"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters

No Worries · Oct 8, 2003

White House Says Three Senior Aides Innocent in Leak
Oct 7, 5:47 pm ET

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 operative and President Bush 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 probe of the leak, which has become the latest controversy surrounding Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq.

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.

DaDakota · Oct 8, 2003

Sounds like he wants to get to the bottom of it.

Nice to have a president with integrity.

DD

No Worries · Oct 8, 2003

I am glad to know from the outset of this investigation that Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and Elliott Abrams are completely innocent.

Cohen · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by DaDakota
Sounds like he wants to get to the bottom of it.

Nice to have a president with integrity.

DD
Click to expand...

Early on, he was confident enough to promise to track down terrorists hiding in caves on the other side of the world, but early on, he speculates we may never find the leak in the Whitehouse?

Not sounding too good to me, DD. Do you really think that rings with integrity?

SamFisher · Oct 8, 2003

This is like OJ pledging to find the real killers. Or Bush when he pretended that he wasn't friends with Ken Lay.

Mr. President, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to -- after it was already out -- actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson's wife "fair game." Are you asking your staff is anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.

But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will -- were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be -- that's a good thing for this administration.

.....
Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the CIA case? And what do you make of Sharon's comment that Israel will strike its enemies at any place, any time?

THE PRESIDENT: This is the dual question. (Laughter.) I'm trying to figure out if I want to answer either of them, since you violated a major rule. (Laughter.) At least it's not a cell phone. (Laughter.)

Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.
Click to expand...

GATER · Oct 8, 2003

Hmmmm...not Rove, not Lewis Libby, and not Elliott Abrams....

Where's John Dean when you really need him?

Murdock · Oct 8, 2003

This is like OJ pledging to find the real killers. Or Bush when he pretended that he wasn't friends with Ken Lay.

When did President Bush ever pretend that he wasn't friends with Mr Lay?

What? Do you honestly think John Ashcroft's Justice Department would be so corrupt as to not do a complete investigation?

What if anything has Bush/Ashcroft done to give you such a negative impression?

President Bush from early on in his administration has attempted to keep a very tight grasp on classified information, see this article form back in 2001

http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/101001/LOCbushinfo.shtml

SamFisher · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by GATER
Hmmmm...not Rove, not Lewis Libby, and not Elliott Abrams....

Where's John Dean when you really need him?
Click to expand...

Right here!!!!

More vicious than Tricky Dick
John Dean says the Bush team's leaks are even viler than his former boss's -- and that Plame and Wilson should file a civil suit.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John W. Dean

Oct. 3, 2003 | I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as foul as they could get, but I was wrong. In blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame to take political revenge on her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth, Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my former colleagues were not amateurs by any means.

For example, special counsel Chuck Colson, once considered the best hatchet man of modern presidential politics, went to prison for leaking false information to discredit Daniel Ellsberg's lawyer. Ellsberg was being prosecuted by Nixon's Justice Department for disclosing the so-called Pentagon Papers (the classified study of the origins of the Vietnam War). But Colson at his worst could barely qualify to play on Bush's team. The same with assistant to the president John Ehrlichman, a jaw-jutting fellow who left them "twisting in the wind," and went to jail denying he'd done anything wrong in ordering a break-in at Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, where the burglars went and looked for, but did not find, real information to discredit Ellsberg.

But neither Colson nor Ehrlichman nor anyone else I knew while working at the Nixon White House had the necessary viciousness, or depravity, to attack the wife of a perceived enemy by employing potentially life-threatening tactics.

So let me share a bit of history with Ambassador Wilson and his wife. And, well aware that gratuitous advice is rightfully suspect, let me also offer them a suggestion -- drawn from some pages of Watergate history that till now I've only had occasion to discuss privately. Long before Congress became involved and a special prosecutor was appointed, Joe Califano, then general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and later a Cabinet officer, persuaded his Democratic colleagues to file a civil suit against the Nixon reelection committee. And that maneuver almost broke the Watergate coverup wide open. In seeking justice from the closed ranks of the Bush White House, Wilson and Plame should follow a similar strategy.

The hardball politics of Nixon and his people, of course, first surfaced with the bungled break-in and attempted wiretapping at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), when the head of security of Nixon's reelection campaign was arrested there along with a small army of Cuban Americans. These activities were, of course, only the tip of an iceberg, a first bit of public evidence of a White House mentality oblivious to the law.

DNC chairman Lawrence O'Brien, an experienced political operator, correctly suspected the worst. He had been harassed by the IRS, deducing (correctly) but not knowing for certain that the audit was being pushed by Nixon himself. After the Watergate break-in, O'Brien quickly realized that Nixon's Department of Justice was not likely to expose this criminal activity, so he filed a civil lawsuit. In his memoir, he later explained why:

"We wanted to get to the bottom of [the Watergate break-in] -- we wanted the whole story, no matter where it led. There was reason to suspect that the break-in and wiretapping had been authorized by the officials of the CRP [Nixon's reelection committee]; and there was the possibility that the trail might even lead higher. We wanted the facts, and we knew they would not be easily attained. One decision we made, acting on [DNC general counsel] Joe Califano's legal advice, was to file a lawsuit against CRP. In this way, the judicial process would help us get to the truth."

Few appreciate the significance of this lawsuit in the unraveling of Watergate. It has been largely overlooked by history. A few years ago, I told Joe Califano about the impact his lawsuit had: Within the White House, it was considered one of the most difficult problems to deal with during the investigations of Watergate. The FBI was no problem -- no one has to talk to an FBI agent. And no Department of Justice is going to haul White House aides before a grand jury. But a subpoena demanding the production of documents, or an appearance to give testimony under oath at a deposition -- that was a serious threat. It also troubled the FBI and Justice Department, keeping them on their toes. It was remarkably effective.

Regardless of whether or not a special prosecutor is selected, I believe that Ambassador Wilson and his wife -- like the DNC official once did -- should file a civil lawsuit, both to address the harm inflicted on them, and, equally important, to obtain the necessary tools (subpoena power and sworn testimony) to get to the bottom of this matter. This will not only enable them to make sure they don't merely become yesterday's news; it will give them some control over the situation. In the case of the DNC's civil suit, Judge Charles Richey, a good Republican, handled it in a manner that was remarkably helpful to the Nixon reelection effort. But any judge getting a lawsuit from Wilson and Plame today would be watched a lot more carefully.

While I have made no effort to examine all the potential causes of action that Wilson and Plame might file, several come to mind. For example, given the fact that this leak was reportedly an effort to harm them, a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress could be appropriate. (Because I am not aware of their residence -- the District of Columbia, Maryland or Virginia -- I will only state the law generally.)

Typically, there will be a statute to this effect: "One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm." Most often, these actions fail because the conduct is not sufficiently outrageous. But blowing the cover of a CIA operative by anyone with access to such classified information is outrageous by any standard. By way of comparison, it's been found outrageous for a doctor to refuse to treat an unconscious infant and leave mother and child out in the cold; it has been ruled outrageous for a mortician to mishandle a corpse and lie about it; and it was considered outrageous to recklessly issue a report of a person's death that had not happened.

Also, there is an entire body of law relating to civil actions based on criminal statutes and constitutional activities. Suffice it to say that there are a number of potential causes of action, and I have no doubt that a good civil litigator can fashion a powerful lawsuit for Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson.

A key question is: Who would they sue? No one has admitted to the dirty deed. In Watergate, the DNC had a hook: They named not only the burglars arrested in their offices but also the Nixon reelection committee, charging a conspiracy to deny the civil rights of Larry O'Brien and other Democrats. From a tactical standpoint, as any lawyer will tell the Wilsons, what's vital is to survive a motion to dismiss, or other such summary action, so that they can conduct all the necessary discovery to find everyone who should be named. Newspaper accounts suggest the first potential defendant might be Karl Rove, who, Ambassador Wilson has been told by reporters, has repeatedly said Wilson's wife was "fair game." And we know this is not the first time Rove might have leaked to Robert Novak, who broke the Wilson story; Rove was removed from the 1992 George H.W. Bush campaign for just such a smearing leak, according to many reports (which Rove has denied).

An attorney will only file such a lawsuit for the Wilsons if he can, in essence (as required under the federal court rules), attest that to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the lawsuit has not been filed for an improper purpose, that the claims aren't frivolous, that the claims are based on solid law, and that the allegations have evidentiary support -- or will have such support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. In short, while there is a minimum threshold for filing such a suit, it is not a very high barrier. I have little doubt such a lawsuit could be fashioned with little difficulty.

If the Bush White House is anything like the Nixon White House -- and there is increasing evidence of the similarities -- it will respond to such a lawsuit like a stuck pig. Leaking the name of a CIA official can under no circumstances be considered a part of any potential defendants' official duties, so they will not be given representation by the Department of Justice. But how about Wilson and Plame: Should they have to bear the expense of a lawsuit to deal with the harm they have suffered and get to the bottom of what happened? I don't think so, and after talking with several lawyers in Washington, I find I am not alone. I have good reason to believe that one or more law professors in the area might handle the case pro bono, or one or more of the public interest groups might underwrite the lawsuit. Needless to say, that will only cause more squealing by those who want this to go away. They will cry that it's all politics. This is an empty contention -- it was the attack on the Wilsons that was pure politics. But the Bush folks appear to have messed with the wrong man (and woman).

Time after time, Nixon tried to stem Watergate by declaring it was pure politics. But what were his people doing in the Democratic headquarters? Was that not merely dirty politics? To fight the investigations of Watergate, the White House and the Republican National Committee, the Nixon reelection committee kept their surrogates working full time. Democrats who criticized Nixon for not getting to the bottom of who was involved in the DNC break-in were endlessly accused of playing politics with nothing but "a third-rate attempted burglary." This sort of defense, of course, has already commenced from the Bush White House, with the president's surrogates similarly downplaying this vile act of political revenge against the Wilsons. Apparently, they don't realize how Nixonian this behavior is, and Nixon and his aides did not exactly set the gold standard for conduct for any presidency.

Bush's Justice Department, not unlike Nixon's, faces insidious conflicts of interest when investigating the White House. Given the close ties of those on the White House staff with the political appointees at Justice, the conflict is real, not merely an appearance, and actually more serious for the Bush administration's people than Nixon's because there are many more longstanding ties. Equally troubling, the Justice Department has a poor record in this area. For decades, it has been notorious for its inability to uncover leaks, and it has only prosecuted cases handed to it by other agencies that have taken on the work of flushing out leakers. The CIA, for example, refers leaks regularly to Justice, but nothing ever happens. As those familiar with this dismal performance can tell you, one reporter at the Washington Times has printed over 200 classified national security secrets. How the Justice Department has failed to uncover even one is stunning.

But when it is important, the source of a leak can be found. A good example is that of former chief judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who during the Clinton administration's Whitewater/Lewinsky investigations became exasperated with grand jury leaks (since grand jury information is equal to highly classified national security information). The leaks were coming from the office of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, so rather than have Justice probe the leak, Judge Johnson appointed a special master, who found the leaker -- Starr's deputy, Charles Bakaly. The judge tried Bakaly, in a non-jury trial for contempt, and then let him off the hook. She'd made her point. Her inquiry also makes the point that when there is a will to find a leaker, there is a way.

As for claims by the Bush administration that it can avoid conflict-of-interest problems by turning the investigation of leaks about Plame over to career professionals rather than to Bush political appointees, that's nonsense. That would merely turn the clock back to the initial Watergate investigation, which was conducted by career professionals. Years ago, I testified about how helpful those career attorneys were, and as the White House tapes later proved, these professionals (men with impeccable credentials) kept the Nixon White House fully informed of their investigation, as did the FBI, thereby facilitating the coverup.

Of course, Attorney General Ashcroft should appoint an independent prosecutor, or even two, as Calvin Coolidge did (a Republican and a Democrat) to investigate Teapot Dome. That would be the smart move, with a staggering 70 percent of Americans saying he should appoint a special prosecutor, and 83 percent of those polled saying this is a serious matter, according to the Washington Post.

But most importantly, I believe that Wilson and Plame hold the keys to resolving this matter: with a civil lawsuit. This was one of the hidden keys to Watergate, though it was never fully turned. But had Joe Califano's lawsuit not been slowed down by a Nixon-friendly judge, Watergate would have ended much earlier. So can this scandal -- if the Wilsons choose to take that route.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
John W. Dean served as counsel to President Nixon from 1970 to 1973. He now writes a column for Findlaw and is the author of several books, with the next to be published in January 2004, a biography of Warren G. Harding.

Click to expand...

Deckard · Oct 8, 2003

Thanks, Sam.
I think this gets to some of the meat in this article:

As for claims by the Bush administration that it can avoid conflict-of-interest problems by turning the investigation of leaks about Plame over to career professionals rather than to Bush political appointees, that's nonsense. That would merely turn the clock back to the initial Watergate investigation, which was conducted by career professionals. Years ago, I testified about how helpful those career attorneys were, and as the White House tapes later proved, these professionals (men with impeccable credentials) kept the Nixon White House fully informed of their investigation, as did the FBI, thereby facilitating the coverup.

Of course, Attorney General Ashcroft should appoint an independent prosecutor, or even two, as Calvin Coolidge did (a Republican and a Democrat) to investigate Teapot Dome. That would be the smart move, with a staggering 70 percent of Americans saying he should appoint a special prosecutor, and 83 percent of those polled saying this is a serious matter, according to the Washington Post.

But most importantly, I believe that Wilson and Plame hold the keys to resolving this matter: with a civil lawsuit. This was one of the hidden keys to Watergate, though it was never fully turned. But had Joe Califano's lawsuit not been slowed down by a Nixon-friendly judge, Watergate would have ended much earlier. So can this scandal -- if the Wilsons choose to take that route.

Bush is going to find himself a passenger on a runaway train... he better replace the crew in a hurry before his presidency derails.

Murdock · Oct 8, 2003

Absolutely not, I think this will end up being little more than a mild annoyance to the Bush admin.. Considering that its mostly hard Democrat partisens that are pushing this invesigation and they have no power in the greater scheme than to complain and whine.

The fact remains that there hasn't been any proof of any wrongdoing given, other than alligations.

Republicans have seen no reason to doubt the integrity of the Bush Admin.

Deckard · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by Murdock
Absolutely not, I think this will end up being little more than a mild annoyance to the Bush admin.. Considering that its mostly hard Democrat partisens that are pushing this invesigation and they have no power in the greater scheme than to complain and whine.

The fact remains that there hasn't been any proof of any wrongdoing given, other than alligations.

Republicans have seen no reason to doubt the integrity of the Bush Admin.
Click to expand...

Then, no offense, there are some Republicans with their head in the sand.

Timing · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by Murdock
The fact remains that there hasn't been any proof of any wrongdoing given, other than alligations.
Click to expand...

And other than the name becoming leaked of course. It didn't become known through osmosis.

Cohen · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by Timing
And other than the name becoming leaked of course. It didn't become known through osmosis.
Click to expand...

Technically, it's only a crime if the leaker was aware that Plame was an undercover agent.

Since no one is jumping forward, it could be a valid assumption, but it's still not yet proven.

rimrocker · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by Cohen
Technically, it's only a crime if the leaker was aware that Plame was an undercover agent.

Since no one is jumping forward, it could be a valid assumption, but it's still not yet proven.
Click to expand...

It's clear that whoever leaked the name also knew the status. The way Novak wrote it, what he said immediately afterwards, what Wilson related, and a host of other things support the fact. In addition, just yesterday, the President said it was a criminal act.

GATER · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by Cohen
Technically, it's only a crime if the leaker was aware that Plame was an undercover agent.

Since no one is jumping forward, it could be a valid assumption, but it's still not yet proven.
Click to expand...

Cohen -
What you say is true in a criminal court. The burden of proof and the function of intent are far different if they take Dean's advice and go to a civil court system. Think the OJ analogy...criminal = not guilty; civil = guilty.

mc mark · Oct 8, 2003

Why do I have a feeling that Bush doesn't <i>want </i>to know who the "leaker" is?

Oh hell, president Rove doesn't tell him anything anyway.

Murdock · Oct 8, 2003

Why do I have a feeling that Bush doesn't want to know who the "leaker" is?

Don't be rediculous, of course IF a crime has been commited in the Bush White House he wants to get to the bottom of it...

As I have illustrated earlier, the President takes leaks of classified information VERY seriously and has from the beginning... to the extent of even limiting information to congress..

glynch · Oct 8, 2003

Don't be rediculous, of course IF a crime has been commited in the Bush White House he wants to get to the bottom of it...

Why do you think that Bush feels so powerless to discover who is doing this among his "senior officials"?

Does this reflect a lackk of competence on Bush's part or a lack of respect for him by his staff? I'm puzzled why he would feel so unsure of whether he could discover who did this>

Cohen · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by rimrocker
It's clear that whoever leaked the name also knew the status. The way Novak wrote it, what he said immediately afterwards, what Wilson related, and a host of other things support the fact. In addition, just yesterday, the President said it was a criminal act.
Click to expand...

I'm only repeating what Wolf Blitzer and some analysts stated on CNN. I'm no federal attorney.

Cohen · Oct 8, 2003

Originally posted by GATER
Cohen -
What you say is true in a criminal court. The burden of proof and the function of intent are far different if they take Dean's advice and go to a civil court system. Think the OJ analogy...criminal = not guilty; civil = guilty.
Click to expand...

I understand the difference between civil and criminal.

I am only referring to what concern me, which is criminal.

Forums

"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters

No Worries Contributing Member

DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!
Supporting Member

No Worries Contributing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

GATER Contributing Member

Murdock Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Murdock Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Timing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

rimrocker Contributing Member

GATER Contributing Member

mc mark Contributing Member

Murdock Member

glynch Contributing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters

No Worries Contributing Member

DaDakota If you want to know, just ask! Supporting Member

No Worries Contributing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

GATER Contributing Member

Murdock Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

Murdock Member

Deckard Blade Runner Supporting Member

Timing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

rimrocker Contributing Member

GATER Contributing Member

mc mark Contributing Member

Murdock Member

glynch Contributing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

Cohen Contributing Member

Share This Page

DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member

Deckard Blade Runner
Supporting Member