A while back I did a post on the Big Orange about Congressman Tom Davis' curious attempt to expand Vice Presidential power. You see, at Waxman's Plame hearing, Congressman Paul Hodes got both Bill Leonard–the nation's expert on classification and declassification, and James Knodell–the Administration's designated fall guy for this particular hearing, to agree that unauthorized declassifcation of the National Intelligence Estimate is a crime. But then Leonard explained that Bush can do whatever he pleases: his ability to classify and declassify things is absolute.
Congressman Tom Davis (whom the GOP no doubt calls "Waxman's full time minder" by now) apparently realized the danger of Leonard's explanation. The record doesn't show that Bush declassified Plame's identity the NIE. The only evidence we have shows Cheney telling Libby Bush had insta-declassified "it," whatever it is, but thus far no proof Bush did so. So Davis pulled out a nice bit of jujitsu to try to invent a Vice Presidential right to declassify into the record. (starting at 2:56:55 on CSPAN)
Davis: Mr. Leonard, let me ask. Does the President or the Vice President have the authority to declassify on the spot?
Leonard: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Davis, the President’s authority in this area is absolute, pursuant to the Constitution, …
Davis: So they can do it on the spot. Can they declassify for limited purposes?
Leonard: Absolute is absolute.
It is clear: Davis is asking about what "they," the President and the Vice President, can do. But Leonard has only answered as it relates to the President.
I thought it was awfully shifty so I decided to get a clarification from Mr. Leonard himself. Here's a direct quote from our email exchange:
[emptywheel] In response to a question from Congressman Hodes, you stated unequivocally that the President has absolute authority to declassify information. Then, Congressman Davis asked you a follow-up question regarding the ability of the President and the Vice President to declassify. In your response, you simply repeated your earlier answer, that the President has absolute authority to declassify information. Does the Vice President have the ability to declassify information beyond that for which he is the original owner? If so, under what circumstances? Would there be any paperwork if he had done so? Would he need back-up from the President if this occurred?
[Leonard] Reply: My comments at the hearing with respect to the President's authorities dealt with classified national security information as established in Executive Order (E.O.) 12958, as amended. The Vice President's declassification authority for such information beyond which he authorized the original classification would depend upon the extent to which he has been delegated that authority by the President. [my emphasis]
In other words, if Dick Cheney didn't classify something originally, then he can only declassify it if Bush delegates authority to him specifically to do so. So when Dick said the following when he was setting the agenda with Tim Russert, he lied.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I have the authority as Vice President under an executive [order] issued by the President to classify and declassify information. And everything I've done is consistent with those authorities.
Bush must delegate such authority before Cheney can declassify information–like Plame's identity the NIE–that Cheney didn't originally classify.
The reason this is so important is that Scooter Libby was pretty damned vague in his descriptions of how Plame's identity the NIE got declassified.
Q. Okay. Now, can you fix the date when you first spoke to the Vice President about trying to get the facts out on the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, and then you in that conversation expressed your reservations because it as a classified document?
A. No.
[snip]
A. I was very — I didn't use those words, but I was very clear. Can the, can the Vice President — can the President declassify a document just by telling us to talk — and that's how he put it. If the President tells you to talk about a document, it's declassified. [my emphasis--Libby's a bad one with Freudian slips]
[snip]
Q. And do you know when the Vice President talked to the President to get the permission for you to discuss this with the press and in effect in your mind declassify the document?
A. No, sir.
Q. And were you present for that conversation?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did the Vice President tell you about that conversation?
A. He told me he had talked to the President and we should go ahead and, you know, talk to the press about the NIE.
Q. And do you know if the Vice President told the President what the legal issue was in terms of sharing classified information?
A. I don't know what happened in that conversation. But the Vice President knew that we needed to have the President's authority to talk about the document, or that section of the document.
Q. And was anyone else present with you when you discussed with the Vice President the issue of whether or not you could be authorized to discuss classified material withthe press or the public?
A. No, sir, but I referred him to the conversation with David Addington.
Q. So as far as you know, did the Vice President and David Addington discuss that issue?
A. I don't know.
Q. And do you know if the Vice President and the President talked about it in person or by telephone?
A. I don't know.
Q. And do you know how long before your July 8th meeting with Judith Miller that conversation took place?
A. I don't. My sense was that it was within a few days, but I don't really know.
Q. Could it have been the day before, July 7th, as far as you know?
A. Could have been, or it could have been some time at the end of the previous weekend. I mean, excuse me, I misspoke. End of the previous week, before the weekend. It could have been any day in that period.
It appears very likely that there's no record–none–of Bush declassifying Plame's identity the NIE. Libby can't place it in time. He's not sure whether it happened over the phone or in person. And there are no witnesses. Just, so far, Libby's second-hand assurances that the President insta-declassified Plame's identity the NIE. I sincerely believe that, if Fitzgerald ever gets around to proving that it was Plame's identity, and not the NIE, that Libby leaked to Judy with Dick's authority, Dick intends to claim he declassified it. Gotta protect the President, don't you know (besides, it's distinctly possible that Cheney never did ask Bush to declassify Plame's identity the NIE). But, contrary to what Dick told Tim Russert, there is no basis in law for Dick to declassify things he hasn't specifically been authorized to declassify by Bush.
Of course there are two more pieces of evidence that might show what went on: the transcripts of Bush's and Cheney's interviews with Patrick Fitzgerald. Which, of course, are not grand jury materials, since Bush and Cheney were too chicken to go before the grand jury.
All the more reason for Congressman Waxman to request the transcripts of those interviews.
Related posts:
- The Fitzgerald-Cheney Interview: What Don’t We Know That We Don’t Know?
- Cheney’s Betrayal Made an IIPA Charge for Libby Possible
- Cheney’s Lawyer Already Leaked the Content of Cheney’s “Privileged” Interview
- Laura Ingraham on “This Week”: Dick Cheney “Cuts Through” on Afghanistan Because “His Numbers Are Going Up”
- The Taxpayers Paid Dick Cheney’s Personal Defense Attorney to Obstruct Any Inquiries Into His Crimes
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Marcy – Score!
emptywheel!
Dick Cheney controls Tim Russert.
But Waxman controls the power of the subpoena.
Tanx to all our puppies
Marcy! The best analysis out there.
does the POTUS have the authority to say, “sure, Dick, go ahead and declassify whatever you want…. you can tell us all about it later.”
in other words, do the POTUS have to give specific authorization for each paper to be declassified, or is general authorization good enough? i’m still confused.
sounds like your are saying “specific”? i wasn’t sure from leonard’s answer…. maybe i’m being too picky, but if there’s a loop hole – we know david addington will find it.
selise @ 5
Yes, that’s the loophole.
I’m just trying to close the loophole that says, “Bush was uninvolved.”
Now that I’ve got that one mostly closed I’ll move on from there.
Sounds to me that it was NEVER declassified at the time (which is why no one else knew about it) and that when they realized they were CAUGHT, they just LIED and said that it had been declassified by Bush at the time. So, where does it say that Bush or Cheney can RETROACTIVELY declassify something? There is no such thing.
Fire the Liars.
selise @ 6
And is verbal authorization enough, or is there some kind of papertrail?
emptywheel @ 6
remind me never to get on your bad side.. *g*
brilliant work, thank you.
If stock option back-dating is a big deal, back-dating a declassification should be gigantic.
LS @ 8
My sentiments exactly. Just as they casually fire USAs and out covert agents for trivial political reasons, they do not take classification seriously (except to hide their own rear ends). Disgusting.
I wonder in some of these cases if what they are trying to cover up is that Bush was NOT involved – that others were making decisions and taking actions way above their pay grade, when Bush was the person who had authority to make those decisions. Because then Bush would appear (ha!) to be uninvolved and because someone could be nailed for making decisions they did not have the authority to make. Someone whose initials start with, say, KR. or AG
EW:
A great post!!! I wonder how they’ll SPIN this one!
Here is Waxman’s New Letter to Fred Fielding asking about White House E-Mails policies:
Waxman-Fielding Letter
AZ Matt @ 15
This man does not appear to miss anything.
Marcy – could Leonard not answer the specific question of blanket versus ad hoc declassification? The legality or the standing policy, I mean…
Marcy!
So this is what you’ve been doing “off in the weeds”…kindling!
Great work.
Wasn’t there some signing statement, or presidental dictat signed after the fact? I vaguely remember at the time Cheney made that comment to Russert that some blogger looked in to it, and that it was signed a few weeks AFTER Libby dined with Miller. That’s the question to ask Leonard, is that legal or standard or acceptable practice for declassifying ? And, if there is that signed, whatever we’re calling it, CYCheney’sA, for want of a better term wouldn’t that be sent to Leonard or Hoden?
See also Emptywheel’s diary today over on DailyKos,
Cheney Can NOT Declassify at Will
Bob in HI
Henry is on fire (figuratively speaking)! The one to Rove was, um, very pointed. Like a skewer. This one is just as good.
Fern @ 16
He’s the son of a grocery store owner. I do wonder if he had practice doing his dad’s inventory. That’s the kind of skill you have ot have for that. I do my own version in pharmacy, myself. If anything’s missing, you see it and find out WHY.
EPU’d, last thread:
OT: Over at the State Roots Project site, Marcy feeds me some questions via email for a local Virginia activist to ask Tom Davis (R-VA) at one of his town hall meetings. Check it out.
The local is our very own Redshift.
I’m being repetitive, because I am trying to understand this, sorry.
So, even though the executive order allowing Cheney to declassify occurred prior to the supposed declassification of the NIE that Miller was shown, there is no evidence that Bush or Cheney actually declassified the NIE for that purpose at the time. It was only later, while under investigation, that the claim was made that it had been declassified. The fact that no one else was told at the time that it had been declassified points to the probability that it never happened. I say, prove that it was declassified at the time. Prove it.
Want to add my $0.02 again. Outing a NOC in time of war is TREASON. This de-classification issue is another shiny object. What if Shrub decided to “declassify” all of our nuclear (nuclular?) launch codes and put them on the government web sites. That’s TREASON and I don’t care if he “declassified” it first. It’s TREASON!!!! Ignore the shiny object!! It’s TREASON!!!!!
Speaking of Tom Davis, he is holding a series of Town Meetings, starting tonight.
Looks like Cheney gets into lots of bad things while Bush is out on his bike rides.
What Waxman is telling Fielding to produce:
Another outstanding try by Wheeler. We’re just waiting for the conversion now.
Brilliant as usual, emptywheel. When will Waxman offer you a consulting contract???
I just sent the news about the SD FBI guy’s ever-so-suspiciously-timed retirement to Josh Marshall at TPM. Josh and the boys will be MOST interested, I wager.
LS @ 24
I say, “prove that you were talking about the NIE.”
I’m not so much worried about the NIE–Libby had already leaked it to at least two people. I want him to prove tehy were talking abou thte NIE and not Plame.
Then we can get into proof it was declassified.
Zee @ 9
Hmmm, I would guess that a paper trail is officially required, because how is the CIA going to know not to protect the information if they don’t know it’s been declassified. However, I suspect that the requirement is an executive branch regulation, not a law, so while the president should say in writing he’s changed the rules, he can just decide to change them and no one can stop him.
It’s another one of those things like using disposable cell phones and avoiding email and documentation, things that no one would do unless they knew they were involved in something underhanded, but which isn’t in itself illegal. (Unlike using the outside email accounts for official business, which actually is against the law.)
The grand strategy of checkmate seems to be coming clearer in
focus as the Investigations gather steam and move inexorably to
those tipping points. I sure hope Waxman’s staffters are reading
the FDL as they all seem to be on same wavelength in what to
go after. Its just a matter of time. Go Waxman!! Go Marcy!!
Troll alert at circa 29, 30.
And now it looks like Chimpy has caught up to Dumpy Dick.
Look at Bush’s latest approval ratings in NH:
Other key finding: President Bush’s approval rating in what used to be a swing state is now just 17%.
-GSD
Claim Miller as an asset, someone Cheney essentially deputizes by choice the same way he retroactively declassifies, then it’s all on her.
She worked close enough to be considered an asset and had past history doing so.
In such a role she would she would be a disclosure loophole and the leak would be on her, which is why she tried to plea out and get immunity to save herself and be the new Ollie North as the end-all to the OVP.
Contra, part deux.
Lol.
I just had a mental picture of Marcy out in a big field of weeds, hidden out of sight, when all of a sudden she pops up waving a piece of paper over her head and shouting, I FOUND IT!
Arab Summit on Cspan III
GSD @ 36
It’s curious that Republicans still want to keep the Bush boat afloat. It has to be bribes.
sonate @ 35
I kinda thought 29 was rugby lingo?
I do believe Bush ceded some of his declassification power to the Vice president about the time of the Plame outing. THe question is was it done retroactively. (I read about this unprecedented ceding of power at the time. It was part of an Exdecutive order.)
Badwater @ 39
their roots connect them…
Emptywheel 32,
Thanks! I see what you are saying.
From the Department of Burying the Bodies: (from TPM):
Remember San Diego FBI chief Dan Dzwilewski? He’s the one who said he “guaranteed[d]” politics was at the bottom of Carol Lam’s firing and that her dismissal would adversely affect her public corruption investigations. He just announced he’s resigning from the Bureau.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..013348.php
We should hook Waxman up with one those backpack/headset gizmos that Boosh used to use. With Marcy on the other end.
EPU’D TO PACH:
pach-went to the site you linked………..nice comment
all i could think about was i want a t-shirt with the roots project on it, with a website address……..i know my 74 yr old father would wear one too, his favorite earth day t-shirt is getting worn out……..i mentioned this in your roots post, but am mentioning it again, it would make a great t-shirt……….my vote is to have it on the back…..with the common quote on it…………..and i repeat, i am NOT a t-shirt wearer, but i would wear one with that on it…….
As for the actual NIE it was not declassified, because Sen. Rockefeller made a statement of dissent on the record of not being able to set the record straight in the NIE’s counter positive conclusions to Cheney’s war policy.
Cheney can not employ dualities of that, he can’t declassify portions out of context. It would be, in essence, a line item veto over the conclusion of the principals.
bush isn’t ever going to admit that he declassifed Valerie or the NIE because it will look bad for him in the history books. The President leaking the name of one of our spies to the press? There is noway to spin that. However if Cheney wants to take the fall, well it can’t hurt him his approval rating can’t get any lower. I mean you shoot a guy your friend in the face there is not much you can do to top that!
LS @ 24
Just to be clear, the executive order delegated the authority to classify, not to declassify. While Cheney has tried mightily to muddy the waters on this, classification authority at most gives you the authority to declassify the things you classified, not any classified materials throughout the federal government.
So (correct me if I’m wrong, Marcy), your point is that unless there was a separate delegation of authority to declassify specific materials, Cheney didn’t and doesn’t have that authority.
Dick, Karl says – if you wanna decalcify somethin’ – jes go ahead and do it. Weed em out. Can’t trust any non signers of the Bushie loyalty oath. That goes for Wilson’s wife and any attorneys who are even thinkin bout goin’ against the grain.
The same poll had former Democratic Governor Jeanne Shaheen beating Sonny-Boy Sununu by 10% points.
-GSD
From Conyer’s committee:
Today, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. announced an agreement with the Justice Department (DoJ) to start interviewing Justice staffers who may have been involved in the recent mass firing of U.S. Attorneys. Following a series of phone and written negotiations, DoJ agreed to make at least eight current and former employees available for transcribed interviews with House and Senate Democrat and Republican investigators, starting tomorrow at 10 A.M. with Michael Elston, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General.
Conyers and other congressional leaders have been involved in negotiations with the DoJ for weeks regarding interviews with key individuals involved in the US Attorney matter, including: Michael Elston, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, Michael Battle, former Director of the Office of U.S. Attorneys, Monica Goodling, Special Counsel to the Attorney General and White House Liaison, William Mercer, U.S. Attorney for Montana and Acting Associate Attorney General, and William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. Interviews for the other DoJ employees have not yet been scheduled but the Justice Department has agreed to make those individuals available. Goodling has already announced that she will invoke her Fifth Amendment rights when asked any questions regarding this investigation.
LINK
thanks emptywheel!
Ok, here’s a deal: help us publicize the Roots Project site, and we’ll get tee shirts made once we’re over the hump!
Tithonia @ 41
I kinda thought 29 was rugby lingo?
Yes, one scores a try (kind of like the touchdown), then one kicks a conversation (kind of like the extra point).
That’s an incredible piece of work, emptywheel!
Hat’s off!!
LS @
24
But what’s missing here is something Emptywheel pointed out to me a month ago: Libby did not rely on this Executive Order for Cheney’s authority to declassify; he went to Addington, who cited another court case (can’t remember at the moment, but it’s in the trial transcript) that is much more expansive. However, the EO is very specific about classification, whereas the case Addington cited is more generally about presidential authority. Thus, the EO is clearly applicable law, but Addington’s firewall is based on an interpretation of a precedent that he thinks is applicable.
So Cheney’s firewall is likely based on Addington, if not merely on his own super-sized megalomania. Emptywheel, could you please elucidate?
Bob in HI
Badwater @ 40
I don’t think so; it think it’s:
a. Administration actions were highly coordinated with the rubberstamp Congress, so many congressional Republicans are in this muck up the their eyeballs.
b. They know what happened after Watergate. Even for the ones who aren’t directly involved, if Bush goes down, a lot of them will go with him, and they may not find another Reagan to revitalize the party.
Of course, Bush may take down the party with him anyway. (I didn’t know until recently that there were Republicans who talked openly about changing the name of their party after Watergate, because they thought it was doomed. If only…)
Bob Schacht @ 58
But what’s missing here is something Emptywheel pointed out to me a month ago: Libby did not rely on this Executive Order for Cheney’s authority to declassify; he went to Addington, who cited another court case (can’t remember at the moment, but it’s in the trial transcript) that is much more expansive. However, the EO is very specific about classification, whereas the case Addington cited is more generally about presidential authority. Thus, the EO is clearly applicable law, but Addington’s firewall is based on an interpretation of a precedent that he thinks is applicable.
So Cheney’s firewall is likely based on Addington, if not merely on his own super-sized megalomania. Emptywheel, could you please elucidate?
Bob in HI
Addington cited Navy v. Egan. I asked Leonard abotu that too, and he said it is one of the several cases in which teh “absolute authority” for POTUS to classify and declassify rests in.
But it doesn’t relate to the VP.
Pachacutec @ 23
Eep! I guess I’ll have to be sure to get to the meeting, then. *g*
If Elston is testifying tomorrow, how am I going to get any work done?
things come undone @
49
He should be hope the worst thing in the history books is the Plame issue. The list of his destruction is massive.Redshift @ 59
Plus a good dose of pride. The Repugs I know just cannot admit they’ve been so horribly wrong.
Redshift 59:
There might also be the D.C. Madam.
I love to think of the letters leaving the oversight committees as little torpedos aimed at the Republican garbage scow that is trying to stay afloat on stormy seas. Can the captain keep is crew from manning the the lifeboats? I doubt it.
Tithonia @ 62
These are interviews with investigators only, not televised.
sonate @ 25
Yes a reason to subpenoa bush investigate a treason charge call him up to the Senate and leak that question to the press. Does the president have the authority to leak a spy, our spies name? Maybe if there was some pressing reason, however punishing Valerie for what her husband did (wether he was right or wrong) is not a pressing reason. In other words bush does not have that authority, we got him on treason (although he will fight this all the way to the Supremes) and the law is pretty clear about punishing a wife for something her husband did (they are against it) The media buzz alone will force the White House into a corner.
Marcy, this is phenomenal. You are without equal.
Bob Schacht @
20
Hell, screw the reading everything we can get our hands on by Emptywheel – WHEN CAN WE ORDER THE TEE SHIRTS?
Re: Roots Project site
If you set up your account and start posting some of your own content to your own blog, I’ll be looking daily for original material generated by the community to promote to the front page.
I think that the fallback plan was always for them to claim that they insta-declassified Plame, which means she wasn’t covert under the terms of the IIPA, which means no law was broken. In fact, I strongly suspect that that’s what Dick Cheney told Fitz during his interview. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he just said, “I’m Dick Cheney. I can do whatever the fuck I want to.” The ensuing legal skirmish over whether or not the Veep truly has this authority would have taken years, they would have greymailed it death, and it would have totally distracted from the underlying scandal.
Fitz’s response was masterful. Libby (the point man, not the fall guy) got hit with charges of lying about his role in the whole thing. It took them months to realize that their “insta-declassification” story didn’t matter anymore, and all of the sputtering about “no underlying crime” is coming from people who STILL don’t get it. If they try to use the “insta-declassification” defense now, Libby is STILL guilty. Which means the only way out for Libby is to admit the reason that he lied in the first place: That there was never any insta-declassification to begin with, and they just came up with that story after the fact.
Insta-peach
To: FDL Team, in seriousness
Fr: S.O.S. from MA
Re: Gabbly or an IM site for FDL?
Folks, I wonder whether you’ve thought of maybe putting a link to some sort of FDL-devoted chat site on the FDL mast-head. You have probably noticed some diminution of the heavy loads on FDL’s server on Those Big Busy days, like Emptywheel Vindication Day, Libby Verdict Day, and today — as some of the more addicted of us were chatting away.
Gabbly has the advantage of being totally on some other server — I have no idea where on the ‘Net, but it’s got a high-bandwidth connection to some backbone — so our using it takes load off of FDL’s servers. OTOH it may reduce FDL hits which drive your ad income… but supporting those extra hits may tax your servers… so it’s a circular proposition and balancing act.
If you’re interested I can create and post a cut-out email addy to discuss this further. Or you can just ignore this if you don’t mind our occasional short invitations to the “FDL Gabbly Site”…
Your supporter and very sincere admirer,
/S.O.S. from MA
Libby. you’re so fuc**d! Give it up! cut a deal!
This guy is great on Hardball
where is everybody?
lolo @ 76
Recuperating probably after that long hearing.
Serious Sampson exhaustion – understandable
Who’s next to testilie publicly?
pach at 55
i’m tellin’ ya, sell the damn t-shirts!!!!!!!!!!!
REAAAAAAAALLLLLLY
i don’t wear them, but would wear this one.
sell the shirt, the graphic and saying are worth wearing, include a website under the ‘common’ saying or on the front pocket………
i don’t express an opinion unless it hits home, pach……
and when i saw it, i thought, i would wear that………
Hey, EW! Brad DeLong gives us props (and lengthy quotes) here in RE: Max Frankel and Judy Miller.
AZ Matt @ 77
Recuperating probably after that long hearing.
Christy is proly watchin the Ears in the NIT final!
emptywheel @ 56
I kinda thought 29 was rugby lingo?
Yes, one scores a try (kind of like the touchdown), then one kicks a conversation (kind of like the extra point).
It may be a good thing to have a troll in the scrum.
AZ Matt @ 77
Recuperating probably after that long hearing.
Yep. Got nothing done today. Have to eat/shower sometime. :)
Arca @ 74
June 5 is the day of the sentencing hearing. Does Libby get to wait until he gets the month count before he calls Fitz?
I think he’ll get 60 months, plus 12 mos. probation and the bar will take his license. Anybody else guessing?
Neil @ 85
June 5 is the day of the sentencing hearing. Does Libby get to wait until he gets the month count before he calls Fitz?
Five to ten in Woolworth!
I think he’ll get 60 months, plus 12 mos. probation and the bar will take his license. Anybody else guessing?
Five to ten in Woolworth!
In mid-2003, Dick would have been pretty cocky about his control of both Shrub and the WH. In his rush to defend himself from Wilson and the truth, I can imagine that he had a general discussion with Shrub about declassifying things that might help defend him. I suspect he also felt confident enough that he could “just do it” and get Shrub to bless it later. I wonder if later ever came?
Shrub has no attention for most details – hence, his redefinition of management theory, to the effect that only underlings need understand how things work. Dick had no interest in being too candid with Shrub about what he was doing. Which means that there may be have bene nothing in writing about this then, and perhaps not even now. Question is, how to establish any of this.
If there’s nothing in writing, Dick has no authority unless Shrub can specifically recollect his extraordinary oral delegation of power to Dick. Shrub, of course, has a memory as operatically fallible as Kyle Sampson’s.
Ten years ago, this scenario would not have been picked up by a comic book publisher. Today, it’s a credible discussion of how the WH might have handled sensitive national security information about going to war or stopping a WMD from going off. Will we step back from the brink or allow this to become STOP?
Woolworth?
dmac @
47
Drive by …
Can’t find your response Pach, but you can set up an account @ Cafepress and people can by the swag there
L8r
Prosecutor: Chicolini, isn’t it true you sold Freedonia’s secret war code and plans?
Chicolin:Scooter: Sure, I sold a code and two pairs o’ plans. Hahaha! ‘At’s-a some joke, eh boss?Firefly: Gentlemen,
ChicoliniScooter here may talk like an idiot and look like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot. I implore you, send him back to his father and brothers who are waiting for him with open arms in the penitentiary. I suggest that we give him ten years in Leavenworth or eleven years in Twelveworth.ChicoliniScooter: I tell you what I’ll do. I’ll take five and ten in Woolworth.Cheney has been dancing the 2-step so hard every time someone asks him about his declassyfing authority, you can hear the music in the background.
If I can see it, a part time lurker/troll, why can’t anyone who counts see it?
I love digby’s comment a couple days ago — “Emptywheel’s at it again — she’s off in the weeds [and the Republicans are not safe.]”
Well done Marcy. How’d ya get the e-mail address? I thought all these guys used only their private RNC Blackberries.
Hackenabush!
Focus on Rove.
Neil @ 93
I resemble that!
sos-
i have tried to connect to gabblyand couldn’t
entered name and entered and nothing…….dead window…….
Woolworth = department store. Not a prison, yet, unless of course you are one of the unfortunate underpaid employees there. Leavenworth = prison.
Talk talk talk, sometimes I must go mad.
Why don’t you go home to your wife?
I’ll tell you what, I’ll go home to your wife and outside of the improvement she’ll never know the difference.
Neil @ 83
I kinda thought 29 was rugby lingo?
Yes, one scores a try (kind of like the touchdown), then one kicks a conversation (kind of like the extra point).
It may be a good thing to have a troll in the scrum.
I resemble that remark. I thought extra points in Rugby, like Cardinal Newman, were converted.
dmac @ 80
i’m tellin’ ya, sell the damn t-shirts!!!!!!!!!!!
REAAAAAAAALLLLLLY
i don’t wear them, but would wear this one.
sell the shirt, the graphic and saying are worth wearing, include a website under the ‘common’ saying or on the front pocket………
i don’t express an opinion unless it hits home, pach……
and when i saw it, i thought, i would wear that………
;0)
egregious @ 97
You had to be there EG, it’s all Marx brothers blabber. FDL’ers could use a laugh now and then!
signed
J Cheevers Loophole esq
Check out the first paragraph of this Miller article – I had not seen it before. It refers to offers to purchase uranium – dated May 2003:
link
I rented all of the Marx Bros movies recently, one after the next. They are so funny. One of my favorite bits is the fight of the street vendors. I doesn’t matter which Marx bros you cross, the con-man, the dumb but not so dumn pizan, or the free spirit mute, each of them will even the score and them some. They don’t lose.
raven—
I’m good w the humor but somebody above asked “Woolworth?”
Neil @ 103
Get your tootsy frootsy.
egregious @ 97
I happen to like what you’re telling us here. If one wants to get a taste of what the ‘working poor’ go through, sometimes seven days a week, get a job in retail or in the kitchen of a cafe. I’ve done both. ;0)
I also saw the Honest John bit by WC Fields on you tube. . .it killed me!
Marcy, with this post you seem to have closed the declassification loophole, though i would argue you already had it closed months ago. But you seem to have ignored the implied Constitutional right of Decidering.
The Framers implicitly did not delegate Decidering to the general provisions of Congressional oversight crafted in Article One. In fact, Decidering is not even mentioned in the articles governing executive power, because to the Framers, it was a given.
Thus Decidering is implicit in Executive Branch powers, and by definition can not be limited. Addington understands this, even if he hesitates to lay it on the line. One of Jefferson’s staffers wrote, “While the system of checks and balances is designed to mitigate power by one branch over the other, the implied concept of Decidering can allow supreme decision-making to take precedence over bureaucratic squabbling, to the benefit of the populace.”
Chainey, by decidering to take declassification power from the absentee landlord Deciderer, is fully within his constitutional right to decider.
Let’s examine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if one of the Saudi moles in the executive branch, for example the Veep, was pissed at the Saudi King for saying the US occupation of Iraq was illegal, and decidered to discrediterate him by leaking previously classified funding trails showing the Saudis were funding Iranian produced improvisered explosive devicers. This of course would expose previously secret war plans against said Iran. But It Would Be Constitutional Under the Implied Deciderer Portion of the Constitution, and even if it weren’t, wtf ya gwine tadoaboutit.
Someone in the Deciderer Branch would then have to face perjurgatory charges testifying in order to protect the Veep’s right to insta-decider, which is a given in the implied portion of the Constitution anyways!
These principles of insta-decidering have been with us in democracies since the Sun King’s right to droit d’seigneur, which allowed the Sun King to fook whomever he wanted whenever.
That’s how effective democracies decider
(The commentor takes no responsibility for the deleriousness of this post, having recently completed an Ardbeg whisky tasting which included the Very Young to the Very Old, and all the deliciousness in between, and was only meant to bring a smile to the face of the woman in the weeds.)
Mr.Murder @ 48
Good analogy! It would be like having an NIE that said “Chalabi says that Saddam has nuclear bombs ready to fire in 45 minutes, but he’s full of crap” and declassifying the middle of the sentence without the bookends.
Bob in HI
OK Kiddo—
When younger I had no money and worked as a waitress in a truck stop.
1) The truckers are the best tippers
2) Waitresses at such places work ridiculously hard for little money
egregious @ 104
They din get it neither!
Mrs. Teasdale: The eyes of the world are upon you. Notables from every country are gathered here in your honor. This is a gala day for you.
Firefly: Well, a gal a day is enough for me. I don’t think I could handle any more.
neil
I think he’ll get 60 months, plus 12 mos. probation and the bar will take his license. Anybody else guessing?
Tonster says:
March 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Seriously folks, for your convenience:
Judge Reggie B. Walton
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
just thought those of you who would want to write-here’s the address——–to suggest that scooter gets the maximim……acc’dg to those who know-keep it short and sweet-that’s what judge walton likes, and put on the envelope at bottom left that it is about libby, to save the judge’s staff from headaches………
Judy Miller, May 7, 2003:
“
Of even greater interest to MET Alpha was a “top secret” intelligence memo found in a room on another floor. Written in Arabic and dated May 20, 2001, the memo from the Iraqi intelligence station chief in an African country described an offer by a “holy warrior” to sell uranium and other nuclear material. The bid was rejected, the memo states, because of the United Nations “sanctions situation.” But the station chief wrote that the source was eager to provide similar help at a more convenient time.”
A Night at the Opera – Chico on piano
tbsa @ 79
Why did they cave in and give them private testimony that sucks. No sunshine there.
@Crazy Horse 108
Thanks, now my head hurts. Good analogy though.
Tailights flickerin, as he pulled up to a truckstop
The same old crowd was hangin out again tonight
He said, fill up my tank while I go check my load
It feels like its shifting all around
He was the kind of man, do all he could
Above all he had integrity
But he was so young
And on a ten city run
In love with a truck stop girl
As he went inside, he was merrily greeted
By the girl with whom he was in love
She held out a glass and said, have another
This is the last time we can meet
With her hair piled up high and a look in her eye
That would turn any good mans blood to wine
All his eyes could see, well all his eyes could see
Was the stare from all those around him
He ran out to the lot, and climbed into his rig
And drove off without tightening down
It was a terrilble thing, to see what remained
Of the rig that poor danny was in
And he was so young and on a ten city run
In love with a truck stop girl
But he was so young, and on a ten city run
In love with a truck stop girl
Neil @ 114
He was amazin!
OK Kiddo—
One of my kids periodically takes minimum wage jobs to learn from experience what it’s like. My work as a truck stop waitress was enough to scar me for life, but this child is carrying on in my name.
Enough of this, let’s get back to being all pissed off and serious. Does that rhyme with egregious?
New thread by the highly esteemed Scarecrow.
Lieberman Joins McCain’s Stroll in Iraq
egregious @ 119
Hey EG, is that your sweet bird dog on your site?
USA incompetence or something else?
FROM BUZZFLASH:
A judge ruled Wednesday that an epic blunder by federal prosecutors in the largest tax prosecution ever means that the treasury can’t recoup at least $100 million in restitution.
Telecommunications entrepreneur Walter Anderson PLED GUILDY (!) to tax evasion, but U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said the binding plea agreement listed the wrong statute. This problem could have been overcome had prosecutors not failed to include any discussion of probation as is routine in such deals.
Because of the technicality, Judge Friedman said, “I’ve come to the conclusion, very reluctantly, that I have no authority to order restitution. . .
The case was prosecuted by the office of the interim U.S. Attorney for D.C., Jeffrey A. Taylor. . . . appointed directly by Attorney General Gonzales WWITHOUT Senate confirmation in November 2006 under a provision of the Patriot Act that Congress has recently voted to reverse.
Sure enough, Taylor came straight from the Bush Administration. He served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales for four years prior to his selection. Before that he worked as an aide to Sen. Orrin Hatch, where he actually participated in the writing of the Patriot Act.
S.O.S. from MA @
73
Take a look at MyKaroo http://www.mykaroo.com. This puts up a parallel blog page which stays in sync with the underlying site. That is, if you go to another site you’re in another blog. You’d go to FDL and the MyKaroo page is the FDL parallel page. One nice thing is that unlike a chat/IM app like Gabbly, the posts stay around, don’t scroll off, so others can catch up whenever is good for them.
raven—
That is indeed my lovely little brit, named Bingo. What a sweetheart.
Actually, Tim Russert controls Dick Cheney.
kathy — a $100 million oops? Wow.
egregious @ 125
Awww, you know that the real raven is our 13 year old, two year cancer surviving, cocker?
raven @ 120
[clearing throat] Egregious is always serious. HAHAHAHAHA
That was a Marcy joke. She around?
I was in the Plame hearing (one of the high points of my life). Late in the day when Victoria made some less-than-truthful statements about the Libby trial, Marcy made some subtle hand motions and shaking of head, and one of the staffers ran over, listened to her, then went up to the staffers for Waxman, who relayed some information to the Chairman, who then warned Ms. Toensing that the Committee would be checking on the truthfulness of her sworn statements.
She’s clearly known and valued.
Oh, and brilliant, too.
Marx Bros – montage
raven @
95
I resemble that!
Hey wait a minute, I resemble that remark
lolo @ 115
Why did they cave in and give them private testimony that sucks. No sunshine there.
Fuck, what did I miss? I hate having to work.
Kathy @ 123
Looks like something else to me. The NH Phonejamming case just got kicked back because of teh bad jury instructions.
Two’s a pattern…
I resemble that!
Hey wait a minute, I resemble that remark
I can’t heaaaah ya, they’s a huuuuuiccane blowin down heah!
dmac @ 96
Hmm. Well there’s nobody around to Gabble with at the momink but when things heat up here, create a NEW WINDOW, point that alternate window at this URL:
http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
and see wot happens. Should work. I use FireFox on a Mac but many others use Windows… Try during the USA daytime tomorrow, there’s sure to be some FDL Gabblers around & about…
Once you “raise” Gabbly in that window, adjust shape and location of Gabbly window to suit, and DO NOT REFRESH IT unless you want to start again… Treat THIS window, your normal FDL window, as per normal. Refresh when you want an update. Gabbly updates every time someone posts something.
Post here in FDL tmw if it still gives U trouble. Someone’s bound to be around and lend a hand. Hope to chat w/you soonish
raven @ 107
thanks, that was fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEIUW5Rslrc
Crazy Horse @ 108
Absolutely fookin marvelous. TNX :)
Marcy, I thought at one time I read that Executive Order 12958 had been amended, so I have just spent some time looking up that amendment. Executive Order 12958 was amended on March 25, 2003, by Executive Order 13292, to read as follows:
(snip)
Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.
(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
I was wondering how this amendment of the original order affects your theory? You can read it in the following link.
greenwarrior @ 137
thanks, that was fun!
youtube
I was up in Medicine Hat!
OT, but I think it’s remarkable that the family values guys got away with Cheney doing a hunting weekend of two guys, two gals, and the gals weren’t the guys’ wives.
Picture Bill Clinton doing a foursome weekend — with someone else’s wife. You would STILL be hearing about it.
Ann in AZ @
139
Very interesting! So, what was happening on or about March 25, 2003 that this would come up at that particular moment in time?
So has anyone issued a subpoena for Ralston’s AOL account?
And Henry should also ask for the any and all non-WH email accounts of all WH staff that MAY have been used in conducting official government business.
Marcy, what is your take on the sentence in Novak’s Bush Alone opinion piece which said: “One credible source says the president will never — not even on the way out of office in January 2009 — pardon Libby.”
Who do you guess his “credible source” is.
The Bush regime leaked parts of the NIE to Judith Miller in Sept. 2002
link
Props to Emptywheel for connecting the dots between leak case evidence, Cheney’s assertions about his own authority to declassify information (
NIE? Plame’s identity?) under EO 12958, Davis attempt to equate Cheney’s authority to Bush’s, and how this series of events could lead an sharp thinking analyst to conclude Cheney, if he was forced to admit it, would claim he had the authority to “insta-declassify” Plame’s CIA NOC identity because if he doesn’t have the authority, he would have had to get Bush’s permission or Tenet’s. Tenet won’t back Cheney up and Bush can’t.More thanks to Crazy Horse at 108, whose whiskey-tasting is interacting quite well with my dessert of advertised, but marvelously well-disguised, alcohol content.
Limp Dick=worst public servant EVAH!
I STILL want to know how the anyone can claim the presidents power to declassify is absolute, his “supposed” power rests in a requrment of national security, this BY NO MEANS means his power is absolete
in addition, the fact that the president signed an order in no way gives him power congress and the constitution don’t award
marksb @ 130
AND DREAMY. Darnit I was trying not to post that today.
Something happened today, and I thought I might have missed something, but I found this comment over at TPM:
I wondered the same thing at the time. I need to go find a transcript or the video and see if I can find it again.
There are actually two levels of classification involved here, and Marcy’s use of the strikeout is both apt and telling. On the one level is whether Cheney had authority to declassify the NIE, which is a document, and on the other level whether had the authority to declassify the status of a CIA operative, which is not a document, but a operative status.
So even if, and this is a big if, Cheney had a right (delegated to him by Bush) to declassify the NIE, that may not mean that it automatically declassifies all the information imbedded in the NIE, which in this case includes that fact that Plame was a CIA operative (the term implies a classified status).
So we ought to be careful here. Even if Cheney had the right to declassify the NIE it did not necessarily give him the right to declassify Plame’s status.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Wigwam @
142
How would the Vice President “classify” something if he were not acting “in performance of his executive duties”?
That description does not apply to the President; it is presumed that he is so acting when he classifies something. Why use that extra language only for the Vice President? Is it superfluous? Mr. Addington is ascetic and extraordinarily careful. He does not use “needless words needlessly”. So, what does he mean and why should we worry about it?
A normal vice president classifies little or nothing because his actual authority is potential. He has virtually no “executive duties” except to wait for the President to become unavailable and to cast tie votes in the Senate.
We know Mr. Cheney has classified enormous amounts of material, inventing his own levels of classification, and refuses to comply with statutorily mandated disclosure of what he classifies.
Is Mr. Cheney’s refusal to disclose what he classifies related to a heretofore undisclosed delegation of “executive duties” under a secret Presidential EO? If not, how does he have authority to classify anything, even under the revised language in the EO? Congress might want to inquire further.
You are simply amazing.
mbbsdphil@153 – I had almost exactly the same thought and posted the following at EW’s site:
EW – Only been to your site a couple of times before; very nice work you have here. I saw Ann in AZ’s question over at FDL and started thinking about the ambit of the EO, whether 12958 or 13292. It reads “in the performance of executive duties, the vice-president”. I am probably full of it here, but isn’t the VP acting as the “executive” only when he is acting in place of the President, i.e. death, disability or some other extraordinary reason. There must be something I am forgetting here, but I thought I recall learning in Constitutional Law that the executive was the President. If that is so, Cheney is full of shit for more reasons than the many you have already listed. I am interested in the answer, because this seems to simple. Thanks.
Kennedy wants the material/files in the right hand drawer of Sampsons desk.
Where did Grassley go? what did he agree to?
Is Kyle after McNulty?
Thank you Comey! Durbin “How did you come to the conclusion that Fitzgerald had not distinguished himself”?
Rove wanted Fitz gone! Some want McNulty gone!
Sampson “Fitzgerald could be added to this list”
Durbin has had it!
bmaz@155, I agree. These seemingly innocuous few words may have great implications. It matches the surreptitious, legalistic way Addington, Libby and Cheney operate. See, their signing statements. It matches the gaping hole in Bush’s executive competence – his inability to use data other than body language, his poor attention span, and his consequent dismissal of data he has to acquire through reading or understanding complex systems.
The public language regarding Cheney’s authority to classify matches an unrevealed authority to perform executive duties. That leads to his practice of classifying and his willful failure to report his classification practices.
Cheney, Libby and Addington are voracious but careful men. They would have put in place a secret framework of power that would excuse their exercise of it.
Did Shooter speak of Valerie Plame?
Why, no, he didn’t know her name!
Did Ari out her on the plane?
Did Armi tell Woodward in the rain?
Did Scooter to Dame Judy speak–
O’er buttered toast–an awesome leak?
Did Dick declassify it on the spot?
He did, tho’ the law said he could not!
Orange jumpsuits in the sun,
Oh, when will we see justice done?
“since Bush and Cheney were too chicken to go before the grand jury.”
and now the chicken has a big beef with all the pork…
Minerva Medica @ 160
love your verses and handle….
dreamcatcher @
152
dreamcatcher – You’ve conflated the NIE and Plame’s CIA affiliation, as I noticed happened with a comment or two without correction in EW’s DKos diary about this as well.
The 2002 NIE (which Libby leaked cherry-picked portions of to various reporters) nowhere mentions Valerie Plame or her CIA affiliation (as far as we know from the public record). When EW is referring to Plame’s status side by side with the NIE, it is not because the NIE is/was a source of information about Plame. EW’s strikeout replacement wording is instead used because EW is convinced that the “NIE”-declassification-authorization tale is a cover story for what really transpired between Cheney and Libby (and maybe Bush) with regard to Valerie Plame [who they learned about from non-NIE source(s)] and their plot to out her or to cover their tracks after the fact when the criminal investigation threatened them with exposure.
Other than that confusion, though, I think you and others make a good point about the qualitative difference between declassifying classified documents and “declassifying” a covert CIA officer’s identity and her secret network – “apples and oranges” as commenters leveymg & TravelerDiogenes portray it in the DKos diary (if only because of the IIPA statute). And I sincerely doubt that Mr. Bush copped to the latter “declassification” to Special Counsel Fitzgerald…
mbbsdphil @
159
mbbsdphil & bmaz – I do wonder whether you are both on to something potentially (and ominously) significant here…
Wigwam @
142
Although some have doubted the veracity of his sources Jason Leopold reported that Joseph Wilson first come onto Cheney’s radar as a result of an CNN appearance in early March
Even though John Dean has yet to find it, EO 13292 expanding declassification authority to the VP on March 25th is real. Meanwhile David Sanger at NYT has reported that – even with that EO in his pocket – it was Bush who authorized release of the NIE to rebut Wilson long before his OP-ed.
Vyan
Vyan @
164
Vyan
The amended EO is the one Leonard was speaking to.
And Wilson may have been on Bush’s radar, but remember that they were using his report to justify the war in March. That’s going to govern how they’ll refer to him.
ANd as to the Sanger article, you might think about how honest teh article is since Sanger is one of the people who receioved the NIE leak before Cheney and Bush asserted that it was declassified. THere is info in there we know to be wrong.
Another topic “Republicans in the DoJ undercut USA’s in pursuing corporate crooks: “in December, ….Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty rolled back a requirement that corporate defendants waive the confidentiality of their discussions with lawyers to obtain leniency.”.
This administration is the gift that keeps on giving to large companies and moneyed cronies.
NYT 3/28
pow wow @ 163
dreamcatcher – You’ve conflated the NIE and Plame’s CIA affiliation, as I noticed happened with a comment or two without correction in EW’s DKos diary about this as well.
The 2002 NIE (which Libby leaked cherry-picked portions of to various reporters) nowhere mentions Valerie Plame or her CIA affiliation (as far as we know from the public record). When EW is referring to Plame’s status side by side with the NIE, it is not because the NIE is/was a source of information about Plame. EW’s strikeout replacement wording is instead used because EW is convinced that the “NIE”-declassification-authorization tale is a cover story for what really transpired between Cheney and Libby (and maybe Bush) with regard to Valerie Plame [who they learned about from non-NIE source(s)] and their plot to out her or to cover their tracks after the fact when the criminal investigation threatened them with exposure.
Other than that confusion, though, I think you and others make a good point about the qualitative difference between declassifying classified documents and “declassifying” a covert CIA officer’s identity and her secret network – “apples and oranges” as commenters leveymg & TravelerDiogenes portray it in the DKos diary (if only because of the IIPA statute). And I sincerely doubt that Mr. Bush copped to the latter “declassification” to Special Counsel Fitzgerald…
mbbsdphil @
159
mbbsdphil & bmaz – I do wonder whether you are both on to something potentially (and ominously) significant here…
Another lightbulb is turned on. Thanks
As Ew indicated Waxman/All Please read the Libby transcripts.
When Fitz ended his press conference stating that if new information came forward that the investigation could be opened once again. He said this after he offered congress the records/transcripts of the trial. Just what did he mean? Would it be congress offering more info? Who?
Question about the private e-mails (using yahoo, gwb.43.com, etc.): Do we know if Fitzgerald ever got a look at any of these? Did anybody in the White House deliberately forget to turn over communications that were part of the private e-mail network?
Somewhere upthread, I read that someone noted that Cheney et al had a private, on background, network of communication. Perhaps there is a private e-mail or extra-net out there so that everyone can maintain that precious plausible deniability.
mbbsdphil @ 99
Yes, one scores a try (kind of like the touchdown), then one kicks a conversation (kind of like the extra point).
It may be a good thing to have a troll in the scrum.
I resemble that remark. I thought extra points in Rugby, like Cardinal Newman, were converted.
Yes, they are converted. And if there were Trolls in scrums they’d be props; and perhaps a tall Hobbit would make a good hooker, with those big feet.