posted on February 16, 2006 07:51:23 AM new
Cheney says he's authorized to declassify government information
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney disclosed today that he has the power to declassify sensitive government information, authority that could set up a criminal defense for his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
ADVERTISEMENT
Click to learn more...
Cheney's disclosure comes a week after reports that Libby testified under oath he was authorized by superiors in 2003 to disclose highly sensitive prewar information to reporters. The information, about Iraq and alleged weapons of mass destruction, was used by the Bush administration to bolster its case for invading Iraq.
At the time of Libby's contacts with reporters in June and July 2003, the administration including Cheney, who was among the war's most ardent proponents, faced growing criticism. No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and Bush supporters were anxious to show that the White House had relied on prewar intelligence projecting a strong threat from such weapons.
When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Libby's assertions to a grand jury that he had been authorized by his superiors to spread sensitive information, the prosecutor did not specify which superiors.
But in an interview on Fox News Channel, Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information.
"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."
Cheney added a ringing endorsement of Libby.
"Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence," said Cheney. "He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case, and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case."
A legal expert said Cheney's TV appearance could foreshadow a Libby defense.
Former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray said Cheney's ex-chief of staff could point to authorization from his superiors as part of his strategy at trial.
"If it turns out that Cheney was actively involved in decisions related to the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity and if the truth of it is that he was orchestrating the disclosure of information to the media, it seems to me that's a fundamentally different case than one centered around the activities of Libby," said Ray.
On Oct. 28 of last year, Libby was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame and what he told reporters about it.
In July 2003, Plame's CIA identity was published by columnist Robert Novak eight days after Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful that a purported sale of uranium yellowcake by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990s had ever taken place.
A defense that Libby was authorized by superiors to leak sensitive data about Iraq would not appear to provide any help to the former Cheney aide for making false statements.
But some lawyers point out that setting up defenses before a jury involves more than simply constructing legal arguments.
"You're trying to present a persuasive case that your client should not be found guilty," said Ray, the former Whitewater prosecutor. "You're saying that even if my client did it, this is not a case that warrants conviction."
An authorization defense in the CIA leak case would mean that "much of what Libby was trying to do was aid and protect his boss Cheney," Ray suggested. The downside to employing such an approach is that it "almost comes with a defense that I did it."
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 16, 2006 08:23:30 AM new
::Vice President Dick Cheney disclosed today that he has the power to declassify sensitive government information, authority that could set up a criminal defense for his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.::
What does that have to do with committing perjury? The reporter that wrote this does understand that Libby is charged with 5 counts of perjury right?
::"If it turns out that Cheney was actively involved in decisions related to the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity and if the truth of it is that he was orchestrating the disclosure of information to the media, it seems to me that's a fundamentally different case than one centered around the activities of Libby,"::
Am I the only one that remembers what the actual charges are against Libby? besides, even if Cheney does possess the ability to declassify information, I'm thinking the process involves something slightly more involved than than think I declare this information .. Declassified and if he had indeed declassified Plames employment status don't you think someone should have informed her employer... and the special investigator? That have ended the investigation right then and there. So either everyone involved in this case are complete idiots or someone is grasping at trays trying to deflect the issue.
Doe not matter though. At the end of the day, the guy stands charged with 5 counts of perjury. The words are recorded in the court record alonmg with those of the 7 people that contradict his statements on just one of those counts. That cannot be changed. Lying to a grand jury is still illegal, no matter how stupid the lies were.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Feb 16, 2006 08:24 AM ]
posted on February 16, 2006 08:59:02 AM newWhat does that have to do with committing perjury? The reporter that wrote this does understand that Libby is charged with 5 counts of perjury right?
It would be perjury if he said he was authorized to release the info when he wasn't.
If Cheney authorized the info release and gave to to Scooter, no perjury.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 16, 2006 09:29:34 AM new
I thought as much. From your comment it is obvious that you do not have a clue as to the nature of the charges.
posted on February 16, 2006 09:31:27 AM new
1. Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
2. The breach of an oath or promise.
posted on February 16, 2006 09:52:32 AM newIt would be perjury if he said he was authorized to release the info when he wasn't. If Cheney authorized the info release and gave to to Scooter, no perjury.
You might be right, Bear however... He didn't say he was authorized to do it. He said that he DID NOT do it.
It is perjury when he states he was not aware of Plames employment status yet seven white house staffers and his own notes say that he did.
The question is not whether or not the lies were justified or not. The question is whether or not they were lies.
If Cheney authorized the info release and gave to to Scooter, no perjury.
Bear - can you answer one question for me please. If Plames status had been legally and duly unclassified - why was there an investigation? Wouldn't the CIA have been informed that their employees status had been declassified and not called for an investigation? Lets say that the government boondoggle where one hand does not know what the other is doing falls into play... At some point in time, if her position had been legally and duly unclassified, don't you think someone in the administration would have informed the special prosecutor since that is the type of thing that would have immediately have ended the investigation long before it went to the grand jury?
Sorry but this arguement flies in the face of logic.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Feb 16, 2006 09:54 AM ]
posted on February 16, 2006 02:58:58 PM new
Fenix, the fed prosecutor has yet to lay out his case to Libby's attorneys, which he MUST do before going to trial. Its called discovery.
Well all know Libby hasn't been charged with leaking Plame's identity, which is what the initial investigation was all about, right?
To justify the time & money spent someone had to be charged with something.
If Cheney authorized Libby to release certain info and that hadn't been revealed to the prosecutor, there is where the perjury charge come in.
Until it gets into court before a jury, or the prosecutor reveals his case prior to that, no one really knows exactly what the perjury charge stems from, right?
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 16, 2006 03:26:49 PM new
::If Cheney authorized Libby to release certain info and that hadn't been revealed to the prosecutor, there is where the perjury charge come in.::
Because he lied about it Bear. Come on. you are not this dense nor do I believe that you are so blinded by your support of this administration that you don't understand this situation.
Lets say, just for argument sake, that Cheney "authorized" Libby to release the info. He can't. You cannot authorize the release of classified information unless it has been declassified and Plames employment status was not declassified or the investigation would have ended the same day it began.
Now lets deal with the actual facts. He is being charged with giving false testimony to the grand jury. He stated that he did not know Plames employment status, yet his own notes proved that he was lying. Seven different White House staffers testified to conversations that they had with Libby about Plames position at the CIA which all take place prior to the time that he states he was first informed by a reporter.
If Chenney authorized him to release the info then why did he say, under oath, and with penalty of perjury, that he learned of Plames position with the CIA from a reporter?
Chenney and Fox News and loyal supporters can try to muddy the issue as much as they wish but if Chenney goes forth and states that he authorized the release of information regarding Plame, it's not going to help Libby's case. It's going to put a nail in his coffin. Chenneys testimony will be in DIRECT contradiction of Libbys assertions that he learned about Plame from Russert. especially since the Russert conversation took place after all 7 of the previously mention conversations with white House Staffers.
I don't believe that Libby is a stupid man but he did tell stupid lies. Either in an effort to protect the administration or just in a streak of personal arrogance thinking that he was untouchable.
As for discovery in a perjury case where he is directly contradicted by witness testimony... that's called a transcript
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Feb 16, 2006 03:27 PM ]
[ edited by fenix03 on Feb 16, 2006 03:32 PM ]
posted on February 16, 2006 03:31:35 PM new
::Until it gets into court before a jury, or the prosecutor reveals his case prior to that, no one really knows exactly what the perjury charge stems from, right?::
No, not right Bear. The charges stem from direct testimony. There are transcripts of the testimony of witnesses that contradict the testimony of Libby and the charges are based on that information.
i.e. - Libby stated he first learned of Plames position from a phone conversation with Tim Russert however Libby's own subpoenaed notes show that Cheney gave him that information long before he spoke with Russert.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
