Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

National Journal ^ | 2.9.06 | Murry Waas

[Kimberly GG]

Thank you for the explanation, Cboldt.

[Kimberly GG]

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)

[Freee-dame]

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?

[demlosers]

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.

[Just mythoughts]

What jury, Plame's status was not even part of this investigation, else Libby would have been indicted for outing her.

[demlosers]

Grand Jury Leaking?

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

[Howlin]

Scooter Ping!

[Just mythoughts]

bttt

[frankjr]

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.

[demlosers]

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.

[nopardons]

Awwwwwwwwwwwww gee...what tripe!

[Cboldt]

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.

[frankjr]

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 ;)

[Cboldt]

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."

[A Texan]

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.)

[frankjr]

" 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!

[Mike Darancette]

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.

[BamaDi]

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

[frankjr]

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.

[Robert A Cook PE]

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