Waxman Hearing: Tom Davis Reveals His Cards

There's a remarkable detail from Waxman's hearing on Friday, relating to my favorite story of Libby's bogus NIE story. In short--the ranking Minority member, Tom Davis, reveals he knows--and fears--Libby's story about being authorized to leak the NIE by the President Vice President. Davis reveals that he has been prepared for this point--and has come ready to craft the record to protect Cheney.

The interchange starts when Congressman Paul Hodes asks James Knodell about the NIE. (On the CSPAN video, this starts at 2:35:55.)

Hodes: Do you agree with me Mr. Knodell that the NIE is a classified document?

Knodell: Pardon me?

Hodes: Do you agree with me that the National Intelligence Estimate, before it is declassified, is a classified document?

Knodell: [quietly] Yessir.

Hodes: Are there procedures for declassifying the National Intelligence Estimate?

Knodell: [shifts uncomfortably, looks away] I’m not familiar with specific declassification for that particular document.

Hodes then asks Bill Leonard, Mr. Classification, whether such insta-declassifcation is kosher:

Hodes: Mr. Leonard, are there procedures, um, for declassifying the National Intelligence Estimate?

Leonard: Um, yessir, as with any classified information, it can become declassified pursuant to the original decisions as to when it becomes declassified, it can become declassified under the authorization of an authorized official, and then it can also become declassified just by the mere passage of time.

Hodes: If classified information is revealed without having been properly declassified, that’s considered a leak. Correct, Mr. Leonard?

Leonard: That’s an unauthorized disclosure, yessir.

Hodes then asks Knodell whether all this constitutes a crime.

Hodes: And Mr. Knodell, you agree with that? It’s considered a leak if it’s not properly declassified and revealed.

Knodell: Yes.

Hodes: And leaking classified information is a crime, is it not, Mr. Knodell?

Knodell: [nods hesitantly] Yes.

Hodes: And if two or more persons agree to leak classified information, one of those persons takes affirmative steps to do something pursuant to that agreement, that could be considered a criminal conspiracy. Is that correct?

Knodell: It could be considered ...

Hodes: It’s my understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was specifically authorized to disclose key judgments of the classified National Intelligence Estimate to reporter Judy Miller because Vice President Cheney believed it important to do so. Uh, Mr. Libby also testified that the Vice President had told him that the President had given the authorization to disclose portions of the National Intelligence Estimate. In your experience, gentleman, in government, have you ever seen such [emphasis] selective [pause] declassification before?

Knodell looks from side to side.

Leonard: I’m not aware of uh any similar type of action such as that, no sir.

Bill Leonard saves the day by stating that such weirdness is legal, even if totally abnormal.

Hodes: Do you know of any basis for there to be selective declassification to a few reporters of the National Intelligence Estimate [points finger] and I want to tell you that on the date that this was supposedly disclosed by Mr. Libby, July 8th, in the following ten days Administration officials told folks that the NIE was still classified and it was formally declassified on July 18th. Can you explain to this panel how, if Mr. Libby had authority from the President and the Vice President to declassify the NIE on July 8, the Administration continued to claim that it was classified for ten days, and then apparently declassified it again on July 18th?

Leonard: I don’t have any firsthand knowledge to address any of that sir.

Knodell: Nor do I.

Hodes: Does it raise any questions for you?

Leonard: The uh ... the provisions of the Executive Order as I have indicated clearly provides for instances whereby classified information can be declassified even when it otherwise meets the standards for continued classification. And then ... and then, ultimately, uh, the exercise of classification and the declassification authority is the President’s absolute authority. It’s not derived from any law, regulation, or executive order, it’s his Article II Constitutional authority to be used absolutely.

Hodes: Assuming that to be the case, is it your testimony that the President could choose to selectively declassify the National Intelligence Estimate and give directions that it could be used with three reporters but then still retain, and that document is still classified?

Waxman: The gentleman’s time is expired, but we do want an answer.

Leonard: Sir, it’s my testimony that it’s the President’s absolute authority when it comes to the classification and declassification of information.

At this point, two things should be clear to those who haven't been briefed to be concerned about this point. One, the President can do whatever he wants with regards to declassification. And two, then if Libby leaked the NIE to Judy Miller with the President's blessing, then it's all legal--and shouldn't be any concern.

Then why is Tom Davis so concerned about it? More importantly, why does Tom Davis introduce a detail (available in Libby's testimony) that no one has yet mentioned? That the Vice President was the one insta-declassifying?

{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.

Curious game Davis and Leonard are playing at this point. Davis is clearly asking about the President and the Vice President. Yet Leonard is answering solely in reference to the President. (Perhaps, as a civil servant, he has forgotten that Cheney isn't really the President???)

In any case, I'm struck by the way that Davis knew that this wasn't a question of just Presidential insta-declassification. Indeed, he came prepared to get Leonard to confim, kind of, that Bush's "absolute" powers extend to Cheney as well.

•  Good catch. Recommended.

  Also, Waxman is scheduled to be on Charlie Rose tomorrow night.

  by Newsie8200 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:25:05 PM PDT

  •  What time?

    And is there a link for us TV-impaired types??

    by emptywheel on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:28:03 PM PDT

    •  Rose's website.

      http://charlierose.com/ has video up the next day of the previous show's guest(s).

      You'd have to check w/ your local PBS station for the time.

      by Newsie8200 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:31:50 PM PDT

      •  Most stations have it on at 11pm

        Sometimes there's a repeat at 12am (or later if it's pledge week--yech I hate those) if there's a second PBS station in the area.

        I record his shows. Can't stand some of his guests and especially regulars (e.g. Halperin, Nagourney) (or guest hosts when he was sick, e.g. Kristol), and Rose is an ass-kissing star-fucking cocktail party insider of the worst kind who has a Tourette's-like tendency to step all over or complete his guests' answers.

        But he does tend to have some high-powered and often interesting people on whom he interviews in a format more amenable to involved and serious discussion than the Sunday morning shows. So I'm a reluctant but often fascinated viewer.

        by kovie on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:16:01 PM PDT

        •  Thank you.

          
          

          Rose is an
          ass-kissing
          star-fucking
          cocktail party insider
          of the worst kind
          who has a
          Tourette's-like
          tendency to step
          all over or
          complete his
          guests' answers.

          PBS phoned, wants to know if they can use this in his official bio.

          by adios on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:36:24 AM PDT

          •  Please add "Candy Ass" to the list. n/t

            by dj angst on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:11:00 AM PDT

            •  Love that Benchley sig...

              Classic.

              A lot of people say: "I'm no good in the morning until I've had my coffee." I'm no good in the morning even after I've had my coffee.

                      ~R. Benchley

              by adios on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:19:49 AM PDT

          •  I absolutely agree!

            I think he is one of the worst interviewers ever; almost as bad as Larry King. Rose simply regurgitates whatever the interviewer tells him, and tries to make it sound like he actually had an original thought. He constantly has that self-important, I-Know-Everything-Anyway expression on his face that just drives me nuts.

            I'm sorry that Waxman is going to be trivialized by his appearance on CR's show.

            by pinkhighway on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:36:42 AM PDT

            •  Waxman's smart in appearing on CR

              as it's effectively the outside-the-beltway equivalent of MTP, TW & FTN, with an appearance of it a sign of having arrived, and needing to be taken seriously.

              It's not so much what you say or cover on the show, as merely having been on it. And Waxman will enter (or re-enter) the big time by appearing on it.

              Sounds silly and superficial (and it basically is), but that's how things work in the existing establishment media.

              Less Gingrich and Frist, more Waxman and Leahy. Even if it's on CR and the other establishment shows, I can live with that. For now, as ideally I'd love for these shows to simply go away and be replaced by and/or be transformed into genuinely interesting and reality-based talk shows.

              I'm still waiting for Stewart to start his own weekly talk show. He's a smart guy who can easily shift into serious mode and I think he's do a great job.

              by kovie on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:10:02 PM PDT

          •  Fine by me!

            So long as I get the residuals...

            by kovie on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:11:11 PM PDT

        •  Perfect description on all points. (nt)

          by Yellow Canary on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:06:31 AM PDT

    •  Check local PBS station listings. There is

      no mandatory airing time for PBS affiliates.

      by Joelarama on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:32:11 PM PDT

    •  I'd note that

      Charlie Rose guests reschedule fairly often, so check the website after dinner tomorrow to make sure he's on tomorrow night.

      by Newsie8200 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:33:12 PM PDT

      •  According to Ana Marie Cox at

        The Swampland:

        The House Judiciary committee and the DoJ are both saying there will be a second wave of docs released by CoB today. Warm up your printers. They said that Friday, too, but now they've said it more than once.

        MMM, good.

        by litigatormom on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:31:15 AM PDT

    •  Marcy...

      Did you see Cheney on Fox w/Brent Hume when he just popped up out of nowhere and said that he had that power and that Bush had given it to him?  This was long before the trial and it was like a big HELLO!  When I saw Cheney say that I knew tht he had done something illegal and that he was trying to cover his butt.

      Do we have any records that the Prez gave him the authority to "instant declassify"... is it in the Ex Order?  How are the dates on that? Is there anything that in writing that can document the date/time Bush gave it to him or is it Bush saying, "I'll lie for you Dick.  Don't worry."

      by victoria2dc on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:00:44 PM PDT

      •  Oh yes, I remember it well.

        It was the time he casually went on with Brit Hume to explain how Harry forgot to duck. It was a real corker. An, "Oh, BTW...." peppered into the buckshot tale.

        Exclusive Interview With V.P. Dick Cheney
        Thursday, February 16, 2006
        ...

        HUME: On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors — unidentified — authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?

        CHENEY: There's nothing I can talk about, Brit. It's an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviews done by a special prosecutor. All of it's now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.

        HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?

        CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.

        HUME: There is.

        CHENEY: Yeah.

        HUME: Have you done it?

        CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions.

        HUME: Have you —

        (CROSSTALK)

        CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.

        Executive Order 12958

        And

        Executive Order 13292
        FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED,
        CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

        by Panda on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:33:02 PM PDT

        •  For us non lawyers out here

          where does it say that they can declassify without the reviews, so carefully described and tediously listed. It seems to me that the Orders go a long ways toward making declassification very reviewed and not something done for quick cover.
            Indeed, the classification standards go to specifically denounce classifying info for political or criminal cover...any reasonable person would think the de-classifying standards were at least as thorough.( Then again, I had a Secret clearance once...so much for standards, heh.)
            As Shooter said, 'the Exec. orders say who has classification authority,'  not DE-classification authority, in the Hume interview you quote.
            All them big words and such, I missed it...heh. Thanks for the linkys.

          by KenBee on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:10:05 AM PDT

          •  Well

            And you don't even need "de-classifying" to hide criminal wrong-doing.

            They also "classified" to hide criminal wrong-doing in this story. OVP stamped all their best evidence with the stamp, "Treated as Top Secret/SCI," which as David Addington helpfully pointed out, is not a real classification.

            by emptywheel on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:43:01 AM PDT

            •  really great to see you

              On this thread while I'm on it. :)

              Thank you for your coverage of the Libby Case, that was really worthwhile to get real coverage.  I was glued to FDL, and here, as well. I hope you will be at Yearly Kos.  

              Am I right in this though?  This administration issued an EO to basically make their revelation of Plame legal beforehand with Executive Orders, and retroactively at that?  Am I insane, or does this make sense to you too?

              I probably won't respond as I'm going to bed soon, but thanks for answering I'll look up the response.  

              by Hummingbird on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:57:06 AM PDT

          •  This lawyer has the same questions you do

            I don't understand how the executive orders support insta-declassification by anyone.

            by litigatormom on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:31:49 AM PDT

            •  I agree..

              I quickly looked through the EO's and saw nothing here that gives either the President or the VP the authority to instantly declassify a document. In fact I saw no avenue for the VP to declassify a document even through regular avenues unless he was the one that classified the information originally.
                  Can someone please help me on this. The only diary that I have ever entered on DKos was about this issue and it went no where. Actually if my memory is correct, Scooter was relaying classified information to Judith Miller and others prior to the beginning of the War which was March 19th, 2003. How was he doing this if Bush supposedly only granted him this authority on March 25th, 2003 with the second EO above. Anyone?

              by NC Dem on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:44:16 AM PDT

              •  Steve Clemons...

                ...discussed this a year ago.

                by adios on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:54:32 AM PDT

                •  Thanks, good link!

                  And more links:
                  NC Dem's diary Did Cheney Break The Law? was on the same track..
                    Also following the links from the Steve Clemon story: Can Cheney be His Own Declassification Machine?,   thanks adios,
                  is this diary by leveymg:CHENEY HAD NO LEGAL POWER TO DECLASSIFY CIA DOCS is good as well.
                    Obviously great minds have been onto Cheney's bullshit claims for over a year, and that's why I'm disappointed that Waxman's committee didn't get at this with Knodell.
                     

                  by KenBee on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:52:04 AM PDT

                  •  Another question...

                    According to the transcripts of the trial, when did the defense indicate that Cheney gave him the go ahead to leak?  When did the formal declassification period take place?  

                    Seems to me that Cheney gave him the go ahead on July 8th, right?  Was the first leak to Judy via Cheney and Libby?

                    Seems like the final/first or whatever declassification didn't take place until July 18th.  Is that correct?

                    So the question in my mind is HOW DID FITZ not get Cheney for the leak?  If he leaked it and didn't declassify isn't that something Fitz could have looked into?  Why didn't he indict?

                    by victoria2dc on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:56:27 PM PDT

                    •  I'll try, but buy Marcy's book!

                      That's the bible, so far.
                         1. Read it here just today, but he set Libby on the project after seeming to rein Cathy Martin in, as it seems she wasn't active enough for Libby or Cheney...I think that was late June, early July, but they had been cooking this up for a while it seems..There wasn't any formal period, but I think you are correct in the July 18 date. They took ten days to try to cook up a declassification procedure, after the fact. Maybe too lazy, busy, arrogant, and or incompetant to have already done it sooner before leaking.So, formal? Who knows?
                          2. The date is about right, but I think it was ongoing, so about July 8th.First leak: don't know, buy Marcy's book, heh.
                        3. Seems correct: ten days later 7/18/03
                         4. You mean yet? Well, as the lawyer spewed in the hearings, the obvious bullshit level is way up for the IIPA law she brags she helped write. The level of proof would drag in a lot of classified material, I think the FDL people were calling that the greymail defense...and the whole thing becomes impossible to practically enforce.
                        In addition, Libby and others lied, stalled, and obstructed and made the truth too hard to get to yet. CWisdom is that Libby will stall and appeal and run the clock, and eventually get the pardon. Not too many people are betting he will roll on Cheney, which would be pretty key to indicting Cheney.
                       It's pretty clear to all that the VP's office was doing all this, and this diary highlights the specious, arrogant, and hopefully indictable way they declassified documents(leaked) without following what seems to be the law.
                        Will the grades be posted?

                      by KenBee on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 12:26:26 PM PDT

              •  I know, I know!

                ...Scooter was relaying classified information to Judith Miller and others prior to the beginning of the War which was March 19th, 2003. How was he doing this if Bush supposedly only granted him this authority on March 25th, 2003 with the second EO above. Anyone?

                Um, Illegally?

                by mataliandy on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:27:58 PM PDT

    •  only the President and Vice President

      will be able to answer, at least to my satisfaction, how and why a portion of the NIE was declassified and passed to Judy Miller on July 8th, 2003. If there's an innocent explanation, there's no reason why Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney can't clear up what happened with the leak, and clear it all up now.

      I was explaining the case to a (smart) eleven year old a while ago, who asked me "why Bush declared he had a right to remain silent." I told him the President didn't declare that. But I was struck by the language, by the idea of the President saying something like "my fellow Americans, I have a right to remain silent..." Wouldn't it have been interesting if Bush had said that?

      Cheney is silent because his guy took the fall. But does the President's silence indicate guilt, too? Apparently, it's obvious to a child that it does.

      by QuickSilver on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:14:08 PM PDT

      •  Smart child, indeed.

        Bush believes he has the absolute right to remain silent. Cheney's always been a surreptitious quiet deadly type. He'll never willingly give up a thing. Ever.
        You're right, if they're innocent all they have to do is say so, under oath. To clear their "good" names. Separately this time. Put Shrub in a soundproof booth while Dick testifies.  

        by Panda on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:10:26 PM PDT

        •  Surreptitious quiet deadly type.

          Like a reptile.

          by ailanthus on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:47:46 AM PDT

          •  Completely O/T, but...

            These animal metaphors drive me crazy. The quiet, surreptitious reptiles in my backyard (bluebellies and alligator lizards) are deadly only to ants, sowbugs, and the like. And they are under constant threat from my neighbors' cats.
            And don't get me started on "fox guarding the henhouse."

            by dumpster on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 05:07:56 PM PDT

          •  Silent but deadly

            My 10 yo would burst out laughing at that. It's a favorite kind of "gas" in 10 yo circles these days...

            by mataliandy on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:31:15 PM PDT

        •  Bush does have the absolute right to

          remain silent...he has the legal right.  We all do.  It's called the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

          However, having the 'political' right to remain silent is another thing if you want to be reelected...and Bush and Cheney don't, so they are home free politically, too.  Making them talk would take waterboards and more....

          by oldpro on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:27:25 PM PDT

          •  That works for me

            Waterboarding, it works for Dick too.

            "Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

            THE VICE PRESIDENT: "It's a no-brainer for me"

            From Interview of the Vice President by Scott Hennen
            WDAY at Radio Day at the White House
            October 24, 2006

            by Panda on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:40:08 PM PDT

          •  If Bush claims he declassified the information

            then he has to admit that he flat out lied when he talked about catching the leaker. He can't use this defense.

            by java4every1 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:32:40 PM PDT

    •  But didn't Leonard's testimony make it clear...

      ... that the only person with "absolute" authority on classifying/declassifying is the president?

      I watched the hearing and I noticed... that wasn't the only exchange Leonard participated in where he didn't explicitly say that the vice president has the same absolute authority as the president.

      Where Davis kept saying "they," Leonard continuously referred only to the president as having the "absolute" authority to classify/declassify.

      by markthshark on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:20:17 PM PDT

      •  Leonard, to me was clearly the professional on...

        ... that particular panel. Him not explicitly accrediting Cheney with the same "absolute" authority as he did Bush makes me wonder if Cheney indeed has that same authority.

        Knodell was a putz who seemed like another "heck of a job, Brownie" kinda crony who really wasn't qualified for anything but being a Bushbot.

        Leonard, on the other hand, was confident in his knowledge of procedure. He seemed like a career professional -- something we desperately need more of in Washington.

        There are many lessons to be learned about political appointees in the past 6-years.

        That's why Republicans have so much animosity for government. They don't ever appoint qualified people. Instead, they're too busy matching jobs with campaign donations.

        by markthshark on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:07:49 AM PDT

        •  He's a professional hmmm. He's probably about to

          get fired. Just watch.

          by CTMET on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:38:56 AM PDT

          •  We don't need no

            stinkin' professionals around here.

            by global citizen on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:37:22 AM PDT

        •  Since there's a specific

          procedure for extending executive authority to the VP, it seems reasonable to argue that, unless that procedure was followed, he doesn't have it.  There is no mention of the VP in the October 2001 Executive order curtailing the distribution of national security information to just eight members of the House and Senate.  And yet, Cheney is reported to have done the briefing.

          by hannah on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:08:02 AM PDT

          •  Cheney Secret Programs

            Try this on for size. Cheney is running the most secret programs the U.S. has to hide. I bet he is running the all the illegal programs with funds provided to FEMA for Katrina victims.

            Top Secret "National Program Office (NPO) and Continuity of Government (COG)"
            by EasyRider [Subscribe] [Edit Diary]
            Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:37:18 AM PDT

            This the story that CNN did in 1991 as an Investigative Report. CNN no longer does these types of reporting now since they were bought by the GOP supporters. This CNN no longer exists.

            This is how the GOP has destroyed American and empowered Bush and Cheney.

            Intro
            You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.
            This the story that CNN did in 1991 as an Investigative Report. CNN no longer does these types of reporting now since they were bought by the GOP supporters. This CNN no longer exists.

            This is how the GOP has destroyed America and empowered Bush and Cheney.

            by EasyRider on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:16:27 AM PDT

            •  Missed the diary, thx for the repost.

              Good info & we don't see reporting like that anymore on commercial TV. CNN content has definitely been toned down by its corporate masters.

              by 4Freedom on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:00:05 AM PDT

    •  I was wondering when you'd comment

      on that exchange, ew. I was watching, and was struck by it just as you are in this post.

      Poor Tom Davis. His career path looked so smooth - county executive in Fairfax, Congressman, successor to Senator Hollywood John Warner. He wanted so much to appear the moderate Publican. Now he's stuck defending Cheney and will have to run against G. Felix Macaca for a shot at the Senate.

      by semiot on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:07:17 AM PDT

      •  Well, if Washingtonians had anything to say

        about our defacto Congressman, Davis would have been history years and years ago.  He is a piece of work.  What he did Friday was completely unsurprising.

        by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:57:59 AM PDT

        •  It was obvious to me that Davis

          was trying another tack during the Plame hearing to excuse the leaking of information about Plame by members of the administration.

          Davis asked her repeatedly if she considered it a crime that her CIA cover was blown by members of the administration leaking her name and CIA connection to members of the press if those in the administration DIDN'T KNOW that she was a "covert" agent or that her position in the CIA was classified.

          That's rich - let's just have all 20 people involved in the leak plead ignorance.

          by SueDe on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:01:02 AM PDT

          •  Tom I don't see any crime.

            Davis  and Toensing in their own words.

            by EasyRider on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:20:44 AM PDT

  •  Can I add the one thing

    I think we might be missing (????)

    That Victoria Toensing's law, if broken by having someone who knew that Plame was covert and working on Iraq intelligence re: WMD. IN other words, someone had to knowingly know that Plame was undercover.

    ONe would assume that the office of the VP would know this.

    The crime here is TREASON. So the hysterical denials of Plame's status as covert is to prevent the VP and his staff from facing charges of treason.

    by missliberties on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:16:46 AM PDT

    •  Considering what goes on,

      ONe would assume that the office of the VP would know this.

      However, has the VP any 'need to know'?  Should one assume he has a list of the names of all covert CIA agents?  I don't think so.

      by DSPS owl on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:58:52 PM PDT

      •  Relating to the CIA

        and the program in the CIA that were working on gathering intelligence.

        You bet your ass he knew.

        Why was the VP's office trying to micromanage the CIA?

        by missliberties on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:16:19 PM PDT

  •  Posted a diary on Waxman's latest hearing today

    and the outrageous comment by Christopher Shays on Freedom of Speech.  (The hearing was about the politicization of climate science)

    Here's the link

    by jhritz on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:39:55 PM PDT

•  Does the President's

  absolute power also become the Vice President's power also under the Constitution? I don't think I have ever really heard an answer to that.

  by shanti2 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:26:04 PM PDT

  •  Only if the 25th is invoked.

    by Mehitabel9 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:29:20 PM PDT

    •  Or he dies...but the VP has ZERO constitutional

      powers besides casting a tie breaker vote.

      Odd how he was ordering the military around on 911....nobody has asked any questions about that either.  In leiu of the president that duty would fall upon the SECDEF not the VP unless the 25th was invoked or some other succession took place.

      by skippythebox on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:20:05 PM PDT

      •  That's bothered me too...

        Odd how he was ordering the military around on 911....nobody has asked any questions about that either.  In leiu of the president that duty would fall upon the SECDEF not the VP unless the 25th was invoked or some other succession took place.

        I know that raised a few eyebrows in the press, but not many, and not for long.

        The Halls of Power seem to be homes to a host of leacherous individuals; George Bush, the incoherent babbling Monkey With a Name has his campaign run by Cheney.  The Republican establishment backs the Monkey when they had a different candidate they could run, McCain, who at the time was polling extremely favorably among independents and a lot of Democrats as well.  McCain gets sunk by the Republican Establishment (campaign spending limits anyone?  Limit access to power by the extremely wealthy?).  The time comes for naming a VP running mate, and voila, Cheney's in.

        Imagine that.

        Has Bush ever really been the President?  On 9/11, he skitters off on Airforce One like a scared kitten, and Cheney is the go-to guy for calling the shots.  Bush was in the dark.

        I don't know.  I've had the sense, starting with Cheney's nomination, that something very sinister has been at work, and Bush was merely picked as a puppet by some very powerful people residing in the background simply because Bush could be easily manipulated.  It's easy to manipulate a narcissist.

        by rangemaster on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:54:08 PM PDT

        •  seems to me we may be looking at this from the

          same vantage point.  It just all looks and smells foul.

          by skippythebox on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:06:55 PM PDT

        •  Cheney's the structure and Bush...

          ... the facade.

          They knew Cheney could never get elected. It would have required wayyyy too much election day fraud.

          They needed a face who could utter folksy slogans and pretend to be a Christian.

          by markthshark on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:15:21 AM PDT

          •  And don't forget WHO chose Cheney as VP...

            Cheney himself.

            by beemerr90s on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:37:58 AM PDT

            •  Don't bet on it

              Cheney was chosen by the back room boys long before they decided to stand "The Decider" up for election.

              by MrMichaelMT on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:58:38 AM PDT

        •  This hits it

          It's easy to manipulate a narcissist.

          Then when you look at the power center around Cheney, look at a guy like Addington (link goes to Jane Mayer's chilling in-depth investigative New Yorker profile, aptly titled "The Hidden Power," 7-3-06 issue, first section online, rest you'll have to find in library, worth the trip). And behind them, who? Not to go off thread but who are the Wizards of Oz behind the curtain? I'm reading "State of Exception" by Italian philosopher Georgio Agamben recommended by the respected (by me) Mark Danner, journalism prof at Berkeley (about "emergency becomes the rule" and "necessity has no law," for example, since 9-11, like a slow-rolling smiley-faced corporate-friendly martial law, all based on war rather than law); seeing how closely these political patterns track with unitary executive tyranny Bush regime has developed -- and wondering who the hell are the geniuses back there thinking up this strategy? It can't be Bush obviously and hard to believe it's even Cheney -- who are they?

          by wardlow on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:07:32 AM PDT

          •  One hundred 4's for that comment

            if I could give it.

            Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

            by bronte17 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:04:40 AM PDT

          •  Agamben got the idea of state of exception

            (Ausnahmezustand) from the Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt.

            by lysias on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:50:55 AM PDT

          •  Found better online source for Jane Mayer

            Here's a Truthout link to Jane Mayer's Addington profile, since The New Yorker's version has gone into inaccesible archive mode.

            And yes, Georgio Agamben discusses Carl Schmitt at length in his book "State of Exception," including genesis of quote, "The soverign is he who decides on the state of exception."

            The Reichstag fire helped.

            by wardlow on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:15:35 AM PDT

        •  It wasn't just Cheney, it was also Lynne

          Cheney who, according to Richard Clarke's account, was issuing lots of orders to people the morning of 9/11.  And it still hasn't been explained why she was in the White House bunker so early that morning.

          by lysias on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:49:14 AM PDT

          •  Tell me more

            I hadn't heard about this.  

            by ScientistMom in NY on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 05:33:54 AM PDT

            •  Google

              lynne cheney bunker 911

              (Was news to me too.)

              by We hold these truths on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:55:34 AM PDT

            •  It's in Richard Clarke's 9/11 book

              (which I have unfortunately put in storage.)

              by lysias on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:15:11 AM PDT

              •  That is a great

                and truly frightening book.

                by DMiller on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 11:10:39 AM PDT

        •  I've always thought it odd

          that when there was a "threat" or "terror alert" Bush would be out riding his bike, unaware and Cheney always seemed to be at an undisclosed location. Who is really the prez?

          by Alohaleezy on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 05:23:06 AM PDT

  •  the post-facto Executive Declassatron Defense

    translation: Cheney went nuts, told Scooter "whatever it takes--show her this [NIE 7/8]," then Dick went and tackled Dubya in the WH video arcade and said" "We needed to do something extreme and you gotta cover us with your magic pen. Sign this...."

    by fouro on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:59:59 PM PDT

  •  How can two people both have "absolute power"

    to do anything? What if they disagree? What if they contradict each other?

    Surely, whatever authority the VP may have to insta-declassify info is subordinate to the President's will.

    Suppose one day, POTUS says to keep info X classified for a year, can VPOTUS declassify it later that day without consulting POTUS???  Wouldn't that be "treasonous" even if not legally "treason"?

    I can accept that under Article II, the President has absolute authority to declassify, but not the VP.

    by Jimdotz on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:08:38 AM PDT

•  Wasn't there an executive order covering Cheney?

  Seems to me Cheney referred to one in an interview (Fox or MTP?)  Cheney claimed that an executive order gave him the same power to declassify information the president possessed.  Not sure anyone has ever seen this order, of course, but I'm sure we can take Cheney's word on it, can't we?

  Is Knodell going to be asked back to further entertain the committee on why there was no internal investigation into a criminal conspiracy in high levels of the administration?

  by Dallasdoc on