Why Did Att'y Gen Ashcroft Remove Himself From The Valerie... [JOHN DEAN]

[truthisfreedom]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040106.html

Why Did Attorney General Ashcroft Remove Himself From The Valerie Plame Wilson Leak Investigation?
Signs that a Key Witness May Have Come Forward
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
<snip>
The Recent Progress of the Plame Investigation


All signs indicate that the Plame leak investigation has been gaining steam.
As readers may recall, it was in a July 14 column that journalist Robert Novak revealed that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA covert agent. As I discussed in a prior column, the leak is potentially a felony, and could violate several laws.
<snip>
What facts would raise a serious questions of the appearance of a conflict of interest here? I'd bet that the investigation is focusing on at least one target whom Ashcroft knows more than casually, or works with regularly. After all, Novak did identify his sources as two "senior Administration officials."
What explains the timing of Ashcroft's removal? Recall that the removal occurred as a result of events occurring in the same week the Post reported that the FBI had told potential witnesses they might have to face a grand jury.
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.
Who might the lawyer be? It's pure speculation, but former D.C. United States Attorney Joe diGenova, or his wife and law partner, Victoria Toensing, are likely candidates. Toensing, as chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence worked on one of the laws that may have been violated -- the law protecting the identities of undercover agents. Who better to defend a leaker who might be subject to a law, than the person who drafted the law?
Moreover, Toensing was quoted in a recent Washington Post story explaining that it is possible that any leak "could be embarrassing but not illegal" -- suggesting that a leaker might have a possible defense. (Unfortunately for the leaker, however, as I noted in an earlier column, more than one law may have been broken.)
<snip>
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.

[pinto]

1. great post, Toensing's comments were so "lawyerly", i.e.

splitting legal hairs specifically about a statute she knows inside out, that it seemed a red flag to something else, somewhere. This may get good and the family deserves some answers, as do we all...

[peacetalksforall]

2. When I heard her on TV

I thought she was delivering the right wing talking points - the point of which was that the leaker may not have known that Plame was an operative - she played the ignorance angle. I didn't get much more out of what she said.

I assumed it meant that she was the first of the big gun right wing lawyers who would come forth to ta-ta and diminish the seriousness of the leak.

[pinto]

3. definitely diminishing the seriousness of the leak...

"leaker may not have known Plame was undercover" (which is the basis for a crime under the statute)...but she sure sounded like a defense lawyer...whether she's defending an individual or the admin is up for grabs. I guess we'll see.

[peacetalksforall]

4. If Dean (John, that is) thinks he or she might be hired

her words may be an indication to an argument for a plea or a defense.

[pinto]

5. J Dean implies a plea offer...he ought to know... but of course,

it's all conjecture.

One thing he says that hits me is his gut sense: something's going to happen...

[peacetalksforall]

6. Both Joe deGenova and Victoria T demeaned

themselves during the Clinton character assasination.

Once, twice, three times a week - saying the same old thing - surely someone else could have done it.

In addition to all their pomposous pontificating nose up legal hogwash, they are unlikeable.

So we may get to see Joe chomping his cigar again and the VT sneer show.

[mithnanthy]

7. ..sneer show

I would like to see a "sneer-off" between Cheney and Victoria T. Who would win?