I admit to being a bit confused

[dsc]

Is there a difference between leaking information to a reporter like Bush did and actually declassifying information? I was under the impression that once information was declassified then it was basicly public but this seems like he released the information to a favored reporter and then otherwise kept it classified. Am I correct here or is it impossible for the President to leak?

[rzemanfl]

1. You are asking the wrong question. The right question is on the

web, posted by a former government lawyer. I will find and post it, unless some sharp DU'er beats me to it.

[rzemanfl]

2. Here it is:

Is a President, on the eve of his reelection campaign, legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected -- as well as false and misleading -- portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed under false pretenses in the name of a "former Hill staffer" to a single reporter, intending that reporter to publish such false and misleading information in a prominent national newspaper?

Elizabeth De la Vega

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=76008 (scroll down)

[electropop]

3. Leaking is not declassification. It's a felony.

Declassification is a process which requires reviews, checks to ensure sources and methods aren't compromised, and a paper trail. If Bush can't produce the paper trail showing he declassified in advance of the leak, he's committed a felony. Either way, he's committed obstruction of justice by lying about it.

[rodeodance]

4. One of the issues is that Bush did not follow declassification procedures-

--procedures he himself update a few years ago. Chuck Schumer wrote a letter to Bush a few days ago about this illegal move.