Full Version: Special prosecutor warranted for Wilson affair?
Consider this editorial from the NYT’s Oct. 2nd issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/opinion/02THU1.html Editorial: Investigating Leaks
The Times points out the political danger in the USAG Ashcroft’s decision to not appoint a special prosecutor to handle the leak investigation,
They also suggest that this case doesn’t warrant the resurrection of the independent prosecutor law:
However, the Time’s reveals its bias regarding the issue:
The Independent Prosecutor law was enacted originally to ensure that a complete investigation of serious allegations of Executive branch abuses could be conducted unhindered by political obstructionism on the part of the Executive. Read this for an example of the emerging political strategy by the White House regarding the investigation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/national/02LEAK.html
I got the feeling that spin, if not obstructionism, was plainly evident from this story-the Bush team never addresses the underlying criminal act-calling the whole affair a partisan sham. Is it really? This reluctance to address the underlying issue is why I advocate a Special Prosecutor-it suggests to me that someone is trying to cover something up.
What’s your opinion-does the Joseph Wilson affair call for the appointment of a Special prosecutor?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/opinion/02THU1.html Editorial: Investigating Leaks
The Times points out the political danger in the USAG Ashcroft’s decision to not appoint a special prosecutor to handle the leak investigation,
QUOTE
Any hint of political interference by Mr. Ashcroft or obstructionism from the White House would be disastrous and would leave the president and his aides at the mercy of Congressional Democrats, who would surely respond swiftly and angrily.
They also suggest that this case doesn’t warrant the resurrection of the independent prosecutor law:
QUOTE
The leak investigation has already prompted calls from Democrats in Congress to re-enact the lapsed special prosecutor law, under which a judicial panel can appoint an independent investigator who cannot be fired by the attorney general. While this page has strongly supported that law, we have seen how tangled up an administration can get under the unrestricted power of an independent counsel, like the meandering Kenneth Starr during the Clinton administration. We do not believe that this case merits having Congress reopen now the issue of possibly resurrecting that law, an effort that would only lead to partisan fistfights and would delay an investigation that should proceed swiftly.
However, the Time’s reveals its bias regarding the issue:
QUOTE
As members of a profession that relies heavily on the willingness of government officials to defy their bosses and give the public vital information, we oppose "leak investigations" in principle. But that does not mean there can never be a circumstance in which leaks are wrong — the disclosure of troop movements in wartime is a clear example.
The Independent Prosecutor law was enacted originally to ensure that a complete investigation of serious allegations of Executive branch abuses could be conducted unhindered by political obstructionism on the part of the Executive. Read this for an example of the emerging political strategy by the White House regarding the investigation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/national/02LEAK.html
I got the feeling that spin, if not obstructionism, was plainly evident from this story-the Bush team never addresses the underlying criminal act-calling the whole affair a partisan sham. Is it really? This reluctance to address the underlying issue is why I advocate a Special Prosecutor-it suggests to me that someone is trying to cover something up.
What’s your opinion-does the Joseph Wilson affair call for the appointment of a Special prosecutor?
QUOTE
What’s your opinion-does the Joseph Wilson affair call for the appointment of a Special prosecutor?
yes, at least. I don't think that the bush adminstration can be trusted to nvestigate itself, just as an ernon investigation into enron's wrongdoings, wouldn't have been trusted. I think this requires and independent investigation. anyone that has something to do with, much less is a part of, the shrub administration has no place investigating this.
do you really expect ashcroft to be fully truthful and and unbiased? I certainly don't, and I won't trust anything he finds (which I have a sneaking suspicsion would be nothing)
Actually, the more I read into the story, the more I become amazed that AG Ashcroft has initially chosen not to appoint a special prosecuter. The level of appearance of conflicts of interest is high-from the NY TImes
Ashcroft Is Closely Linked to Inquiry Figures.
Karl Rove, the initial focus of the controversy, has deep ties with the AG-
I agree with what this Democratic figure has to say about the obvious conflicts of interest-
I think that what we are seeing is the beginning of the snow ball as it starts its trip to the bottom of the hill. How long before a Special Prosecutor is appointed?
Ashcroft Is Closely Linked to Inquiry Figures.
Karl Rove, the initial focus of the controversy, has deep ties with the AG-
QUOTE
Karl Rove, President Bush (news - web sites)'s top political adviser, whose possible role in the case has raised questions, was a paid consultant to three of Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns in Missouri, twice for governor and for United States senator, in the 1980's and 1990's, an associate of Mr. Rove said on Wednesday.
I agree with what this Democratic figure has to say about the obvious conflicts of interest-
QUOTE
At the very least, the relationships have given new grist to the Democrats. "This is not like, `Oh, yeah, they're both Republicans, they've been in the same room together,' " said Roy Temple, the former executive director of the Missouri Democratic Party and the former deputy chief of staff to Gov. Mel Carnahan (news - web sites) of Missouri. "Karl Rove was once part of John Ashcroft's political strategic team. You have both the actual conflict, and the appearance of conflict. It doesn't matter what's in the deep, dark recesses of their hearts. It stinks."
I think that what we are seeing is the beginning of the snow ball as it starts its trip to the bottom of the hill. How long before a Special Prosecutor is appointed?
Rove is the leader of the National GOP. He has close ties to most nationally known Republicans. Nothing surprising there.
Here is a link to Bob Novak's recent column dealing with this issue. Columnist wasn't pawn for leak
The "agent" here is not a foreign intelligence agent, whose life may be in danger from such disclosure. She was an "operative" who worked in Washington on monitoring WMDs.
I still think Novak should be taking some of the blame here. He was asked (but not told...) not to use the agent's name.
Here is a link to Bob Novak's recent column dealing with this issue. Columnist wasn't pawn for leak
QUOTE
The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
The "agent" here is not a foreign intelligence agent, whose life may be in danger from such disclosure. She was an "operative" who worked in Washington on monitoring WMDs.
I still think Novak should be taking some of the blame here. He was asked (but not told...) not to use the agent's name.
Come on now, i do hate this administration but that is not a very good attempt at swaying my opinion, was asked but not told, the agent was in America, come on now amlord, i cant tell if you are trying to be funny or serious. Playing that angle you might as well said they played charades to give the name away, and then Novak accidentally handed the story over rather then a story of a kitten rescue operation. This current administration is supposed to be of great moral character, i don’t find much of that in this scenario. It would be less of a fuss if the agent just vanished huh? Just being honest or moral does not matter in light of some larger picture i guess 
Let’s take a look at what the law in question has to say about this situation-
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/usc...ection_421.html
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
They define covert agent as this:
(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States; or
(
a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship
to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an
agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance
to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an
agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or
foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; or
© an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose
past or present intelligence relationship to the United States
is classified information and who is a present or former agent
of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.
So when you say this-
I don’t think that the law makes the distinction that you do. All disclosure of “covert agents” is illegal. You may note that no one has denied that in leaking the information to Mr. Novak the law above WAS broken-thus the current investigation. It doesn’t matter that Mr. Novak wasn’t aware that he was revealing classified information when he disclosed the “operatives” name, someone broke the law above leaking the information in the first place.
As far as I understand, Mr. Novak has little to worry about-there is extensive case law which protects him in his job-which is why he is a convenient outlet to leak information to discredit Mr. Wilson. I disagree with his assertion that he is not a “pawn”-someone certainly had an intent to use him for whatever purpose leaking the information was originally intended for, discrediting Mr. Wilson. It was a stupid thing to have done-and possibly fodder for another thread topic. Why don't those officials simply step forward and take responsibility for a simple mistake, if the situation was as innocuous as Mr Novak claims? What's all the fuss-this would all go away if it were as simple as that.
Back to the subject here-
I certainly agree with your quote above-The operating term is conflict of interest- that is why I believe that a Special Prosecutor is inevitable-the level of that conflict of interest is astounding. How deeply involved was Rove in getting Ashcroft the AG position? Doesn’t Rove’s involvement in that make for a serious conflict of interest situation? I mean, really.
EDIT-for a discussion of Valerie Plame's job and level of exposure to danger-try here, but really go Google for yourself-a melange of descriptions is better than believing any one source. I quote here-
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/usc...ection_421.html
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
They define covert agent as this:
(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States; or
(
a United States citizen whose intelligence relationshipto the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an
agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance
to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an
agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or
foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; or
© an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose
past or present intelligence relationship to the United States
is classified information and who is a present or former agent
of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.
So when you say this-
QUOTE
The "agent" here is not a foreign intelligence agent, whose life may be in danger from such disclosure. She was an "operative" who worked in Washington on monitoring WMDs
I don’t think that the law makes the distinction that you do. All disclosure of “covert agents” is illegal. You may note that no one has denied that in leaking the information to Mr. Novak the law above WAS broken-thus the current investigation. It doesn’t matter that Mr. Novak wasn’t aware that he was revealing classified information when he disclosed the “operatives” name, someone broke the law above leaking the information in the first place.
QUOTE
I still think Novak should be taking some of the blame here. He was asked (but not told...) not to use the agent's name.
As far as I understand, Mr. Novak has little to worry about-there is extensive case law which protects him in his job-which is why he is a convenient outlet to leak information to discredit Mr. Wilson. I disagree with his assertion that he is not a “pawn”-someone certainly had an intent to use him for whatever purpose leaking the information was originally intended for, discrediting Mr. Wilson. It was a stupid thing to have done-and possibly fodder for another thread topic. Why don't those officials simply step forward and take responsibility for a simple mistake, if the situation was as innocuous as Mr Novak claims? What's all the fuss-this would all go away if it were as simple as that.
Back to the subject here-
QUOTE
Rove is the leader of the National GOP. He has close ties to most nationally known Republicans. Nothing surprising there.
I certainly agree with your quote above-The operating term is conflict of interest- that is why I believe that a Special Prosecutor is inevitable-the level of that conflict of interest is astounding. How deeply involved was Rove in getting Ashcroft the AG position? Doesn’t Rove’s involvement in that make for a serious conflict of interest situation? I mean, really.
EDIT-for a discussion of Valerie Plame's job and level of exposure to danger-try here, but really go Google for yourself-a melange of descriptions is better than believing any one source. I quote here-
QUOTE
NON-OFFICIAL COVER
Douglas Jehl and David Stout have a story in Thursday's New York Times that nails down the question of Valerie Plame Wilson's role, and nails it down hard:
Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.
That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.
"Non-official cover" is the deepest kind of clandestine role. [See Slate's Explainer for a good exposition.]
So her role wasn't an "open secret," or a sort-of secret, or a nudge-and-wink secret. It was a secret secret, until someone in the Bush White House decided to punish her husband by wrecking her career.
That means, for example, that the "someone who had formerly worked in the government" who told Clifford May "in an offhand manner" that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, "leading [May] to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of," HEREwas (1) deceiving May (who seems, in all conscience, to have been quite willing to be deceived); (2) breaching an important security taboo; and (3) committing an aggravated felony.
.
Douglas Jehl and David Stout have a story in Thursday's New York Times that nails down the question of Valerie Plame Wilson's role, and nails it down hard:
Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.
That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.
"Non-official cover" is the deepest kind of clandestine role. [See Slate's Explainer for a good exposition.]
So her role wasn't an "open secret," or a sort-of secret, or a nudge-and-wink secret. It was a secret secret, until someone in the Bush White House decided to punish her husband by wrecking her career.
That means, for example, that the "someone who had formerly worked in the government" who told Clifford May "in an offhand manner" that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, "leading [May] to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of," HEREwas (1) deceiving May (who seems, in all conscience, to have been quite willing to be deceived); (2) breaching an important security taboo; and (3) committing an aggravated felony.
I heard on the radio recently (NPR) that the old Special Prosecutor law has been lifted from the books. Only if this is the case do I think an independent investigation is a good idea. The powers that Ken Starr had were too much. He had an unlimited investigative range of that people can be exposed to in a grad jury setting. This investigators should be used but they need to be specifically confined in scope. I think it would be a travesty if this investigation turned out to prove that someone in the white house got oral sex.
But an investigation should be done that is independent of the white house if there is the appropriate way to set this up under present law. We are talking about a felony here.
But an investigation should be done that is independent of the white house if there is the appropriate way to set this up under present law. We are talking about a felony here.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Oct 3 2003, 01:09 AM)
I heard on the radio recently (NPR) that the old Special Prosecutor law has been lifted from the books. Only if this is the case do I think an independent investigation is a good idea. The powers that Ken Starr had were too much. He had an unlimited investigative range of that people can be exposed to in a grad jury setting. This investigators should be used but they need to be specifically confined in scope. I think it would be a travesty if this investigation turned out to prove that someone in the white house got oral sex.
But an investigation should be done that is independent of the White House if there is the appropriate way to set this up under present law. We are talking about a felony here.
But an investigation should be done that is independent of the White House if there is the appropriate way to set this up under present law. We are talking about a felony here.
I do not share your reticence about the lack of limitations of a special prosecutor's investigating powers. If Ken Starr(a Republican) can go as off topic as the simple shady sweetheart land deal known as Whitewater, and end up with Monica, then why can't an appointed special prosecutor(hopefully Democratic), for this case, not dig deep into the dirt that is the Bush Administration? Why the new found limitations? Can the Republicans give a dirt sandwich to eat, and not take a similar meal when corruption shows up during their watch? You are too liberal and forgiving my friend-I haven't forgotten the treatment that Clinton got-deserved or not. The current President should expect no less.
And, yes, we are talking about a felony here, committed by a couple of senior administration officials. Maybe they made a simple lapse of judgement when they blabbed to that paragon of Republican virtue, and conservative mouthpiece, Mr Novak. Whatever. If the gentlemen would simply acknowledge their mistake, all this could go away. No big deal-what's so hard about that? This topic could be irrelevant tomorrow if the sources quoted in Mr. Novak's original column would step forward and take responsibility for their disclosures.
This is all a bigger deal than it needs to be, exactly because they will not. I don't think that this administration would ever admit a mistake-and that is their principle weakness. The special prosecutor is coming, and all over that basic mistake. I don't know, maybe tomorrow I'll have to eat my words, but I don't think so.
EDIT-OK, I guess they did admit that the yellowcake Niger allegations were false. Sort of. Maybe this whole affair is based on the fact that they wish they hadn't admitted as much. Hey, now I get it-this whole business is because they want to take that earlier admission of failure off the table. OK. Makes sense now.
I have read repeatedly that this information was "leaked" not just to Mr. Novak, but to at least six other reporters that have admitted to not running with the story. This has all the appearance of Mr. Novak running with the story because it was emphasized to him that it was a very important story to get out to the public. I can almost hear someone saying, "Would you believe this? We've been giving this information out as an 'exclusive' to someone new every day this week. So far, we haven't been able to convince anyone, there's any kind of story to run here. If we give it to you, will you promise to at least walk with the story?"
One mention to one reporter might have been "accidental." Passing the story on to six reporters was a planned campaign to get the information out. (If the lottery commission would just leak to me six of the wining lotto numbers before they were drawn... I can dream all I want, but the odds are phenomenally against that kind of an "accident!") An independent investigation needs to be conducted. If an investigation is conducted completely in house, a presidential pardon could be issued to the entire White House staff before the people involved are even questioned.
One mention to one reporter might have been "accidental." Passing the story on to six reporters was a planned campaign to get the information out. (If the lottery commission would just leak to me six of the wining lotto numbers before they were drawn... I can dream all I want, but the odds are phenomenally against that kind of an "accident!") An independent investigation needs to be conducted. If an investigation is conducted completely in house, a presidential pardon could be issued to the entire White House staff before the people involved are even questioned.
I watched CROSSFIRE yesterday. They polled the audience about how many special investigations were conducted regarding the Clintons--seven total. James Carville stated that with all that, all they uncovered were a couple of tickets to a sports event that had been accepted illegally.
You'd better believe that I am for an independent investigation of the breach of intelligence that took place thanks to the Bush administration. This involves national security. With all of the time and money Ken Starr put toward finding a smoking gun in the Clinton administration, it would be hypocritical to give short shrift to a felony offense.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
You'd better believe that I am for an independent investigation of the breach of intelligence that took place thanks to the Bush administration. This involves national security. With all of the time and money Ken Starr put toward finding a smoking gun in the Clinton administration, it would be hypocritical to give short shrift to a felony offense.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Those demanding an independent investigation or special prosecutor, and justifying their call by referring back to Clinton, only weaken their argument. The 'what's good for the goose' mantra is childish and belongs in the schoolyard. Petty partisanship has no place in a mature political arena. Unfortunately, that arena is littered with the immature.
There should be an independent investigation of this matter. The scope of the investigation should be clearly defined. This is the only way to reduce the perception of any bias to a minimum. That perception is critical.
There should be an independent investigation of this matter. The scope of the investigation should be clearly defined. This is the only way to reduce the perception of any bias to a minimum. That perception is critical.
I agree with passion on this one. This isn't about how many special investigations Clinton had. It is about how the precedent was set. There was a conflict of interest during Clinton's political tenure. So a special prosecutet was set. The same is for Bush, logic dictates that it is needed for Bush as well.
I personally think this is not the only time the Bush Administration has tried to discredit someone.... *coughs* Scott Ritter *coughs*
Bush in order to really fix this needs to personally call for a independent investigator. Why? Because, not only would that relieve him in being thought a suspect, but it could also boost his oppinion poll.
Not that I like the man or his administration. I just know that you catch more bees with honey.
Monty
I personally think this is not the only time the Bush Administration has tried to discredit someone.... *coughs* Scott Ritter *coughs*
Bush in order to really fix this needs to personally call for a independent investigator. Why? Because, not only would that relieve him in being thought a suspect, but it could also boost his oppinion poll.
Not that I like the man or his administration. I just know that you catch more bees with honey.
Monty
I think some of you are missing the point. The time for a "special investigation" has not arrived. I hate to bring Clinton's name up but, he brought that investigation upon himself. They "Clintons" used executive privilage and did everything to drag out something that could have cleared up in months. I think that "Bush" is doing the right thing and NOT claiming executive privilage to get to the bottom of this. I tell you, I didn't vote for Bush but, you have to give the guy credit for opening up his administration and the white house for investigation. I mean, lets be real, this is serious stuff. I can't think of ANYONE who is an American (yes, both Repubs and Dems) that would put up with violating national security like that. Also, lets not be hasty, we have yet to even see if that leak came from the white house. I think we will know very soon what is going on. IMHO it's time for Bush to step on some CIA testicles and get rid of the political hacks. Just my opinion though.
cusbilla
cusbilla
This seems to be the hot topic on the news sites lately-a sample story from MSNBC-Ashcroft, Rove Ties Scrutinizedwhich discusses some of the political considerations. Please note the weird schizophrenic combination of actions by the Administration, saying that they will happily submit to the investigation of the leak, while simultaneously trying to discredit Mr. Wilson. The "slime and defend" line by the anonymomous Republican Capitol Hill source is a scream. Also-the opinion polls are showing a strong 2 to 1 support for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
Here is a discussion of the DOJ guidelines for the appointment of a special prosecutor as detailed by theDetroit Free Press, an article written by Rep Conyers(D).
I know, not exactly an unbiased source, but we can discuss those guidelines and see if whether the premise of the article is true or not-that the appointment of a special prosecutor is required by law.
And as far as circumscribing and limiting the excesses of the the special prosecutor, ie preventing "mission creep" into other areas of Executive misconduct, the author states this-
Well, I don't know if those provisions are enough for some people out there concerned about a "runaway" prosecution. I think that a special prosecutor should be unencumbered by limiting restrictions, because in the course of an investigation new abuses may be uncovered-indeed the original offense may be the tip of the iceberg for a pattern of Executive abuses, much like Watergate was but one example of systematic corruption in the Nixon Administration.
And let's hear what John Ashcroft has to say about the appointment of Special Prosecutors, as detailed by Conyers above-
By the way, it is my opinion that partisanship and political opportunism is part of the package with these investigations-but not with the special prosecutors themselves. That's something to shoot for at least.
Hopefully they will find a better guy than Ken Starr.
Hey-check out this this article in Slate which is as good an analysis as I have read about the affair.
Here is a discussion of the DOJ guidelines for the appointment of a special prosecutor as detailed by theDetroit Free Press, an article written by Rep Conyers(D).
I know, not exactly an unbiased source, but we can discuss those guidelines and see if whether the premise of the article is true or not-that the appointment of a special prosecutor is required by law.
QUOTE
Sorely missing in the myriad of public debate concerning the need for a special counsel to investigate the leaked name of a CIA operative is one simple fact: It's required by the law.
Although the independent counsel law expired in 1999, the Justice Department promulgated regulations that require the appointment of a special counsel under specified circumstances. Under the regulations, the attorney general is required to appoint a special counsel when (1) a "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," (2) the investigation "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" and (3) "it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility."
All three factors are present here.
Although the independent counsel law expired in 1999, the Justice Department promulgated regulations that require the appointment of a special counsel under specified circumstances. Under the regulations, the attorney general is required to appoint a special counsel when (1) a "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," (2) the investigation "would present a conflict of interest for the Department" and (3) "it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility."
All three factors are present here.
And as far as circumscribing and limiting the excesses of the the special prosecutor, ie preventing "mission creep" into other areas of Executive misconduct, the author states this-
QUOTE
For those who argue the "career" people can conduct the investigation, I invite them to read the various safeguards built into the special counsel regulations.
They require that the prosecutor be an outside person with a "reputation for integrity"; can seek whatever resources are necessary to pursue the case; and is not subject to the day-to-day supervision of the Department of Justice. He or she can only be fired for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity or other good cause. Moreover, when the prosecutor completes his investigation, the attorney general is required to provide a written explanation of why any action proposed by the special counsel was not pursued. None of these procedural safeguards are available to protect the career employees pursuing the CIA leak absent the appointment of a special counsel.
They require that the prosecutor be an outside person with a "reputation for integrity"; can seek whatever resources are necessary to pursue the case; and is not subject to the day-to-day supervision of the Department of Justice. He or she can only be fired for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity or other good cause. Moreover, when the prosecutor completes his investigation, the attorney general is required to provide a written explanation of why any action proposed by the special counsel was not pursued. None of these procedural safeguards are available to protect the career employees pursuing the CIA leak absent the appointment of a special counsel.
Well, I don't know if those provisions are enough for some people out there concerned about a "runaway" prosecution. I think that a special prosecutor should be unencumbered by limiting restrictions, because in the course of an investigation new abuses may be uncovered-indeed the original offense may be the tip of the iceberg for a pattern of Executive abuses, much like Watergate was but one example of systematic corruption in the Nixon Administration.
And let's hear what John Ashcroft has to say about the appointment of Special Prosecutors, as detailed by Conyers above-
QUOTE
It is also asserted that cries for special prosecutors are mere politics. But it was none other than then-Sen. John Ashcroft who in 1997 declared, "A single allegation can be most worthy of a special prosecutor. If you're abusing government property, if you're abusing your status in office, it can be a single fact that makes the difference on that."
By the way, it is my opinion that partisanship and political opportunism is part of the package with these investigations-but not with the special prosecutors themselves. That's something to shoot for at least.
Hopefully they will find a better guy than Ken Starr.
Hey-check out this this article in Slate which is as good an analysis as I have read about the affair.
Cusbilla you actually have it all wrong, because why should Bush fear to open up his doors when his own adminstration is doing the investigation? A special prosecutor is brought in when there is a conflict of interest which in fact Bush and his adminstration does.
If they are not worried what will be turned up then appoint a special prosecutor especially since Bush campaigned on the moral high ground.
If they are not worried what will be turned up then appoint a special prosecutor especially since Bush campaigned on the moral high ground.
Perhaps I missed something here, but why is there such an assumption, as seem to be held by many, that this leak came from the administration? Granted, they would seem to have had motive, but what about means? The group that most easily had that would be the CIA itself--they best know who their agents are. Yet no one seems to be pointing the finger there. Why? Nothing political to gain in that. From what I have heard, there are two likely scenarios: this was an intentional like, contrived by someone who supports Bush, designed to punish someone who spoke out against him. Or else, this is a completely innocuous event, caused by either an inadvertent slip of the tongue, or through actual 'common knowledge', that has no political ramifications whatsoever.
So far, I've seen just as much evidence (none) for the latter as for the former. I think we should skip all the brouhaha until we have maybe just a shred of evidence? If it takes a special prosecutor to do that, then, fine, go that way. But, personally, I think the whole special prosecutor think is just a way to make a mountain out of a molehill, when its intent was to do just the opposite. The less it is used, the better.
So far, I've seen just as much evidence (none) for the latter as for the former. I think we should skip all the brouhaha until we have maybe just a shred of evidence? If it takes a special prosecutor to do that, then, fine, go that way. But, personally, I think the whole special prosecutor think is just a way to make a mountain out of a molehill, when its intent was to do just the opposite. The less it is used, the better.
Well here is the evidence Hobbes right from Robert Novaks column.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertn...n20030714.shtml
And in this article Robert Novak did not say analyst rather Operative. Also as some people have stated 6 other reports have said they were given the information but decided not to run with it.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertn...n20030714.shtml
QUOTE
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
And in this article Robert Novak did not say analyst rather Operative. Also as some people have stated 6 other reports have said they were given the information but decided not to run with it.
Hobbes:
Please consider Robert Novak's original article, which started the ball rolling back in July-here.
I quote the offending paragraph here-
Actually the wording is nuanced in the first two sentences so that it is left to the imagination where Novak obtained the information about Ms. Plame's operative status. The subsequent reference to the senior administration officials would tend to indicate that he secured it from them. But this isn't a "depends on what IS IS" situation-there is growing evidence that Mr Novak was the seventh journalist solicited to discredit Mr Wilson, and the first to take a bite of the bait.
Let me quote from the Sunday, Sept 28th Washington Post story-
here.
Well I think that that statement qualifies for some review of this situation.
Hobbes:
I beg to differ-the point here is, "'Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.'" This leak was part of a greater campaign to discredit Mr Wilson-and they went too far when they disclosed the nature of his wife's work. What is eventually going to be examined is that campaign-and hopefully by an independent prosecutor. Cheers!
QUOTE
Perhaps I missed something here, but why is there such an assumption, as seem to be held by many, that this leak came from the administration?
Please consider Robert Novak's original article, which started the ball rolling back in July-here.
I quote the offending paragraph here-
QUOTE
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
Actually the wording is nuanced in the first two sentences so that it is left to the imagination where Novak obtained the information about Ms. Plame's operative status. The subsequent reference to the senior administration officials would tend to indicate that he secured it from them. But this isn't a "depends on what IS IS" situation-there is growing evidence that Mr Novak was the seventh journalist solicited to discredit Mr Wilson, and the first to take a bite of the bait.
Let me quote from the Sunday, Sept 28th Washington Post story-
here.
QUOTE
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
Well I think that that statement qualifies for some review of this situation.
Hobbes:
QUOTE
Or else, this is a completely innocuous event, caused by either an inadvertent slip of the tongue, or through actual 'common knowledge', that has no political ramifications whatsoever.
I beg to differ-the point here is, "'Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.'" This leak was part of a greater campaign to discredit Mr Wilson-and they went too far when they disclosed the nature of his wife's work. What is eventually going to be examined is that campaign-and hopefully by an independent prosecutor. Cheers!
QUOTE
Actually the wording is nuanced in the first two sentences so that it is left to the imagination where Novak obtained the information about Ms. Plame's operative status. The subsequent reference to the senior administration officials would tend to indicate that he secured it from them. But this isn't a "depends on what IS IS" situation-there is growing evidence that Mr Novak was the seventh journalist solicited to discredit Mr Wilson, and the first to take a bite of the bait.
Well, you and I agree on the actual substance of where the leak came from--no one knows. Which is all my point is.
QUOTE
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
As I said, there are several possible reasons the information was leaked. This is but one of them, and is only an opinion at that. Should we start a special investigation every time someone has an opinion?
It's not that I am trying to discredit any feelings that something might be fishy here. I'm merely trying to point out that we seem to be long on opinions, and short on facts. I'd rather wait until I had some facts before deciding how to proceed. For example, suppose the Justice department starts an investigate, but it seems to be getting stonewalled by the administration. Now, there's a clear case for the need of a special investigator. But, on the other hand, suppose the Justice Dept. performs the investigation, the source of the leak is found, and no evidence of any linkage back to Bush is found. Then, this seems to be much ado about nothing. Who's to say, at this point, which of these scenarios is most likely?
The point that seems to be missing in this debate is this: "Are special investigations a vastly overused tool in today's political climate? And are they therefore used too often to gain political advantage, rather than to solve any serious matters?" I think they are, so having another one certainly won't help any on that matter.
QUOTE
Those demanding an independent investigation or special prosecutor, and justifying their call by referring back to Clinton, only weaken their argument. The 'what's good for the goose' mantra is childish and belongs in the schoolyard. Petty partisanship has no place in a mature political arena. Unfortunately, that arena is littered with the immature.
Do you know what "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" means, Passion51? You must not to consider it childish. It means in this case that if there is evidence of impropriety in one administration to warrant a special prosecutor and an independent investigation, and then there is evidence of impropriety that rises to the level of a felony in THIS ADMINISTRATION, it too warrants a special prosecutor and an independent investigation.
I am so tired of Republicans who act as though they own the moral high ground only to be found to have the same feet of clay the Democrats do. Bennett with his high morals and $8 million losses at the gambling tables, Nixon with his wiretaps, Bush, Sr. with Iran Contra, George W. with his lies about uranium and WMDs.
Where is the fairness? Where is the accountability? Oh, that's right, you said THAT'S CHILDISH SCHOOLYARD STUFF, wanting things to be fair and just.
What a political system. Abandon fairness, all ye who enter here...
And FYI, there is no such thing as a mature political arena either, unless you're talking about the famous "smoke-filled rooms." Mature political arena, indeed. You mean like California?
Attorney General John Ashcroft is recusing himself as head of the CIA leak probe, Justice Department sources said Tuesday.
The investigation will be handed over to the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. Deputy Attorney General James Comey was planning to make an announcement on the change in an afternoon news conference. Fitzgerald will report to Comey.
<snip>
The reason for the recusal is not immediately known. The leaker could face up to 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines.
Ashcroft Recuses Self From Leak Probe
The investigation will be handed over to the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. Deputy Attorney General James Comey was planning to make an announcement on the change in an afternoon news conference. Fitzgerald will report to Comey.
<snip>
The reason for the recusal is not immediately known. The leaker could face up to 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines.
Ashcroft Recuses Self From Leak Probe
Yeah, this one's curious. All this time since the original allegation (6 months) and now Ashcroft suddenly decides to take himself out of the loop and hand the reins over to his #2 guy. What's up with that?
It's not a "special prosecutor", but it's definitely something interesting. Better than the deafening silence we've grown accustomed to from this administration when things get weird.
It's not a "special prosecutor", but it's definitely something interesting. Better than the deafening silence we've grown accustomed to from this administration when things get weird.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.