And from Josh Marshall... _______________ When I come across something fishy from the Bush administration, I try to use what I call the Clinton Test to keep myself honest and steer me right. As I’ve noted before in these pages, the Clinton Test is quite simply, how would I react to situation X if it was Clinton --- someone I supported --- rather than Bush --- someone I oppose. It’s a good rule of thumb because seeing a given action through the prism of someone whose motives you are inclined to view favorably is a good check on unwarranted suspicions. Having laid out the Clinton Test, I think the report in this morning’s Dallas Morning News pretty clearly passes the test. In other words, this is more than worthy of criticism -- no matter who is involved. According to the Morning News, all the White House documents requested by the Justice Department are first being reviewed and vetted by the White House counsel's office. That sounds a bit different from a normal criminal investigation, doesn’t it? Now, it’s worth noting that the White House has the right --- subject to a great deal of judicial interpretation --- to claim executive privilege for certain sorts of White House communications. And one could imagine various issues which could come up in such documents for which a privilege might reasonably be asserted. But it seems from the description in the article that the White House is getting to decide which documents the investigators get and which they don’t without having to go to the trouble, the contest, or the political fall-out of actually exerting privilege. I’d like to hear more about just what the process is. But on the face of it, it seems like the entity being investigated (i.e., The White House) gets to determine what evidence can be used against it. I mean, I’ve heard of defendants’ rights and all. But this seems to take that notion a bit far, doesn’t it? If the Justice Department investigators have acquiesced in this scheme that also gives me the impression that they’re falling, shall we say, rather short of the Ken Starr level of zealousness. Finally, let’s say there really are compelling national security and/or executive privilege grounds for refusing to turn over some of these documents. Isn’t that the best argument yet that the president should do the right thing and get to the bottom of this right now? They could get to the bottom of this by the end of the day. If they don’t even try, I think we know why. -- Josh Marshall
Gosh,and I only used a paragraph. Continued thanks, rimrocker, for the flow of information. It's appreciated.
Things that make you go "HMMMMMMM." __________ Q Second thing. Newsweek is reporting this week that Karl Rove told "Hardball" host Chris Matthews that Wilson's wife was, "fair game." MR. McCLELLAN: I think there is a different response in that article, as well. But, look, the subject of this investigation -- Q Did he say that? MR. McCLELLAN: Let's talk about this. The subject of this investigation is whether someone leaked classified information. That's what this is about. And there are some that are trying -- some that see this as a political opportunity to attack the White House, and so they're talking about all sorts of other issues. The issue here is a very serious matter, and it needs to be pursued to the fullest, and we want to get to the bottom of it. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. That is the tone he has set in his administration. That is the tone he has set here in Washington, D.C. And if someone leaked classified information, we want to know, and appropriate action should be taken against that person. Q Okay, but did Karl Rove tell Chris Matthews -- MR. McCLELLAN: Again, no -- Q -- it was fair game? MR. McCLELLAN: Now we're trying to talk about other issues. The subject of this investigation -- Q Why can't we talk about -- MR. McCLELLAN: -- the subject of this investigation is, did someone leak classified information? And I addressed this very issue, it came up. If people differ with our views, that's fine, let's have a debate about that, let's have a good, honest debate about it. But the subject of this investigation -- no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And that's why we're pushing -- that's why we're making it very clear to the White House that we want to cooperate fully in this investigation. And the President --
You got to luv em, those crazy Bushies. Pay special attention to why they know convicted pejurer Eliot Abrahms isn't involved. ************* White House Says Three Senior Aides Innocent in Leak 44 minutes ago Add Politics - Reuters to My Yahoo! By Randall Mikkelsen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it had ruled out three senior aides as possible sources for a news leak disclosing the name of a CIA (news - web sites) operative and President Bush (news - web sites) said the case may never be resolved. "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters after he met with his Cabinet. "I'd like to. I want to know the truth." He spoke ahead of an internal White House deadline for officials to turn over information sought in a Justice Department (news - web sites) probe of the leak, which has become the latest controversy surrounding Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq (news - web sites). After the 5 p.m. deadline passed, White House officials said the records were still being compiled and could not immediately be characterized. Democrats launched new criticisms, urging senior Bush political aide Karl Rove to resign over the case and raising concerns over White House handling of the records sought. Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Rove, vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams had each told him they denied leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. "They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it," he said. Plame's husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of disclosing her name in retaliation for his public criticisms of Bush's case for an Iraq war. Abrams pleaded guilty in 1991 of lying to Congress in the Iran-Contra controversy and was pardoned by former President George Bush . Democratic U.S. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan urged Rove in a letter to resign, saying Rove sought to give the leak "wider currency" even if he may not have been the source. Bush said he did not know whether the criminal probe would find the leaker. "I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators," he said. But he said Washington was "full of people who like to leak information," and reporters were practiced at protecting sources. POLITICAL DAMAGE FOR BUSH? The issue has threatened further political damage for Bush, whose poll standing has been hurt by continued instability in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion in March. Wilson has accused the administration of retaliation after he published an article disputing Bush's claims that Iraq had tried to acquire nuclear-weapons material in Africa. The claims, which Wilson had investigated in Niger on a mission for the CIA, were part of Bush's case for war. The White House later said the evidence was unsubstantiated. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales last week directed staffers to hand over records relating to Plame or Wilson and his trip to Niger. Also sought were records of contacts with columnist Robert Novak, who disclosed Plame's CIA job in July, and Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce of Newsday, who cited intelligence officials as confirming Novak's story. White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told staffers, "The sooner we complete the search and delivery of documents, the sooner the Justice Department can complete its inquiry -- and the sooner we can all return our full attention to doing the work of the people." McClellan said responses would be collected by Gonzales before being handed to the Justice Department, which he said has various deadlines over the next two weeks. New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer he was "troubled" by Gonzales's role, but McClellan said it was customary. "The White House counsel seems to be a gatekeeper and I want to know what precautions Justice is taking to ensure that it gets all relevant information," Schumer said. link
I must really commend the Bush folks for getting these up in a quick fashion... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/
Constitutional experts question vetting of White House documents in leak probe By DEB RIECHMANN, ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House began shipping documents Wednesday to the FBI for its CIA leak investigation after screening the material, a concern for some constitutional experts who say that gives the Bush administration room to withhold information. Some 2,000 White House employees were asked to turn over telephone records, notes, correspondence, diary entries and other information that might help the FBI learn who leaked the identity of undercover CIA operations officer Valerie Plame. Investigators already have interviewed Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who publicly questioned Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. "We are moving as quickly as we can to get the information to the Justice Department," White House press secretary McClellan said Wednesday evening. Earlier, he said the counsel's office was screening the documents to make sure that what is sent to FBI headquarters is "responsive" and "relevant" to the Justice Department's request. Constitutional lawyers say the counsel's office is engaging in a fairly standard practice, but they worry about the administration's penchant for secrecy will prompt them to withhold documents under the guise of public or national security interests. Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, said the process "may create opportunities for mischief." "Any processing of materials before they are delivered to the Justice Department is awkward at the least," he said. "It's important at this point to establish the integrity of the process, and this process raises questions, at least from a distance," Aftergood said. "One has to wonder what might be withheld and why and who is supervising the vetting process." http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/1023376p-7179661c.html
The White House began shipping documents Wednesday to the FBI for its CIA leak investigation after screening the material Thus, the White House does not trust the FBI? WTF. The White does trust the FBI to sniff out terrorists but not with this. This does not pass the smell test.
