All Hank, all the time.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So the claim is that they declassified information to refute all the bullshit being spouted by "Lyin" Joe Wilson.

Again - there is no story here.

I'm losing track. Hank says they knew the info was wrong. You say they leaked it to refute Wilson. And Wilson was lying about what? That he went to Niger on vacation to sip sweet tea at poolside, or the whole selling uranium to Iraq thing?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Ah, gotcha.

Yeah, I don't think that it was wrong in that sense. I see it as a big "so-what?" substantively. It's news (but not Big News) in that it shows a certain level of hypocrisy. There was, according to Libby's testimony, direct authorization by the president and vice president of a leak of an NIE to a sympathetic reporter -- by an administration in which leaks were verboten.

As one lefty to another, I say: Who fucking cares about the hypocrisy? The issue is the way they manipulate public information and debate about vital matters of national security. So they're saying one thing, and doing another: The bigger problem is what they do, not what they say.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As one lefty to another, I say: Who fucking cares about the hypocrisy? The issue is the way they manipulate public information and debate about vital matters of national security. So they're saying one thing, and doing another: The bigger problem is what they do, not what they say.

this sounds like something you could use to win an election if you can convince people it was accurate.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The "claim" is that Libby perjured himself. I confess I don't understand how this declassification stuff relates to the claim.

The "story" is that Bush, while on the one hand complaining about leaks, is on the other hand declassifying national-security information in order to feed it to sympathetic journalists. It both exposes the way his admininistration is abusing the classification of sensitive information, and (again) reflects the sort of deception that got us into the war.

I think that Libby and his attorneys were trying to get to classified information for his defense, and I think this new information about the authorization to leak to the press came out in the government's brief arguing that Libby doesn't need the classified information in order to adequately defend himself on the perjury claims.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that Libby and his attorneys were trying to get to classified information for his defense, and I think this new information about the authorization to leak to the press came out in the government's brief arguing that Libby doesn't need the classified information in order to adequately defend himself on the perjury claims.

I think that that's right.

Anyway, here's a new NYT article that lays out what appears to have happened.

[Not Bob]

From Wonkette

• Overheard by a reader who was enjoying free Wi-Fi at Open City last night:
  
  Some former Navy officer (a very Aryan looking one I might add) was just talking about Chile at the table next to me. He said:
  “When you look at Chile, it’s a very economically stable country. That’s thanks to Pinochet. Sure a lot of people died, but they were all Communists. The U.S. Congress could learn a thing or two from Pinochet.”

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ETA here is a link to the relevant portion of the filing: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby6.html because I can't figure out how to cut and paste and the paragraph after the link is interesting as to the questions of (a) whether this method of declassification works and (b) whether disclosing to Miller and only Miller was really "public."

This issue was touched on back in Feburary, when Cheney was interviewed by Brit Hume after Cheney shot a man in the face. Apparently there was an allusion to what came out today in earlier briefs, but it referred to Libby's "superiors," but not by name. The question was whether or not Cheney could declassify information.

There's an NPR interview from around that time regarding an executive orders to classify or declassify. The attorney they interviewed suggests that declassification can only happen by the person who originally classified the information, the successor in the office of the person who originally classified the information or the supervisor of the person who classified.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This issue was touched on back in Feburary, when Cheney was interviewed by Brit Hume after Cheney shot a man in the face. Apparently there was an allusion to what came out today in earlier briefs, but it referred to Libby's "superiors," but not by name. The question was whether or not Cheney could declassify information.

There's an NPR interview from around that time regarding an executive orders to classify or declassify. The attorney they interviewed suggests that declassification can only happen by the person who originally classified the information, the successor in the office of the person who originally classified the information or the supervisor of the person who classified.

Does declassification happen without anything in writing? And once it's declassified, shouldn't it be declassified as to everyone? Meaning, other people (such as, say, Congress) shouldn't be told that a document is actually classified?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that Libby and his attorneys were trying to get to classified information for his defense, and I think this new information about the authorization to leak to the press came out in the government's brief arguing that Libby doesn't need the classified information in order to adequately defend himself on the perjury claims.

It also doesn't seem to help him.

While I've been known to read articles incompletely (hi Balt!), Libby argued he didn't tell Miller anything about Plame because it was classified. Miller's account differs. So, now it is shown that he could have been talking to her about now-declassified information, so his explanation for for his (incorrect or perjurious) recollection is also wrong.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so they leaked "intelligence" at a time when they knew it was wrong. And the harm in leaking intelligence at a time when they knew it was wrong is.............?

Oh. Oh. Oh. Pick me! Pick me! I know this one!

Treason?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Oh. Oh. Oh. Pick me! Pick me! I know this one!

Treason?

Better notify a prosecutor. as an officer of the Court you've a duty to report crimes. But my point is, since you guys have already proven that Bush lied us into a war to increase oil profits, and then completely ruined our expectations of privacy by listening to phone calls- really how much more jail time will he get for this new thing.

[SlaveNoMore]

baltassoc
Oh. Oh. Oh. Pick me! Pick me! I know this one!

Treason?

I think the Dems should run with this now - before the mid-term elections.

Impeachment too.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think the Dems should run with this now - before the mid-term elections.

Impeachment too.

Well, it wasn't the blow job or the break-in that precipitated past impeachment processes. It was the cover up.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think the Dems should run with this now - before the mid-term elections.

Impeachment too.

I know, I know, no one gives a shit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think the Dems should run with this now - before the mid-term elections.

Impeachment too.

Couldn't this be a warning shot towards the admin?