Administration vows cooperation in probe of intelligence leak (CNN)

[UpInArms]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/wilson.cia/

White House won't seek independent investigation

From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, September 29, 2003 Posted: 12:10 PM EDT (1610 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will cooperate with the Justice Department in its initial inquiry into who leaked the classified identity of a CIA operative, but will not launch an internal probe and will not ask for an independent investigation, a spokesman said Monday.

"The president believes if someone leaked classified information, particularly of this nature, that it is a serious matter and it should be looked into and pursued to the fullest extent possible," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

...more...

White House won't seek independent investigation

well of course the WH won't seek independent investigation! That was the stupidest line I have ever read!!!!

and the operative words are initial and Justice Department

jokers....fools....jerks....

[Mari333]

1. The press wont let up on Scott McLellan

I HOPE!! watching CSpan 2 right now and he is spinning like a top..Keeps saying it will "go back to the DOJ"..
Total Horseshit!!!
Hopefully the Press WONT let up on this....

[papau]

8. Great Questions the media should ask - if their is a non GOP US media

From the ABCnote:

"Has President Bush made clear to the White House staff that only total cooperation with the investigation will be tolerated? If not, why not?

Has he insisted that every senior staff member sign a statement with legal authority that they are not the leaker and that they will identify to the White House legal counsel who is?

Has Bush required that all sign a letter relinquishing journalists from protecting those two sources? Has Bush said that those involved in this crime will be immediately fired? If not, why not?

Has Albert Gonzalez distributed a letter to White House employees telling them to preserve documents, logs, records? If not, why not?

Has Andy Card named someone on his staff to organize compliance? If not, why not?

White House officials who might have legal or political exposure on this are going to have to decide whether to hire lawyers or not, and the White House counsel's office is going to have to decide what legal help they can and should provide to officials if and when the DOJ wants to talk to them.

That means that the '90s practice of every Washington bureau of calling members of the bar to see who has hired whom is about to heat back up. The first one to report someone hiring a criminal lawyer wins a prize, as does the first person who develops that lawyer as a source on all this.

A reminder that students of recusal politics will have to consider the Rove-Ashcroft history"

[bleedingheart]

2. WILL KISSINGER LEAD THIS INVESTIGATION TOO?

[ameriphile]

4. Actually, Kenneth Starr... LOL

n/t

[underpants]

3. WH announces it found the culprit. His name is Scott, works in mail room

Scott being strung up now.

Case closed go back to work.

[Nottingham]

5. We had Independant Investigation for Monica Lewinsky!

And we can't get a Independant Investigation on matters of treason!

:bounce:

[UpInArms]

7. here's the UPI/Moonie spin machine

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030929-101336-9943r

excerpt:

The department regulations, like the lapsed law, say the attorney general is compelled to seek a special investigation if the target is a Cabinet member, the president or the vice president -- and others who make top salaries in the federal government -- and if there is "specific and credible information" that the target committed a felony.

Other than those targets, the regulations, like the act, only allow the attorney general to seek an independent investigation if it is "in the public interest," and to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Though a preliminary inquiry could uncover "specific and credible information" of a crime, the White House aides apparently targeted might not be covered personnel under the special counsel regulations -- leaving it pretty much up to Ashcroft to determine whether an independent probe would be in the public interest.

...more...

and since this has nothing to do with sex, marijuana, or overruling states' rights - I'm certain AssKKKrap will not think it is in the "public's interest". :puke:

[MGKrebs]

6. Well Rove already said the allegation was false.

So, what is the timing here? Did Rove say that AFTER the request was made to the DOJ? Would that be obstruction? What will he say to them now when they ask him questions?

That boy is in deep doodoo.

[Bucky__Badger]

11. nope.

No deep doo-doo for Karl. Too many people living in fear of turd blossom Rove.

Cross KKKarl and he'll f@#K you too. Or worse.

[RedEarth]

9. Cooperate???

The white house will put its normal spin on this issue and try to whitewash the entire matter. Unless there is an independent investigator appointed, I'm afraid this issue will just fade away.

[symbolman]

10. Hmmmm...

if the CIA has the goods and I guess they wouldn't make a case unless they had NAMES --

then WHO in the White House SPILLED THE BEANS?

WHY won't the CIA say who the SUSPECT/S is/Are?

THAT's what I want to hear.