Let’s see, where are we with the Plame Game today? The White House is under a criminal investigation, top vice presidential aides are leading suspects involving a possible felony, the President of the United States has sought outside counsel, and the VP (without telling anyone) sat down with investigators to talk about the crime.
Slowly but surely, political reporters are expressing some interest. Not surprisingly, Bush & Co. really don’t want to talk about it.
Bush, for example, hosted a brief press conference late last week as part of the G8 meeting. Some outrageous reporter had the gall to ask for a comment about the criminal investigation into which White House staffers illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent in order to spite her husband. The president got out of it as quickly as humanly possible.
Reporter: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent’s name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
Bush: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
Reporter: My final point would be, or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you, subsequent to his conversations with them…
Bush: I haven’t talked to the vice president about this matter, and I suggested recently, and I suggest you talk to the U.S. attorney about that.
I don’t know if it comes across in written form, but Bush sounded irritated with the question and didn’t hesitate to interrupt the reporter seeking information.
That said, the answer seemed odd. The VP talks with federal investigators about a White House criminal investigation and the president didn’t talk to him about it? Why not? Wasn’t he a little curious about how things went?
And encouraging journalists to talk to the U.S. attorney is an obvious dodge — unlike Ken Starr, Fitzgerald’s investigation is leak-proof.
Press Secretary Scott McClellan was even less helpful this morning.
Josh Marshall has the transcript of today’s gaggle.
Q: Has the President been asked to answer questions before the CIA leak investigation?
McClellan: I don’t have any update at this point. But those are the types of questions that you need to direct to the prosecutors who are overseeing that investigation. And I’ll see if there’s any further update beyond what we said previously.
Q: Why can’t you tell us? I mean, he’s the President of the United States. You aren’t going to tell us if he’s been questioned in a criminal investigation?
McClellan: I just said I don’t have any update from where he — what he previously responded to, Terry.
Q: Right, but we’d like it from you, please.
McClellan: And I’ll see what else I can find out. But remember what we’ve made clear from the very beginning. There’s an ongoing investigation right now. We want to do everything we can to help that investigation conclude successfully and get to the bottom of this. And in that spirit, that’s why we’ve referred questions like that to the investigators, because if they feel it will help move their case forward, I’m sure that they will discuss that information with you. But I will — but I’ll go back and just check from our end to see what else I can find out.
Q: It’s an historic event. Not many Presidents —
McClellan: Understood. No, understood, but I have to balance that with the ongoing investigation that’s underway.
Q: Has he retained his lawyer yet, regarding this?
McClellan: That’s what I said. I don’t have any update from what he previous said. Let me look into things.
This was interesting in a couple of ways. First, reporters are apparently beginning to realize that the investigation is heating up — one even recognized Bush’s possible testimony as “historic” — and the White House is desperately avoiding the topic. (I hate to say this all of the time, but if the Clinton White House were under a criminal investigation, there’d already be 24-7 coverage. If only Bush had come on to Plame…)
Second, McClellan seems intentionally uninformed. He doesn’t know if Bush has been asked to answer questions, nor if Bush has officially hired outside counsel? Why not? Has McClellan failed to get the information on purpose so he can have plausible deniability when talking to the press, or have his bosses kept him in the dark?
And finally, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, who knows a thing or two about presidential investigations, believes Bush’s decision to seek outside counsel in this case is a bigger deal than people realize.
This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development. The President of the United States is potentially hiring a private criminal defense lawyer. Unsurprisingly, the White House is doing all it can to bury the story, providing precious little detail or context for the President’s action.
[…]
[F]rom what I have learned from those who have been quizzed by the Fitzgerald investigators it seems unlikely that they are interviewing the President merely as a matter of completeness, or in order to be able to defend their actions in front of the public. Asking a President to testify — or even be interviewed — remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion. It is not done lightly. Doing so raises separation of powers concerns that continue to worry many.
Instead, it seems the investigators are seeking to connect up with, and then speak with, persons who have links to and from the leaked information — and those persons, it seems, probably include the President. (I should stress, however, that I do not have access to grand jury testimony, and that grand jury proceedings are secret. But the facts that are properly public do allow some inference and commentary about what likely is occurring in the grand jury.)
Undoubtedly, those from the White House have been asked if they spoke with the president about the leak. It appears that one or more of them may indeed have done so. .
If so — and if the person revealed the leaker’s identity to the President, or if the President decided he preferred not to know the leaker’s identity. — then this fact could conflict with Bush’s remarkably broad public statements on the issue. He has said that he did not know of “anybody in [his] administration who leaked classified information.” He has also said that he wanted “to know the truth” about this leak. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
If Bush is called before the grand jury, it is likely because Fitzgerald believes that he knows much more about this leak than he has stated publicly.
Stay tuned.