Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information
National Journal ^ | 2.9.06 | Murry Waas

Posted on 02/09/2006 10:33:40 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cheney; cia; cialeak; cialeakplame; classified; horsemanure; leak; libby; murrywaas; plame; scooter; waas; wilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 next last
To: All

I hadn't seen this....(Yahoo w/link to the Nation, gag)

"These newly released records disclose that former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer told Fitzgerald's grand jury that he had a lunch with Libby during which Libby told him that Wilson's wife did counterproliferation work at the CIA and that this information was "hush-hush." Fleischer described the lunch as "kind of weird." Usually, Libby "operated in a very closed-lip fashion," Fleischer said. But in this instance, it seems, he was trying to spread information that could be used against a White House critic."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060206/cm_thenation/357174;_ylt=A86.I0_cpOdDn0EA4QP9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--



something new?


141 posted on 02/10/2006 11:47:52 AM PST by Kimberly GG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
How does Cheney 'authorize' Libbys' first amendment rights? If, and I say if, Cheney 'ordered' Libby to 'out' Plame, and Plame was covered under the "covert" act, how does Cheney order Libby to commit a felony? If Plame was not covered under the act, then Libby can involk his 2nd amendment rights to say what-ever-the-hell he wants to say. Libby is a lawyer. He knows he cannot be ordered to commit a crime by political superiors.

This shit is much ado about nothing. Legal ranglings.

142 posted on 02/10/2006 11:54:01 AM PST by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Here are a few more tidbits on Waas from the Downside Legacy:

The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) 11/30/98 Marvin Lee ".Last year Matt Drudge pried loose from underneath the behind of Newsweek "reporter" Michael Isikoff the Kathleen Willey story. Isikoff had decided to sit on it. The White House was concerned. They could control Isikoff but could they control Matt Drudge? . In January of this year he broke the Lewinsky story that some members of the "press" had been sitting on for months. When Clinton read the Drudge Report that day, he set in motion a cover-up effort and the rest is history. On Tuesday of last week, Drudge pulled another one. He blew the lid on a story that pro-Clinton reporter Murray Waas as well as two Washington newspaper editors had been sitting on: the leak of more than 20,000 classified foreign policy documents detailing the failed national security policy of the Clinton administration towards North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iraq and China. "The papers also reveal new details on the Clinton policy towards China in which the White House allowed ballistic missile technology exports to China at the behest of wealthy Democratic campaign contributors," reported Drudge. No mainstream media outlet has picked up on the story yet, but a British newspaper attempted to contact Murray Waas for confirmation.."

Drudge Report 11/29/98 ".Waas on Sunday night was said to be "bitterly angry" over the leak regarding the leak. "He is furious that word got out," a close friend to Waas explained late Sunday night in Washington. "He has been holding the documents close after showing them to two Washington newspaper editors." .. During the 1992 presidential campaign, both Clinton and Gore often praised Waas exclusives exposing the Bush administration's Iraq policy, which involved the leaks of thousands of pages of classified papers regarding the Gulf war. It is not clear when Waas will begin to unload on Clinton. Some in Washington speculate that left-wing Waas does not want to write a major expose about the Clinton administration in the midst of the impeachment hearings, fueling the flames for conservatives. "He's bitterly angry," says a close associate. "Conservatives have been spreading rumors to pressure him to do it. And now his White House contacts are now extremely angry and have stopped talking to him


143 posted on 02/10/2006 12:45:54 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

More FAKE News from the MSM.

Add it to, the outraged Mayor of Los Angeles.

The Mayor's complaints continue to be broadcast, but the FACT that his office was notified is not.


144 posted on 02/10/2006 1:19:42 PM PST by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
The case will be dismissed.

I hope you are right, but the actual charges sound solid, even if the underlying crime never occurred.

As Fitzgerald said:

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable.

In his October 2005 press conference, Fitzgerald said in effect that while his case began with an investigation of the illegal disclosure of Plame's classified status, the current charges against Libby had nothing to do with that status. The MSM continue to report a different story to promote their agenda, but their lies are not necessarily relevant to Fitzgerald's case.

145 posted on 02/10/2006 3:03:08 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
"Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information"

This burn my a@@. Damn lie. The work "Leak" is a bold face rotten distortion of what was he authorized to discuss. No use, RATS and MSM is so full of sh-t there is no redeeming value for them.
146 posted on 02/10/2006 3:12:05 PM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChad

The case isn't as solid as it sounds because there is no proof that Libby intentionally lied. The case is just a matter of Libby's memory, differing from the memory of the partisan reporters.


147 posted on 02/10/2006 5:16:03 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Eva
The case is just a matter of Libby's memory, differing from the memory of the partisan reporters.

Have you read the indictment?
Deconstruction & link -> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569428/posts?page=70#70

The last few paragraphs there refer only to Count 3.

148 posted on 02/10/2006 11:34:29 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

bump


149 posted on 02/11/2006 8:45:15 AM PST by wingman1 (University of Vietnam 1970. Forget? Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The question is, "did you know of Plame's status outside the rumor mill?" Libby said "No," in so many words, and only a few months after he'd contacted the CIA.

The key here is Plame's status. There is every indication, though not proven by CIA documentation (at least the prosecutor claims that he has none), that Plame's identity was not classified, so there is no way that Libby could have official knowledge of her classified status. It's a simple matter of semantics.

150 posted on 02/11/2006 11:43:57 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Eva
The key here is Plame's status.

Not in the sense of "covert or not." Did you read the indictment? What allegation in it (that matters to a count) is demonstrably false?

151 posted on 02/11/2006 11:46:16 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

What statement is demonstrably true?


152 posted on 02/11/2006 11:48:19 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Eva
What statement is demonstrably true?

LOL. Point taken.

153 posted on 02/11/2006 11:56:36 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

It's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not Libby's job to prove his innocence.


154 posted on 02/11/2006 11:58:18 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Eva
It's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not Libby's job to prove his innocence.

Yep. But as you say, even Libby's assertions aren't demonstrably true either.

The narrow point my posts aim to transfer is that "covert or not" is irrelevant to the case. And further, that the case doesn't boil down to a difference in recollection between Libby and any reporter.

I've laid out my reasoning in that, and I don't really care to rephrase the logic the indictment, yet again.

155 posted on 02/11/2006 12:02:12 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

If the assertions of the prosecutor are not demonstrably true, and the same for Libby's assertions. It is a case of he said, he said. The prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case. It is very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that Libby was intentionally misleading in regard to when he became officially aware of Plame's status, especially since her status is still in question. That's what the prosecutor has to prove, intention.


156 posted on 02/11/2006 12:06:57 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Eva
It is a case of he said, he said.

Yeah, between Libby and the investigators and the GJ, with some independent contemporaneaous evidence that Libby had authoritative knowledge that Wilson's wife in fact worked at the CIA.

The prosecutor is the one who has to prove his case. It is very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that Libby was intentionally misleading in regard to when he became officially aware of Plame's status, especially since her status is still in question.

Her "status" as you put it is not "covert or not." Her "status" as relevant to the case is something less than that, and maybe as little as "known to be an employee of the CIA."

That's what the prosecutor has to prove, intention.

Intention to conceal, from investigators, that he had authoritative knowledge that Wilson't wife was working at the CIA. The indictment itself says the lie relates to "LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." Not covert, not some special "status," just that "LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

Now, as you say, the facts as stated in the indictment need to be proven to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. But if he proves that LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and further that he intended to conceal that from investigators and the GJ, then he should be convicted of the charges.

157 posted on 02/11/2006 12:21:11 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I thought that you stated earlier that the indictment stated that Libby had prior knowledge, outside of the rumor mill, of Plame's status. That would mean that Libby had been officially informed that Plame worked for the CIA, in other words, that Cheney had informed Libby and that Libby remembered the sequence in that way.

I remember hearing, some time ago, that Libby went into the questioning cold, without having reviewed his notes. That would make the case of intention extremely hard to prove.


158 posted on 02/11/2006 12:33:27 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I thought that you stated earlier that the indictment stated that Libby had prior knowledge, outside of the rumor mill, of Plame's status.

The indictment says what it says. Read it. It says that Libby had various contacts, including some where he took the initiative to make the inquiry of the CIA himself, that provided him with authoritative knowlegde that Wilson's wife in fact worked at CIA. He had more detail than that, including that she was assigned to counterproliferation. So says the indicment, maybe the assertion is a lie.

That would mean that Libby had been officially informed that Plame worked for the CIA, in other words, that Cheney had informed Libby and that Libby remembered the sequence in that way.

Right.

I remember hearing, some time ago, that Libby went into the questioning cold, without having reviewed his notes. That would make the case of intention extremely hard to prove.

I reach a different conclusion after reading the indictment and thinking about the timeline as set forth therein. Again, as you say, the entire indictment could be a figment of Fitzgerald's imagination, but assuming the facts are as alleged, the case for "intentionally mislead investigators" is not a difficult stretch. Just my opinion, mind you.

159 posted on 02/11/2006 12:42:37 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

"HAIRBALL !!!!!!!!" LOL ! I never heard that before ! hahahaha, thanks for the laugh !


160 posted on 02/11/2006 12:54:44 PM PST by Neenah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson