SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bush Hires Attorney over CIA Leak

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Swift Vets and POWs for Truth
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Saint
Lt.Jg.


Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:38 am    Post subject: Bush Hires Attorney over CIA Leak Reply with quote

AP) President Bush has consulted an outside lawyer in case he needs to retain him in the grand jury investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative last year, the White House said Wednesday.

There was no indication that Bush is a target of the leak investigation, but the president has decided that in the event he needs an attorney's advice, "he would retain him," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said.

The lawyer is Jim Sharp, Buchan said, confirming a report by CBS Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.

"The president has said that everyone should cooperate in this matter and that would include himself," the spokeswoman said.

She deflected questions about whether Bush had been asked to appear before a grand jury in the case.

In an exceptionally secretive process, Roberts reports, a federal grand jury has been hearing testimony since January from dozens of administration and government officials. The probe is aiming to pin down the source of the leak that identified Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, as an undercover CIA agent.

Wilson charges that Plame's cover was blown as payback for his challenge to President Bush's claim in last year's State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was actively shopping for uranium to build a bomb.

"Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said in the Jan. 28, 2003 address.

Wilson has pointed fingers at the Vice President's office -- and the President's political director Karl Rove -- in a recent book claiming Rove told a reporter that "Wilson's wife is fair game."

The Justice department assigned a special team of investigators to the case last fall. It demanded thousands of e-mails and other correspondence from the White House -- and has either interviewed or brought before the grand jury several high ranking officials.

Sources tell CBS News President Bush has retained Washington Attorney Jim Sharp to represent him in the Wilson case.

Mr. Bush has repeatedly stated that he has no tolerance for such leaks -- but he has expressed doubts the investigation will find ever find answers.

"I have no idea if we'll find out who the leaker is … partially because your industry is good at protecting the leaker," he said in the past, referring to the media.

So far, no one is suggesting that President Bush had anything to do with the leak or even knew about it until it became public. But the fact that he has retained outside counsel in the event the grand jury comes calling has elevated this investigation to the highest levels.

It makes sense, says CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen, especially if the President has reason to believe that he'll be interviewed as part of the investigation, whether that interview is under oath or not. It doesn't mean he is the target or the focus of the investigation.

The question now, says Cohen, is whether there was some event or development in the investigation that prompted the President, now, to put out feelers like this to the legal community. This investigation, remember, has been going on for months.

This doesn't necessarily mean the President is in legal trouble or that he's suddenly become the focus or the target of this investigation. I think it does mean that President Bush expects to play a larger role in this investigation going forward.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LewWaters
Admin


Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

**YAWN**

Old news. Rolling Eyes

This womans former agent status was well known around Washington.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Saint
Lt.Jg.


Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LewWaters wrote:
**YAWN**

Old news. Rolling Eyes

This womans former agent status was well known around Washington.


Nope Dullard, Apparently not old news. What is news is that a Grand Jury has been investigating this since January. Guess it is news enough for the White House to get W a Lawyer for his Crimes. Remember "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" ? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LewWaters wrote:
**YAWN**

Old news. Rolling Eyes

This womans former agent status was well known around Washington.


Best solution to never respond to or even read a thread one of these trolls have opened. Just an opinion.
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Saint
Lt.Jg.


Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ASPB wrote:
LewWaters wrote:
**YAWN**

Old news. Rolling Eyes

This womans former agent status was well known around Washington.


Best solution to never respond to or even read a thread one of these trolls have opened. Just an opinion.



The Best response to this troll is to keep posting. Try it for a couple of days and I think he will bust a vain. Just an opinion!

Regards.
_________________
This comment brought to you by Trooper Saint and I approve of this message!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LewWaters
Admin


Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trolls just love trying to stir a conspiracy where none exists;

Quote:
The CIA leak
Robert Novak
October 1, 2003

WASHINGTON -- I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.

The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador 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 current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyleparr
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So we should take Bob Novak's word for it? Gee, no conflict of interest there! That is like taking Nixon's word "I am not a crook."

Give me a break.
Back to top
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This Forum is not for discussion of Bush. It is solely for discussion Kerry with an emphasis on years from 1968 to 1972. Please cease and desist your disruption of this forum. There are many other forums where you can pose questions about Bush. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
morfdq
Ensign


Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yea Saint -

Stop talking about how bad Bush is doing, everyone coming to this site will see the TRUTH and not vote for him. So lets NOW say this isn't a Bush site and divert all the negative attention on his job performance. Keep going brother...your facts are being heard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Swift Vets and POWs for Truth All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group