Murray Waas, who’s done some fine research on the Plame Game scandal, noted yesterday that John Ashcroft had more than a passing interest in the investigation before he recused himself on Dec. 30.
Attorney General John Ashcroft received numerous detailed briefings last year regarding the criminal investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA agent’s identity, during which he was told specific information relating to the potential culpability of several close political associates in the Bush administration, according to senior federal law-enforcement sources.
Among other things, the sources said, Ashcroft was provided extensive details of an FBI interview of Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s chief political advisor. The two men have enjoyed a close relationship ever since Rove advised the Attorney General during the course of three of Ashcroft’s political campaigns.
This isn’t particularly shocking given the relevant players, but it raises questions about Ashcroft’s role in the early stages of this investigation. The attorney general had a close relationship with a key suspect in a White House criminal investigation. For the attorney general to then insert himself in the process when the FBI spoke to his friend looks pretty bad and raises any number of red flags.
Senior federal law-enforcement officials have expressed serious concerns among themselves that Ashcroft spent months overseeing the probe and receiving regular briefings regarding a criminal investigation in which the stakes were so high for the Attorney General’s personal friends, political allies, and political party. One told me, “Attorneys General and U.S. Attorneys in the past traditionally recused for far less than this.”
Yes, Ashcroft later removed himself from the process, but the Waas article explains that he was integrally involved for months before doing so. Apparently, career DoJ officials knew this was a problem.
A federal law-enforcement official said that “there was serious discussion at the highest levels of the Justice Department” as to whether it was “proper” or a “good idea” for Ashcroft to receive briefings not only regarding what Rove had told the FBI, but also what other evidence existed, such as Libby’s notes, that might corroborate or contradict Rove’s account.
The briefings for Ashcroft abruptly came to a halt last December, several officials said in interviews, when Ashcroft, bowing to political pressure from congressional Democrats and responding to concerns raised by career Justice Department officials, named a special counsel to take over the Plame investigation.
So, what happened to trigger Ashcroft’s decision? And more importantly, what made Ashcroft feel justified in intervening with federal investigators in the first place?
So many questions, so few indictments…