Sponsored Links

[Wertz]

Most of us, by now, should be aware of the intelligence leak involving Valerie Plame. When first covered, it was pointed out that such a leak was a felony under federal law: "According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, a federal employee with access to classified information who is convicted of making an unauthorized disclosure about a covert agent faces up to 10 years in prison and as much as $50,000 in fines."

It was also pointed out that anyone with whom Valerie Plame may have had dealings "now knows they were dealing with the CIA. That hurts American national security." Indeed, this leak has even been referred to by some as being tantamount to treason.

Now, we have learned that the President himself has been consulting a lawyer in anticipation of being questioned by prosecutors. This has lead me to wonder if this has any greater significance. Why would someone who has claimed total and utter ignorance of the leak need advice from legal counsel?

The White House has declared that this is a "routine precaution" - but I don't, for example, recall legal advice being sought before the joint testimony of Cheney and Bush before the 9/11 Commission.

A clue, perhaps, can be found in the coverage of this story by Capitol Hill Blue, which contains a few details which I have not seen included in the wire service stories:

Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq... Sources say grand jury witnesses have implicated the President and his top advisor, Karl Rove...

Sources within the investigation say evidence points to Rove approving release of the leak. They add that their investigation suggests the President knew about Rove's actions but took no action to stop release of Plame's name.

If these reports are true, this would seem to make the president an accessory (at the very least) to a felony compromising our national security. That would suggest that speaking with a lawyer might be in order - as Bush himself has pointed out, "this is a criminal matter, it's a serious matter" - which, to me, suggests that he may know more about the leak than he has so far admitted.

The United States Office of the Independent Counsel which, due to potential conflicts of interest, established an independent prosecutor distinct from the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that provided reports to the Congress under Title 28 of the United States Code art. 595. It was reinstituted by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 and again expired on June 30, 1999. A group of former intelligence officers, dissatisfied with the Justice Department probe, asked that Congress begin its own investigation as long ago as last January. Regardless of the conclusions of the Justice Department's grand jury, if such testimony as outlined above is already on the record...

Should Congress reinstitute the Office of the Independent Counsel to pursue the testimony presented in this case?