That’s true… in court, when Libby is on trial. There, the issue is what did Libby believe, and the testimony is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Here in this thread, it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Which is why I said:
Regarding media bias: John, Uncle Beer, please consider the following:
1- A former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, warns of the threats to the judiciary to be a possible step towards a dictatorship. Completely ignored by the mainstream media.
2- Al Gore
A former vice president accuses the current president of being a lawbreaker. News? Not to the mainstream media.
3- Jimmy Carter blasts Bush’s lust for war in Iraq.
A former president blasts the current president and the prime minister of the UK, accusing them of lying. News? Not to the US media.
4- The Downing Street Memos. Need I say more? If the media had giving this one percent of the attention given to Clinton’s sex life, Bush would have been impeached long ago.
There is a definite chill over the US media cast by their corporate masters. News that is damaging to Bush is either ignored completely or spun to his advantage. If Bush was indeed the one ordering Plame to be outed, you can rest assured that the mainstream media will find a way to keep this under the radar.
So let me get this straight. Bush can release any classified infomation that he wants? Under no circumstances does he ever need permission from an agency or other body of govt?
If that’s true that’s pretty fucked up. Someone ought to be able to check his ass.
Please replace “Bush” with “the president” to avoid morons missing the point.
But we’re at war.
I don’t see how this saves Libby’s skin. If he had said “Bush ordered me to leak Plame’s name” then okay. What we have here, however, is something that is politically damaging to Bush yet that fails to get Libby off the hook. If Libby was going to lie just to save himself it would seem to me he would have gone for something that would more clearly help him.
Well, sorry. That’s the way the law works. Congress passes the law that determines penalties for release of classified information, but they do not – nor should they - determine what is, and is not classified. That determination is for the executive branch to make. While obviously others in the executive branch have the delegated authority to do so, ultimately the President is THE authority - THE Executive.
I think the key question is: Does he have to formerly declare it declassified before releasing it? If Bush hands me a classified document, is it automatically declassified?
I read all about all of those in the mainstream press, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’d say this specific story contradicts your theory. There’s really not much to it, and yet it is (or at least was initially) spun in the worst possible light for Bush. Did the Democrats obtain control of the press yesterday?
No it’s not per se “acceptable” – not all by itself. The audiotape is hearsay, unless you get the tape in with a hearsay exception or the statements on the tape are being offered for non-hearsay purposes. Two hearsay statements don’t give you non-hearsay.
Again, Not unless you get the document in with a hearsay exception or the statements in the document are being offered for non-hearsay purposes. Two hearsay statements don’t give you non-hearsay.
There’s a lot more to this.
The tape may be admitted (if it fits an exception or is being offered for non-hearsay purposes), the minutes may be admitted (if they fit an exception or are being offered for non-hearsay purposes), but in addition to hearsay problems, with a tape or a document you will need testimony to authenticate the tape or the document and you will need to satisfy the best evidence rule.
In your examples:
The audio-tape would still have to fit a hearsay exception or be non-hearsay (in criminal trials this these often come in as non-hearsay statements against interest or statements of co-conspirators (Rule 801(d)(2)).
Minutes would be admissible as a hearsay exception (Rule 803(6)) “records of regularly conducted activity”
Remember, the initial question was “is Libby’s testimony inadmissible hearsay?” The existence of an audiotape or document don’t change the answer to that question – his statement will still either be hearsay, non-hearsay or excepted hearsay – additional evidence to support his testimony will be just that, additional evidence
I was reluctant to continue this hijack, but it’s still kind of close to being on point
Bricker, I thought I understood Hearsay, and now I’m not so sure. Couldn’t Libby’s statement be used as evidence that Cheney authorized the leak? What other evidence could prove that? I understand that it has no bearing on what the president said, but if Libby swears that Cheney told him to do something, isn’t that admissible as evidence against Cheney?
For earlier transgressions, I don’t see how it does either. But if you’re trying to fish far and wide among the documents of sundry agencies for info. you believe exonorates you, and you’re providing testimony under oath in an effort to defend yourself from accusations you already lied, comitting further acts if mendacity strikes me as an especially stupid way to get yourself off the hook, especially when the legal consequences for Bush and Cheney are essentially zero. It’s not clear to me what exactly he hopes to gain from all this in the end, or why getting the green light from Cheney is really relevant to the charge Libby obstructed justice, but I can’t see how continuing to lie all the while would be a reasonable self-serving strategy at this point. Maybe Cheney lied to him, I don’t know, and don’t see what difference it makes. Looks like Libby has failed to persuade the govt. he’s entitled to the documents he wants, and these discosures were part of that attempt, for whatever reason.
I was making a really stupid assumotion above and that was that Libby would still testify this same way (i.e. if he was sworn in today and asked “Did you leak Plame’s name? Why?” that he would say “Yes, Cheney told me to do it , he said ‘bush told me to tell you to do it’”)
Well, I’m convinced! The title of this thread is inappropriate, by golly! Shame!
All GeeDub was doing was authorizing manipulating the media (in this case, the Whore of Babylon, Judy Miller) in order to bolster opinion on a war undertaken on false premises (not lies! didn’t say lies!..just because an avalanche of falsehoods thundered out of his mouth doesn’t mean he was lying! Nosir! Merely the innocent victim of faulty intelligence).
All of which lies entirely within the principle of the unitary executive, which means that if the President declares a ham and cheese sandwhich and a nice glass milk to be kosher, none dare say treyf!
If the Dems regain sufficient power in the Nov. elections, there will be investigations that the Bushiviks will be unable to stifle. And then, boys and girls, pals and gals, the trajectory of the shit will intersect the locus of the fan, big time and downtown.
Learn a new thing every day. What about Mace’s question? Is there any formality in releasing classified info?
not Bricker, but I think I can field this – yes, Libby could TESTIFY* that Cheney told him to do something and it comes in, no hearsay problem.
As it stands, Libby’s grand jury testimony would (I believe) still be hearsay in any subsequent trial,; however, if he changes his tune in a subsequent trial, his gj testimony could come in as a prior inconsistent statement
Is there any expectation that the President, in declassifying a bit of data, might be required to follow any procedures?
For instance, let’s just say that the President wanted to pass the information to Bob Novak. He could declare that Bob Novak has the security clearance, and the need to know the information, I suppose. Would this constitute an end run around the normal processes for issuing security clearances, and if so, is the President free to bypass these processes at will and by fiat? Also, is he required to make Mr. Novak’s new security clearance known to the agencies that are charged with maintaining records on who holds what clearance?
In an alternative example, in which the President actually declassifies the bit of information, such that it is fair game for dissemination by ant to anyone who can get their hands on it, is there a requirement that the agency that had originally been delegated to classify the information be notified that their classification had been pre-empted?
Or is it all subject to whatever whim seizes the Oval Office on any given day?
I guess what’s being said is that when the President decides to disclose it to you, you don’t need any special clearance, because it is now no longer a classified item. I tend to agree with anyone that this is absurd on the face of it, but if it’s legal, it’s legal. Nothing says the law has to make sense. Bob Novak requires no special powers be bestowed upon him, so it seems. If the Prez says “have a look” it’s now like any other piece of paper. Stupid? Sure. Incredibly easy to abuse and endanger? Looks that way. Illegal. No! All’s well!
All I know is that I just saved myself $10 this weekend – no need to go to the movies when it’s more fun to watch the Bush apologists try and spin this away… 
Frankly, I’m not concerned at all about media bias. You said you wondered if the “Republican controlled media would pick up on this.” I’ll stipulate for the purposes of my question that there exists a recognized “Republican controlled media.” What I wanna know is what you meant by this." Given the initial turnings in the quality of information and variances in the news reporting, I think that’s a valid question. Are you asking if the claim that “Bush outed Plame” would be reported as the thread title says, or if it would be reported as the later stories show the true facts to be. If it’s the former, this can be found currently on drudge.com: “Libby: Bush Authorized Leak.” As we’ve found, the facts don’t seem to support that headline, but drudge.com is giving us the same headline as the title of this thread. Is that what you were looking for?