Plamegate 2006 -- Libby sez Bush approved it

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The actual story is here but the site is getting hit hard, so here's the excerpts floating around:

-----

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.

...

"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

----------

Curious.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 6 April 2006 13:17 (twenty years ago)

quel surprise.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 6 April 2006 14:36 (twenty years ago)

So is this not a big deal? Didn't Bush once say he would fire anybody who was involved in leaking this info?

― Jeff LeVine (Jeff LeVine), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:15 (twenty years ago)

It is a big deal, although it was fairly clear a few weeks/months back when Libby testified that he was authorized by "his superiors" and given that he only has two superiors...

― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:17 (twenty years ago)

Isn't he saying that Bush authorized him to leak some information related to Iraq, but not specifically to leak Plame's identity?

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:19 (twenty years ago)

That seems to be just Fitzgerald's conservativism (in the non-conservative sense) flaring up again.

― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:26 (twenty years ago)

i.e. Plame has always just been the crowbar you use to get the door open, not what's behind it.

― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:27 (twenty years ago)

I'm just not sure how much there is behind the door in this case. I mean it's an embarrassing revelation - and it suggests the unseemly lengths that Bush & his team were willing to go to in order to sell the case for war - but it's not in and of itself prosecutable to leak information, is it?

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:36 (twenty years ago)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0406061libby1.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0406061libby2.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0406061libby3.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0406061libby4.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0406061libby5.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0406061libby6.gif
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0406061libby7.gif

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:37 (twenty years ago)

I like how the media automatically assumes that "the Vice President advised Libby that the President authorized" = "the President authorized"

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:43 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I'm wondering if Cheney will now say he was lying to Libby re: Prez authorization and step down...

― Jeff LeVine (Jeff LeVine), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:50 (twenty years ago)

It would probably be easier for them just to say that Libby is lying.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 6 April 2006 16:55 (twenty years ago)

Guess Libby isn't quite as willing to take one for the team as I thought.

― Big Willy and the Twins (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:00 (twenty years ago)

which team?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:03 (twenty years ago)

this team:

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2120134/050612_BadNewsBears_ex.jpg

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:07 (twenty years ago)

In previous threads there were jokes about his golden parachute post-prison, if he remained a good boy and didn't name Cheney or Bush.

I want a Libby 'snop snitching' t-shirt now.

― Big Willy and the Twins (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:08 (twenty years ago)

JustOneMinute sez:

However, as Mr. Gerstein noted, and as the excerpt printed by Mr. Sullivan makes clear, we *don't know* what Cheney and Bush discussed before Bush authorized the partial disclosure of the NIE. President Bush may have been vitally interested specifically in discrediting Joe Wilson; he may not have heard the name, and simply authorized the disclosure to help with the White House side of the press coverage. That said, Bush's involvement preceded the July 8 meeting with Judy Miller, (p. 19/20 of .pdf), which is not great news.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:09 (twenty years ago)

my implication, supported by a fair amount of reports thus far, is that there are now two teams in teh WH, and Libby seems to have remained loyal to his side

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:12 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, gabs, you've lost me.

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:24 (twenty years ago)

there's a Cheney team and a Bush team!

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:26 (twenty years ago)

shirts and skins

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:31 (twenty years ago)

sharks and jets

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:36 (twenty years ago)

tastes great vs. less filling

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:38 (twenty years ago)

broheems vs brosephs

― kingfish ubermensch dishwasher sundae (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 6 April 2006 17:50 (twenty years ago)

dicks vs bushes

― Frogm@n Henry, Thursday, 6 April 2006 18:03 (twenty years ago)

shotguns vs. bodyshots

― andy --, Thursday, 6 April 2006 18:10 (twenty years ago)

i think wonkette sold out of those 'team cheney' and 'team bush' shirts

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 6 April 2006 18:13 (twenty years ago)

dumb vs. dumberer

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 6 April 2006 18:49 (twenty years ago)

also, since I have previously advised individuals to bet their balls that Rove wouldn't be indicted, it's worth noting that this filing shows that Fitz hasn't quite given up on that little frog march.

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 6 April 2006 18:53 (twenty years ago)

Mr. Libby, to discuss these matters further we've arranged a hunting trip with Mr. Cheney. Enjoy!

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 6 April 2006 20:25 (twenty years ago)

None of this will matter in the end, because they will drag it out until 2009 one way or another to prevent it getting to the very very very top and engineer a way to pardon themselves by proxy. So remember, the national nightmare is already over.

― Ley lines, Thursday, 6 April 2006 20:43 (twenty years ago)

Is there anything, anything at all, that would conceivably stick to this president? The list of shit is huge, from way before The Pet Goat and still ... nowt. I mean, compared to what Clinton faced impeachement for ... what happened to checks? Balances? too many cheques, I suppose.

― stet (stet), Friday, 7 April 2006 02:03 (twenty years ago)

I guess we'll find out with the next WH briefing whether this lasts one or two news cycles.

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Friday, 7 April 2006 05:48 (twenty years ago)

MLH?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 7 April 2006 16:26 (twenty years ago)

When did W find out he authorized this, yesterday?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 7 April 2006 16:27 (twenty years ago)

Remember the good old days when something like this was immediately followed by a Terror Alert?

― erklie (erklie), Friday, 7 April 2006 18:53 (twenty years ago)

or, my personal favorite, bombing aspirin factories.

― don weiner (don weiner), Friday, 7 April 2006 19:26 (twenty years ago)

Yeah man, FUCK THEM ASPIRIN FACTORIES!!!

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 7 April 2006 21:47 (twenty years ago)

Waas report suggests that Cheney might have authorized leak of CIA report re Wilson without specific authorization from Bush. This on the heels of a Note lede this morning that could be read to suggest that Bush will ask for someone's (Rumsfeld's?) resignation.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 14 April 2006 20:21 (twenty years ago)

I'll eat my hat if that happens.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:05 (twenty years ago)

uh, yeah.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:06 (twenty years ago)

Bush Declares Full Support for Rumsfeld
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Single Page Save By DAVID S. CLOUD and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: April 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 14 — President Bush strongly defended Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld today, despite calls from retired generals that he step down, and said Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership is vital for the United States.

"Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the global war on terror," the president said. "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation."

― woo, Friday, 14 April 2006 21:08 (twenty years ago)

didn't he do that just before whatsherface quit trying to be the next supreme court justice?

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:13 (twenty years ago)

i don't remember her name either

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:17 (twenty years ago)

Report: Rove to be subject of multiple-count indictment

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 20 April 2006 20:14 (twenty years ago)

more Rove foreshadowing

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 21 April 2006 17:25 (twenty years ago)

four weeks pass...

Armitage was "neck-deep," but won't be charged.

my inferences from all this are that:
1) Armitage was the first leaker, perhaps inadvertently
2) there will be no IIPA charge, because Armitage did not have the requisite intent (and/or has been cooperative)
3) his testimony is being used to implicate Rove in perjury-type charges
4) the Libby and Rove charges may be used to build towards an underlying conspiracy charge against who knows how many
5) Cheney may be the ultimate target of the conspiracy probe

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 20 May 2006 14:52 (nineteen years ago)

seven months pass...

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0112nj1.htm

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 13 January 2007 18:23 (nineteen years ago)

classic friday newsdump

― say it with blood diamonds (a_p), Saturday, 13 January 2007 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

but yeah, that's basically everything you'll need to know about the trial

― say it with blood diamonds (a_p), Saturday, 13 January 2007 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.