| |
Valerie Plame, Bush, Cheney, and Treason in the White House
By Robert Wilkinson
Despite charges and countercharges during this bizarre election season, there is a major story that the administration is trying to ignore involving treasonous activity by at least one person in the White House.
As most of you know, Valerie Plame's husband was the one who wouldn't verify the "yellowcake" uranium blather, and someone leaked her identity to a newspaper columnist or six who were more than glad to publish it for all the world to see. Remember, this is a big crime. One cannot do this. And somehow, the threads seem to lead to someone, perhaps several, in the White House.
The backstory: The situation is so serious that a few weeks ago our Prez consulted an outside attorney. Dick Cheney too. It's a very big deal when a sitting President and his Veep consult with a private attorney during an on-going investigation of a capital crime. Funny how the "law abiding" Neocons run like roaches to the best attorney money can buy when they smell trouble. Remember how quick they were to condemn Clinton? Well, it's interesting that those who claim to have "nothing to hide" are the first ones to hire expensive mouthpieces when the words "grand jury" come up. Hmmm.
That brings us to today's offering. It comes from an article by John Dean called "The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation". John Dean, former White House counsel, describes it as "a rather stunning and extraordinary development." Apparently the stakes are pretty high.
As most of you following the story know, John Ashcroft, no friend of Lady Liberty, recused himself and appointed a special counsel who does not have to report to the Justice Dept. The man in charge of the investigation, a Chicago attorney, we are told is somewhat unburdened of political baggage as well as the usual niceties that politically connected people usually show each other, given his tenure outside the Beltway. He has no debts to pay to the D.C. press corps, and has been issuing subpoenas requiring reporters to provide information to a Grand Jury.
There are no precedents for "a sitting President to refuse to give testimony to a grand jury." Dean states, "it seems unlikely that they are interviewing the President merely as a matter of completeness, or in order to be able to defend their actions in front of the public. Asking a President to testify - or even be interviewed - remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion. It is not done lightly. Doing so raises separation of powers concerns that continue to worry many."
To cut to the chase, at present it seems that someone on the White House staff may have spoken to the Prez about the leak and the leaker. If so, it calls into question Bush's assertion that he did not know of anybody in his administration who leaked classified information.
If this is true, it becomes an issue of obstruction of justice, and perhaps with conspiracy, since there was more than one government source for the story as fed to Robert Novak. There will undoubtedly be more than a passing interest by the members of the Grand Jury as to exactly what Bush knew and when he knew it, and his underlings as well.
Here we've all been given a civics lesson by that great show "The West Wing." Remember when President Bartlett was being investigated, and he went to the White House Counsel? In that episode we were taught that there is no attorney-client privilege between a President and the White House Counsel. You and I have it, but not the Prez, or Dick Cheney, either. Even they don't get to use the taxpayers' money to defend their mischief after a certain point.
That's why Bush went scurrying to the highest priced mouthpiece his money could buy. Dean points out that this is a weird form of even-handed karmic payback for Ken Starr's destruction of attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients. Starr's arguments succeeded, and he used them against Hillary and Bill in a tragic waste of taxpayer dollars. But then, if they couldn't have attorney-client privilege, neither can Dubya. And Dick Cheney also hired some high priced private talent.
Dean goes on to say that a former federal prosecutor he talked to "is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak." Basically, if he has no knowledge, he doesn't need an attorney. He shrugs his shoulders, knows nothing, and life goes on -- unless he actually knows something, in which case he's a co-conspirator to a major federal crime that endangered the life of a highly placed intelligence agent. Apparently he can take the fifth, or assert executive privilege, but the first is politically risky, and the second probably not sustainable. The cover-up became unfashionable with that other Republican icon, Richard Nixon. So did assertions of "executive privilege" to dodge a crime. Cheney's tried a variation to block the energy scam, but the verdict's still out on that one. Stay tuned.
Personally, it sounds treasonous that more than one person in the White House discussed the outing of an intelligence agent for political purposes. Surely at least as much as John Walker Lindh, the misguided youth who is now doing hard time for doing less damage to America than at least two people in the White House. I'm just glad that Dubya's assured us that he wants to get to the bottom of this. I'm feeling better already.
Who knows? Maybe when all is said and done, we'll find out that Bush was just praying a little too out loud asking his "higher father" to materialize some yellowcake and accidentally spoke Valerie Plame's name to someone who just happened to speak to someone who just happened.... In which case, it creates the question: Is having a little fun in the White House closets, a la Warren Harding (who perfected the art!) more immoral and impeachable than putting our intelligence agents' lives at risk to serve partisan political ends? Where's the attorney general when we need him? More concerned with draping blankets over statues of women than aggressively pursuing political cronies in high position who break laws and endanger human life? Hmmm.....
|
|
