Are WH aides taking the fifth before the Plame grand jury?

[diplomats]

I just read this Josh Marshall post. That's what it sounds like he's saying.

"Here are some questions that might be very worthwhile to pose to Scott McClellan tomorrow morning.
The president has instructed members of the White House staff (everyone in the Executive Office of the President) to cooperate fully with the Plame investigation. Does that order to cooperate amount to a bar on White House employees taking the fifth with investigators?
Does the president find it acceptable for members of his staff to invoke their fifth amendment rights in a criminal investigation and still remain on the payroll?
Does the president know whether members of his staff have invoked their right against self-incrimination in the Plame investigation?"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

Does anyone know where Josh is getting this from? This is news to me.

[Timefortruth]

1. It makes sense that they would be taking the 5th, it is their right.

And one of them did do it, so why not?

I also wonder if he knows something, I hate waiting.

[Frances]

2. Yes it is their right

but Bush also has the right to fire them if they do so because he asked them to fully cooperate (or at least that is what he told the public)

[RegenerationMan]

3. Now we know what W really stands for:

WATERLOO!

[snippy]

7. I believe the W stands for Whore.

[Timefortruth]

4. Bingo.

But all the press will report is that it was their right. Chimp will continue to claim there is no way to know what happened.

I wish this would break.

[Hamlette]

5. Josh is right about one thing

(not to imply he's not right about them taking the 5th)

The 5th Amendment right against self incrimination only applies to criminal matters, not civil matters. The trier of fact, judge or jury, in a civil matter can draw an inference of guilt from someone taking the fifth.

If these people are/were civil servants they would lose their jobs if disciplinary proceedings were brought as the judge would have to infer they were the ones who leaked the info.

They are all appointments though so...no there will be no disciplinary proceedings. But they should be fired under the same principles.

If Bush really thought what they did was wrong, he should infer, like the judge or jury in a civil matter, that they are guilty. But the rules don't apply to Bush.

Wouldn't it be great if someone went after Scott for that. Someone who know exactly how the 5th worked and didn't let him off the hook with "its their right"?

Josh usually is on the right track but he's been predicting something would break in this for some time. Did Josh miss the boat, is he being fed disinformation or are the prosecutors protecting Bush?

[snippy]

6. Obviously there are leaks or rumors that White House staff

have taken the 5th, but Marshall mentions "investigators" not the Grand Jury. That may be a distinction without a difference since the next step is just to subpoena the witness to appear before the Grand Jury. However, it might be relevant because federal Grand Juries do not ordinarily subpoena the targets of their investigations.

Libby and Hannah have been identified as possible targets of this Grand Jury, but Marshall does not indicate whether those two are the ones invoking the 5th. If White House staff other than Libby and Hannah are invoking the fifth it may indicate a larger criminal conspiracy than some have thought.

I have always thought that the White House Iraq Group ("WHIG") run by Andy Card was involved in the Plame leak since the WHIG was involved from the beginning on choosing what lies to tell (including the yellowcake lies), who would tell them, and at what place and time. The WHIG also was responsible for planning how the lies about Iraq and the invasion would benefit Bush and the republican party politically. Libby was a member of the WHIG as were Rove, Hughes, Hadley, Maitlin and several others.

In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, Card did not mention the WHIG but hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

The first days of September would bring some of the most important decisions of the prewar period: what to demand of the United Nations in the president's Sept. 12 address to the General Assembly, when to take the issue to Congress, and how to frame the conflict with Iraq in the midterm election campaign that began in earnest after Labor Day.

A "strategic communications" task force under the WHIG began to plan speeches and white papers. There were many themes in the coming weeks, but Iraq's nuclear menace was among the most prominent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39500-2003Aug9

An alternative explanation for some White House staff invoking the 5th is that it is just a result of overly cautious lawyering.

[UTUSN]

8. Kick n/t