Was it really declassified to leak portions of the NIE? Fitz doesn't think

[BR_Parkway]

so, if you believe (like I do) that the prosecutor never uses a word or phrase casually or that he doesn't mean exactly the way he has said it.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html

In the March 17, 2006 response, Fitzgerald states "in connection with an investigation concerning the disclosure to reporters of then-classified information regarding the employment of Valerie Plame".

"then-classified"

Do you think he would have said that if it were not true?

I've read each and every filing. I've never seen Fitz use any words without the utmost care (and if you were investigating something that leads into the office of the Vice President & President - you wouldn't either - every i dotted properly, every tcrossed just so)

If it had been declassified previously, don't you think at least one of the witnesses that he has deposed would have told him that - under oath? And yet, just over three weeks ago, Fitz used the phrase "then-classified".

Quite possibly, someone's testimony may even have been the opposite - that some meeting after the fact discussed 'declassifying' the info (retroactively?) so that they wouldn't be in trouble for breaking the law. Perhaps using that phrase while allowing them to dig themselves deeper. But there is no way that Fitz would have worded that court filing as then-classified" if anyone, during all these months of investigation would have told him that it had been permitted by Presidential decree.

Rove has sent out the marching orders, the entire MSM repeating the line that it is not illegal because the President declassified it prior to the leak.

THEY ARE ALL REPEATING A LIE WITH NO PROOF.

[electropop]

1. Exactly. Saying it's so, wishing it's so, doesn't make it so.

If Bush declassified the NIE in advance, surely he can produce the paper trail to prove it. If there is no paper trail, he did not follow the established procedure, and it was an illegal leak. Everything I've heard is that the declassification was done 10 days too late.

[BR_Parkway]

2. And Fitz interviewed Cheney way before he wrote that on 3/17/06

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. The MSM would say the emporer has on clothes, too,

if ordered to by their corporate bosses. What will be interesting is to watch to see when Murdoch et al decide that Bush has become a liability, because at that point I think they might actually start reporting things accurately.

[AndyA]

4. This didn't work for Nixon, and it won't work for Bush

Remember when Nixon made the comment about when the President does something, it is not illegal? We all know where that stand got him. I think the same thing will happen to Bush. The President of the United States is not above the law, in fact, he should be held to a higher standard simply due to his position. He should know better.

[BR_Parkway]

5. Well, the continually dropping polls say that most people agree with

us, not the unitary executive.

[Jim__]

6. My understanding is that bush does not have the authority to reveal the

name of a covert CIA agent.

He does have the authority to declassify the NIE - but, as you say, this was apparetnly done 10 days after the NIE info was revealed. But, even the president does not have the authority to reveal the name of a covert CIA agent. So, far, I don't believe he's been associated with the revelation of Plame's name.

[janx]

7. They are repeating the lie that Plame wasn't "covert," as well.

Doesn't make it so.

You are absolutely right.

[Duer 157099]

8. But there's still a loophole here

I'm guessing that their argument is that Bush declassified everything except the part about Plame specifically. And so, what Fitz is talking about is correct, the Plame identity part was still classified. There's no evidence yet that I know of where an admission is made of Bush leaking the part about Plame.

If I'm wrong, someone please point it out.