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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 next last
To: Cboldt

Thank you for the explanation, Cboldt.


61 posted on 02/09/2006 1:41:08 PM PST by Kimberly GG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

Flipping through channels, I just saw MacAuliff on CNN re-state, as if a fact, that Cheney told Libby to........(as stated in the article)


62 posted on 02/09/2006 1:42:30 PM PST by Kimberly GG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13; maica; Travis McGee
According to sources with firsthand knowledge

Since "sources close to the White House" could be two reporters walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, I wonder what this could mean?

63 posted on 02/09/2006 2:03:49 PM PST by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I think the jury is still out on that one. We don't have a definitive answer on that yet.

Au contraire, the jury is in on that one. Fitzgerald little lecture during his press conference about national security was nothing but misdirection to sow confusion. Little Fitzy played his silly ditty to the leftist moonbats and ignorant national media. From all that bluster, little Fitzy could not indict anyone on leaking classified information since Plame working at the CIA is really unclassified.

And if so, Cheney gave Libby the authorization "to leak" Plame's name to the media - that's a BIG so what. It isn't leaking classified data, and it's surely not obstruction of justice, especially in this case of a non-crime.

All little Fitzy can do is stretch his investigation out sonnet to please the whackjobs who live in the alternate universe.

64 posted on 02/09/2006 2:17:21 PM PST by demlosers (Kerry: "Impeach Bush, filibuster Alito, withdraw from Iraq, send U235 to Iran, elect me President!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
What jury, Plame's status was not even part of this investigation, else Libby would have been indicted for outing her.
65 posted on 02/09/2006 2:19:18 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup
Grand Jury Leaking?

It appears so... probably from little Fitzy's office since he has diddly-squat.

66 posted on 02/09/2006 2:20:41 PM PST by demlosers (Kerry: "Impeach Bush, filibuster Alito, withdraw from Iraq, send U235 to Iran, elect me President!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter; AliVeritas; alnick; AmericaUnited; Anti-Bubba182; arasina; BobS; Carolinamom; ..

Scooter Ping!


67 posted on 02/09/2006 2:20:43 PM PST by Howlin (Why don't you just report the news, instead of what might be the news? - Donald Rumsfeld 1/25/2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

bttt


68 posted on 02/09/2006 2:23:08 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
In the evidence rule you provide it states: "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..."

Not relating to this article, but this is why I think the whole question of Val being covert or classified is important and why Fitz or the CIA should provide the docs to Libby's defense. Not directly to the charge of perjury, but to the question of motive. If she was not covert or classified why would Libby lie about it? (I guess the other side is did he think she was classified whether she was or not).

On the other hand I would think it would help Fitz to show at trial that Val was definitely covert or classified to go to motive as to why Libby might lie. But again, her actual status versus what he thought is the question. That is hard to prove unless there is a doc or witness that discussed with Libby her status.

In any case, Libby needs to push the claim that he had no idea she was covert or classified.

69 posted on 02/09/2006 2:34:16 PM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
If Cheney is Vice-President, can't he decide on his own authority to release classified information?...

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

Yes, and Yes.

The President is the only one that can declassify any information if he wants to and when he wants to on his own. The President's Executive Order(s) is what sets policy in government on what is classified and what's unclassified.

Of course there could be a political cost if releasing classified data is irresponsibly done by the president.

70 posted on 02/09/2006 2:39:01 PM PST by demlosers (Kerry: "Impeach Bush, filibuster Alito, withdraw from Iraq, send U235 to Iran, elect me President!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Awwwwwwwwwwwww gee...what tripe!


71 posted on 02/09/2006 2:39:46 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
If she was not covert or classified why would Libby lie about it?

I can think of a few reasons. Didn't want the story (of deliberate leak by WH "official") to be the source of political embarassment for the administration. Believed that being found out as leaker would cost him his job, seeing as how the WH prides itself on being leak-free. ANd just for the thrill of getting the press blamed for a leak.

In any case, Libby needs to push the claim that he had no idea she was covert or classified.

He has to push that he forget he called the CIA and asked about her status. Covert or not is not an issue for this case. This isn't a "did Libby leak" case. See also post 13 above, Fitz already concedes he has no evidence of Libby's knowledge regarding Plames "covert or not" status.

72 posted on 02/09/2006 2:43:07 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

OK, I will stop posting to you regarding the importance of Val's status as it goes to motive. But let me add, Libby's defense team requested:

"5. All document, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003."

I don't think they would have asked for it unless they had a pretty good idea what the answer already was. Their client has some pretty good connections ;)


73 posted on 02/09/2006 2:52:51 PM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
Libby's defense team requested:
"5. All document, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003."

That a request that Fitz has said "we don't have that stuff, because we didn't ask the CIA for it." Plus, says Fitz, it isn't relevant to the "did Libby lie to investigators" case.

I agree that Libby has a good defense team, and apparantly plenty of cash to fund the defense. To the extent he can turn the trial into a "outing the covert agent" trial in the mind of the jury, it's to his advantage. "She wasn't covert, therefore there was no crime, therefore this was a bogus investigation, therefore even if I did lie to investigators, I should not be held to account."

74 posted on 02/09/2006 2:59:55 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Ohhhhhhhh the irony of it all.

The grand jury investigation of a "leak", in which the grand jury proceedings are to remain confidential, and you have a "leak". Try wrapping your head around that one.

(this is all bases on the assumption that the story is true, which it probably is not.)
75 posted on 02/09/2006 3:00:54 PM PST by A Texan (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

" I agree that Libby has a good defense team, and apparantly plenty of cash to fund the defense."

Just in case you would like to help out, donations can be mailed to:

Libby Legal Defense Trust
2100 M Street, N.W.
Suite 170-362
Washington, D.C. 20037-1233

I heard there will be a website soon. I told my kid no b-day gifts this year...instead he will be giving to the defense of a man who is much more wealthy than his daddy will ever be!


76 posted on 02/09/2006 3:11:25 PM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
According to sources with firsthand knowledge,

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to anonymous sources.

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.

I guess Libby is going to testify in his own defense how else would this get into testimony. Secondly I don't see how this would be relevant to the charges unless Cheney told Libby to lie.

77 posted on 02/09/2006 3:12:50 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Condimaniac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

Libby's atty has adamently denied this....


78 posted on 02/09/2006 3:14:16 PM PST by BamaDi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13; All

As far as the reliability of Waas, in his article he states:

"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."

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.

Come on Murray, quit making shi...stuff up.


79 posted on 02/09/2006 3:17:50 PM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

"according to attorneys familiar with the matter," = "democrat attorneys in Fitzgerald's office with connections to/with/under the (liberal/repubilican-baiting) special prosecutor."


80 posted on 02/09/2006 3:20:37 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 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