Investigators quiz White House over betrayal of CIA operative
Mike Allen, Washington Post
Monday, September 29, 2003
Washington -- President Bush's aides promised Sunday to cooperate with a Justice Department inquiry into an administration leak that exposed the identity of a CIA operative, but Democrats charged that the administration cannot credibly investigate itself and called for an independent probe.
White House officials said they would turn over phone logs if the Justice Department asked them to. But the aides said Bush had no plans to ask his staff members whether any of them played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer who is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, one of the most visible critics of Bush's handling of intelligence about Iraq.
An administration official told the Post on Saturday that two White House officials had leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson. The leak could constitute a federal crime, and intelligence officials said it might have endangered confidential sources who had aided the operative throughout her career. CIA Director George Tenet has asked the Justice Department to investigate how the leak occurred.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that she knew "nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this, and it certainly would not be the way that the president would expect his White House to operate."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Justice Department had requested no information so far. He said the White House would cooperate with any request from investigators.
The controversy erupted over the weekend when administration officials reported that Tenet had sent the Justice Department a letter raising questions about whether federal law was broken when the operative, Valerie Plame, was exposed. She was named in a piece by syndicated columnist Robert Novak that ran July 14 in newspapers nationwide.
CIA officials approached the Justice Department about a possible investigation within a week of the column's publication. Tenet's letter was delivered more recently.
The department is determining whether a formal investigation is warranted, officials said. The officials said they did not know how long that would take.
Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates seized on the investigation as a new vulnerability for Bush.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who has been pushing the FBI to pursue the matter for two months, said that if "something this sensitive is done under the wing of any direct appointees, at the very minimum, it's not going to have the appearance of fairness and thoroughness."
From the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., called it "a natural conflict of interest" for Justice Department appointees to investigate their superiors and said congressional committees should try to determine what had happened.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Attorney General John Ashcroft should play no role in the investigation and should turn it over to the Justice Department's inspector general, who operates independently of political appointees.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said the investigation "must be conducted by an independent, nonpartisan counsel."
Although the Independent Counsel Act, created after the Watergate abuses, expired in 1999, the attorney general can appoint a special counsel to investigate the president and other top government officials. Special counsels have less independence from the attorney general, but proponents of the system said that made them more accountable.
More details about the controversy emerged Sunday. Wilson said in a telephone interview that four reporters from three television networks had called him in July and told him White House officials had contacted them to encourage stories that would include his wife's identity.
Novak attributed his account to "two senior administration officials." An administration aide told the Post on Saturday that the two White House officials had cold-called at least six Washington journalists and identified Wilson's wife.
She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and is currently working as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.
Wilson had touched off perhaps the most searing controversy of this administration by saying he had determined on a mission to Niger last year that there was no clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium for possible use in a nuclear weapon.
Wilson's statement led to a retraction by the White House and bolstered Democrats' contention that Bush had exaggerated intelligence to build a case against Hussein.
Investigators quiz White House over CIA betrayal
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Investigators quiz White House over CIA betrayal
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
mikenycLI
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
- Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States
In a related story....
This is where the creepy looking, Robert Novak...you've seen him, on CNN...enters from Stage Right, out from under his rock, and stands, firmly (read, hides, quivering in his cheap suit), behind the First Amendment.
To him, his "rights" of Freedom of the Press = his Freedom to Kill People for Publicity, and Furthering his closeness to the Rat(s) of the Bush Administration, particularly, Karl Rowe.
courtesy of the washingtonpost.com....
Media Review Conduct After Leak
CIA Inquiry Leads to Questions About What Should Be Published
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A04
When syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported on July 14 that "two senior administration officials" had told him that the wife of a prominent White House critic did undercover work for the CIA, it barely caused a ripple.
Former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV talked about the leak in interviews and at the National Press Club soon after, telling Newsday the message was "that if you talk, we'll take your family and drag them through the mud." Nation writer David Corn called the leak a "thuggish act," and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called it a "criminal act." After Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called for an investigation, the New York Times, Washington Post and Buffalo News ran inside-the-paper stories.
But it was not until this weekend's reports that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to examine the matter that the story hit the front page of The Washington Post and the Sunday talk shows, sparking questions not just about White House motives but about media conduct.
Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said Novak was in "dangerous territory. . . . Journalists should apply a civil disobedience test: Does the public good outweigh the wrong that you're doing? In a case where you are risking someone's life, potentially, or putting someone in danger, you have to decide what is the public good you are accomplishing. Because you have the freedom to publish doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do."
Novak, a veteran conservative whose column appears in more than 300 papers, is well connected in the administration, although he opposed the war in Iraq. He declined yesterday to discuss the issue in detail, saying: "I made the judgment it was newsworthy. I think the story has to stand for itself. It's 100 percent accurate. I'm not going to get into why I wrote something."
Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post, one of the papers that published the July 14 column, said that "in retrospect, I wish I had asked more questions. If I had, given that his column appears in a lot of places, I'm not sure I would have done anything differently. But I wish we had thought about it harder. Alarm bells didn't go off. . . . We have a policy of trying not to publish anything that would endanger anybody."
But Steve Huntley, editorial page editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, Novak's home paper, said: "I trust his judgment and accuracy unquestionably, and his ethics as well. . . . This is the sort of thing you're always faced with when a source tells you something a source should not be telling you. Do you become a second gatekeeper? Our business is to report news, not to slam the door on it."
News organizations often face the dilemma of whether to publish a politically juicy story that might jeopardize someone in a sensitive government position. These judgment calls often involve national security secrets -- troop movements, terrorism investigations, classified military documents -- or police matters, as during the Washington sniper investigation. Journalists sometimes withhold or delay publishing such information at the request of authorities.
It is a violation of law for officials to intentionally disclose the identity of a covert operative. The column by Novak came eight days after Wilson wrote a July 6 New York Times op-ed piece challenging President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Also on July 6, Wilson, who had gone to Niger to investigate at the CIA's request, was quoted by The Washington Post as saying the administration was "misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war." Bush has since backed off the uranium claim.
A senior administration official told The Post on Saturday that two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday.
NBC's Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, and ABC's bureau chief, Robin Sproul, said yesterday they could not discuss any matter involving confidential sources. But John Roberts, a CBS White House correspondent, said that to his knowledge, no administration official had contacted anyone at the network about Wilson.
If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative."
The Wilson case has parallels in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has plummeted in popularity after his aides leaked the name of a BBC source, government scientist David Kelley, who had questioned Blair's evidence on Iraqi weapons. Kelley committed suicide after his name was made public.
If recent history is any guide, federal investigators are unlikely to discover who the leakers are. In 1999, a federal appeals court ruled that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and his staff did not have to face contempt proceedings for allegedly leaking damaging information about President Bill Clinton because no grand jury secrets were disclosed. The next year, a former Starr spokesman, Charles G. Bakaly III, was acquitted of making false statements about his role in providing information to the New York Times.
In 1992, Senate investigators said they could not determine who leaked confidential information to National Public Radio and Newsday about Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation. In 1989, then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh launched an unsuccessful $224,000 investigation of a leak to CBS of an inquiry into then-Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.).
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
This is where the creepy looking, Robert Novak...you've seen him, on CNN...enters from Stage Right, out from under his rock, and stands, firmly (read, hides, quivering in his cheap suit), behind the First Amendment.
To him, his "rights" of Freedom of the Press = his Freedom to Kill People for Publicity, and Furthering his closeness to the Rat(s) of the Bush Administration, particularly, Karl Rowe.
courtesy of the washingtonpost.com....
Media Review Conduct After Leak
CIA Inquiry Leads to Questions About What Should Be Published
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A04
When syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported on July 14 that "two senior administration officials" had told him that the wife of a prominent White House critic did undercover work for the CIA, it barely caused a ripple.
Former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV talked about the leak in interviews and at the National Press Club soon after, telling Newsday the message was "that if you talk, we'll take your family and drag them through the mud." Nation writer David Corn called the leak a "thuggish act," and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called it a "criminal act." After Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called for an investigation, the New York Times, Washington Post and Buffalo News ran inside-the-paper stories.
But it was not until this weekend's reports that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to examine the matter that the story hit the front page of The Washington Post and the Sunday talk shows, sparking questions not just about White House motives but about media conduct.
Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said Novak was in "dangerous territory. . . . Journalists should apply a civil disobedience test: Does the public good outweigh the wrong that you're doing? In a case where you are risking someone's life, potentially, or putting someone in danger, you have to decide what is the public good you are accomplishing. Because you have the freedom to publish doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do."
Novak, a veteran conservative whose column appears in more than 300 papers, is well connected in the administration, although he opposed the war in Iraq. He declined yesterday to discuss the issue in detail, saying: "I made the judgment it was newsworthy. I think the story has to stand for itself. It's 100 percent accurate. I'm not going to get into why I wrote something."
Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post, one of the papers that published the July 14 column, said that "in retrospect, I wish I had asked more questions. If I had, given that his column appears in a lot of places, I'm not sure I would have done anything differently. But I wish we had thought about it harder. Alarm bells didn't go off. . . . We have a policy of trying not to publish anything that would endanger anybody."
But Steve Huntley, editorial page editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, Novak's home paper, said: "I trust his judgment and accuracy unquestionably, and his ethics as well. . . . This is the sort of thing you're always faced with when a source tells you something a source should not be telling you. Do you become a second gatekeeper? Our business is to report news, not to slam the door on it."
News organizations often face the dilemma of whether to publish a politically juicy story that might jeopardize someone in a sensitive government position. These judgment calls often involve national security secrets -- troop movements, terrorism investigations, classified military documents -- or police matters, as during the Washington sniper investigation. Journalists sometimes withhold or delay publishing such information at the request of authorities.
It is a violation of law for officials to intentionally disclose the identity of a covert operative. The column by Novak came eight days after Wilson wrote a July 6 New York Times op-ed piece challenging President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Also on July 6, Wilson, who had gone to Niger to investigate at the CIA's request, was quoted by The Washington Post as saying the administration was "misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war." Bush has since backed off the uranium claim.
A senior administration official told The Post on Saturday that two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday.
NBC's Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, and ABC's bureau chief, Robin Sproul, said yesterday they could not discuss any matter involving confidential sources. But John Roberts, a CBS White House correspondent, said that to his knowledge, no administration official had contacted anyone at the network about Wilson.
If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative."
The Wilson case has parallels in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has plummeted in popularity after his aides leaked the name of a BBC source, government scientist David Kelley, who had questioned Blair's evidence on Iraqi weapons. Kelley committed suicide after his name was made public.
If recent history is any guide, federal investigators are unlikely to discover who the leakers are. In 1999, a federal appeals court ruled that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and his staff did not have to face contempt proceedings for allegedly leaking damaging information about President Bill Clinton because no grand jury secrets were disclosed. The next year, a former Starr spokesman, Charles G. Bakaly III, was acquitted of making false statements about his role in providing information to the New York Times.
In 1992, Senate investigators said they could not determine who leaked confidential information to National Public Radio and Newsday about Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court confirmation. In 1989, then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh launched an unsuccessful $224,000 investigation of a leak to CBS of an inquiry into then-Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.).
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
-
mikenycLI
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
- Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States
The Rat protects his White House source.
This stuff, is really rich, coming from a DC insider, of many years. Especially, "The Three Points", where first, he states..."First, I did not receive a planned leak."
How's THAT for a defense ? It gets better...or worse.
Courtesy of townhall.com...
The CIA leak
Robert Novak (archive)
October 1, 2003 | Print | Send
WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.
The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.
This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.
How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.
A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.
The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robe ... 1001.shtml
This stuff, is really rich, coming from a DC insider, of many years. Especially, "The Three Points", where first, he states..."First, I did not receive a planned leak."
How's THAT for a defense ? It gets better...or worse.
Courtesy of townhall.com...
The CIA leak
Robert Novak (archive)
October 1, 2003 | Print | Send
WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.
The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.
This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.
How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.
A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.
The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robe ... 1001.shtml
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
So either we're supposed to think that he didn't realize that he got played, or that he knows he got played but is pretending he didn't, or he's lying about the whole thing.
Interesting set of choices.
Ryan
Interesting set of choices.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
Saw this on Bartcop, attributed to Rush Limbaugh on his Tuesday show:
"There are a lot of Clinton people around in various departments of the administration. It's not inconceivable that Bill and Hillary can push a couple of buttons or pull a couple of strings and get this leaked. You just never know."
"There are a lot of Clinton people around in various departments of the administration. It's not inconceivable that Bill and Hillary can push a couple of buttons or pull a couple of strings and get this leaked. You just never know."
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Why exactly are the Clintons so "evil", anyway? Because they were/are fucking popular?
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Because they had they audacity to win elections. Because Hillary didn't stay in the shadows. Because Clinton's economics worked. Because Bill got more action then "they" did.
Dunno.
Ryan
Dunno.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
Bush, Atty Powwow Over CIA Leak
WASHINGTON, June 2, 2004
President Bush has consulted an outside lawyer in case he needs to retain him in the grand jury investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative last year, the White House said Wednesday.
There was no indication that Bush is a target of the leak investigation, but the president has decided that in the event he needs an attorney's advice, "he would retain him," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said.
The lawyer is Jim Sharp, Buchan said, confirming a report by CBS Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.
"The president has said that everyone should cooperate in this matter and that would include himself," the spokeswoman said.
She deflected questions about whether Bush had been asked to appear before a grand jury in the case.
In an exceptionally secretive process, Roberts reports, a federal grand jury has been hearing testimony since January from dozens of administration and government officials. The probe is aiming to pin down the source of the leak that identified Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, as an undercover CIA agent.
Wilson charges that Plame's cover was blown as payback for his challenge to President Bush's claim in last year's State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was actively shopping for uranium to build a bomb.
"Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said in the Jan. 28, 2003 address.
Wilson has pointed fingers at the Vice President's office -- and the President's political director Karl Rove -- in a recent book claiming Rove told a reporter that "Wilson's wife is fair game."
The Justice department assigned a special team of investigators to the case last fall. It demanded thousands of e-mails and other correspondence from the White House -- and has either interviewed or brought before the grand jury several high ranking officials.
Sources tell CBS News President Bush has retained Washington Attorney Jim Sharp to represent him in the Wilson case.
Mr. Bush has repeatedly stated that he has no tolerance for such leaks -- but he has expressed doubts the investigation will find ever find answers.
"I have no idea if we'll find out who the leaker is … partially because your industry is good at protecting the leaker," he said in the past, referring to the media.
So far, no one is suggesting that President Bush had anything to do with the leak or even knew about it until it became public. But the fact that he has retained outside counsel in the event the grand jury comes calling has elevated this investigation to the highest levels.
It makes sense, says CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen, especially if the President has reason to believe that he'll be interviewed as part of the investigation, whether that interview is under oath or not. It doesn't mean he is the target or the focus of the investigation.
The question now, says Cohen, is whether there was some event or development in the investigation that prompted the President, now, to put out feelers like this to the legal community. This investigation, remember, has been going on for months.
This doesn't necessarily mean the President is in legal trouble or that he's suddenly become the focus or the target of this investigation. I think it does mean that President Bush expects to play a larger role in this investigation going forward.
WASHINGTON, June 2, 2004
President Bush has consulted an outside lawyer in case he needs to retain him in the grand jury investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative last year, the White House said Wednesday.
There was no indication that Bush is a target of the leak investigation, but the president has decided that in the event he needs an attorney's advice, "he would retain him," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said.
The lawyer is Jim Sharp, Buchan said, confirming a report by CBS Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.
"The president has said that everyone should cooperate in this matter and that would include himself," the spokeswoman said.
She deflected questions about whether Bush had been asked to appear before a grand jury in the case.
In an exceptionally secretive process, Roberts reports, a federal grand jury has been hearing testimony since January from dozens of administration and government officials. The probe is aiming to pin down the source of the leak that identified Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, as an undercover CIA agent.
Wilson charges that Plame's cover was blown as payback for his challenge to President Bush's claim in last year's State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was actively shopping for uranium to build a bomb.
"Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said in the Jan. 28, 2003 address.
Wilson has pointed fingers at the Vice President's office -- and the President's political director Karl Rove -- in a recent book claiming Rove told a reporter that "Wilson's wife is fair game."
The Justice department assigned a special team of investigators to the case last fall. It demanded thousands of e-mails and other correspondence from the White House -- and has either interviewed or brought before the grand jury several high ranking officials.
Sources tell CBS News President Bush has retained Washington Attorney Jim Sharp to represent him in the Wilson case.
Mr. Bush has repeatedly stated that he has no tolerance for such leaks -- but he has expressed doubts the investigation will find ever find answers.
"I have no idea if we'll find out who the leaker is … partially because your industry is good at protecting the leaker," he said in the past, referring to the media.
So far, no one is suggesting that President Bush had anything to do with the leak or even knew about it until it became public. But the fact that he has retained outside counsel in the event the grand jury comes calling has elevated this investigation to the highest levels.
It makes sense, says CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen, especially if the President has reason to believe that he'll be interviewed as part of the investigation, whether that interview is under oath or not. It doesn't mean he is the target or the focus of the investigation.
The question now, says Cohen, is whether there was some event or development in the investigation that prompted the President, now, to put out feelers like this to the legal community. This investigation, remember, has been going on for months.
This doesn't necessarily mean the President is in legal trouble or that he's suddenly become the focus or the target of this investigation. I think it does mean that President Bush expects to play a larger role in this investigation going forward.
