Bush alters standard for firing in leak case
President says an aide would have had to commit a crime, not just be involved.
Bush alters standard for firing in leak case
President says an aide would have had to commit a crime, not just be involved
Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, Washington Post
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Washington -- President Bush said Monday that he will fire anyone in the administration found to have committed a crime in the leaking of a CIA operative's name, creating a higher threshold than he did one year ago for holding aides accountable in the unmasking of Valerie Plame.
After originally saying anyone involved in leaking the name of covert CIA operative would be fired, Bush said: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
This is a small, but potentially very significant, distinction, because details that have emerged from the leak investigation over the past week show that Karl Rove, Bush's top political aide, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, discussed Plame with reporters before her name was revealed to the public. It is unclear whether either man committed a crime, according to lawyers familiar with the case.
Democrats pounced on Bush's comments to accuse him of trying to shield White House aides from future punishment.
"This is about the credibility of the president of the United States," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "He said he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking this sensitive information. Now, he's changing his tune."
Reid and other Democrats said that even if administration aides did not violate the law, they should lose their security clearance -- if not their jobs -- for trafficking in information about a CIA operative.
But Bush, speaking during a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said, "It's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions."
Prosecutors are nearing the end of an investigation into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration official broke the law. This is difficult to prove because it must be shown that the person who leaked her name knew not only that Plame had covert status but also that the government was trying to conceal it.
Rove has admitted discussing Plame with two reporters, but told the grand jury he was not aware at that time she was covert, a lawyer familiar with his testimony said. Less is known about Libby's role, although he has cleared several reporters to discuss with prosecutors his conversations with them.
Matthew Cooper, a Time reporter who testified before a grand jury last week about conversations with Rove and Libby about Plame, said that when he asked Libby if he knew Plame worked at the CIA, Libby said he heard that she did. Libby's lawyer could not be reached to comment.
It is still unclear who was the original source of information about Plame, though prosecutors have asked several witnesses about a State Department memo that circulated inside the administration before Plame was unmasked by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The memo said Plame worked for the CIA and played a role in her husband, Joseph Wilson, being sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate allegations it was selling nuclear materials to Iraq, according to people familiar with the document.
Wilson reported back that the allegations appeared unfounded. When he went public in July 2003 with these conclusions, they challenged Bush's argument for going to war and set in motion a White House effort to discredit him. Federal prosecutors are trying to determine if the anti-Wilson campaign crossed the line by exposing Plame's identity.
White House statements, dating back over the two years of the case, have varied. On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush used language reminiscent of what he said on Monday. "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, " he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
At other moments, though, Bush's language has been less precise. In Sea Island, Ga. in June 2004, Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name -- which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Bush said "yes."
Some Republican officials pointed to other quotations to dispute that Bush had changed his view, notably on Oct. 6, 2003, when he said, "This is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action."
Victoria Toensing, a lawyer and longtime Republican who helped write the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 at the center of this case, said Bush is now saying what he likely meant to say when the leak investigation was launched. "Of course, you are going to be concerned if a law was broken," she said. "But what is it that somebody did wrong if they didn't break the law?"
A former Justice Department official who talks frequently to people involved in the case said signs point to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald focusing on the aftermath of the leak, rather than the disclosure.
"I think he made his decisions months ago that there wasn't a crime when the leak occurred," said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Now, he's looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent."
A few discrepancies have emerged in public statements about the case, offering clues to potential contradictions being examined by the grand jury. Cooper wrote in his Time account of his grand jury appearance that "a surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform." But Cooper wrote that he "can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so." Rove has maintained the conversation was initially about welfare reform, according to a lawyer familiar with his side of the story.
In the court of public opinion, the Bush administration is slipping. Only one in four persons surveyed -- 25 percent -- said the White House is fully cooperating with the leak investigation, down from 47 percent in September, according to a poll by ABC News.
Presidential shift
On Sept. 29, 2003, the White House, through spokesman
Scott McClellan, said:
"If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
On Sept. 30, 2003,
President Bush said:
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
On June 10, 2004, Bush was asked -- in a question that may have mischaracterized the president's September 2003 statement -- if he stood by
"your pledge to fire anyone" involved in the leak.
"Yes," said Bush.
On Monday, Bush said:
"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Source: Chronicle news services
Chronicle news services contributed to this report.
Page A - 1
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/19/MNGSQDQ4BU1.DTL
Bush alters standard for firing in leak case
President says an aide would have had to commit a crime, not just be involved
Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, Washington Post
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Washington -- President Bush said Monday that he will fire anyone in the administration found to have committed a crime in the leaking of a CIA operative's name, creating a higher threshold than he did one year ago for holding aides accountable in the unmasking of Valerie Plame.
After originally saying anyone involved in leaking the name of covert CIA operative would be fired, Bush said: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
This is a small, but potentially very significant, distinction, because details that have emerged from the leak investigation over the past week show that Karl Rove, Bush's top political aide, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, discussed Plame with reporters before her name was revealed to the public. It is unclear whether either man committed a crime, according to lawyers familiar with the case.
Democrats pounced on Bush's comments to accuse him of trying to shield White House aides from future punishment.
"This is about the credibility of the president of the United States," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "He said he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking this sensitive information. Now, he's changing his tune."
Reid and other Democrats said that even if administration aides did not violate the law, they should lose their security clearance -- if not their jobs -- for trafficking in information about a CIA operative.
But Bush, speaking during a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said, "It's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions."
Prosecutors are nearing the end of an investigation into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration official broke the law. This is difficult to prove because it must be shown that the person who leaked her name knew not only that Plame had covert status but also that the government was trying to conceal it.
Rove has admitted discussing Plame with two reporters, but told the grand jury he was not aware at that time she was covert, a lawyer familiar with his testimony said. Less is known about Libby's role, although he has cleared several reporters to discuss with prosecutors his conversations with them.
Matthew Cooper, a Time reporter who testified before a grand jury last week about conversations with Rove and Libby about Plame, said that when he asked Libby if he knew Plame worked at the CIA, Libby said he heard that she did. Libby's lawyer could not be reached to comment.
It is still unclear who was the original source of information about Plame, though prosecutors have asked several witnesses about a State Department memo that circulated inside the administration before Plame was unmasked by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. The memo said Plame worked for the CIA and played a role in her husband, Joseph Wilson, being sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate allegations it was selling nuclear materials to Iraq, according to people familiar with the document.
Wilson reported back that the allegations appeared unfounded. When he went public in July 2003 with these conclusions, they challenged Bush's argument for going to war and set in motion a White House effort to discredit him. Federal prosecutors are trying to determine if the anti-Wilson campaign crossed the line by exposing Plame's identity.
White House statements, dating back over the two years of the case, have varied. On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush used language reminiscent of what he said on Monday. "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, " he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
At other moments, though, Bush's language has been less precise. In Sea Island, Ga. in June 2004, Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name -- which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Bush said "yes."
Some Republican officials pointed to other quotations to dispute that Bush had changed his view, notably on Oct. 6, 2003, when he said, "This is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action."
Victoria Toensing, a lawyer and longtime Republican who helped write the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 at the center of this case, said Bush is now saying what he likely meant to say when the leak investigation was launched. "Of course, you are going to be concerned if a law was broken," she said. "But what is it that somebody did wrong if they didn't break the law?"
A former Justice Department official who talks frequently to people involved in the case said signs point to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald focusing on the aftermath of the leak, rather than the disclosure.
"I think he made his decisions months ago that there wasn't a crime when the leak occurred," said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Now, he's looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent."
A few discrepancies have emerged in public statements about the case, offering clues to potential contradictions being examined by the grand jury. Cooper wrote in his Time account of his grand jury appearance that "a surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform." But Cooper wrote that he "can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so." Rove has maintained the conversation was initially about welfare reform, according to a lawyer familiar with his side of the story.
In the court of public opinion, the Bush administration is slipping. Only one in four persons surveyed -- 25 percent -- said the White House is fully cooperating with the leak investigation, down from 47 percent in September, according to a poll by ABC News.
Presidential shift
On Sept. 29, 2003, the White House, through spokesman
Scott McClellan, said:
"If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
On Sept. 30, 2003,
President Bush said:
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
On June 10, 2004, Bush was asked -- in a question that may have mischaracterized the president's September 2003 statement -- if he stood by
"your pledge to fire anyone" involved in the leak.
"Yes," said Bush.
On Monday, Bush said:
"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Source: Chronicle news services
Chronicle news services contributed to this report.
Page A - 1
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/19/MNGSQDQ4BU1.DTL
posted by JimG at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home