Showing posts with label Plame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plame. Show all posts

Monday, November 17, 2008

Another Act of Treason: George W. Bush 'Outed' Valerie Plame

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Former Press Secretary Scott McClellan has revealed that it was George W. Bush himself who authorized Dick Cheney to 'out' Valerie Plame. When he is no longer President, Bush will not be able to 'pardon' himself for the many 'counts' of high treason that will be charged him. Bush must therefore move to pardon himself while he is still in the White House but doing so will prove his guilt! Innocent folk don't 'pardon' themselves of serious crimes.

Nixon left the White House aboard a helicopter. To make a fast getaway, Bush will need a jet. When he is no longer President, Bush will not be able to 'pardon' himself for the many 'counts' of high treason that will be charged him. I accuse Bush of war crimes, high treason, graft, and various capital crimes as stated succinctly in US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. Amid the lies he told about 911, the lies he told to wage aggressive war, it is now learned that it was Bush --personally --who 'outed' CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The 'Plame Affair' was also called 'Treasongate'. The 'outing' of an undercover 'operative' exposes that operative to reprisals by an 'enemy'. That's why Bush's act is an act of treason against the people of the United States.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
--Article III, US Constitution
The word treason covers the more egregious acts of betrayal or disloyalty to a sovereign or nation. That describes perfectly Bush's actions with regard to Plame. Under the US Constitution and, in Britain by common law, sovereignty resides with the people themselves. Bush flouted that principle with stolen elections in 2000 and, again, in 2004. His administration systematically subverted and attempted to dismantle the US Constitution, called, by Bush, a 'goddamned piece of paper'.

Accomplices who must stand trial with Bush and Cheney will include Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Pentagon brass, and numerous co-conspirators in the 'big business' community, in other words, the big contractors who stood to get big contracts when Bush began his wars of naked aggression. Just as Krupp, Thyssen, and I.G. Farben conspired with Hitler and agreed to finance him, some of America's notable 'corporate sponsors' lined up behind Bush for the booty.
Treason, as referenced above, consists in waging war upon the people of the United States. Bushco wages war upon the people of the US in many ways. The 'outing' of Plame is one of them. Bush's campaign of deliberate lies to 'justify' his attack and invasion of Iraq is another. The war itself violates almost every convention to which the US is bound by treaty or agreement.

Bush, an idiot, was at least smart enough to 'unnerstan' that unless Saddam had WMD, a war against him violated US criminal codes, international treaties, the principles of Nuremberg, and the Geneva Convention! Bush was at least smart enough to know that without the 'threat' posed by WMD, a war of naked aggression would earn him the death penalty. He charged his 'legal team' with coming up with ways to make legal --after the fact --the crimes he had already committed. He tried to re-write the laws.

Bush told other lies and none more egregious or harmful than those he told about 911. To protect those lies, Bush quashed every effort to investigate fully the events of 911. He opposed the creation of the 911 Commission and when it was formed, he obstructed it! The result is a whitewash discounted by the Republican and Democratic co-chairs. They don't believe it! Why should you?

Bush, his co-conspirators and accomplices, floated an absurd coincidence theory that on the very day, the very moment that Dick Cheney was supervising an exercise [pdf] in which terrorists would attack the Pentagon and WTC, a rag tag gang of 'terrorists' would do precisely that! The odds alone indict our 'fearless Fuhrer'.

Our 'government', a government unlawfully seized by George W. Bush, thus declared war upon the people of the United States! As Che would have put it: the peace is already considered to be broken. Thomas Jefferson would have already declared 'our' independence of a cabal that had already destroyed the 'legitimate' government of the United States. Jefferson, in fact, declared our 'independence' of a similarly tyrannical 'George'.

The so-called 911 'Truth Movement' began with David Ray Griffin's still un-refuted paper entitled: The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True. Popular Mechanics and MSM propagandists tried to marginalize this paper but they could not refute it! PM presumes to defend an 'official theory' but there is no such 'theory' left to defend. The 911 Commission report is, in fact, the official story and even the co-chairs repudiate their own report.

Griffin is un-assailed. Last time I checked, steel still will not melt or weaken at temperatures less than 2795ºF. Bush could not rewrite the laws of physics. The 'raging infernos' inside the buildings of the WTC were no where near hot enough to have brought down the towers.

The science upon which Griffin based his paper is simply beyond the meager intellectual capacity of idiots like Bill 0'Reilly to comprehend, let alone refute. If steel will not melt at kerosene fire temperatures, then the official theory of 911 is a monumental fraud! Photos of people walking around, waving distress flags, in the hole in the North Tower where some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was said to have been burning is absolute and irrefutable proof that the fires were never hot enough nor did they last long enough to have brought down the towers. Bushies might wish we would forget WTC 7 about which Larry Silverstein himself said "it was pulled". No airliner struck WTC7. Small, unimpressive fires were much less inflammatory than the rhetoric describing them. It's fall was described in advance by the BBC. What did the BBC know and when did they know it? The only explanation consistent with known facts it that it had been prepared in advance and was pulled just as owner Larry Silverstein said it was. This bears repeating: if WTC7 was pulled, then the official conspiracy theory is nonsense. It was pulled and the official conspiracy theory is nonsense!
Meanwhile, Flight 77 flight data, released upon an FOIA request by the NTSB, indicates that Flight 77 was at altitude of 273 feet at the time of 'impact' at the Pentagon. Therefore, Flight 77 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. Flight 77 --an essential foundation of the 'official conspiracy theory' --could not possibly be true.

In either case, Bush can cite no evidence in support of his absurd lie, his absurd and ludicrous 'official' conspiracy theory in which four flights were hijacked by 19 incompetent pilots. Besides, many of the 'said' hijackers are still alive. The 'official conspiracy theory' cannot account for this fact. The FBI, meanwhile, is on record as having said that there is no evidence linking Bin Laden with the events of 911. Yet --the myths and lies persist among some segments of the population! There is always a high price to be paid for indulging psychotic delusions.

If anything said by Bush at any time about anything has ever been true, then why did Bush oppose the creation of the 911 commission? What was he afraid of?

Why did the Bush administration oppose the creation of a 911 Commission? Why did Bush interfere consistently with the 911 commission when it was, at last, created despite his objections?

Why was 911 forensic evidence destroyed?

Why did Bush sell off WTC steel?

Why did Bush lie about his own activities on 911?

Why did Bush claim to have seen the first plane strike the first tower when there was no live coverage of the event? If he saw it, how could he have seen it? How was that possible? The 'official conspiracy theory' cannot explain it. It was a miracle. Perhaps Bush was psychic!

Why was Dick Cheney supervising a 'scenario' that gamed precisely what, in fact, really happened? How could he have done that?

What are the odds that this incredible and absolutely amazing event would occur for real and on the very day that it was "gamed"? Perhaps Cheney was likewise psychic or had supernatural powers!

Dick Cheney was in a perfect position to have supervised the act of high treason and mass murder that we now call 911. Put Dick Cheney under oath. Demand that he explain his famous "stand down" order given to Norman Mineta! Indict Dick Cheney upon the probable cause that, on Bush's behalf, he supervised the crime of 911.
How coincidental was it that the British Government, like Dick Cheney earlier, gamed the subway bombings on the very day that they happened in fact? The British government was obviously psychic. There is no other explanation. If there is an innocent explanation for that, I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth --Tony Blair himself. If Tony cannot offer up an innocent explanation, then he should join George W. Bush in the dock, charged with mass murder and terrorism. Initially, Bush successfully suppressed dissent at home but failed miserably his self-assigned task of fighting real 'terrorists' abroad. Armed with the Orwellian 'Patriot Act', Bush needed only 'deem' you a 'terrorist' to incarcerate you in a hell-hole in violation of every principle put forward by real statesmen like Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. What Thomas Jefferson said of King George III, he would have said of Bush without a re-write. He would have supported efforts to remove Bush. He would have supported efforts to detain Bush, to charge him, try him, and carry out the requisite executions. In Jefferson's day, traitors were hanged, possible shot.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
Che Guevara said essentially the same thing in his classic treatise on guerrilla warfare.
"When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law, peace is considered already broken."

--Che Guevara, Chapter I: General Principles of Guerrilla Warfare
Che may have been prescient. Certainly --the "forces of oppression" had maintained themselves in power "against established law". Bush had personally ordered the illegal and treasonous dismantling of established Constitutional law, which he dismissed with a smirk: "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper"! Bush broke the law, subverted the law, ordered the law changed to suit him, and had re-written the law --on the fly --with signing statements, nothing more nor less than decrees. He has ordered his attorneys to render opinions telling him what he wanted to hear. What he wanted to hear was an 'opinion' propping up his delusion that the crimes he had already committed could be made legal after the fact.

His most egregious offense were those in which he flouted the supreme law of the land --the Constitution. Bush's attack on the Constitution had been foreseen by the founders and by the man who occupied Monticello. David Hume wrote:
"When we inquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is, therefore, on opinion only that government is founded, and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments as well as to the most free and most popular."
--David Hume, Of the First Principles of Government
Bush resorted to unprecedented measures to shut up his opposition. He was aided by the 'mass media' which had become little more than a right wing echo chamber. The Progressive Movement must demand of the new administration that the laws regulating the huge media monopolies be reviewed. It is time for a new "Communications Act", perhaps one as good as the one Ronald Reagan scrapped because the media was a threat to the liars who backed his own crooked, right wing regime. 

The biggest threats to 'our way of life' are the governments that are presumably elected to preserve them. Bush is the best example of this. Bush's very first official lie was the one he told as he took the oath of office! He placed his hand on a black book and, with a smirk, he swore to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution. It is the voice of the people that are put down in the Constitution and so proclaimed in the preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Enemies of the Constitution are, therefore, enemies of the people. Bush's occupancy of the White House was an 'occupation' as odious as that of any foreign invader or hostile power. His legacy is that he worked to subvert the principles of our founding, our heritage, what it means to be 'American'. He betrayed our nation with the crimes of subversion, mass murder, aggressive war, and high treason. He waged war upon the sovereign people of the United States! It is now up to us to make certain that the historical record will show that though Bush waged war upon us, he lost!


Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Callous Frauds, High Treason, and Lies: A Snapshot of the Bush Administration

by Len Hat, The Existentialist Cowboy

George W. Bush endangered our national security in the process of covering up a fraud that he and Cheney perpetrated upon America and the world —namely, the deliberate lies told to justify his administration's aggression against Iraq.

This is true whether or not Bush “legally” released the classified information most recently in question in the Plame affair. Bush is obliged to a higher law –that of defending the nation. By exposing Plame and her numerous sources and “operations”, he broke that oath. The technicalities of the leak itself are almost irrelevant. He could be innocent of the leak but guilty is his actions subvert the defense of the nation. He is, then, clearly impeachable.

Bush has shown a careless disregard for the security of the people of this nation, thumbing his nose at the Constitution which he consider just a "...Goddamned piece of paper". Put simply, Bush proved himself willing to compromise our security in order to perpetrate yet another cover story, another fraud.

But, in fact, Bush had not de-classified the information before Plame’s name was already in the media. Bush himself has admitted that he selectively leaked classified information that had not been declassified until several days after Scooter Libby leaked it to Judith Miller. Let’s make this simple: Bush claims that he had the God-like power to make legal crimes that he has already committed.

It’s bad enough that Bushco tried repeatedly to justify the American aggression against Iraq with numerous ex post facto rationales, now Bush rewrites the law as he goes along. His entire administration –Cheney, Condo, Card, McClellan, Rumsfeld –have long sounded like an old Amos N’ Andy routine. “Sapphire, would youse belee me, if’n I’s tol’ you….?”

Now let’s talk about how Bush subverted American national security by blowing Plame’s cover, an act typically justified after the harm had already been done. ``I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth.'' [ See: Guardian Unlimited ] That’s baloney on its face.

There are at two big holes in Bush's nonsense. Even if that had been Bush’s “motivation”, it would mean that Bush believed his side of the story ( a lie) was worth compromising national security!

Secondly, even if had not had that effect, it most certainly did not result in a favorable “spin” for Bush. Rather –the opposite. By deliberately blowing Plame's cover, Bush actually proved the lie to his own case for war against Iraq. His motivation was and remains: punishing Joe Wilson for daring to tell the truth about yet another Bush fraud: the reasons for war against Iraq. How many would have known about Joe Wilson if Bush had not decided that punishing Wilson was worth committing high treason? Only the peace movement which, had been, by that time, all but silenced by an apparent conspiracy among “Mainstream Media” kiss ups. Once again a Bush lie told after the fact doesn’t hold water.

As I've previously pointed out, this story is about the quaqmire in Iraq. The Bush case for war was not merely wrong or mistaken. It was a deliberate fraud. Bush has shown himself willing to put American lives in jeopardy in order to keep intact his fraud. One of those lives jeopardized was that of Valerie Plame. Another key point: if the war against Iraq was begun upon a pack of deliberate lies, it was and remains a war crime violating both the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. Codes; Section 2441.

What are the implications of the events that have transpired over the last week or so? Simply this: Bush has lied to the American people yet again! Bush has placed himself above the law and lied about his motivations. Bush has thought his already discredited pack of lies was worth subverting national security in order to get his fraudulent story into the gullible MSM. There are two words for this: high treason!

'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission


Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Share

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Friday, April 07, 2006

Bush Deliberately Put Plame's Life in Jeopardy to Cover Up a Fraud!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It's not about Libby! It's not about Rove! It's not about Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson!

It's all about Iraq, a fraud that Bush tried to cover up —by sacrificing Valerie Plame, if need be. It's all about keeping secret a deliberate fraud that Bush perpetrated upon the American people and the world. And Bush proved himself capable of jeopardizing lives in order to perpetuate his cover up.

It doesn't get any more evil than that. The act is dastardly, impeachable, prosecutable, morally reprehensible, despicable!

That there was a such a leak at all proves that Bush's order to attack and invade Iraq was and continues to be a war crime. All the black hearted lies told by Bush —and by Powell at the United Nations —were known by Bush to be lies at the time he told them. Hiding the nature of the crime and the lies told to justify it is the motive for yet another crime —the deliberate "outing" of Plame. She was targeted because her husband dared to tell the truth about just one of many lies told by Bushcho about Iraq.

Bush's crime is much worse that a mere technical violation of the law —itself an act of treason. No! Bush's crime against humanity is his personal authorization of a leak by which Bush deliberately put Valerie Plame's life in jeopardy. This is clearly the act of a psychopath, the act of a petty, desperate, mean-spirited, tin horn tyrant. The moral dimensions of this crime are too easily overlooked. The   "major" media is myopically obsessed with tracking down who told who what and when. What makes it all a crime is why?.

Has it soaked in? George W. Bush deliberately sought to endanger the life of Valerie Plame because Ambassador Joe Wilson dared to expose just one of Bush's multiple frauds, lies, and con games. How does one characterize this act? Immature, petty, psychopathic, criminal, vindictive, evil!

Now Bush is left with no defense but "...if the President does it is not illegal"! That's nonsense for a start and not worth comment. This is a nation of laws and Bush is not "the" law. If Bush says otherwise, he's lying.

Bush will try to claim that he declassified Plame's cover. More nonsense! Was Plame notified or, in any way, warned that her life would suddenly be imperiled? What consideration other than revenge would have motivated such a de-classification even if it had been undertaken in a legal manner?

Any case that Bush might make will be laughed out of the court that tries Bush for his crimes. The fact is Bush didn't go through a process by which things that no longer need to be classified are thus de-classified. See: EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292 which outlines the procedures by which information is classified and de-classified —by law!
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or (2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

(d) The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders. ... [Thanks to Doug Drenkow & Barry Gordon for the link to Executive Order 13292 ]
Bush, however, always tries to make legal —after the fact —crimes that he's already committed. How bloody convenient!

In the year 2005, when confronted by leak developments, Bush, with practiced deliberation, leaned forward, put on his best sincere face, placed the splayed fingers of his left hand on his heart, and intoned with rehearsed earnestness:
If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if that person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
It is time that Bush is held precisely to that standard. Clearly —that statement gives the lie away. Clearly —the leak had nothing whatever to do with national security but with a petty, criminal vendetta!

Bush must step down or be impeached and removed. And when he is removed, he must be charged and prosecuted in a criminal court.

Additional resources:
Did Bush Lie to Fitzgerald?
An excerpt:
Lewis Libby's testimony identifying George W. Bush as the top official who authorized the leaking of intelligence about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program raises two key questions: What did the President tell the special prosecutor about this issue in 2004 and what is Bush's legal status in the federal criminal probe?

Bush's legal danger came into clearer focus with the release of a court document citing testimony from Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who claimed that Bush approved the selective release of intelligence in July 2003 to counter growing complaints that Bush had hyped evidence on Iraq's pursuit of enriched uranium. ...
Leaker-In-ChiefYesterday, a court filing disclosed that President Bush specifically authorized Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby to disclose classified information in an effort to discredit Joseph Wilson, a former CIA adviser whose criticisms undermined the administration's case for war. According to the 39-page document submitted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on late Wednesday night, Libby testified that Cheney "advised him that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions" of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.), the key CIA document that the administration used to persuade Congress and the American public into war. The court filing "for the first time places Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons." While the document does not address the issue of whether Bush was personally involved in specifically leaking Valerie Plame's identity, it is clear from the timing of the leak authorization by President Bush that he was personally involved in the administration-wide effort to smear Joseph Wilson by any means necessary.
BUSH AUTHORIZED LEAKING DESPITE REPEATED ASSURANCES TO THE CONTRARY: Throughout the past two and half years, while the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity has been ongoing, Bush has made numerous public statements indicating his desire to crack down on leakers. For instance, on September 30, 2003, Bush said, "There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." He added, "I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing." And on October 28, 2003, the president said, "I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information." Bush never indicated that he was engaged in leaks, instead casting "himself as a disinterested observer, eager to resolve the case and hold those responsible accountable." The new revelations by Fitzgerald, however, demonstrate Bush was personally authorizing highly-sensitive intelligence leaks and has therefore been engaged in a cover-up about the extent of his own involvement in the leak case. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, "The president has always stood so strong against leaks. If he leaked himself, he should explain why this is different than every other leak."

BUSH WAS INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR WILSON: "The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday." Previously, the administration claimed it had not engaged in a smear campaign against Wilson. Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, previously claimed that the facts were being spun "in an ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to try to get them to report negative information about Plame." But Fitzgerald made clear that Libby's disclosure took place as the result of "a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate" Wilson's claims, adding, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson." Bush has now been placed at the center of those efforts. (The Progress Report has previously documented why Wilson was smeared -- simply put, because his public criticisms of the administration set into motion a series of events that were not only politically damaging but began to expose how the nation was misled into war. See our timeline.) "If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). While it is clear that Bush was engaged in the campaign to "punish" Wilson, it is unclear what knowledge he had of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. At the very least, Bush should now be asked when he personally learned of Plame and whether he authorized the leak of her covert identity.

N.I.E. BOLSTERED WILSON'S ARGUMENT: Libby testified that he was given specific authority by the president to "disclose certain information in the N.I.E." to former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and others. The administration decided to disclose only "relevant portions" for a very obvious reason -- disclosure of the full N.I.E. would have undermined the administration's argument and bolstered Joseph Wilson's. Recall, Wilson attacked Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon. Wilson wrote in July 2003, "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," specifically stating he saw no evidence of a uranium transaction. The N.I.E. bolstered Wilson's claim. The CIA gave "low confidence" to the uranium claim and said "we cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore." The estimate further said the intelligence on Iraq's uranium acquisition was "inconclusive."
BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DEFENSE FULL OF LEAKY HOLES: At the heart of the White House and Libby's defense of their actions is the claim that a March 2003 executive order allows both the president and vice president to unilaterally declassify intelligence documents. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated yesterday that Bush has "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." The White House maintains Bush's decision to disclose classified information means he declassified it. But it was unclear if that was the President's intention in this case. First, the action to leak the October 2002 N.I.E. was apparently done "without notifying Cabinet officials or others in the administration, including the CIA authors of the National Intelligence Estimate," raising questions about whether a real declassification ever occurred. Moreover, as Fitzgerald writes in the court filing, then-deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was engaged in a process to get the N.I.E. officially declassified at the same time Libby was leaking classified portions of the N.I.E. to reporters. On July 18, 2003, the administration decided to officially disclose the contents of the full N.I.E. at a White House press briefing, "suggesting the information had not been declassified until that time." Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, argued on National Public Radio yesterday, "At a minimum, it is grossly improper for the president to order a subordinate to disclose a highly classified document to an uncleared reporter and then have that document treated as continuing to be classified."
CASE AGAINST LIBBY NOT AFFECTED: The new disclosures do not affect the legal case against Scooter Libby. Libby is on trial for having allegedly lied to FBI investigators and the federal grand jury about how he learned of Plame's identity. As special prosecutor Fitzgerald said at his October 2005 press conference announcing the indictments against Libby, "At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false." The court filing reasserts that the "central issue at trial will be whether defendant lied when he testified that he was not aware that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA prior to his purported conversation with Tim Russert about Mr. Wilson's wife on or about July 10, 2003."