Libby: My 'Superiors" Authorized Leaks

[oldsam]

Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks
Prosecutor says Libby shared classified intelligence with media

Friday, February 10, 2006; Posted: 12:27 a.m. EST (05:27 GMT)

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of lying to police about how he learned the name of a CIA operative.

Was Scooter Libby 'authorized' to leak information? (2:52)
RELATED
• Libby gets trial date
• E-mails may be missing
• Libby lawyers: Show evidence
• Reporters could be subpoenaed
SPECIAL REPORT

• Libby indicted by grand jury
• Gallery: Key players
• Timeline: Events of the case
• Profile: Who is Lewis Libby?
• The 'untouchable' prosecutor

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told a grand jury he was "authorized by his superiors" to disclose classified information from an intelligence report to reporters, according to the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

In a letter to Libby's lawyers, obtained by CNN, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said it is his understanding that Libby testified he was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors."

The letter does not name who the superiors are. But the National Journal, which first reported on the Fitzgerald letter, named Vice President Dick Cheney and other White House officials as authorizing Libby to disclose the classified material.

A legal source involved in the case tells CNN that Libby did not testify to and has never suggested that anyone in the administration -- including Cheney -- authorized disclosing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Libby was indicted in October on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to investigators looking into the July 2003 exposure of Plame, whose husband had emerged as a critic of the pre-war intelligence backing the invasion of Iraq.

Libby has pleaded not guilty, and a judge has set a trial date for January 2007.

His lawyer, William Jeffress, told The Associated Press, "There is no truth at all" to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges.

According to Fitzgerald's letter, Libby met with Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, on July 8, 2003, to "transmit information concerning the NIE."

A former top U.S. intelligence official said it's unusual for National Intelligence Estimates to be declassified by the president or vice president without consulting the CIA director.

The former official adds that some key judgments of that intelligence report were declassified on July 18, 2003 -- 10 days after Libby's meeting with Miller.

Plame is the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent by the CIA to the African nation of Niger to check out an intelligence report that nuclear material was being sold to Iraq.

Plame's identity was disclosed shortly after her husband said he found no evidence to support the intelligence report and accused the Bush administration of skewing intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

When asked to comment at Thursday's White House briefing, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "Our policy is we're not going to discuss this while it's an ongoing legal proceeding, and that remains our policy."

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Fitzgerald's investigation is ongoing.

[kach22i]

Let's see if people just line up along the typical party lines on this one, or if we all have the conviction to take a stand on national security.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

nothing to see here, no one has ever done anything wrong, made a mistake in the bush admin and anyone who says otherwise is:

a traitor
unAmerican
gay
aiding terrorists and so on.

move along. Jack boots are in aisle 5, armbands in 3.

[lendaddy]

No, I think you guys have got em now! This is the one you've been hoping for, rig up the gallows!

[Joeaksa]

Well, since every administration in history has used leaks to get informaiton out that they used for one reason or another, is there a reason why you guys are really surprised?

This is like saying "Bill Clinton screwed around while in office" when we all knew that it was going on.

Kach, agree and please lets take a stand on national security. Go out right now and re-arrest Sandy Berger for his theft of classified documents two years ago. Put him back on trial and find out really why he waltzed in, put these supposedly secure documents inside his frigging UNDERWEAR and took them out.

Now he was slapped on his hand with a $10,000 fine and lost his security clearance for 3 years. Do you guys have an idea what would happen if you or I would do something like this? Its called years in prison.


The face of a criminal, a Democratic criminal who got away scott free.

Next question is, just who was Sandy Berger stealing these classified documents for? Another Democratic friend or foreign government?

Funny how you guys did not stand up and start posting how Berger needed to be drawn and quartered like you will with Libby. Now look in the mirror and ask yourself how partisan you are...

[rcecale]

Typical lib a$$es, showing just how selective they can really be.

Joe, great point. Just thought I'd add this, or actually, simply point it out, since IT WAS IN THE ARTICLE posted by Sam...

His lawyer, William Jeffress, told The Associated Press, "There is no truth at all" to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges.

Yeah, sure, Kach....let's not be partisan....right!!!

Randy

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Joe, you guys had your chance. Berger was tried under a Republican admin, was found guilty and sentanced. If you are unhappy with the outcome, don't whine and cry about it here on the board, DO SOMETHING about it. Call your brothers up, have them rewrite the Constitution and put Berger back on trial for the same crimes because YOU think he's more guilty than they could determine.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by Joeaksa

Next question is, just who was Sandy Berger stealing these classified documents for? Another Democratic friend or foreign government?

Funny how you guys did not stand up and start posting how Berger needed to be drawn and quartered like you will with Libby. Now look in the mirror and ask yourself how partisan you are...

Man Joe, you are getting old or you're listening to too much angry conservative talk radio or you're just a disingenuous, pompous a$$ who can't remember last September.

Let me refresh your memory. Take a read my friend and you will see how wrong you are.

Sandy Berger $50k fine and loses security clearance!

[Rodeo]

Typical response from the Bush sycophants

Thank God for Sandy Berger, huh? They'd have to go back to Alger Hiss to justify what the VP did last year if not for Berger.

But it makes perfect sense to me ... some Democrat did something bad involving national security, therefore the VP can out a covert agent for political purposes with impunity.

Yea, I got it.

[techweenie]

You have to feel sorry for the Bush administration apologists.

Their only answers to the corruption, treason and incompetence of this "restore dignity to the white house" administration is to hold on tightly to one dumb and inconsequential act by a former employee of a former administration.

I wonder if Faux News and the other RNC outlets covered the reasons for bouncing the 24-year-old kid yesterday? The Bushistas had put him in charge of over-riding conclusions of NASA and EPA scientists with pro-administration spin. Turned out his only qualification for the job was that he was a former Bush campaign worker.

How many people in this administration (besides Dubya) are grossly unqualified for their position and there only because they are cronies and 'useful tools?'

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Kach, agree and please lets take a stand on national security. Go out right now and re-arrest Sandy Berger for his theft of classified documents two years ago. Put him back on trial and find out really why he waltzed in, put these supposedly secure documents inside his frigging UNDERWEAR and took them out.

Now he was slapped on his hand with a $10,000 fine and lost his security clearance for 3 years. Do you guys have an idea what would happen if you or I would do something like this? Its called years in prison.

Oh come on now, it was just sloppiness, that's all. He was sloppy, everyone knew when you went into bergler's office that there would be piles of random classified documents scattered about. The guy just was sloppy, that's all. Just honest liberal sloppiness, I'm sure he didn't mean anything by it.

Perhaps Libby was just sloppy? Lost emails, 'whoops! sorry, didn't mean to.' That should suffice, eh?

[Rodeo]

Bryan, I'm sorry but there's something weird about a kid as young as you being so conservative.

Did you get picked on a lot?

You need to get out in the world and be irresponsible for, oh, fifteen or twenty years. Run amok for a while. Then come back and tow the conservative line.

You'll thank me some day for this advice

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Bryan, I'm sorry but there's something weird about a kid as young as you being so conservative.

Actually, I was very conservative when I was young. You eventually figure out that the majority of people in the 'movement' are not 'pro virtue' or for that matter, much of anything else. They are just angry, jealous and against stuff. What seems to really tick them off is for someone else to get money -- unless that someone else is a defense contractor or big compasny CEO.

[Rodeo]

When I was in college, I was fiscally conservative. Paul Simon (I think that was his name), a former Treasure Secretary, wrote a book about deficit spending that really hit home with me. I'm still fiscally conservative, one of the many reasons I think this administration has been a massive failure (but only one reason).

Other than spending, I valued freedom and liberty. The liberals had advanced the civil rights movement, were taking down barriers based on sex, and generally were pro-person, not pro-corporation. So I rejected the big government aspect of the liberal wing, but embraced most of the rest. Who could argue against free love?

Well, now that I have daughters, I can, quite easily And I'm offended by a lot of the crassness and crudeness that passes for entertainment in this country.

But that part of my social outlook came with age. It just seems odd to me that so many kids, who I think should experiment socially, intellectually and politically, seem so enamored of guys like Dick Cheney.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Bryan, I'm sorry but there's something weird about a kid as young as you being so conservative.

Did you get picked on a lot?

You need to get out in the world and be irresponsible for, oh, fifteen or twenty years. Run amok for a while. Then come back and tow the conservative line.

You'll thank me some day for this advice

Some of us open our eyes at a younger age than others. I was a Democrat when young then realized that if I was going to get ahead in life that I could not continue to support a party who acts the way they do. After all, with leaders like Teddy, Kerry, Dean and so on, you guys do not even have a platform to run on. Considering the way you guys have no leaders, Bush could win a 3rd election if he were allowed to run.

Hoping your eyes open and soon Rodehard. You are being irresponsible right with your advise now, like a typical Democrat. When you grow up you might be accepted in the real world...

[oldsam]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
[B]Considering the way you guys have no leaders, Bush could win a 3rd election if he were allowed to run.

Strange, but the American public doesn't seem to agree with your assessment. New poll just out:

Bush's job approval near bottom
By Will Lester, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — President Bush's marks on overall job approval and for handling the economy are mired near their lowest levels despite a spike in consumer confidence over the past month, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

.The poll found low approval of Congress with 47% wanting Democrats to take control. Republican control was favored by 37%.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

[fastpat]

Antiwar.com weighs in on the Libby charges and pending trial.

Scooter's Choice
The 'Samson defense': if Libby goes down, will he drag the GOP down with him?
by Justin Raimondo

The indefatigable Murray Waas has yet another Scooter Libby-related scoop, one that points to a developing split between the White House and Scooter's lawyers � a conflict with the potential to rock this administration to its core. In court papers filed by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a key aspect of Libby's grand jury testimony was revealed: Libby claimed he had been authorized by unnamed "superiors" to disclose key portions of a then-still-classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to journalists in an effort to defend the administration's rush to war with Iraq. A key fact reported by Waas puts this new information in perspective:

"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."

Fitzgerald has a reputation for getting underlings to turn on their bosses, and going straight to the top: he did it in cleaning up corruption in Chicago, he did it in the case of Conrad Black, and now he's doing it to Cheney. The "Bulldog" is on the scent, and if I were the vice president I'd be raising money for my legal defense right about now.

Speaking of which, the Neocon Legal Defense Fund, otherwise known as the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust, has already raised in excess of $2 million, which Mel Semblor � the Florida real estate magnate heading it up � rightly describes as "a particularly excellent start." Among the crowd of right-wing Republican also-rans and failed politicos, including Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes, two names from academia stand out: Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Professor Francis Fukuyama of Johns Hopkins. That the leading Islamophobe and opponent of Arab "medievalism" and the foremost proponent of American hegemony as the verdict of capital-H History should join hands in defense of Libby is entirely appropriate, almost poetically so. They are the theory; Libby � a lying, conniving, unscrupulous traitor � is the practice.

Libby's defense � which we might call the "German" defense � is that he was only following orders. Hey, he's saying: it was those guys in the White House who told me to break the law. Just who these "superiors" might be is not specified in the court papers, but clearly Cheney is a prime suspect, as well as Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security adviser, and Karl Rove. This is the second tier of Washington warlords currently under siege in this investigation.

Libby lied when he testified before the grand jury that he had heard about CIA agent Valerie Plame's sensitive work at the Agency via unsubstantiated rumors: Fitzgerald's indictment identifies Cheney, as well as other administration officials and government documents, as an early source of this information. The information then filtered down to Rove and others, who spread it far and wide.

Clearly Fitzgerald is fishing for more charges under the Espionage Act, i.e., conspiracy to divulge classified information to those who are not entitled to receive it. In ensnaring them all in this legal web, the Bulldog is methodically and relentlessly building his case against the man at the center of it all: Cheney.

Waas also indicates that Libby's defense strategy will quickly put him at odds with the most secretive administration ever. Legal correspondence between Fitzgerald and Libby's lawyers reveals that the latter are demanding all sorts of top-secret government documents, the kind that any administration is likely to fight to keep under wraps, including "more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief" � an "eyes only" summary of essential intelligence prepared for the president and a very few of his top advisers.

Like Larry Franklin, the convicted spy who pleaded guilty in the AIPAC espionage case, Libby faces a choice: he can save himself and turn state's evidence, or he can pursue a delaying action in hopes that the trial will drag on long enough so that a presidential pardon will spare him so much as a single day of jail time. He appears to be pursuing the latter course at the moment, but the slightest indication that the president might hesitate in absolving Libby will have the defense considering other alternatives.

Franklin chose to rat on his fellow spies, longtime pro-Israel lobbyist Steve Rosen and his sidekick Keith Weissman: he wore a wire to at least one clandestine meeting, and he will get his 12-year sentence reduced considerably if he testifies to the prosecution's satisfaction at the upcoming trial. The AIPAC duo's defense strategy is essentially the same as Libby's: delay with endless discovery motions, and blame everything on your superiors.

Rosen and Weissman will claim at the trial that AIPAC officials knew and approved of their intelligence-gathering activities, and there was never any question that what they were doing � handing over vital secrets to Israeli embassy officials � was perfectly legal. It is, the defense claims, a matter of "free speech" � because "everybody does it" as a matter of course in the lobbying process. There are no secrets, in this view: everything is up for sale or trade to Washington lobbyists, including the national security of the U.S. READ THE FULL ARTICLE

I hope Cheney gets his day in criminal court, and that justice is done.
Cheney deserves what the Rosenberg's got.