Bob Barr on cnn talking of cheney and declassify docs. Yes, he

[rodeodance]

can classify docs (there is a procedure)
Also a procedure through National security advisor to Declassify but much more clasify. Statutes may be involved.
13292, sec. 1.3--cheney can declassify when designated by President.

[FreedomAngel82]

1. So Bush had to give him orders?

[MadMaddie]

6. And so the plot thickens...

Was Bush involved in outing a CIA agent. Every day that passes it looks like he is involved or was at least aware of what was going on. Treason, Treason, Treason....

The chimpboy is in trouble and Mommy and Daddy won't be able to save his butt this time!!:popcorn:

[rodeodance]

2. Barr said that Cheney mudded the water--

[Klukie]

4. More like he shit in the water!

[rodeodance]

3. interesting. he can declassify but long complicated procedure which

may involve other agencies such as CIA ect.

[stop the bleeding]

7. rodeodance - check out this thread on procedure - I didn't see a comment

from you yet and this is directly related to your statements on this thread

Enjoy!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x441331

you are correct - declassification requires approval of the agency that the classified info comes out of, in other words Cheney would have needed Tenet's approval to leak information out of the NIE

[rodeodance]

17. yes. that is a great post --good explanation. thanks

[spuddonna]

5. I think Cheney did this as a political threat to Bush...

Cheney is in deep trouble. Bush is probably ready to cut him loose, and Cheney pulled this little nugget out yesterday in front of a national TV audience to tell * that if he goes down, so does Bush...

[MadMaddie]

8. They are all going down...

Many of the rats are jumping overboard and trying to swim clear of the impending disaster.

The ship is going down and it is going to be ugly!!:popcorn:

[spuddonna]

11. Good grief I hope so!

And pass the popcorn!!
:popcorn:

[atreides1]

15. They Aren't Going Anywhere

Unless the Democratic party wins overwhelmingly this November, Bush and all of his rats are going to stay until 2008, and possibly beyond.

[teriyaki jones]

12. "if he goes down, so does Bush"

God, I hope so.

Can't happen too soon!

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The whole issue is moot...unless...

1) Libby is not charged with leaking classified information. He is charged with perjury and obstruction. There is no "fruit of the tree" argument to be made. Moreover, if the docs had IN FACT been declassified by the veep, it would beg the question of why Libby felt the need to perjure himself. In any case, the determination of perjury is unrelated to the status of the information as classified or not. Lying to a grand jury is lying to a grand jury.

2) If Cheney did in fact declassify the docs or info, one would reasonably be expected to ask why he did that. Was it in the interest of national security? Why or why not? If it did any injury to national security, why did he do it? Was it a mistake to do so? Etc.

This stupid argument that Cheney declassified anything and that it would thus have a bearing on Libby's case has zero merit. It seems, rather, to put the veep in more hot water than he was previously, and does nothing to free Libby of the charges pending against him.

There is another explanation, however. If - and a big IF - the administration has wind that Fitzgerald will bring a charge against any big-shot for disclosing classified information, then (and only THEN) would this argument make sense. And I suspect that that is what's going on. Fitzgerald may have already started making moves towards that charge, and this is the initial defense strategy. The fact is that this strategy would have no nbearing on Libby's charge: it could only have bearing on additional charges to be filed in the future (violation of the covert operative protection statute or the statute against revealing classified information). Those are the only statutes on which this defense would have bearing, so one wonders whether these charges are now obviously imminent...

[coalition_unwilling]

14. When Fitz returned the indictment against Libby, didn't he also

deliver a separate sealed indictment to the judge in the case? I always wondered whether the sealed indictment (if I'm remembering correctly) had to do with Libby's allegation that Cheney authorized him to burn Plame.

If I'm correct, Fitz is displaying exactly the sort of judicious temperament one expects of a prosecutor running a grand jury? That is, Cheney's alleged crime(s) is\are political in nature and must be handled via the political process of impeachment, whereas Libby's alleged crime(s) violate certain specific criminal statutes.

What I mean when I say Cheney's alleged crimes are "political in nature" I mean that Cheney does have the power to declassify information, so no criminal violation per se. But it's the uses that declassified information is put to (and the motives for declassifying it) that move from the criminal to the political realm.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. I have no doubt Gonzalez will say if the can do it, they can also undo it

*sigh*

[ThoughtCriminal]

13. The whole issue overlooks earlier denials

Bush denies knowing who leaked and promising to fire anybody involved, then going into mega-weasel mode to avoid following up on that promise. No wonder they hate testifying under oath.

[npincus]

16. Disagree with your interpretion- I watched Bob Barr too

on CNN.

He did say that while 13292 allows for president and vice to declassify documents, he did NOT believe Cheney had the authority to do so in this case because of Plame's covert status--- other legal statutes existed which would override the authority cited in 13292.

He stated more than once he thought Cheney did NOT have right to declassify Plame's covert status.

Maybe CNN's "pipeline" has a video of this segment. I thought Barr was good and an advocate for our view. I can't reconcile that this was one of the assholes who persecuted Clinton over a blowj*b.