There is no Downing Street memo. There are now many memos, detailing, for one thing, how while Bush was talking weapons inspections and abiding by UN resolutions, he was also discussing how to fake an attack on the UN in order to give himself a better justification for a war that already had a pencilled in start date.
I was referring to the first, undeniable (except by “nonpartisans” like Mr. Mace) one to become public. Yes, there have been many since.
Um…
What?
Not only is this hearsay, but it’s totem-pole hearsay. Libby says that Cheney said that Bush said. The presence of corroborating evidence wouldn’t turn this into “not hearsay.” Please explain precisely what rule of evidence you’re thinking of here for this assertion.
This is absolutely true. If Libby’s report of what Cheney said is true, AND Cheney’s report about what the President said is true, then Bush should explain himself. As the OP points out, he may legally declassify whatever he wishes to declassify. But he should not piously claim ignorance when he was, all along, the responsible party.
and while he’s at it, explain how outing a CIA operative whose mission is “okey dokey” to do if you need to cast aspersions on her hubby who’s busy pointing out that the Emporer has no clothes, but those who leak to the press that the US has torture centers where we’re doing who knows what to who knows who are treasonous bastids.
That’s true, yes. But then it’s not your testimony that’s at issue any more. You’re simply authenticating the tape as a true and accurate recording.
And it seems like a leap to mention documentary evidence, when there has been no report of any such evidence.
Finally, let’s assume that despite the lack of any reports, there was an audio tape of Cheney telling Libby, “The President has authorized this disclosure.”
Don’t you see there’s STILL a hearsay problem? Cheney’s statement is being considered (in this thread, anyway) for the truth of the matter. It’s hearsay. The tape gets rid of the totem-pole I mentioned earlier… but not the underlying hearsay.
:smack: Please read this edited version. thank you ever so.
So if Clinton had done this, it would be all cool right?
Icannot explain that, since I don’t agree that it was “okey dokey.”
I can certainly explain the legality of it. The President is the ultimate classification authority. This is one of the cases that really is, “It’s OK If The President Does It.” The President is not above the law, of course, but in this case he’s the one that makes the determination about what material the law applies to. So Other leakers choosing to reveal classified documents do not have the legal authority to declassify them first. The President does.
However, as I said above, it’s no “OK” may any means. IF THIS IS TRUE, it’s a shocking and reprehensible misuse of the process.
How is it hearsay Bricker? If it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (Plame is an agent) but merely that Bush did in fact say it. It would only be hearsay if it mattered whether or not plame was an agent. Plame was an agent, so the statement is not offered to prove that she was one.
As I understand this, Libby did not claim Bush told him to disclose Plame’s name to the media, BUT Bush did appoint him to disclose certain as yet unclarified information to the media related to Wilson, Plame and/or Bush’s false contention about African uranium. This authorization put Libby in contact with Ms. Miller to whom he did leak Plame’s name. The net is drawing awfully tight.
And since Bush had promised a full investigation of how this leak occured isn’t it odd he didn’t think that, in light of the above, Libby was a good bet to be the leaker?
It’s still not clear to me why it makes any real difference if it’s hearsay or not. By definition, it seems, the President can’t disclose “classified” information because as soon as he discloses it, it’s not classified anymore. Whether he “promised” anything to anybody might annoy some people who cling to the whimsical notion that politicians ought to have integrity, but we’ve seen time and again integrity is really quite optional for all practical purposes. Great, so some of us are inclined to think Bush lied to us yet again, and others are inclined to think otherwise. Legally, it makes zero difference except to Scooter Libby. I assume someone will try to corroborate his statements, but I’ve no idea whether they will be able to do so without smacking into some sort of Executive priviledge. If Bush goes on TV tomorrow and corroborates it all himself, what will be the real consequence? I say nothing of importance.
Legally speaking, sure. If Clinton had doen something like this while President, then he would be legally in the clear.
And, of course, it would have been a shocking and reprehensible misuse of the process.
The title of this thread is “Bush Authorized Plame Leak.”
I said:
Libby’s statement is: Cheney told me that the President authorized the disclosure.
Libby’s statement is offered, here in this thread, for the truth of the statement Cheney made - that Bush authorized the disclosure. That’s double hearsay: Libby’s statement about what Cheney said is hearsay, and Cheney’s statement about what Bush said is hearsay… for the purpose of proving the matter asserted by this thread.
I meant Bush should explain. I have noticed that your position seems to be in favor of waiting for evidence, but that you would not apologize for the action itself. I also understand that as CiC he can officially declassify whatever, however as you seem to realize the fact that he can does not mean that it’s Ok to do so for partisan bullshitty reasons.
Libby is obviously highly motivated to offer this self-serving testimony. That doesn’t mean we may safely disregard it, but it also doesn’t mean we may safely accept it as gospel.
I don’t think we disagree in substance.
I agree.
Yeah. Who wouldn’t lie to protect themselves from a jail sentence. I mean, what’s the worst that could possibly happen from implicating the most powerful man in the United States and his henchmen? It’s not like Bush & Friends have ever been vindictive to an enemy (well, there was that CIA agent they outed to get back at her husband, but that was a long time ago).
Cthulu Almighty---- wiretapping, Rove, Plame, no WMDs, “we will invade Iraq” memos, etc etc etc…
WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS FUCKING BALLS! Show your teeth! The knives are out, pull yours!
I, for one, would be fully satisfied by Bush making a full public explanation of his actions. If he ordered this declassification he should be willing to stand up and say what exactly he declassified and why. It would go a long way to clearing up the matter and could eliminate months of unnecessary legal proceedings. Leaving Libby twisting in the wind like this is just weak.
(BTW … I apologize for any misinformation in the OP. The original Sun story implied that Plame herself was the topic of the leak. It now appears that Libby testified that Bush authorized the leaking of OTHER classified information related to the Plame case but not Plame’s name explicitly.)
Bricker,
Libby says in court “Cheney said that bush authorized the disclosure.”
It is immaterial (for hearsay purposes) whether the matter asserted (that bush authorized it) the question is whether or not cheney said it. My analysis would be completely different if the question presented was whether or not bush did in fact authorize it. Here it doesn’t matter if it actually was authorized. For libby’s purposes it was enough that the VP said it was authorized whether it actually was or not.
It’s still early. Wait for the Nov election cycle to kick in.
BTW, Kerry will supposedly announce a proposal that unless a “national unity government” (whatever that really is) is formed by some date (May 15, IIRC) that we should pull the troops out as quickly as logistaically possible. We’ll see what the response to that is.