Cheney Authorized Libby to Leak Classified Information (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Libby has just testified before a Federal grand jury that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information in an attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson. I see another indictment on the horizon.

Article is here.

 

[aps]

Libby has just testified before a Federal grand jury that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information in an attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson. I see another indictment on the horizon.

Article is here.

I like you, danarhea, but I am skeptical that this is true. Why would Libby be testifying NOW before a grand jury? Who subpeonaed him to testify?

 

[KidRocks]

Libby has just testified before a Federal grand jury that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information in an attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson. I see another indictment on the horizon.

Article is here.

Cheney authorized him to leak classified information? Classfied information?

I can just hear the uproar coming from the r-wingers here, talk-radio and everywhere else, calling for the head of Cheney for "revealing classified information" to the press!

Stand back please!

 

[danarhea]

I like you, danarhea, but I am skeptical that this is true. Why would Libby be testifying NOW before a grand jury? Who subpeonaed him to testify?

Patrick Fitzgerald, and there was no subpoena. Libby went in on his own to save whats left of his ass. Other past and present members of the Bush administration seem to be corroborating Libby's version of events too.

 

[aps]

Patrick Fitzgerald, and there was no subpoena. Libby went in on his own to save whats left of his ass.

Do you consider this website reliable? I did a search on Google and this was the only site that came up. I would think this would be on MSNBC or CNN. Again, I am not trying to discredit you. I just find it hard to believe that Libby would show up before the grand jury when he has already been charged. ?????

 

[oldreliable67]

Libby has not "just testified before a Federal grand jury" as danarhea would have us believe. The cited article refers to testimony before the grand jury last year, some of which has been made public in correspondence between Fitzgerald and the court dated January 23rd.

Furthermore, the article does not state that "Cheney authorized him to leak classified information". The article reads as follows:

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter[emphasis added], 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
[...]
In a January 23 letter, related to discovery issues for Libby's upcoming trial, Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's attorneys: "Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") … in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003.… We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors."

Cheney was certainly Libby's superior. but thus far, Libby has not named anyone specifically. Yet, the headline screams, "Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information" as if it were proven fact. Indeed, at some point, it may be proven factual. But as of this moment, that is certainly not the case. As the article later (conveniently) states, "According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information". danarhea and the reporter would like you to believe that a guilty verdict is already in - but it ain't.

To his credit, the reporter does a pretty good presentation of the 'Oliver North' defense expected to used by Libby. The article, once you get past the assertions of "people with first hand knowledge" as fact, is actually worth reading for that alone.

That the court correspondence refers to Libby's "superiors" has been known for several days. In fact danarhea previously initiated another thread with that hot bit news. Just more BDS in action.

 

[KCConservative]

Do you consider this website reliable? I did a search on Google and this was the only site that came up. I would think this would be on MSNBC or CNN. Again, I am not trying to discredit you. I just find it hard to believe that Libby would show up before the grand jury when he has already been charged. ?????

How dare you question dana's truthout website. Careful, he generally regards that as a personal attack.

 

[Pacridge]

Libby has not "just testified before a Federal grand jury" as danarhea would have us believe. The cited article refers to testimony before the grand jury last year, some of which has been made public in correspondence between Fitzgerald and the court dated January 23rd.

Furthermore, the article does not state that "Cheney authorized him to leak classified information". The article reads as follows:



Cheney was certainly Libby's superior. but thus far, Libby has not named anyone specifically. Yet, the headline screams, "Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information" as if it were proven fact. Indeed, at some point, it may be proven factual. But as of this moment, that is certainly not the case. As the article later (conveniently) states, "According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information". danarhea and the reporter would like you to believe that a guilty verdict is already in - but it ain't.

To his credit, the reporter does a pretty good presentation of the 'Oliver North' defense expected to used by Libby. The article, once you get past the assertions of "people with first hand knowledge" as fact, is actually worth reading for that alone.

That the court correspondence refers to Libby's "superiors" has been known for several days. In fact danarhea previously initiated another thread with that hot bit news. Just more BDS in action.

I have no idea what the actual facts are concerning who told whom to do what. It may well be that that Cenney told Libby exactly what this article claims. But this article seems to be taking information released some time ago and coming to new conclusions.

I think if Libby were going to the GJ it would be all over the 24hr news networks.

BTW- I understand what BS is, what's BDS?

 

[Deegan]

I have no idea what the actual facts are concerning who told whom to do what. It may well be that that Cenney told Libby exactly what this article claims. But this article seems to be taking information released some time ago and coming to new conclusions.

I think if Libby were going to the GJ it would be all over the 24hr news networks.

BTW- I understand what BS is, what's BDS?

It's the key next to the S, an obvious mistake, why dwell on that when Dan gives you so much more to pick at?

Dano, my brother from another mother, don't you have some other cause you care deeply about, this one is dead man. Even if he is found guilty, even if he does get sentenced, he will get pardoned by Bush, along with anyone else tied up in this, as they should. This has been a witch hunt from the start, the woman was not "covert" her husband was hired because of who she was, and they deserve whatever grief they got over this. Actually what they got was what they always wanted, their pictures on Vanity Fair, and their 15 minutes of fame, they can now write their own checks.

It's time to put this to bed dude.

 

[KCConservative]

taking information............and coming to new conclusions.

Oh, I see you've met danarhea.

 

[oldreliable67]

BTW- I understand what BS is, what's BDS?

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

The naming of this syndrome is generally credited to Charles Krauthammer, doctor, Pulitzer Prize winner and political commentator. In a December 2003 column, he wrote:

It has been 25 years since I discovered a psychiatric syndrome (for the record: ``Secondary Mania,'' Archives of General Psychiatry, November 1978), and in the interim I haven't been looking for new ones. But it's time to don the white coat again. A plague is abroad in the land.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that ``the most interesting'' theory as to why the president is ``suppressing'' the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies.

The Howard Dean remark to which Krauthammer refers is Dean's (in)famous remark on NPR,

Diane Rehm: ``Why do you think he (Bush) is suppressing that (Sept. 11) report?''

Howard Dean: ``I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?''

-- ``Diane Rehm Show,'' NPR, Dec. 1

Source.

 

[cnredd]

Other members pointing out the same baseless accusations I've always done?

Looks like the good folks here are starting to come around and see the modus operandi...

 

[Stinger]

Libby has just testified before a Federal grand jury that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information in an attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson. I see another indictment on the horizon.

Article is here.

This is the second time you have posted this story and totally misrepresented what it said. It was debunked the first time. On top of that his attorney released a statement today saying that any reports that he testified to any such thing or told the court any such thing are false.

 

[scottyz]

Even if he is found guilty, even if he does get sentenced, he will get pardoned by Bush, along with anyone else tied up in this, as they should. This has been a witch hunt from the start, the woman was not "covert" her husband was hired because of who she was, and they deserve whatever grief they got over this.

But Patrick Fitzgerald, the CIA and a Judge all say otherwise...?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

 

[scottyz]

I like you, danarhea, but I am skeptical that this is true. Why would Libby be testifying NOW before a grand jury? Who subpeonaed him to testify?

I think this has to do with Court papers released last week, not recent testimony.

I'm hoping someone will investigate how 22 e-mails sent between Senior Admin. officials regarding Plame got deleted.

 

[danarhea]

Other members pointing out the same baseless accusations I've always done?

Looks like the good folks here are starting to come around and see the modus operandi...

As opposed to your own modus operandi?

Do you admit or deny that Cheney authorized Libby to leak classified information?

 

[Hoot]

Just a little extra info for you...

"Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counter proliferation matters in the last 5 years...and the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal her identity. New court papers show Libby testified he was told about Plame by Cheney."

Cheney will be on the witness stand in January, 07...take it to the bank.

 

[Pacridge]

Just a little extra info for you...

"Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counter proliferation matters in the last 5 years...and the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal her identity. New court papers show Libby testified he was told about Plame by Cheney."

Cheney will be on the witness stand in January, 07...take it to the bank.

I didn't even think her covert status was in contention any more. I read about his findings and have seen several members of the CIA speak out about this. I believe there was a letter signed by a large number of CIA employees. It stated she was covert and they were concerned that actions revealing the status of their covert co-workers put peoples lives in danger. Any body have a link to that letter? I'm just certain it was in my local paper last fall.

 

[aps]

I didn't even think her covert status was in contention any more. I read about his findings and have seen several members of the CIA speak out about this. I believe there was a letter signed by a large number of CIA employees. It stated she was covert and they were concerned that actions revealing the status of their covert co-workers put peoples lives in danger. Any body have a link to that letter? I'm just certain it was in my local paper last fall.

You know, Pacridge, I remember reading a letter, but it was written by one person, who is a former CIA covert agent. He said she was unquestionably covert. But you know what? I am embarrassed to admit this but I started questioning whether she was covert when I read statements saying she had not been overseas in the last 5 years. I am guessing that those were talking points from the republicans. How could I be so stupid?

Here's the statute: "Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent‘s intelligence relationship to the U.S. [shall be guilty of a crime]."


The problem with the statute is the amount of "intent" on the part of the leaker that must be shown. This is why, I believe, Fitzgerald decided that he could not charge a crime based upon this statute.

 

[Deegan]

But Patrick Fitzgerald, the CIA and a Judge all say otherwise...?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

They can say all they want, but the fact is she was not covert at the time, and was........."(A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent

 

[Stinger]

As opposed to your own modus operandi?

Do you admit or deny that Cheney authorized Libby to leak classified information?

Do you deny or admit that the WH has the authority to leak classified information?

 

[Stinger]

Here's the statute: "Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent‘s intelligence relationship to the U.S. [shall be guilty of a crime]."


The problem with the statute is the amount of "intent" on the part of the leaker that must be shown. This is why, I believe, Fitzgerald decided that he could not charge a crime based upon this statute.

And was her cover already blown. It is fact she worked at the CIA under her own name. She drove there everyday in a care registered to her in her name. And many have stated they knew she worked there. The Russians knew because her name along with others was listed as such years ago.

I think Fitzgerald has stated that her covert status or this particular law is NOT a subject of his investigation anymore as he can find no crime there. It's all about who told who and when and a total waste of time.

 

[aps]

They can say all they want, but the fact is she was not covert at the time, and was........."(A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent

First, Deegan, you cannot say that she was definitely NOT covert. Byron York from National Review (who is a republican) admits that she may have been covert or may not have been covert--that documentation suggests that she was covert, but when he analyzes some other documentation, he questions whether she was covert. Nowhere does he say she was not covert. This article is very interesting. I think his attempt to find holes in Judge Tatel's opinion (which indicates that she was covert) is him grasping at straws. I just don't see why the CIA would have referred the case for investigation, if she wasn't covert.

Valerie Plame: Was She, or Wasn’t She?
Newly released documents don’t quite answer the question.

They are some of the most basic questions of the CIA leak investigation: Was Valerie Plame a covert agent when her identity was revealed in a column by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003? Had she been involved in covert work at any time in the previous five years, which could make revealing her status a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? Was the CIA taking affirmative measures to conceal her identity?

There's a new report today that suggests we finally have some answers. This week's edition of Newsweek says that "Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done 'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA 'was making specific efforts to conceal' her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion." . . .

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp

Check out this article as well written by Larry Johnson--a guy who went through CIA covert training with Plame. He was a covert agent, and he has said that Valerie was a covert agent at the time her name was leaked. It sounds like he is someone who might have a deep understanding of what it means to be covert, but I could be wrong. Anyway, one of the things he points out in the opinion that Judge Tatel wrote, when he said that Fitzgerald could subpeona Miller and Cooper is the following:

What's more, if Libby mentioned Plame's covert status in either conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable.

Thus, it appears that what Fitzgerald would need is proof that Libby knew Plame was covert in order for him to be charged with a violation of the statute. Notice that Judge Tatel's statement above appears to concede she was covert. Just something to think about.

The Betrayal of Valerie Plame
By Larry C. Johnson

Valerie Plame was a covert intelligence officer covered by the Intelligence Officer's Identity Protection Act, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to the grand jury. These two truths emerge from the opinion written by Judge Tatel, of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and released in February 2005. Thanks to a FOIA request by the Wall Street Journal we now have a more complete record, although key parts of his decision are still blacked out. Perhaps most of the media will now realize that they have been fed a pack of lies by the likes of Ken Mehlman, Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and others. . . .

http://www.alternet.org/story/31881/

 

[oldreliable67]

I just don't see why the CIA would have referred the case for investigation, if she wasn't covert.

If I understand it correctly, even if she wasn't covert in the last 5 years, at the time of her outing, her activities were still classified, hence the requirement for the CIA to report a leak to the DoJ.

 

[Pacridge]

You know, Pacridge, I remember reading a letter, but it was written by one person, who is a former CIA covert agent. He said she was unquestionably covert. But you know what? I am embarrassed to admit this but I started questioning whether she was covert when I read statements saying she had not been overseas in the last 5 years. I am guessing that those were talking points from the republicans. How could I be so stupid?

Here's the statute: "Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to received classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent‘s intelligence relationship to the U.S. [shall be guilty of a crime]."


The problem with the statute is the amount of "intent" on the part of the leaker that must be shown. This is why, I believe, Fitzgerald decided that he could not charge a crime based upon this statute.

Hmm, perhaps you're right and it was one guy. Did you see him on TV? I could swear I read a letter in my local newspaper with several signatures. I could've completely wrong. I did a search of their site and don't find it now.

I think she was covert. This "she was driving her car back and forth to the CIA" The Russians knew, etc..." Simply sound like GOP talking points. I guessing lots of covert agents drive back and forth to Langley when their not on assignment overseas. And whether or not the Russian knew doesn't mean our government should go ahead and publicly confirm it. I mean if Germany figures out that Mr. Y is really Spy X does that mean we should just publicly make an announcement?