This week, Murray Waas reported that John Ashcroft, while he was still attorney general and before he recused himself from the matter, requested and received detailed briefings on the Plame Game investigation. In fact, Ashcroft seemed particularly interested in the details of at least one FBI interview with Karl Rove, who just so happened to be a close Ashcroft ally.
The connections ultimately led to the naming of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. But what, exactly, did Ashcroft do before recusing himself? Did he share the information he learned with federal investigators with any of his buddies at the White House? And if he did, doesn’t that mean the attorney general obstructed justice in a criminal investigation?
Two House Dems are anxious to find out. Today, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) will formally request that the Inspector General of the Justice Department, Glenn Fine, investigate whether Ashcroft “violated explicit rules on conflicts of interest when he failed to recuse himself from, and in fact was briefed on, the CIA name leak investigation despite his personal connection to Karl Rove, a person of interest to investigators.”
These new disclosures are troubling because, at the time of these events, Mr. Ashcroft had known personal and political connections to Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove was an adviser to Mr. Ashcroft during the latter’s political campaigns, earning almost $750,000 for his services. Mr. Rove also had urged the President to nominate Mr. Ashcroft to be Attorney General after Mr. Ashcroft lost his Senate re-election campaign to the deceased Mel Carnahan. The fact that Mr. Ashcroft eventually recused himself demonstrates that there in fact were conflicts of interest with his continued involvement in the investigation. The fact that he did not recuse himself early on and was briefed on the matter may well have violated ethical rules and guidelines.
In particular, Conyers and Hinchey note DoJ guidelines, provisions of the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, and rules of professional conduct on recusals that Ashcroft appears to have ignored.
One of the angles that seems odd to me is the lack of compelling defenses here. Even before Fitzgerald was tapped for the investigation, career FBI officials were pursuing what the CIA said was a crime. Almost immediately, they believed Karl Rove was, shall we say, less than truthful. How, then, does Ashcroft justify his intervention? How do Bush supporters explain Ashcroft’s demands for personal briefings about the interviews with Rove?
As far as I can tell, a review from Justice’s inspector general is a no-brainer. That doesn’t mean it will happen, of course, only that it should.