Posted on 04/06/2006 1:33:47 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Official Washington is scratching its collective head, trying to determine whether papers filed in federal court that were made public today drop a bombshell, pose a danger to the Bush presidency, or are just a sideshow in former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's legal troubles.
Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he received "approval from the president through the vice president" to reveal classified information to a New York Times reporter. The material was from a national intelligence estimate that gauged Saddam Hussein's intentions toward developing nuclear weapons.
Has President Bush, who has publicly condemned leaks of secret material, broken the law, or is it within his powers to declassify information and allow it to be given to reporters, despite his condemnation of leaking?
First, we have to remember what Libby has been charged with: that during the investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, he perjured himself, made false statements and obstructed justice. Libby was not indicted for leaking classified information, and in the court papers it is clear he said the material he leaked was no longer classified.
The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney says an administration lawyer advised him that the president had the authority to declassify sensitive documents. Other lawyers are not so sure, but the preponderance of evidence (as lawyers would say) seems to be on the side of the president.
A little history is in order. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson claimed the authority to establish a classification system. In 1951, during the Korean War, President Harry Truman claimed in an executive order that the Constitution gave him the authority to set up a new method for protecting sensitive information connected to national security.
In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that the president had the right to determine who should and should not have access to classified information. Then in March 2003, around the start of the war in Iraq, George Bush expanded that power to include the vice president.
So, barring a court challenge, it appears that both Bush and Cheney have the power to say what is and is not classified.
So, if President Bush did not do anything illegal by giving Scooter Libby the green light, is the White House off the hook?
Not necessarily. Libby's claim could still cause political damage to a president who has spoken out strongly against leaks. For example:
Oct. 7, 2003: "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information."
Sept. 30, 2003: "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. … And if there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person violated the law, the person will be taken care of."
So, the White House is now bracing itself for charges of hypocrisy.
Joe Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame, has already said Libby's claim ties the president directly to a campaign against his wife. The "outing" of Plame came after Wilson publicly disputed a claim by the Bush administration and the British government that Saddam Hussein sought nuclear material from the African country of Niger. Wilson believes the White House orchestrated a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit him and his wife.
But it is far from clear that President Bush ever condoned a smear campaign. What does seem clear, if Libby is correct, is that the White House felt it had to declassify sensitive material in an attempt to counter Wilson's claims about Iraq's nuclear intentions.
The outing of Plame is still a murky affair. We will undoubtedly learn more when Libby goes on trial in January. And federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may reveal more in the interim.
For the moment, both Bush and Cheney say they can't talk publicly because legal proceedings are under way. And we don't know what they told prosecutors in secret. The White House has asked for patience.
Former President Richard Nixon got in trouble by setting up an illegal "plumbers" unit to try to discover the sources of leaks, even if that meant breaking into offices, setting off the scandal known as Watergate. Now we may have a president who could find himself in trouble because he permitted a leak by making it legal.
Bush critics would do well not to carry the Nixon analogies too far. But someone, somewhere, probably on a TV talk show, is likely to start calling this situation "Leakgate."
First ABC News starts translating and reporting on the seized Iraqi docs, and then this? The Kos kids are going to lose it. It must be all that conservative media bias.
Was this written to be a commentary/opinion piece or a solid news article?
It appears to be the former.
Oh, that would be great. Now we will have the stinking courts deciding what documents can be and cannot be classified. Hell, the socialist democrats will release all sensitive military intel immediately to assist their gee-had pals in the middle east terrorists groups.
If the President authorizes the release of information then by definition it is NOT a leak. Such incredible stupidity with this non-story.
This is the money line of the article. The media knows that the "Bush told Libby to leak Plame's identity" attack won't pass the laugh test. So, they'll just move the goalposts and make the story about Bush's "hypocrisy."
In either case, these 'leaks' are immaterial to the charges faced by Scooter.
He wasn't charged with leaking information, he was charged with lying to the FBI during an offical investigation.
A poorly written piece of crap! Preying on the ignorance of the people and the hatred of Demoncrats for Bush...
Then in March 2003, around the start of the war in Iraq, George Bush expanded that power to include the vice president.
So, barring a court challenge, it appears that both Bush and Cheney have the power to say what is and is not classified.
So, if President Bush did not do anything illegal by giving Scooter Libby the green light, is the White House off the hook?
Not necessarily. Libby's claim could still cause political damage to a president who has spoken out strongly against leaks.
For example: Oct. 7, 2003: "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information."
Is it just me or what. The President has the right to decide what is classified or not. So if he deemed this info not worthy how can it be considered a leak?
bookmark
"...or is it within his powers to declassify information..."
If the President can't declassify something, who can?
To sum it up, the material was from the NIE which the President has the authority to disclose and did in full a week or so later?
If it's been declassified, it's no longer a leak of classified information.
Of course, the counter point to this is that a proper declassification requires more than just a say-so. Someone with classification authority (which the President arguably has by definition) has to physically sign off on that score...
BTW.. don't these guys just talk to each other quietly - is everything put down on a memo?
What's the form number required for the President to sign off on disclosure?
So this is how coward dean is blowing the DNC cash! Paying off reporters to gin up non-stories.
Yawn.
All leaks are not created equal. Feeble attempt at moral equivalents by the MSM trying to say that which the President released is no different than what "we" released.
Ding
Exactly. Scooter is performing for his prosecuters.
Fitzy wants Cheney or Bush as a trophy. He is leading Scooter to say whatever is necessary to hurt Bush.
It is ONLY a LEAK if said LEAK is NOT authorized by an competent OFFICIAL.
What is so amusing is the contortions the MSM will endure and the HOOPS they will have to jump through to pin SOMETHING/ANYTHING on the POTUS.
NON-useful idiots all!!
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.