How Bad Is This For Bush?

[achilleus]

AP Article....

[Philistine]

My guess is that Bush probably won't even run for relection in 2008....

--Philistine

[Morion]

Legally it may not be much of a problem. All hearsay evidence unless somebody comes up with a smoking gun memo or something. Politically he could get slow roasted for this one.

[Philistine]

Legally it may not be much of a problem. All hearsay evidence unless somebody comes up with a smoking gun memo or something. Politically he could get slow roasted for this one.

Legally, I'm not sure there actually is any potential problem--The President probably has the authority to declassify any document. Whether or not he did so purely for political purposes is most likely irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

The only potential issue would be if Bush told FBI investigators that he did not declassify the NIE. AIUI, Libby is not claiming that either Bush or Cheney authorized him to give out Valerie Wilson's name, position or relation to her husband.

--Philistine

[achilleus]

My guess is that Bush probably won't even run for relection in 2008....

--Philistine

Wha...?!?!?!
Hmm...a bold prediction....

[chefencer]

Too much time/too many current problems... it's below the fold and seems like old news. I don't think it's going to have much traction unless the name Cheney starts appearing more on the lips of prosecutors. It could all be moot as I heard the "P"(ardon) word bandied about on the radio the other day. Lame duck pardon doesn't have much repercussion except to the ol' Legacy (and I don't mean the car)...

[Mr Epee]

Who knows, but the testimony has already been posted on thesmokinggun.com

Bush Authorized Plamegate Leak

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Unfortunately the junkyard dog and his keepers are probably in for the duration. The question is will it affect the midterm elections? Based on the number of people who supported Bush and other neocons after all the nonsense that went down prior to and during the last election, I have my doubts whether the majority of American people have enough common sense to change direction. I hope I'm wrong.

[rcmatthews]

Is anyone really surprised? I very much doubt that this is the first time a CIA agent has been burned for political reasons. It comes with the territory.

[Fechter1]

My prediction: Some grandstanding, but nothing's going to happen to Bush or Cheney. The american people seem to have accepted the current administration as utterly corrupt and dishonest, but are too lazy/ignorant/apathetic to actually do anything about it. Besides, it's become par for the course. Polititian = corrupt.

Pardon me while I turn away in disgust.

[lochinvar]

It won't hurt Bush because he's God's Chosen, so he can do whatever he wants.

[Epee_Pox]

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do..._to_compel.pdf

Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.

Okay, I fail to see the big issue here. An authorized disclosure is not a leak, by definition.

[keith]

Okay, I fail to see the big issue here. An authorized disclosure is not a leak, by definition.

Indeed so why when this first broke didn't the president just have a news conference to announce he had declassified this information?

Kind of odd that they only just remembered this. I can just imagine Bush slapping his head one morning doing his best Homer Simpson impression "Doh".

Edit: and from the other point of view if it was declassified was it a valid declassification of trivial information (like the composition of an energy task force) or a politic act aimed to discredit a critic of the administration...

Can't wait for 2008.

[Epee_Pox]

Indeed so why when this first broke didn't the president just have a news conference to announce he had declassified this information?

Sort of off the point. The press has been reporting that Libby claims that Bush ordered leaks. I was just pointing out from the source that this is not, in fact, what Libby claims. He testified that the President authorized the disclosure, and if it would have been otherwise classified, by so doing declassified it.

But that is not what the Administration has claimed or alleged, only what Libby testified to. According to the prosecution.

[keith]

Sort of off the point. The press has been reporting that Libby claims that Bush ordered leaks. I was just pointing out from the source that this is not, in fact, what Libby claims. He testified that the President authorized the disclosure, and if it would have been otherwise classified, by so doing declassified it.

But that is not what the Administration has claimed or alleged, only what Libby testified to. According to the prosecution.

Well my reading of the coverage is that the Whitehouse is acknowledging Libby's account - the president told him to pass this information to the press.

Now it is of course reasonable to argue that anything the President tells you to tell people is not classified and hence not a leak - the very act of the president telling you to tell is a declassification.

Of course normally when information is declassified it is released as declasified material - they hold a little press conference.

So the Whitehouse is still open to the charge of releasing classified material solely for the purpose of damaging a political opponent. Also I'd say that if no one new it was declassified at the time it was released it was for all intents and purposes a leak. Once again; the president could have ended this years ago by simply saying he declassified the information and if anyone had a problem with that they could deal with him.

[lochinvar]

Once again; the president could have ended this years ago by simply saying he declassified the information and if anyone had a problem with that they could deal with him.

God hadn't revealed to him that he should do so until the proper time. Which is now.

It's all part of His plan for the End Times.

[chefencer]

Of course normally when information is declassified it is released as declasified material - they hold a little press conference.

So the Whitehouse is still open to the charge of releasing classified material solely for the purpose of damaging a political opponent. Also I'd say that if no one new it was declassified at the time it was released it was for all intents and purposes a leak. Once again; the president could have ended this years ago by simply saying he declassified the information and if anyone had a problem with that they could deal with him.

"Q Can I just -- one more here. In terms of releasing information and leaks, you know the President has been highly critical of people who leak --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- not just classified material. He has said in the fall of 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Now, whether the argument from the administration is he declassified this, so it wasn't classified information -- I know you're not going the get to the legal issues here -- but he has criticized people who leak, not just classified information. And there were clearly leaks coming out of this White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: What was the context of my comments -- about leaking of classified information, I believe.

Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.

Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let's make clear what the distinction is.

Q He said, "displeasure with leaks," not just classified leaks, though, Scott.

Q Scott, can I follow on that for a second. Because in December of 2003, to follow on this, he says, "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is." Now, is there a question -- we're not talking about legality here -- while he's saying that, according to the court filing -- which I know you can't get into the specifics of -- but as he's saying it, he certainly is aware who would have allowed the information to be disseminated. So, at best, isn't the statement "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is" -- at best, isn't that just inconsistent, if not misleading?

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. That's referring to the leaking of classified information.

Q Only the leaking of classified information. He doesn't --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in the context of what that question was responding to --

Q So what about if it's a political? And if it's in political -- if there's a political purpose to it, then it's fine?

MR. McCLELLAN: If it's in the public interest, it's another matter. And the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified because it was in the public interest to provide portions of that National Intelligence Estimate to the American people. As I said, there were people that were out there making irresponsible accusations that intelligence was manipulated or that intelligence was misused. There has been no evidence to back that up whatsoever. And if you look at the National Intelligence Estimate, Jim -- you weren't here at the time, but some others in this room were -- it shows the collective judgment of the intelligence community.

And then you go back and look at the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, and they said there is no evidence of political pressure on the intelligence analysts. You go back and look at the Butler report. The Butler report said that there was no evidence of deliberate distortion. You go back and look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report, they say they did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.

So this was part of the debate that was going on at that time in the public. And so it was in the public interest that information be declassified.

Q I understand that. My only question is --

MR. McCLELLAN: And this information, too -- and another distinction. This was pre-war intelligence we're talking about. So it was historical context that was being provided, not information that could compromise our nation's security.

Q My only question is looking ahead, when he then says, "I want to know who the leaker" was -- doesn't he know, since he authorized the disclosure of the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, go back and look at the filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald, because Mr. Fitzgerald talks about that very issue in his filing and contradicts what you're suggesting.

Q I'm not suggesting -- this has nothing to do with Valerie Plame, nothing to do with it.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's what the question was about."

****Flashback: "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is..."

[keith]

....snips.....

****Flashback: "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is..."

My head hurts.....

[gojujay]

Gotta get him... anything to get him... something, anything...

How about putting up some leaders with REAL IDEAS!!

This is why I don't like either party...

[lochinvar]

How about putting up some leaders with REAL IDEAS!!

Dubya has a real idea: Nuke Iran, precipitate the End Times, and when Jesus returns let him straighten everything out.

You didn't say you wanted rational ideas, after all...