Here's my take kj. If outing Plame were a crime then the President might have to talk. But since the crime was merely Libby's dishonesty with prosecutors, the President should be able to claim privilege. If outing Plame in itself was legal then any questions about Bush's conversations with Libby concerning Plame are irrelevant. I doubt that's the case because I can't imagine Fitz questioning Bush about a matter out of scope but once again the Libby indictment gives no hint as to issues beyond perjury/obstruction.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did the Leaker-in-Chief Lie To Fitzgerald?
- Thread starter dddooo
- Start date
The whole Plame thing is so last year. No one cares. Bush's current predicament however points up how stupid it was of him to make a big deal of the matter. He should have ignored it, Clinton fashion.
Hanging poor Libby out to dry is unfortunately typical of the Bushes. They are notorious ingrates, except for their inner circle of Texas cronies.
Hanging poor Libby out to dry is unfortunately typical of the Bushes. They are notorious ingrates, except for their inner circle of Texas cronies.
April 7, 2006
White House Tries to Quell Anger Over Leak Claim
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, April 7 â The White House tried today to quell the furor over the leaking of sensitive prewar intelligence on Iraq, as President Bush's spokesman insisted that any release of information was "in the public interest" rather than for political reasons.
The spokesman, Scott McClellan, said a decision was made to declassify and release some information to rebut "irresponsible and unfounded accusations" that the administration had manipulated or misused prewar intelligence to buttress its case for war.
"That was flat-out false," Mr. McClellan said.
Mr. McClellan was barraged at a news briefing by questions over assertions by I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, that President Bush authorized him, through Mr. Cheney, in July 2003 to disclose key parts of what was until then a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq.
At the time, the Pentagon had hardly finished basking in the easy military victory when it was caught up in questions over the failure to find deadly unconventional weapons in Iraq â the main rationale for going to war.
One of the findings in the prewar intelligence data was that Saddam Hussein was probably seeking fuel for nuclear reactors.
Mr. McClellan said the Democrats who pounced on Mr. Libby's assertions, contained in a court document filed on Wednesday, were "engaging in crass politics" in refusing to recognize the distinction between legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest and the irresponsible leaking of intelligence for political reasons.
Meanwhile, Democrats continued to assail the administration.
"This is a serious allegation with national security consequences," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said today on the Senate floor. "It directly contradicts previous statements made by President Bush, it continues a pattern of misleading by this Bush White House, and it raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with the Congress and the public."
Mr. Reid said it was time for the president to say whether, in fact, he authorized the disclosure of the prewar intelligence, as Mr. Libby said he had. "He must tell the American people whether the Bush Oval Office is the place where the buck stops, or the leaks start," Mr. Reid said.
Mr. McClellan was in the somewhat odd position of not disputing that President Bush was involved in the disclosure of hitherto classified information, while describing any such disclosure as being in the public good.
Mr. McClellan, who has noted before that a president has the authority to declassify intelligence, said today that he was "not getting into confirming or denying things, because I'm not commenting at all on matters relating to an ongoing legal proceeding."
He was alluding to the trial of Mr. Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, on charges that Mr. Libby committed perjury and engaged in obstruction of justice in connection with an inquiry over who unmasked Valerie Wilson, an undercover officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, in the summer of 2003.
The unmasking occurred shortly after Ms. Wilson's husband, the former diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times that he doubted reports that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger.
Some Democrats accused the White House at the time of destroying Ms. Wilson's cover to retaliate against her husband, but the White House repeatedly denied the accusations.
Mr. McClellan was asked today whether the president's own words at the time ("If there's a leak out of this administration, I want to know who it is") and Mr. Libby's recent assertion demonstrated inconsistency, at best.
Not at all, Mr. McClellan said. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," he said. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction" â a distinction Democrats refuse to see, he said repeatedly.
White House Tries to Quell Anger Over Leak Claim
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, April 7 â The White House tried today to quell the furor over the leaking of sensitive prewar intelligence on Iraq, as President Bush's spokesman insisted that any release of information was "in the public interest" rather than for political reasons.
The spokesman, Scott McClellan, said a decision was made to declassify and release some information to rebut "irresponsible and unfounded accusations" that the administration had manipulated or misused prewar intelligence to buttress its case for war.
"That was flat-out false," Mr. McClellan said.
Mr. McClellan was barraged at a news briefing by questions over assertions by I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, that President Bush authorized him, through Mr. Cheney, in July 2003 to disclose key parts of what was until then a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq.
At the time, the Pentagon had hardly finished basking in the easy military victory when it was caught up in questions over the failure to find deadly unconventional weapons in Iraq â the main rationale for going to war.
One of the findings in the prewar intelligence data was that Saddam Hussein was probably seeking fuel for nuclear reactors.
Mr. McClellan said the Democrats who pounced on Mr. Libby's assertions, contained in a court document filed on Wednesday, were "engaging in crass politics" in refusing to recognize the distinction between legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest and the irresponsible leaking of intelligence for political reasons.
Meanwhile, Democrats continued to assail the administration.
"This is a serious allegation with national security consequences," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said today on the Senate floor. "It directly contradicts previous statements made by President Bush, it continues a pattern of misleading by this Bush White House, and it raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with the Congress and the public."
Mr. Reid said it was time for the president to say whether, in fact, he authorized the disclosure of the prewar intelligence, as Mr. Libby said he had. "He must tell the American people whether the Bush Oval Office is the place where the buck stops, or the leaks start," Mr. Reid said.
Mr. McClellan was in the somewhat odd position of not disputing that President Bush was involved in the disclosure of hitherto classified information, while describing any such disclosure as being in the public good.
Mr. McClellan, who has noted before that a president has the authority to declassify intelligence, said today that he was "not getting into confirming or denying things, because I'm not commenting at all on matters relating to an ongoing legal proceeding."
He was alluding to the trial of Mr. Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, on charges that Mr. Libby committed perjury and engaged in obstruction of justice in connection with an inquiry over who unmasked Valerie Wilson, an undercover officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, in the summer of 2003.
The unmasking occurred shortly after Ms. Wilson's husband, the former diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times that he doubted reports that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger.
Some Democrats accused the White House at the time of destroying Ms. Wilson's cover to retaliate against her husband, but the White House repeatedly denied the accusations.
Mr. McClellan was asked today whether the president's own words at the time ("If there's a leak out of this administration, I want to know who it is") and Mr. Libby's recent assertion demonstrated inconsistency, at best.
Not at all, Mr. McClellan said. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," he said. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction" â a distinction Democrats refuse to see, he said repeatedly.
Quote from Pabst:
Here's my take kj. If outing Plame were a crime then the President might have to talk. But since the crime was merely Libby's dishonesty with prosecutors, the President should be able to claim privilege. If outing Plame in itself was legal then any questions about Bush's conversations with Libby concerning Plame are irrelevant. I doubt that's the case because I can't imagine Fitz questioning Bush about a matter out of scope but once again the Libby indictment gives no hint as to issues beyond perjury/obstruction.
The crime of obstructing justice is complete if a person fails to disclose to federal investigators as part of a criminal investigation. The fact that no one may ever be convicted or charged in the crime under investigation is irrelevant to whether or not the failure to disclose is criminal.
If Bush failed to disclose what he knew to Fitzgerald as part of Fitzgerald's criminal investigation, then the failure is a crime, and is separately prosecutable as such -- and executive privilege does not extend to criminal investigations.
So, I while I understand that you think that the President "should" be able to assert executive privilege -- current precedent states that he cannot.
Will the Supreme Court reverse itself on the issue if faced with it again in the near future -- I can't say. But, at this moment in time, precedent is clearly against Bush if he is found to have failed to disclose to Fitzgerald.
Fair enough. Like I said, I can't imagine Fitz was eager to question the President about conversations that may have been irrelevant or on the periphery of Libby's indictment. Bet you're one hell of a good attorney KJ.
Quote from kjkent1:
The crime of obstructing justice is complete if a person fails to disclose to federal investigators as part of a criminal investigation. The fact that no one may ever be convicted or charged in the crime under investigation is irrelevant to whether or not the failure to disclose is criminal.
If Bush failed to disclose what he knew to Fitzgerald as part of Fitzgerald's criminal investigation, then the failure is a crime, and is separately prosecutable as such -- and executive privilege does not extend to criminal investigations.
So, I while I understand that you think that the President "should" be able to assert executive privilege -- current precedent states that he cannot.
Will the Supreme Court reverse itself on the issue if faced with it again in the near future -- I can't say. But, at this moment in time, precedent is clearly against Bush if he is found to have failed to disclose to Fitzgerald.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Hanging poor Libby out to dry is unfortunately typical of the Bushes. They are notorious ingrates, except for their inner circle of Texas cronies.
That's quite a statement. Bush is so well thought of for his supposed loyalty. On the other hand it didn't help FEMA's Brown or Libby, so you seem to be revealing something which may really be true, and yet not well known at all.
Quote from Pabst:
Fair enough. Like I said, I can't imagine Fitz was eager to question the President about conversations that may have been irrelevant or on the periphery of Libby's indictment. Bet you're one hell of a good attorney KJ.
Thanks! And, I'll bet you're one hell of a politician!
Quote from kjkent1:
The crime of obstructing justice is complete if a person fails to disclose to federal investigators as part of a criminal investigation. The fact that no one may ever be convicted or charged in the crime under investigation is irrelevant to whether or not the failure to disclose is criminal.
If Bush failed to disclose what he knew to Fitzgerald as part of Fitzgerald's criminal investigation, then the failure is a crime, and is separately prosecutable as such -- and executive privilege does not extend to criminal investigations.
So, I while I understand that you think that the President "should" be able to assert executive privilege -- current precedent states that he cannot.
Will the Supreme Court reverse itself on the issue if faced with it again in the near future -- I can't say. But, at this moment in time, precedent is clearly against Bush if he is found to have failed to disclose to Fitzgerald.
Thanks for the explanation. Since you folks are discussing testimonies of presidents and cabinet members,
On a very similar situation, what is your take on this?
"Tuesday 27 April 2004
Washington (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it would not allow any recordings or transcripts of private testimony this week by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
At the administration's request, the session will not be recorded and an official transcript will not be made"
How can we ever know if what they said is a lie or the truth?
And this strange request that went through.
"The strangest of the president's conditions is that he will testify only in concert with Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House has given no sensible reason for why Mr. Bush is unwilling to appear alone."
Is that of any violation?
The more I read about this, the crazier it is. Bush goes out on a limb saying anyone who leaked stuff will be fired, then it turns out he and cheney are leaking or sending out Libby to do it. That puts Libby in an impossible situation with Fitzgerald, rat out the president or lie. So he tries to make up some story that Fitzgerald, with an unlimited budget, easily picks apart. Then he gets indicted and Bush and Cheney drop him like a bad habit.
I've always felt that Bush would pardon Libby before he left office, but with this character, who knows? After all, he's getting his legal advice from Harriet Miers. If he had pardoned him after the indictment, it would all be over now. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.
Mr. President, do the right thing and pardon Libby now. Take responsibility yourself. The American people will respect that. The longer this drags on, the worse it will look for you and Cheney. No one respects a leader who hangs his subordinate out to dry. I know the unspoken rule of the West Wing is that everyone has to be ready to take one for the team, but this is the exception.
I've always felt that Bush would pardon Libby before he left office, but with this character, who knows? After all, he's getting his legal advice from Harriet Miers. If he had pardoned him after the indictment, it would all be over now. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.
Mr. President, do the right thing and pardon Libby now. Take responsibility yourself. The American people will respect that. The longer this drags on, the worse it will look for you and Cheney. No one respects a leader who hangs his subordinate out to dry. I know the unspoken rule of the West Wing is that everyone has to be ready to take one for the team, but this is the exception.
Quote from total180:
Thanks for the explanation. Since you folks are discussing testimonies of presidents and cabinet members,
On a very similar situation, what is your take on this?
"Tuesday 27 April 2004
Washington (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it would not allow any recordings or transcripts of private testimony this week by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
At the administration's request, the session will not be recorded and an official transcript will not be made"
How can we ever know if what they said is a lie or the truth?
And this strange request that went through.
"The strangest of the president's conditions is that he will testify only in concert with Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House has given no sensible reason for why Mr. Bush is unwilling to appear alone."
Is that of any violation?
In order to be a violation of some testimonial duty, a person must refuse to testify, and then be found in contempt by the tribunal before whom the person is testifying.
So, as the panel never determined that the President was in contempt or ordered him to testify alone and on the record, therefore there is no violation of law.