John Dean, no relation to Howard, has an idea as to why John Ashcroft recused himself from the Plame Game investigation. As Nixon’s former White House counsel, Dean’s opinion on a presidential scandal involving a spiteful White House punishing political enemies has some merit.
Dean has heard, as I have, the idea that Ashcroft’s distance from the investigation will slow the inquiry down and make it easier for discoveries to be hidden until well after the election. But Dean’s not buying it.
“The new head of the investigation, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is a high profile, well-respected U.S. Attorney, who runs one of the more important offices in the country, Chicago’s. Fitzgerald is also a close friend of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who announced his appointment. It seems unlikely that Fitzgerald was brought in merely to kill the case.”
Instead, Dean believes Ashcroft’s decision was prompted after a key White House witness came forward to strike a deal.
Dean notes that the leak investigation has been “gaining steam” over the last month or so, especially after the Washington Post ran a front-page item explaining the addition of a fourth prosecutor to the team and FBI interviews with several top Bush aides. Dean noted that Deputy Attorney General Comey told the media that Ashcroft recused himself from the inquiry after information had “come together in the last week.” Comey said this on Dec. 30, four days after the Post article ran, suggesting that something interesting had to have happened in order to prompt Ashcroft’s decision.
Dean believes the key aspect of the Post article, however, was the fact that the FBI had told potential witnesses they might have to face a grand jury. As Dean explained:
Some of those witnesses very probably hired lawyers as soon as they heard the news. Especially likely to hire a lawyer would be a middle-level person with knowledge of a leak by a higher-up. And such a lawyer would likely have gone immediately to the prosecutors to make a deal.
[…]
When the lawyer…went to the government seeking immunity for his or her client, Ashcroft would have heard that the middle-level person was offering to finger the high-level leaker. At that point, he would have realized he himself knew the high-level leaker; and decided to recuse himself from the case, and let Fitzgerald take over.
After all, as Comey pointed out at the press conference announcing Fitzgerald’s appointment, Fitzgerald — as a U.S. Attorney — would not have to consult with anyone at the Justice Department before making an immunity deal. Accordingly, Fitzgerald could “flip” the middle-level person — offering him or her immunity to testify against his or her superior — without the permission, or even knowledge, of Comey, let alone Ashcroft.
If there is a witness willing to testify against one — or both — of the leakers in exchange for immunity, what then? It seems likely that Fitzgerald will move very quickly to find out if there is indeed a case to be made against the leakers. To bolster his case, he may call Novak and others to the grand jury or, as noted above, subpoena Novak’s (and others’) phone records over the relevant period. Even Ashcroft himself could in theory be called to the grand jury.
If this case does not make headlines in 90 to 120 days, it will be quite surprising. There has been too much high level action and Comey, a presidential appointee, knows that politically it would be better for Bush & Company to have the matter flushed out within the next few months, than to have it arise just before the November election. Needless to say, this could be an interesting year for the White House, with more than reelection to worry about.