So let the debate about whether this illegal begin:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/06/D8GQJKR82.html

 

Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

 

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak that Cheney told him to pass on the information and that it was Bush who authorized the leak, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

 

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's CIA identity.

Or not, never mind. CNN is correcting the story that the AP released 25 mins ago.

Turns out that this was an NIE assessment leak. Which is legal.

Turns out that this was an NIE assessment leak. Which is legal.

Ok, I think we already knew they leaked that, and casually left off the last section where all of the doubts were outlined.

Apparently some of Scooter Libby's testimony came out today and there was confusion about what it was the President was authorizing a leak of.... The NIE assessment which is legal, or the Plame outting which isn't.

 

CNN ran a two minute correction and apologized for the mistake.

 

Nevermind. . .

It isn't illegal at all, it's just sleazy as all hell. I'd imagine if a Democrat was in office for the last six years, he or she would have been impeached about eight times over by now.

It isn't illegal at all, it's just sleazy as all hell. I'd imagine if a Democrat was in office for the last six years, he or she would have been impeached about eight times over by now.

 

And if the Dems held the congressional majority, Bush wouldn't have been? Pot-kettle.

From John Kerry (MSNBC.com):

 

And Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in a press release Monday that Bush “said he’d fire whoever leaked classified information, and now we know the president himself authorized it. Now we know that the president’s search for the leaker needs to go no further than a mirror.”

John Kerry, douche that he's become, actually sounded good on CNN yesterday. Made salient points and didn't make me fall asleep. Won't answer whether he's running.

As far as I think everyone can tell, what Bush did here seems to be perfectly legal. It didn't follow normal procedures for declassification, but Bush wasn't breaking any law set by Congress. As far as I can tell, he was only violating an executive order, and well, I'm pretty sure that there's 1 person in the country allowed to do that.

 

Anyway, it's fairly amusing to watch them try to spin this, given how much Bush has spoken about cleaning up leaks of classified info out of the White House, like the NSA leak, etc.

A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.

So, it's not a leak if it helps Bush, it's only a leak if it hurts him.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Cheney set the stage for this strategy as being a lynchpin of the Libby defense as couple months back when he basically said exactly that - if the president or the veep (as an agent of the president) chooses to leak something classified then it is (Poof!) essentially then declassified.

 

And I can see that interpretation as having enough merit to fly, whether I agree with it or not. Once again, the issue of powers of a wartime president may make all the diffference here, because in peacetime I'm pretty sure other branches of government have some say as to what classified information gets declassified.

Well, that's true regarding NIE briefings. Not removing CIA cover though - that itself is illegal period, I believe.

 

And the Vice President does not have the power to declassify unless given in writing by the President.

Well, that's true regarding NIE briefings. Not removing CIA cover though - that itself is illegal period, I believe.

 

And the Vice President does not have the power to declassify unless given in writing by the President.

You are, as I understand it, correct. The NIE are classified by executive order, and thus the President should be able to change that by executive order. There is, however, a law which states that exposing the identity of an undercover operative is a crime, and even if Mr. Bush issued an executive order saying the opposite, the law would take precedence.

Well, that's true regarding NIE briefings. Not removing CIA cover though - that itself is illegal period, I believe.

 

And the Vice President does not have the power to declassify unless given in writing by the President.

 

Two months ago or so, Cheney said Bush has given him that power.

You are, as I understand it, correct.  The NIE are classified by executive order, and thus the President should be able to change that by executive order.  There is, however, a law which states that exposing the identity of an undercover operative is a crime, and even if Mr. Bush issued an executive order saying the opposite, the law would take precedence.

And this "leak" that is being talked about is NOT the "exposing the identity of an undercover operative"... this is a different issue. However, it's good to see that the koolaid that the media has been putting out there is being drunk to connect the two. Apparently the perception is working.

Two months ago or so, Cheney said Bush has given him that power.

 

Yes he did. But if the issue ever formally comes up, if there's no documentation, Cheney could be in some kind of trouble - although its hazy.