Booman Tribune

Libby on Leaks: Cheney Made Me Do It

by Steven D
Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:01:33 PM EST

That's right, Libby intends to claim in court that he was told to leak classified information on direct order from Big Time Cheney himself. Murray Waas in the National Journal has the details:

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

More after the fold . . .

Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, 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 with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war. [...]

Libby testified to the grand jury that he had been authorized to share parts of the NIE with journalists in the summer of 2003 as part of an effort to rebut charges then being made by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make a public case for war.

But what about the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity? Did Cheney authorize Libby to take that step? Here the story gets a little murkier:

Libby testified that Cheney told him about Plame "in an off sort of, curiosity sort of, fashion," according to other information recently unsealed in federal court. Not long after that date, Libby, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and a third administration official began to tell reporters that Plame had worked at the CIA, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.

Finally, the new information indicates that Libby is likely to pursue a defense during his trial that he was broadly "authorized" by Cheney and other "superiors" to defend the Bush administration in making the case to go to war. Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press.

It seems Libby will admit that Cheney first told him of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA service "off handedly" (which if you believe that have I got some hot stock tips for you!), and that Cheney had "broadly authorized Libby to leak classsified information to brunt Ambassador Wilson's claims. This sounds highly suspicious to me and anyone else but a dyed in the wool Rove brainwashed Republican. I don't for a moment think that Cheney had a hands off policy on what Libby could and could not tell the press. Nonetheless, it's the first crack in Cheney's armor, the first time anyone has tied him directly to authorizing the disclosure of classified information for propaganda purposes.

It will be interesting tonight to watch the "usual suspects" on cable news to see whether this becomes a topic of discussion, or not.



Display:
What are the consequences for actions such as this?  If found to have a role in the leaked identity of an undercover CIA agent, why wouldn't he be indicted?  If no one is above the law, including our "elected leadership" then why can't they be stopped under the law?  Does an appointment have to be made for a special investigation?  Why can't the lawyers that met with the Bush Commission, who have been collecting evidence on this administration, why can't they, as American lawyers, file a suit?

I do not understand why there is not a faster way to fire people who are not doing their jobs or who are performing illegal acts.  If this was a minimum wage employee found to have done any of this  - they would have been in jail for months already! Do we have a justice department any more?  Can a group of Americans file a class action suit for endangering the lives of Americans by breaking the law?

Is there truly no recourse until the Republicans decide to investigate?  How is it that Bush has admitted to breaking the law and there are no consequences?  I do not understand.  I am incredibly frustrated with all Dems currently in office for not getting organized, doing their research, getting off their asses and getting to work (which they could have hand picked from thinkprogress, this site...) and getting these people out of office - how much more do they need handed to them?  Why won't they support Conyers or Murtha???!!!  

Is there anything we can do???!!!  I have been signing petitions now for months and  months and nothing happens...are there really no options?  There is really nothing we can do to stop this kind of behavior? Or to speed up the justice process? We need to know how to help.  What is effective, they don't give a shit about how many Americans protest this or that, that's been proven.  We could give them a million signatures and the Dems would still be afraid.  What can we do?

by dddd (dddd) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:38:20 PM EST
Vote for democrats in 2006 fall elections.  Nothing else you or I can do will have any effect on this process unless Dems control the House of Representatives.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt
by Steven D on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:40:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Every day it looks more possible that repugs will jump from george's sinking ship. Else, how will they get re-elected?

People are getting mad here in Arkansas, even the rednecks!

There are LIVES in the balance. Click here. Watch. Listen.

by cotterperson on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 04:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I called my senators yesterday about the SS death benefit cut and got that "can't do it without a majority" from Mark Pryor's office. Blanche Lincoln's said she was looking for input.

My very conservative Dem Rep's office said Marion Berry really wanted people's opinions and even asked me to email him an article from the NYT. He's keeping a database of caller's opinions.

So, I gave that a try. Couldn't hurt.

There are LIVES in the balance. Click here. Watch. Listen.

by cotterperson on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 04:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've got a GOP tool by the name of Jim Walsh.  I plan to volunteer for whomever gets the Dem nomination.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt
by Steven D on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 05:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A sitting VP can be indicted.  

See HERE for more info re: a 2000 DoJ memorandum that includes a discussion of the debate that took place back in 1973 [Nixon/Agnew], and which concludes:

...all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process.

[bolding is mine]

Click the link to the memo and see ld at 16-17 for an interesting opinion re: the 25th. Amendment.

IANAL, but I do not believe this bodes well for "Dick"...defense strategies or not.

Go Fitz!

Peace


the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 04:00:32 PM EST
I knew Bork had something to do with it.

In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution.  . . . In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.

But this never went all the way to the Supreme Court because Agnew resigned.  So it's still an open issue.

Although it doesn't bode well for Cheney on this that Bork is an icon of the rightwing judges on the court.

by maryb2004 on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 04:06:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But, IMS, Agnew was indicted for tax evasion [for not claiming a bribe as income, and, in fact, took a rather large bribe, $10K if I recall, in the VP's office] and plead nolo...Yes?

Peace

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 04:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yes but it was all part of a package deal that included his resignation.  So the challenge didn't go all the way to the supreme court -- because he AGREED to it.  Cheney could choose not to agree to any deal. They indict him, he challenges it all the way to the supreme court.  Case of first impression.
by maryb2004 on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 04:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or should I take off my rose-colored lenses? Does that mean Dick could be indicted, finally?

There are LIVES in the balance. Click here. Watch. Listen.
by cotterperson on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:08:54 PM EST
I don't think you can indict a sitting Vice president, but it sure exposes him to indictment after his term is over, and impeachment proceedings in the House, should the Dems successfully regain control there this fall.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt
by Steven D on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think that's ever been decided by the courts.  As I recall there was a theory (I think it was Robert Bork's theory) that a sitting vice-president could be indicted but not a sitting president.  But in any event I don't believe it has ever been tested.  

No one wanted to test the case with Agnew so they negotiated a deal where he resigned and was indicted.

I bet Cheney wouldn't agree to resign rather than be a test case.  I bet Cheney would love to be a test case.

by maryb2004 on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Dick-I'm-the-power-Cheney, would stand firm for a test case because HE IS the president. He does have buddy Scalia, Scalito, Thomas and Roberts on the bench.

Dear Fitz,

Do you know what we'd like for Valentine's Day. It's soon. Hold the diamonds and give us  some indictments.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 06:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indictments would certainly be cheaper for him than diamonds for all of us.  And, really, I'm too young for diamonds.
by maryb2004 on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 08:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well, how young are you?

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"
by idredit on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 08:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
45.  According to my mother, only women over 65 look good in diamonds (she has ulterior motives).

I'd rather have the indictment anyway.

Because I believe in doing what's best for society.

And I want world peace.

Not the tiara, no sir, no interest in the tiara.

by maryb2004 on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 08:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Agnew was close to being indicted before he resigned, so I don't think it is unthinkable to indict a sitting VP.

I thought his title was president of the United States, not of Iraq. -- Patrick Maunder, Seattle
by mlk19569 (mlk19569nospam@comcast.net) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The meat and potatoes of the article reveal that the strategy of defense is 'greymail'.

It works like this:

Libby's lawyers insist that he cannot defend himself unless he has access to classified documents.  Then the government refuses to declassify the documents.  Then, either the judge determines that Libby cannot get a fair trial, or the prosecutor gives up and drops the charges.  

Adding to the angst, it appears Abu Gonzales is the person who will have final say on what can and cannot be declassified.  

If Fitz can get past that obstacle, then Libby might feel like he is facing a real prospect of hard time and Cheney could come under scrutiny.  But by that time we will be in control of Congress and will have to decide whether to do the investigations that will drum this administration out of office or let it lie until 2008.

by BooMan on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Boo, I'm not sure that the Nuremberg defense is one that will fly in this case.  First, Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.  He is not presently indicted for leaking Valerie Wilson's identity.  Whether classified documents show that he was authorized to leak classified information unrelated to Plame/Wilson doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the charges against him.  

Further, even if he was charged with leaking, a crime is a crime.  The fact that your boss tells you to commit the crime is equally ireelevant, in my view, and I suspect in the ultimate view of the court in this case.  Of course, I haven't read the briefs in question on this point but using this as the basis of your defense seems very shaky to me.  

What I perceive Libby doing is stalling for time.  I'm sure that whatever decision is made by the trial court he will seek an immediate appeal, hoping to delay his trial.  He is also perhaps trying to put pressure on Cheney, but I doubt that.  I suspect this defense has already been vetted by the Veep.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

by Steven D on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That was my first thought and would fit with the pattern of Libby's post-election trial date. Here's the graf Booman summarized for us.

Is it possible that a prosecution of Libby might be impeded or even derailed entirely by the refusal of the Bush White House or its Justice Department to declassify information that might be necessary to try Libby? "Under the current statute, it may well be the attorney general's call-or whomever he designates-to ultimately decide what should be declassified, and what might not be, in the Libby case," said Michael Bromwich, a former associate Iran-Contra independent counsel and a former Justice Department inspector general.

Can the prosecution beat these things?

There are LIVES in the balance. Click here. Watch. Listen.

by cotterperson on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with almost all of that Steve.

The greymail strategy is designed to avoid the case going forward at all.  The prospects of derailing the case over access to classified material that would presumably show how busy he was are not good.

He apparently took scrupulous notes, and he has an office manager, and a calendar.  It should be easy to reconstruct his days and show how busy he was without the need for PDB's or anything else.

But he has good lawyers and allies in the Justice Department and in the WH.  So who knows?

by BooMan on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Somewhere I read that he took many notes but has very bad handwriting that he claims even he can't read.

More stalling.

by maryb2004 on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I love that excuse...

Why the hell would he be taking notes if he couldn't read them later?  Oh pulheeze...

I thought his title was president of the United States, not of Iraq. -- Patrick Maunder, Seattle

by mlk19569 (mlk19569nospam@comcast.net) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 03:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Libby needs to be able to convince a judge that the PDB's are essential to his defense. Reggie Walton presided over the Hatfill case (sueing the Bush admin for using media leaks to destroy him - the anthrax 'suspect') & gave him wide latitude in discovery to classified materials. That might not bode well, but Libby still will have to show that the PDB's have some relevance as to whether or not he lied & obstructed. While he's entitled to try out the 'I'm such a busy guy' defense on a jury, there will be limits as to what he gets in discovery.

It's also not clear wheter or not Gonzo's recusal will apply to declassification (it should!) or if Fitzgerald supervisor, David Margolis, would make that decision.

Check out this passage from an article on Walton in the SF Daily Jurnal (Dec 20, 2005):

In denying the government's motion to dismiss Hatfill's claims earlier this year, Walton pointed a finger at the government attorney and said that leaks by government officials undermined "what this country is supposed to be about -- that we treat people fairly."

Walton's voice then grew louder as he said: If you don't have enough to indict this man, then it's wrong to drag his name through the mud. That's not a government I want to be a part of. It's wrong, and you all need to do something about it."

Walton ordered Ashcroft to be deposed last month, which "guarantees that, should the Hatfill case go to trial, Ashcroft will have to testify."

How do you suppose Judge Walton feels about obstructing an investigation into government leaks intended to drag someone's name through the mud? by lying about it?

". . . the more educated you are, the more indoctrinated you are. After all, propaganda is largely directed towards the privileged." -Noam Chomsky

by Arcturus on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 05:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We were the ones that made sure this defence was no defence half a centruy ago. Now everyone in the US military and King George's royal court are using it, and the media havent picked up on this.
Ah well I shouldnt get excited King George is gonna pardon all the fuckers anyway.
by observer393 on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 09:42:33 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune