bu$h* admits his administration leaked Plame. Isn't that a crime?

[spanone]

SERIOUSLY...
He admitted this, right? So where are the subpoenas? Where are the warrants? Where are the Marshalls? Admission of a crime (outing a covert CIA agent) does not negate the crime.

I've heard all the bullshit about 'no underlying crime' in the Plame case. It would appear to me that the president just ADMITTED TO THE CRIME.

~snip~ WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346

[BlooInBloo]

1. They should just pass The IOKIYAR Act and be done with it...

... so we don't have to keep asking these kinds of questions.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. Nah, we went over this

Cheney was given power to declassify on his own. He charged Libby, so it wasn't technically a crime. The cover up was to avoid political damage, which they held off until after the 2004 election.

[Garbo 2004]

24. Actually no. Cheney does not have the authority to declassify just anything at will.

The March 2003 Executive Order did not give him that authority.

Additionally, covert CIA agents' identities are protected by statute which cannot legally be set aside or overruled by the Executive Office at will.

Furthermore, Wilson's CIA employment remained classified information even after the leaks: Harlow at CIA could not tell Novak specifically why he shouldn't go with the story....because Plame's CIA undercover employment status was still classified information. A position the CIA still takes today regarding her employment prior to 2002.

[Fredda Weinberg]

31. You're mixing apples and oranges

Plame's identity didn't have to be revealed to attack Wilson, which is why Amitage's involvement was probably not part of any greater conspiracy. But Libby's activities were undoubtedly sanctioned by the vice president and as I heard described by constitutional scholars ... executive orders are what the president says they mean.

So, no one individual had the requisite elements to charge under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but the totality was enough to push the CIA to protect its own from being viewed as political pawns.

[Garbo 2004]

34. Who in the Bush Administration has said that the VP has authority to declassify a covert agent's

identity at will? They haven't made that claim or asserted that it was done. If that was their position, they could have claimed Libby's leaking was authorized and thus "legal." But they haven't claimed that. On the contrary.

The Executive Order (Bush's March 2003 amendment to the standing Executive Order) simply does not give the VP unlimited at will declassification authority. Bush increased Cheney's ability to classify material. He did not give Cheney the ability to declassify material he did not classify in the first place. Since it's Bush's Executive Order, it can say what he means it to. And yet it doesn't give Cheney blanket authority to declassify just anything on his own at will.

And the only thing Libby claimed was "declassified" with a wave of the Executive "wand," for purposes of leaking to Miller, was portions of the NIE and even then he said he asked if Bush had authorized the declassification to which Cheney said yes. Addington testified at trial that Libby later came to him to ask him about the President's authority to declassify material. Not the VP's authority, the President's authority. (Addington's testimony was on the whole not particularly helpful to Libby.)

Despite the Pres' magical wand waving declasification power, in June/July 2003 the WH nevertheless followed the standard procedure for declassifying portions of the NIE and curiously Bush/Cheney didn't tell others who were involved in that process that allegedly Bush had already instantly declassified it with an instruction to Cheney to release it. A strange sort of "declassification" in that they told no one else about it, including those with a functional need to know. The Key Judgments portion of NIE was not officially declassified until July 17 as I recall, following the standard procedures for declassification.

I don't doubt Cheney told Libby to go ahead and leak. Libby was not known as a loose cannon. But even they have not claimed that they had the authority to leak the identity of a covert agent's identity. In fact, they have denied they did so.

[H2O Man]

38. Right.

The claim that VP Cheney has ever taken the position that he had the authority to declassify Plame's identity is utter nonsense. There is not a shred of evidence to support it. The claim is of no more value than the "Plame wasn't covert" lie. It reveals a lack of familiarity with the case.

[Fredda Weinberg]

43. You're getting beyond the evidence

You have the State Department investigation that probably gave Plame's name to Armitage; this is separate from the cabal in Cheney's offer where Libby was dispatched to feed reporters.

Libby probably never violated the agent protection act - he probably also never discussed technically classified information ... at least in this Bizarro political environment.

[H2O Man]

25. 100% wrong..

Cheney didn't have the ability to "declassify" Plame's identity, no one in the administration ever took that stance, and there isn't anything that would lead anyone familiar with the case to think that happened.

[Fredda Weinberg]

32. And I doubt Armitage took orders from Cheney

Remember, Libby was a collaborating source who got himself into trouble by trying to conceal a political, not a legal, scandal. The original question was whether the VP's office was vulnerable to the charge of revealing state secrets and no ... this was addressed in congressional hearings.

[Garbo 2004]

35. Actually, no. The Waxman hearing did not establish that the VP had the authority

to unilaterally declassify what he didn't declassify in the first place. Nor that his office was invulnerable to legal penalties for the leaking of a covert agent's identity. Or are you referring to another hearing?

[Fredda Weinberg]

44. I'm referring to this

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

[H2O Man]

37. No.

Libby got in trouble for attempting to conceal his role -- and the role of at least Dick Cheney -- in activities that were being investigated because there was reason to believe that two crimes may have taken place. The two crimes were: {1} revealing the identity of as CIA agent, and {2} espionage.

In his decision in the Miller appeal, Judge Tatel noted the investigation was for crimes with national security implications. This was well after both Bush and Cheney had met with Mr. Fitzgerald. If there was any truth to what you are claiming -- that Cheney exercised some power to declassify a CIA NOC's identity -- Judge Tatel would not have ruled as he did. But, without any question, Cheney never claimed such power, and it does not exist. And Judge Tatel noted that, in these circumstances, prosecuting someone for obstruction and perjury was actually a way to prosecute the underlying crime.

There has been no congressional hearing that provided any evidence that Dick Cheney exercised any power of his office that allowed him to legally declassify a CIA NOC's identity. What you may be confusing was his decision to declassify part of a NIE regarding possible WMD in Iraq -- and even in that situation, Cheney had Bush okay Libby's telling Miller about the NIE information. That is distinct from Plame's identification.

[Danieljay]

3. Black is white. War is Peace. Up is down. It matters not anymore. n/t

[Supersedeas]

39. And do not expect Justice from the Justice Department

[Danieljay]

40. Justice? What is that? The Department is stacked, the courts are stacked.. and the Dems went along

with it...

[ClassWarrior]

4. He also confessed to breaking the law by spying on US citizens.

That's 2 confesssions. At least.

NGU.

[Danieljay]

6. He is apparantly above the law and the courts are now in his favor. n/t

[MADem]

8. He covered his ass with a signing statement, there. And he packed the court.

You know the old "One guy lies, the others swear to it" routine?

That's how he'd beat THAT rap. The minute you charge him with a crime, he runs to the Supremes and they rule that what he did was legal.

No crime. No harm, no foul--from HIS viewpoint, anyway.

[Spinzonner]

5. Seems like Fitzgerald ought to subpeona him

to find out what he knows.

Might be a perjury trap along the way ....

[Disturbed]

9. Obviously, Busholini doesn't care who commited Treason.

He isn't a bit curious about that. We are living in the Twilight Zone.

Did anyone in the Press Corp. ask him who was the likely Criminal?

[Sonicmedusa]

7. Not when you just want to "move on".

:sarcasm:

[KaryninMiami]

10. Yes. We have a word for outing a CIA agent -- it's called TREASON

Punishable by-- well death actually as far as I know. But I am not a death penalty fan- not something I believe in. I would however, be satisfied if they were simply sent to "camp"- Camp Gitmo, Abu Grabbe- either would be fine with me. As long as we can have photos taken while the are there (a nice, full-color, pyramid shot would be good, few photos of the guards torturing them in the same way they tortured the inmates before them would be fine too.).

But there are no rules any more and the constitution has been hijacked and most people believe the spin that Ms. Plame wasn't even a "real" CIA agent (never mind that she was a covert agent in reality). Face it folks, until we take to the streets and gather more momentum, there's little chance that they will be charged with anything.

[OzarkDem]

11. Reid & Pelosi gave them a free pass

The Bush administration is free to break any law they wish with impunity for the rest of their administration.

Dem leaders in Congress have already told them they will do nothing to hold them accountable.

[Disturbed]

13. Busholini knew who the Leaker was from the start.

This is why he is invoking Exec. Priv. on every damn thing. Impeachment is the remedy that Congress must apply to heal the broken US Constitution.

[TheBaldyMan]

12. Treason is the crime...

endangering national security in the most grave serious of manners, these acts of treason must be compounded with the continued obstruction of any investigation leading to the prosecution of those responsible.

[TahitiNut]

14. Smirk and Sneer judge who are 'Good People' and who are 'Bad People'

If it's a 'Good Person' then breaking the law is a "mistake," and the penalty is light. They get Extra Credit for the 'Good Works" of loyalty (to Dear Leader) and work in the Church of the GOP. If it's a 'Bad Person' then breaking the law is a "crime," and the penalty must match the crime so other Evil Doers are sent a message. There's no Extra Credit unless it's GOP-approved.

Got it now? :shrug:

See ... our problem is that we just don't have the special talent of seeing into the heart of the person breaking the law. Smirk and Sneer have that talent. They're special.






:puke:

[sakabatou]

15. Time to kick him out of office

[Hamlette]

16. where have you been? We've always known who leaked

but can't prove the crime because Fitz couldn't prove the leakers knew she was covert.

read the Fitz's sentencing recommendation.

[spanone]

20. Been right here, but this is the first time I've heard Chimpy admit they leaked it.

[H2O Man]

26. In the context

that Bush said it, it has no significance in any legal sense. In terms of politics, it should be offensive to everyone who followed the case. Bush was attempting to advance the fiction that Armitage was "responsible" for exposing Plame. More, he exhibits the chip on his shoulder, hinting that if Armitage had merely admitted his role early, the entire issue would have been resolved, and the administration would not have had to suffer Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.

Of course, Mr. Fitzgerald was not involved in the first 3+ months of the investigation. And those who were involved knew from the giddy-up that Armitage had told Novak. (After Libby was indicted, they found out that Armitage had told Woodward, as well.)

The CIA had made a referral in August and again in September 2003 to the Justice Department's Counterespionage Unit. The reason is that the leaking of Plame's identity (and Brewster Jennings) was not considered a potential crime only in terms of revealing a NOC's identity. And the concerns went way beyond "who told Novvak?" Remember, by the time they made the referral, the CIA knew that people from the administratio had called at least 6 jopurnalists other than Novak.

The investigation had, long before Mr. Fitzgerald came on board, been largely focused on the operation to expose Plame being a case of espionage. The folks who investigated it in the fall of 2003 recognized it as part of a larger pattern, which includes the Franklin/AIPAC espionage scandal. Exposing the NOC was part of the larger espionage scandal.

[sandnsea]

17. Intent

The law was written to require intent in order for there to be a violation. There was no evidence that their intention was to expose a CIA agent. That's the law, as written. As I understand anyway.

[Disturbed]

18. What about the exposure of a Covert Operation called

Brewter Jennings? Was there no intent there?

[Igel]

23. How was it outed?

I mean, the testimony that's been made public mostly refers to "Wilson's wife" or "Mrs. Wilson".

From "Mrs. Wilson works at the CIA" to "Valerie Plame was undercover with a front company called Brewster Jennings" is the problem. And that's all public information. I didn't believe Novak, so I worked a minute at my computer and, well, there it was. Mrs. Wilson told others that she goes by the maiden name Plame, knowing that would be put in print; and then she told the FEC that she donated to dems and her employer was Brewster Jennings. That she was CIA *and* worked for Brewster Jennings is a clue that made people actually go to the address for Brewster Jennings and find that there's no Brewster Jennings at that location and never has been.

So, no. There's no evidence of intent there. Doesn't mean there wasn't; it just means there's no reason to posit it.

[sandnsea]

30. Completely inadvertent

If you've got evidence that Brewster Jennings was the target, that would be awesome. I don't think there's any evidence that that name even came up in the leaks.

[windbreeze]

19. With the pure unadulterated arrogance shown the American people

by this man and his administration...with the one finger salute we keep getting...and since no one seems to have the power to touch them, bring them down, prosecute or whatever...I can't help but wonder...who IS the power running this country?...this man has told Congress to kiss his ass, Miers is NOT going to honor their subpeona...he has said our Constitution is "just a god damned piece of paper"...and now he admits the WH is guilty of TREASON...ADMITS IT, for crying out loud...and implores us to just "move on"...move on????? when he commuted the sentence of the only person convicted??? I suppose we should just forget this...oh well, doesn't matter...but

since he's been president.....


we lost the WTC, and 3,000 civilians plus all the people who are now dying from contamination, etc.,
had suspicious and questionable elections
gained the Patriot Act
about broke the Airlines
lost habeus corpus
gained the Military Commissions Act
lost New Orleans/Gulf Coast...and we have NO clue how many people were really lost
fired numerous USA'S under suspicious circumstances
lost liberties
lost our jobs, and are losing our homes
been spied upon
had our phone calls listened too
approved of torture, and have transported those to be tortured across international borders
illegally invaded a soveriegn nation or two, and murdered Saddam
killed close to a million people in one country, including our own soldiers..
given the rich tax breaks, while the middle class disappears..and most of us are poorer than ever...
have militarized the police forces nationwide and ran round ups of 10,000 "criminals" several times
broken our military
have mostly lost control of our NG
have had multiple sex, energy, financial scandals
and have sold off integral parts of our country to foreign interests...
are having the NAU/NASCO highway pushed down our throats...
every day, it's something new...he has 1 1/2 years left...lots of time to do whatever he damned well pleases...that he hasn't gotten done yet...

Doesn't he work for US...WE the PEOPLE??? Doesn't the Constitution give us the right to replace a gov't that is NOT working in our best interests?? (is he/are they working in our best interests?) damn...and now he admits to TREASON...as though he is announcing the sun is shining..no big deal, move on, nothing to see here.....It's mind boggling, I tell you...mind boggling...it just further convinces me...that someone else is pulling the strings, because he shows NO fear of comeuppance or of ever having to face prosecution/reprisal...he just continues to do what he does with the arrogance of a schoolyard bully while thumbing his nose at us the whole time...(off rant now)
wb

[Disturbed]

21. In spite of the horrible shit that has transpired I hold out a bit of

hope in Conyers, Waxman and Leahy.

[windbreeze]

36. Well...

I wish them luck, because he's slicker than a greased pig on fair day....and I want to know why?? Who's really in charge of this nuthouse anyway?
wb

[spanone]

27. Amen, windbreeze

:toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer: :toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer::toast: :bounce: :dunce: :argh: :hangover: :wow: :puffpiece: :beer:

[Seabiscuit]

22. "likely"

That was his qualifier. Therefore he admitted to nothing more than a probabililty. Even that, however, morally and legally obligates him to support continued investigation of the White House.

[Garbo 2004]

28. More "fact" than "likely" however. Rove had to admit his "forgotten" leak to Cooper

when it was clear Cooper was going to testify to the grand jury. Cooper's email to his editor regarding his converation with Rove about "Wilson's wife" was in the media even before Cooper testified. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html (Luskin in this article repeats Rove's story that the Niger/Wilson discussion came at the end of discussion on another unrelated topic. Cooper would later testify that the entire conversation was about the Wilson/Niger issue.)

WH again dissembling and not just about Libby, who's maintained he wasn't a leaker, despite evidence to the contrary. It's been an established public and admitted fact for two years that Rove leaked Valerie Wilson's CIA identity to Cooper. Libby at least for the moment is still a convicted felon. But Rove is still in the WH.

[Disturbed]

29. Isn't real odd that a Pres. doesn't want to now who in his Admin.

committed Treason?

[Seabiscuit]

42. Because he knows he's the one guilty of treason, as are all his aides and his V.P.

[Seabiscuit]

41. Well, yeah, we know it's all "fact". But all I'm saying is that Bush isn't really "admitting" to

anything by qualifying his statement with a word like "likely".

[BanzaiBonnie]

33. YES, "we" committed a crime

but we need to move on. It's over. So says GWB.

I say:

Impeachment is the cure.