"I want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law,...

[hnumpah]

...the person will be taken care of."

Uh-huh.

Bush claims executive privilege on CIA leak
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush has asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House panel subpoena for material on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
 
A House committee chairman, meanwhile, held off on a contempt citation of Mukasey ? who had requested the privilege claim ? but only as a courtesy to lawmakers not present.

Among the documents sought by House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman are FBI interviews of Vice President Dick Cheney.

They also include notes about the 2003 State of the Union address, during which President Bush made the case for invading Iraq in part by saying Saddam Hussein was pursuing uranium ore to make a nuclear weapon. That information turned out to be wrong.

Waxman rejected Mukasey's suggestion that Cheney's FBI interview on the CIA leak should be protected by the privilege claim ? and therefore not turned over to the panel.

"We'll act in the reasonable and appropriate period of time," Waxman, D-Calif., said. But he made clear that he thinks Mukasey has earned a contempt citation and that he'd schedule a vote on the matter soon.

"This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person," Waxman said. "If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?"

The assertion of the privilege is not about hiding anything but rather protecting the separation of powers as well as the integrity of future Justice Department investigations of the White House, Mukasey wrote to Bush in a letter dated Tuesday. Several of the subpoenaed reports, he wrote, summarize conversations between Bush and advisers ? are direct presidential communications protected by the privilege.

"I am greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the committee's subpoena would have on future White House deliberations and White House cooperation with future Justice Department investigations," Mukasey wrote to Bush. "I believe it is legally permissible for you to assert executive privilege with respect to the subpoenaed documents, and I respectfully request that you do so."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush invoked the privilege on Tuesday.

Waxman said he would wait to hold a vote on Mukasey's contempt citation until all members of the panel had a chance to read up on the matter.

The Bush administration had plenty of warning. Waxman warned last week that he would cite Mukasey with contempt unless the attorney general complied with the subpoena. The House Judiciary Committee also has subpoenaed some of the same documents from Mukasey, as well as information on the leak from other current and former administration officials.

Congressional Democrats want to shed light on the precise roles, if any, that Bush, Cheney and their aides may have played in the leak.

State Department official Richard Armitage first revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak, who used former presidential counselor Karl Rove as a confirming source for a 2003 article. Around that time Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was criticizing Bush's march to war in Iraq.

Cheney's then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also was involved in the leak and was convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Last July, Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time.

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Cheney will be well taken care of.
Nice pension, probably some staff people for free and SS guards.

Better taken care of than anyone who wasn't VP, that is for sure.

[Michael Tee]

Can anybody tell me where this claim of "executive privilege" comes from and what courts, if any, have ever validated it?

It just seems to me that when the executive in question is a servant of the people, the people through their other institutions of government (legislative and judicial) would have an absolute right to know why the executive does what it does and what alternatives it had.  Or is that overly simplistic?  If I owned a company and my chief executive claimed "privilege" from me with regard to any decision he or she took, that executive would be out on his or her ass in a New York minute.  Are the American people less advantaged with regard to their own chief executive and his minions?

What would be particularly interesting to know would be where the conservative SCOTUS judges, who are so "strictly constructionist" of the Constitution generally, had to go to find this "executive privilege," if in fact they have ever ruled on it.

[Amianthus]

It was Burger's court (a fairly liberal one) that established Executive Privilege.

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "'essential to the justice of the case.'"(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

[Christians4LessGvt]

This is one of the reasons the Congress has a 9% approval rating. Instead of taking care of the people's business, they are more interested in making politcal headlines. Just when will Waxman investigate a real crime, like his colleague Jefferson? Or Perhap's Reid's land deals? Or Diane Feinstein's no bid contracts to hubby... or better yet, what about all those sweethart mortgages the dem's were getting from Countrywide? Valerie Plame was not covert so talking about her was not a Crime. CIA had the chance prior to publishing to say she was covert and to not print her name yet, failed to do so becuase they knew she wasn't covered just like anyone else that works in the CIA office for over 2 years without going overseas. For those of you who think Waxman is a hero regarding the Plame/ Wilson affair and that somehow anyone in the Bush White House did anything wrong (never mind illegal)please explain the facts that have come out:

1. Richard Armitage admitted that he was the one who told Robert Novak that Plame was Wilson's Wife and that she worked at the CIA. (Novak Confirmed this).

2. Fitzgerald never charged anyone with outing a covert agent.
(She wasn't - and if she was Armitage is the admitted culprit).

3. The 9/11 commission and Senate Intelligence Commission both found that Wilson's testimony regarding his trip to Niger was a lie. In fact the CIA confirmed that Wilson report back to the agency when he returned was in direct contradiction to his testimony and his Op-Ed piece that started it all. The Diplomat Wilson met with in Niger has also stated that what Wilson wrote in the OP-ED piece was not true. It's not hard to understand people - Wilson wrote an article claiming he was sent by the White House (lie #1)on a mission to confirm Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger. His article claimed there was no evidence of this (lie #2). When the story broke the White House was only trying to find out who this guy was who claimed he was sent by them. Wilson's the one who should be facing justice.

[sirs]

shhhhhhh.  CU4, remember, facts to liberals is like Kryptonite to Superman.  shhhhhhhh

[fatman]

Wilson's the one who should be facing justice.

So why isn't he?

[sirs]

Did he do anything illegal?  Unless he lied under oath, but did he?

[fatman]

I don't know, that's why I was asking.

To be honest, I've never really followed the whole thing, and wouldn't claim to be an authority on the issue.

[Michael Tee]

<<Valerie Plame was not covert so talking about her was not a Crime. >>

What's the actual statute that prohibits publishing the identities of CIA agents?  Is it limited on its face to the exposure of covert agents?  I would bet that the wording of the statute prohibits publishing the names of ANY CIA agents other than the senior executives, but like fatman, I didn't really follow this all that closely.  It seemed pretty obvious to me that the names of field-level operatives or administrative back-office people would NOT be public knowledge, otherwise the issue of where Novak's info came from would be of zero significance.  So I'm betting it WAS a crime and a pretty big one to reveal Plame's Agency involvement.  Even low-level employees of the Agency can be captured and tortured for information - - look what the CIA itself does to some poor schlepper caught on the field of battle regardless of how insignificant his role may be.

[sirs]

Bottom line Tee, is that the whole claim by the Plame side was that she was outed as a covert agent.  Fitzgerald's thorough investigation never made that authoritative conclusion.  What's more, the SOURCE of the "leak" was Armitage and the State Dept, NOT the Administration

So, basically Plame was WRONG when she, and like minds said she was supposedly "covert".  She may have indeed been....at some point earlier in her career, but not when this whole debacle came rolling down the hill.  Now, did she & like minds make such a claim knowing she wasn't covert?   That's another story.  My guess is yes, though I don't believe that was illegal to do so either.  Just a political ploy to get back at the Bush administration, for daring to criticize their criticism of the war and the Bush administration

[Amianthus]

What's the actual statute that prohibits publishing the identities of CIA agents?  Is it limited on its face to the exposure of covert agents?

50 USC CHAPTER 15, SUBCHAPTER IV, Section 426

Yes. And for only five years after they've left covert status.

[Michael Tee]

The section you quoted is just the tip of the iceberg.  It gives as one definition of a "covert agent" a serving or retired employee of an intelligence agency [presumably they mean a U.S. intelligence agency, but they don't say so] whose identity as such is classified information and who is serving now or was serving in the past 5 years outside the U.S.A.  Well, Plame might fit the definition if (a) her timelines match up and (b) her identity as a C.I.A. employess was "classified information."

I don't know about her timellines, but the section DOES define "classified information" - - it's <<information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, [by] statute or Executive order  . . . as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.>>

So at this point, the unanswered question is, is there some stature or Executive order that says "Thou shalt not disclose [Plame's position, basically her job title or description]" etc.

[Amianthus]

Same chapter, section 421.

(a)  Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent?s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent?s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual?s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

[sirs]

Same chapter, section 421.

(a)  Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent?s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent?s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual?s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Too bad, that in that time consuming investigation by Fitzgerald, was such a designation ever made.  But at least it doesn't stop the blog fodder from continually trying to apply the title.