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.

[Mears]

Thanks for the info---just what the skeptics need---but they won't believe it anyway.They believe what they want to believe in their unabashed hatred for Bush.

It's almost funny,almost !

[TChad]

That's impossible, because we have already heard that Plame's identity was not classified at that time.

We have heard that it was classified, and not classified, and covert, and not covert, and that her status didn't matter to Libby's case, except that it did matter.

I suppose it would be too easy for the CIA to make a public statement describing Plame's status at the time she was outed. Everyone on the planet now knows that she was an agent who did classified work, so I don't see how such a disclosure could harm national security.

[CharlesWayneCT]

So? The President has the authority to declassify anything he wants. The congress has been begging the President to declassify these things so they could put them out to the public.

So libby testified that he was authorized to give some information from classified reports to reporters. This has nothing to do with Plame, it talks about stuff from classified reports.

But the news story wants you to THINK he said he was authorised to leak Valerie's name.

[STARWISE]

What's this?

""Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in documents filed last month that he plans to introduce evidence that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, disclosed to reporters the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 2003.

The NIE is a report prepared by the head of the nation's intelligence operations for high-level government officials, up to and including the president. Portions of NIEs are sometimes declassified and made public. It is unclear whether that happened in this instance.

In a Jan. 23 letter to Libby's lawyers, Fitzgerald said Libby also testified before the grand jury that he caused at least one other government official to discuss an intelligence estimate with reporters in July 2003."

[Kimberly GG]

"The author of this story, which by the way is not a new story, is trying to conflate approval Libby may have had to discuss some "classified" info with the press, into an "approval" to reveal Valerie Plame's "classified" identity, when in fact it is not such an approval any more than is it evidence that her status was "classified".

Yet, you can bet that the dim-witted Dim Matthews will jump t o every erroneous conclusion the author is trying to present."


Matthews, unfortunately, is not the only anchor/reporter who is presenting this story in the same way. The leap from approving release of some of the classified report for improving support for the war, to approving release of Plame's identity, is astonishing and even though Libby's attorney's have released a statement saying that this is not true, they continue to report it. Terry McAuliff was the first yesterday afternoon on CNN and it hasn't stopped. Now it is being reported by CNN that a Paul Pillar (?) is releasing a statement saying in summary that Bush used misleading information to support the already-made decision for war.

[YaYa123]

read this:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/politics/main1302808.shtml


Makes it clear, (at least to me), that whatever Cheney told Libby to say, was perfectly legal, and had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. This looks like (at least to me), that CBS is trying to nail Cheney for doing his job, which is to give direction to the people who work for him. I mean, of course Cheney told Libby what he could and couldn't say about WMDs.

I think CBS and Gloria Borger are basing their reporting on "wishful thinking".

[Kimberly GG]

Libby: 'Superiors' Approved Leak
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9, 2006

---

Former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, has testified that his "superiors" authorized him to leak classified information to reporters. (Getty Images/Joe Raedle)
Quote
"It's still an open question about whether it hurts Dick Cheney legally. Only the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knows the answer to that question."

---

From that link:

"It's a clear arrow pointing to the vice president, CBS News political analyst Gloria Borger reports Thursday. "

Kennedy is also now demanding to know if Bush knew and approved. Sounds to me like the leftist's impeachment jihad would include both President and VP, if that's possible!

[Cboldt]

... do you know if Libby and his attorney are entitled to have a transcript of his GJ testimony?

Yes. His defense team has or will have a transcript of his GJ testimony. I'm looking for a website or other resource that keeps track of the areas of agreement and areas of difference between Libby and the prosecutor, but haven't found one.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Court_filings_shed_more_light_on_0202.html
http://rawstory.com/other/pdfs/RawStoryFitzLibby2.pdf <- Discovery

The discovery documents are interesting and informative, and include:

• December 14, 2005 letter from Libby's counsel to Fitzgerald, specifically requesting certain discovery material;
• Fitzgerald's response of January 9, 2006, which describes the types of documents being turned over, and others that are not turned over; and
• Fitzgerald's letter of January 23, 2006, which describes further discussions (a Januaary 18 telephone conference) and development of discovery issues.

The January 23 letter has a number of statements that illuminate what Fitzgerald sees as the scope of the trial; as it recites the specific reasons why Fitzgerald either lacks evidence or is not turning it over to Libby's defense.

Here is a short example, on the point of "this is not a leak trial."

(B) and (C): We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson's employment was not classified during the relevant times that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information.³

(C): We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson did not act in an undercover capacity or did not act covertly in the five years prior to 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny) that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information.

---
³ I note that Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified but has since been declassified so that we may now confirm such status. In any event, we are not aware of any documents in our possession stating that Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not classified at the relevant times.

Brady is a reference to a Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that stands for the proposition that denying exculpatory evidence to a defendant is a violation of due process.

Here is another snip, and it shows that Libby's defense is indeed quite aggressive.

(H): Your request for Giglio impeachment material is premature and overbroad. You will receive such material for Government witnesses, not for "potential" Government witnesses (however that term is defined). Moreover, the scope of records you seek is far beyond the scope of what is required. By way of illustrative (but not exhaustive) example, you seek all documents relating to any juvenile arrest of any potential government witness in a case where there will be no witnesses where any such arrest would be remotely recent or relevant to the trial.

[Peach]

I've seen this happen on FNC more than once, oceanview. A reporter provides an exact quote from someone; an hour later the change in reporters changes the story only this time there is no quote and they are giving bad info.

[mewzilla]

Murry Waas is the guy who started this tempest in a teacup?!

ROTF.

Note to the MSM: Can't say you weren't warned :)

[mewzilla]

"Waas" up?! Where are those 20,000 CIA documents?

[Wasanother]

This disinformation is coming from the prosecutor's office in order to influence a potential jury. If the judge had any sense of fairness he would toss the charges and put Fitz the Blitz in jail.

[Souled_Out]

---

"Um, Libby is being charged with obstructing justice, not revealing classified information. So how would saying Cheney told him to release classified information help him in that regard?"

---

This is the continuance of the cover for the RATS that leaked the terrorist surveillance information.

The idea is to get as many BS stories out to water down the seriousness of the fact that they betrayed their country again.

[Wuli]

Now it is being reported by CNN that a Paul Pillar (?) is releasing a statement saying in summary that Bush used misleading information to support the already-made decision for war.

That is not new either. CNN just went out and found someone to bring back a very old Dim talking point (Bush forced the intelligence opinion to say what he wanted), using the "new" Libby "revelations" (NOT) as the backdrop for it.

Altogether, its one same old story - the leftist agenda of the LameStreamMedia, looking for new angles for beefing up old lies. Theirs is a true belief system, not a rational system, and that system's need to adhere to the orthodoxy of its beliefs, no matter what the evidence (Dan Rather) is stronger than the radical Islamic faith of Osama Bin Laden. Osama could much more easily change from the error of his ways than could the LameStreamMedia. Its minions have been thoroughly and completely indoctrinated by the left since high school and they are the true religious zealots of our age.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press."

But this is EXACTLY the impression that Brian Williams tried to give last night on the evening news.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Just now on Fox News, they read a statement from Libby's defense team that said they have NO intention of raising as a defense anything about VP authorization to leak classified information. They added no one on their team has discussed the potential defenses with anyone outside of among themselves."

Of course, last night Brian Williams (NBC?) presented all of this as FACT. And, as a matter of logic, I don't see how a coherent defense of a crime could be based on the argument that someone else urged you to commit it!

[the Real fifi]

Powerline today calls this the stupidest story ever.

Although the story shows little more than the credulity of the press and its incompetence, here is some useful bit of info to tuck away:


Quote:

---

The President, of course, has the authority to declassify anything, since the classification system derives from Executive Order 13292, which is an amendment of EO 12958.

The VP, in the performance of his executive duties, has original authority to classify information:

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

Therefore, he also has authority to declassify information:

(l) "Declassification authority" means:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
(2) the originators current successor in function;
(3) a supervisory official of either; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.

---

Certainly, when the data is dated , necessary to answer false charges against the Administration, and doesn't disclose means and methods declassification would be called for. The 2002 NIE was declassified early in 2003 .

[Eva]

The very fact that Fitzgerald brought no charges relating to the disclosure of classified material is an admission that no such charge could me made. We do know that her identity was not classified for other reasons, as well. Her identity was inadvertantly revealed a few years earlier, so was no longer classified. This whole case has been brought on trumped up charges by the media and a partisan prosecutor. Now they are in danger of being exposed and are trying to get as much mileage out of it as possible before that happens.

[Eva]

Oh, I forgot to mention that Victoria Toensing, the lawyer who wrote the law about revealing an agent's name, has stated in an editorial in the WSJ, that the law was not violated. .....but the media and the partisan prosecutor pushed forward anyway. Now the reporters are all going to be dragged into open court and forced to make their accusations in public, before tv cameras. This time the other reporters, the ones that were not called, will be forced to testify as well. These are the reporters who will testify that Plame's name was common knowledge in DC, among reporters who covered the CIA. This testimony will not only prove that the name was not classified and already in the public arena, they will prove that the prosecutor's case is nothing more than a he said, she said, between the left wing media and the defendant. The case will be dismissed. The repercussions will be that the reporters will have lost the protection of sources that they have always claimed and we know how much importance the left puts on precedence.