If the president declassifies something in the forest, and there’s no one there to witness it, does it make a sound?
I think perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald will need a statement from Mr. Bush on whether and when he OK’d blowing Plame’s cover.
Maybe. It’s not clear to me he’ll even seek such info., as it’s immaterial to Libby’s alleged obstruction of justice. There’s no evidence I can see that Fitzgerald is seriously focused any longer on the question of whether an illegal outing of a covert agent occurred. Rove is apparently still under investigation, but it seems to me it’s probably for a similar sort of obstruction of justice charge. Perhaps my outrage fatigue is so complete I can’t see it any longer, but I have no sense Bush will suffer from this in any way. He could just argue there’s no contradiction in his earlier statements, as a “classified” document is one he hadn’t decided for whatever reason to share, if ever he is pressed on the matter.
Hold up kids, here’s what I’m getting from the NY Times at this point:
"The court filing said that Mr. Libby said “he understood that that was to tell Ms. Miller, among other things, that “a key judgment of the N.I.E. held that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.” Mr. Libby, the prosecutors, said, testified that the meeting with Ms. Miller was the “only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be disclosed.””
To declassify the finding that Iraq was, “vigorously trying to procure Uranium,” is a world of difference from authorizing the leak of Plame’s identity.
Yes, because then it’s not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Cheney tells Michelle Malkin: “The President has authorized you to kill Michael Moore.”
Malkin wishes to testify to the conversation in which Cheney told her that.
Is it hearsay?
It depends on WHY Malkin’s testimony is sought.
If it’s sought in a trial of President Bush, to prove that Bush in fact said that to Cheney, then it’s hearsay. (In fact, it’s double, or “totem pole” hearsay.)
If it’s sought in a trial of Malkin, to show why Malkin was planting C-4 under Moore’s sidewalk, then it’s not hearsay.
My point here was that Libby’s testimony is admissible in his own trial. It’s admissible against Cheney. It’s NOT admissible to show Bush actually did it. And since the thread title invites us to conclude that Bush actually did this, based on Libby’s testimony, it was important to point out that the thread title’s inference was based on hearsay.
So if you’re wondering if Libby could testify against Cheney and offer this testimony - yes. Because it wouldn’t be offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It’s non-hearsay. IN THAT CONTEXT.
I cannot find any legal requirement that the President cannot supersede. For the sake of record-keeping, I would think at the very least he should keep a log: “3/4/02: Note to self: declassified Plame’s status today.” But I can’t find any legal requirement that he do even that.
Especially since Libby isn’t charged with leaking Plame’s name. No one is charged with that, nor will anyone ever be-- it’s too hard to prosecute. Libby is charged with obstruction of justice* in the investigation into the leak, so it makes not one wit of difference whether Cheney, Bush, or God himself authorized the leak.
*and making false statements to the FBI, and perjury before the grand jury
Well, as it’s clear the declassification would have been as a counter to Wilson’s op ed., there’s more than an ancillary connection. That said, we’re kind of past the mistaken OP, and have moved on to the subject of whether our esteemed president is a liar, a hypocrite, and perhaps a criminal, given the notion that classified info. of some form was allegedly passed to Libby to leak, and that Bush said with all solemnity that such leaks were completely unacceptable and grounds for dismissal.
As to the legal implications for Bush, likely there aren’t any. Political? I’d say we’re all pretty well inured at this point. Won’t change any minds, won’t really matter. The Dems all think the Prez is a lying sack anyway, so what’s one more big lie going to do to the political landscape? The Pubs apparently need video footage from multiple angles, plus a few score credible eyewitness accouts, of Bush committing heinous acts before they’ll be persuaded he’s not in the right on all things Iraq. Libby will likely get nailed for perjury anyway, as it’s not at all clear how this could possibly help him (the newly-released documents clearly suggest otherwise), but, again none of this is consequence to Bush.
Rove might be a damaging catch, but the damage will be the loss of a key stratagist, not the impeachment of the President.
Uhm… can you point the particular posts that you think qualify as being apologist in nature?
All I can gather from the released documents is that in Libby’s (or his counsel’s) mind, the nature of the authorization to leak classified info., and the content of that info., is supposed to somehow justify Libby gaining access to a boatload of new classified info. which he believes for whatever reason will be helpful to his case. The Gubmint said otherwise. End of story.
Oh, I must’ve missed it because it was being supressed by the RCM* 
*Republican Controlled Media
"Originally Posted by Bricker
Cheney’s statement is being considered (in this thread, anyway) for the truth of the matter. "
Well last time I checked hearsay rules do not apply “in this thread”.
Thank you for the response; I was afraid it might turn out to be something like that.
Join me, will you, in frowning at the inconsiderateness inherent in not notifying the CIA that their agent’s status had been declassified, so they could get their own ducks in a row, wrt who’s classified and who isn’t?*
*Assuming that it is ever established that he did that, of course.
“It’s NOT admissible to show Bush actually did it”
Hearsay is a stanard of legal testimony the legal process, not and element of empirically demonstrable fact. It’s perfectly admissible to the straight dope.
Bricker, you may be correct in your judgement of the President’s declassification powers, but in that case the actions of the Bush team become even more incoherent. At several points, administration officials acted as if there was a declassification process that was more extensive than just the President’s say so. We have, at the same time, the President supposedly declassifying something and THEN them iniativing a process that continues beyond that declassification to determine if, in fact, the information should be declassified. Isn’t that, a bit, I dunno, insane?
A note on the “outing of Valerie Plame” …
It’s not that she was outed as a field agent while on duty, or any of that crap. Two days after Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times casting doubt on the allegations that Hussein had bought uranium from Nigeria, Libby met with Judith Miller and insinuated that Wilson’s wife had been involved in having him sent to Nigeria, implying that, because of that, Wilson’s motives were suspect.
It wasn’t a matter of leaking her name to put her in danger. It was a matter of discrediting Wilson.
yes, but in doing so, it put her contacts in danger, and made her absolutely useless as an agent. all for purely political motivations, apparently.
Umm, what’s the difference? If it wasn’t their intent to put her in danger (and I agree it wasn’t–at least I hope so), then it is simply another example of this administration not thinking one iota past their immediate short-term political goals. What did they think would be the result of revealing the name of a covert operative?
She may have been sitting in her office in Langley at the time, but her effectiveness as an agent was destroyed. It would have put her in danger to continue her work. And what of her contacts? They certainly weren’t sitting safely in an office in Langley.
So the president could have cleared this all up before Libby et. al. got tangled up in the obstruction of justice charges, and rather than come clean, he left his servant out to hang; to say nothing of wasting Fitzgerald’s time. IFF Libby’s telling the truth.
That about sums it up perfectly, I think.
And, IFF Cheney was telling the truth to Libby.
and IFF Cheney told the truth to Bush…
