury tampering than reality.

The Mediots want to turn libby into a proxie for the VP and Pres.

Mathews will pick this up, and yes he is that stupid.

[kcvl]

Don't believe anything Murray Waas writes!

Clinton apologist, Murray Waas, found his fame in the mainstream media for finding a psychic in Arkansas whose son had seen money given to Whitewater witness David Hale.

Murray Waas has been doing opposition research for the Clinton administration for years which included research into the background of Kenneth Starr and into the background of Clinton critics.

Joe Conason, Sidney Blumenthal, Murray Waas and James Carville worked to trash anyone who got in the Clintons way. Don't believe anything he says!

[balch3]

Can the funding for this witchhunt be pulled by the Administration? It's long since gotten out of control. When it first started, people here were praising Fitzgerald to high heaven. I had my doubts, and it's turning out to be right. Fitzgerald is just another RAT hack prosecutor.

[conserv13]

Fitzgerald is just another RAT hack prosecutor.

I don't think so. I think this article is much ado about nothing.