>>Am I not being clear? As far as I know there are no limits on Presidential authority to declassify information. If there are no limits then the circumstances are irrelevent. Therefore the answer remains yes.
>>
>>Again, if there are legal limits that I am not aware which address Alterman's points then please present them.
>
>But there's another interesting matter here, some sort of partial pregnancy. The document is, ahem, partially declassified. However, there's no paper trail of declassification, it hasn't become public after the declassification - nada. It's just changed its legal status so that Libby is all of a sudden doing nothing wrong, and GWB doesn't even need to show any proof that he made the document (or parts that he liked) public. It's just that he said so.

To what information are you referring? The memo where its suspected the white house learned of Plame or the releasing of Plames name? If its the first I believe there is a trail of declassification. If it's the release of Plame's name, there may not have been a need as her status wasn't specified as classified. She was identified as "a CIA WMD manager."

>
>In the language of police soaps, it's just too convenient. Even if some papers now suddenly emerge, and show that there was a legal declassification procedure observed, how come that the papers about this declassification decision (which should, by their nature, be a matter of public record) weren't seen anywhere for three years?

If the federal prosecutor is to bring an indictments against the President, Vice President or a member of their cabinet he better have rock solid proof. Too convenient, implies suspicion, not proof.