rumi @
201
———————–

What have we been able to force him to disclose so far through legal means?

He has refused to file disclosures on declassification, as required. I think he won the energy policy secrecy bout. He seems to be winning the SS WH visitor logs battle. I could be wrong on these but I’m sure there are more.
——————————-
Bob Schacht says:

I’m interested in the answer to this, too. Remember that Jaworski appealed Nixon’s claim of executive privilege all the way to the Supreme Court (expedited) and won. Fitz may want to choose his battles carefully, but he must be aware of the precedent.

Bob in HI

This is just one of the possibilities that bring back the significance of those Supreme Court nominations. Alito especially has a history of supporting executive authority.

Bob Schacht @ 210

rumi @
171

. . .

I think the one being protected is/was Bush, and then Cheney. . . .

This takes me back to the 1×2×6 mystery. I think you’re right.
1 = Bush
2 = Cheney & Rove
6 = Hadley, Libby, Dan Bartlett, …?

Bob in HI

No the “6″ are reporters. Remember that this theory is based on a Mike Allen/Dana Priest WashPo article on Sept 28, 2003 that mentions a “Senior WH Official” who said “two Admistration officials” leaked Plame’s identity and CIA position to at least “six journalists”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Found=true

I think that it’s important to remember that this is a reporters (or sources) research work…that HE was able to trace down (or his source was privy to) THIS network of communication.

It may be that Ari is #1 or one of the #2’s. I suspect that he recognized himself as the “source” and realized that his knowledge, and possibile involvement in leaking would be soon discovered. Thus he is #1 (or thought he was because he spoke to Priest or Allen).

#1 doesn’t mean that he is the MAIN MAN! #1 is the 1-2-6 Artcle is the source…not the instigator.

Nor does this mean that this article caught out ALL the #2’s, or all the journalists passed on the classified material. It’s simply a limited window of connections known to THAT source.

Nor does it mean that Libby is THE Numero Uno…in fact he may not even be a #2. The source never stated who provided either of the #2’s with the classified info…or who had told him which reporters (or how many) the other #2 called.

Given that we now KNOW that there were many White House and administration officials feeding the media the “hypothesis” by the Post seems to lag far behind what Fitz has already discovered.

That’s probably why Team Libby said that the article was “erroneous”
…some of the facts in it were wrong. But as Fitz has pointed out in the sidebar, whether these elements in the article were correct or not may be irrelevant to whether or not Fleisher was compelled to come to Fitz as a result of the contents of that article and make his offer (demand) for immunity.

Thanks for your corrections and additional info. I should have done a better job of reading the source materials.

Bob

What have we been able to force him to disclose so far through legal means?

He has refused to file disclosures on declassification, as required. I think he won the energy policy secrecy bout. He seems to be winning the SS WH visitor logs battle. I could be wrong on these but I’m sure there are more.

I’m interested in the answer to this, too. Remember that Jaworski appealed Nixon’s claim of executive privilege all the way to the Supreme Court (expedited) and won. Fitz may want to choose his battles carefully, but he must be aware of the precedent.

Bob in HI

I’ve asked this elsewhere and had little response. Was Fitz ever in a position to grant Fleisher blanket immunity from prosecution for violating his 312 obligations? I find that very hard to imagine.

Keep it up!

tulip @
199

perris @ 111

[snip]
rove is a shiny object, cheney is another shiney object

cheney is gonna say;

“I can’t tell you that”

he’s gonna say;

“if I answered that question it would put national security at risk”

he’s gonna say;

“Libby did not do anything wrong, he did not reveal anything that he was not supposed to reveal”

and he’s gonna say;

“if you knew what we knew you would be ashamed this trial took place”

Yes, but will he get away with it?

This whole trial is headed for a collision over executive privilege, anyway. On our side, we have the precedent during Watergate that, when Nixon tried to claim executive privilege on the tapes, Jaworski got accelerated review all the way to the Supreme Court, and won a judgment against Nixon, from whence came the “smoking gun”.

Maybe this time they’ll carefully schedule the invasion of Iran for the same day as Cheney’s testimony. Then, if questioning like this gets too hot to handle, he can jump up, look startled, and say “Oops, they need me in the Situation Room ASAP. Sorry, gotta run.”

Bob in HI

Cover the floor around the witness box with rat traps. Don’t even bother to bait ‘em but, come to think of it, ya better chain em all to a post.
For backup, put a cannon net set-up outside the only unlocked door.

Fitz would be a superb Attorney General.

Pach, did not mean to omit you in my thanks to Marcy and Christy for your contribution to the coverage of the Libby trial. Thank you!

We had a march and rally in my town in solidarity with those in D.C. and San Francisco.

Cheney exempts his own office from reporting on classified material”

Let me first say that I’m not pushing this theory, advocating it’s viability or legality. I’m one of several who came upon it after VP’s interview where he implied an order existed to give him powers to do such a thing. Others have documented the legwork on their blogs while I am a lowly vagabond commentator. :-)

If we know…Libby claimed that he was auth by prez through VP and ok’d by Addington (who claimed the prez talking about it actually amounted to declassification)…Libby was not sold on the idea this was legal…he instructed Miller on how to refer him….Miller had at least some level of clearance for her embed work in Iraq…Hadley was still trying to declassify a document that others knew had been at least partially declassified….

Weren’t there multiple copies of memos, estimates and especially summaries created after the date of March 28, 2003 Even if the originals remained classified, any report created after the date of the EO could be effectively obscured.

I think this might not be used as an attempt at acquittal but to establish more executive power because this EO has no precedent in law/court.

I’ll find the link to the info that Cheney’s office has refused to submit the reports you mentioned as it doesn’t apply to his office, he claims. I’ve posted it here recently.