President Bush's aides promise to cooperate with any DOJ inquiries, but admit that "Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role" in the leak. (Allen, "Bush Aides Say They'll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak," Wash. Post. Sept. 29, 2003 at A01)

Really? He had no plans to ask them if they broke the law and endangered national security?

Then how do you explain this statement...

Before an internal investigation is conducted, the White House rules out Karl Rove, vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams as possible sources for the news leak. (Mikkelsen, "White House Says Three Senior Aids Innocent In Leak," Reuters, October 7, 2003

So Bush was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in early October 2003 that those three individuals were innocent... yet 8 days previously aides were saying Bush didn't even ask them? Hmmm... believable? I think not.

My take on this is that Bush didn't ask those particular aides because he already knew who the leakers were. At least the 3 people named above. I'm not a lawyer, but this appears to be obstruction of justice to me. Or cheap propaganda... take your pick.

Then there's this gem the next day...

President Bush says that he is not sure if the Justice Department will determine source of leak. (Stevenson and Lichtblau, "Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests," New York Times, Oct. 8, 2003.)

Does he have ESP or was he saying they'd covered all their bases? Seems to me the president knows a lot more than he is letting on now... I'm pretty sure Fitz understands this as well.

This dovetails nicely with deFrank's recent article about Bush's displeasure with Rove...

An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

....

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.

Exactly. Back in early October 2003 Bush was convinced his "Brain" had everything under control and there was no way they would be caught...  that continued all the way up to July of this year when he changed his tune to only those convicted of a crime would be fired vs. those who had any involvement.

Second - How can this further directly tie back to Bush?

Because of the actions of his WH counsel... Alberto Gonzales... anything Gonzales does Bush knows about. That's the way it works.

Text of an e-mail to White House staff Tuesday from counsel Alberto R. Gonzales about the Justice Department's investigation about the leak of a CIA officer's identity:

"We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. ...you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department's investigation."

A follow up email was sent asking staff to save all records of any kind relating to the Ambassadors trip to Niger, his wife's relationship with the CIA, any contact with the press about these topics, and any contact at all with journalists Robert Novak, Knut Royce, Timothy M. Phelps

Eleven hours pass between when the White House is notified of the investigation and when administration officials asked staff to preserve records. (Editorial, "Investigating Leaks," NYT, Oct. 2, 2003)

11 hours is a long time to give Bush, Cheney et al time to cover their tracks... and who was responsible for the notification to staff... AG, the new AG.

Then there's his take on constitutional law and evidently what he has been advising his client, the President...

White House officials turn in investigation documents to meet 5 PM deadline. Administration officials said the White House counsel's office would review investigation materials before submitting them to the Justice Department to determine relevancy. Officials also left open the possibility that the counsel's office might assert executive privilege on some or withhold all or parts of others for national security reasons. Senator Schumer said, "I am very troubled by the fact that the White House counsel seems to be a gatekeeper, and I want to know what precautions Justice is taking to ensure that it gets all relevant information from the administration." (Stevenson and Lichtblau, "Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests," New York Times, Oct. 8, 2003.)

October 9, 2003 - Senators Daschle, Levin, Biden and Schumer call for appointment of a special counsel and note five missteps of the Administration/DOJ: 1) the DOJ waited three days before notifying the WH of the investigation, 2) the WH waited 11 hours before asking its staff to preserve any evidence, 3) the State and Defense Departments were tipped off that the investigation was coming to their divisions, 4) WH spokesperson Scott McClellan publicly ruled out Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot Abrams as suspects, and 5) the Attorney General's conflicts of interest.

October 14, 2003 - Senator Tom Daschle asked CIA director George Tenet to conduct a damage assessment for the leak. (Reuters, Oct. 14, 2003.)

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales claims that Congressional suggestions about how to handle the leak are unconstitutional: "We believe it is inconsistent with the constitution's separation-of-powers principles for members of Congress to direct the president's management of White House employees..."(Reuters, Oct. 15, 2003)

Third, and this is one we don't hear much about in the discussion of what charges could be forthcoming, but it is interesting that our favorite bulldog, Conyers, thinks something is fishy with the way the WH responded to the investigation...

January 26, 2004 - Congressman Conyers, along with Congresswoman Pelosi, Congressman Waxman and Senators Daschle, Lieberman and Rockefeller ask the GAO to investigate whether the White House's response to the leak conforms with administrative security requirements.

Finally... who has testified that we haven't been talking about much... and what are their relationships to W?

It is confirmed that Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, Scott McClellan, the President's press secretary and Adam Levine, a former press aide, testify before the grand jury. Several members of the Vice President's staff have also testified.

In addition to the grand jury proceedings, "prosecutors have conducted meetings with presidential aides that lawyers in the case described as tense and sometimes combative." Finally, Fitzgerald is conducting these interviews in secret, asking the subjects to sign confidentially agreements, and often staff are refusing to do so. [of course they can't sign, they needed to report back to Bush]

These lawyers also say that the prosecutors have evidence confirming that White House officials were extremely upset with the Wilson article, and with the CIA for sending him to Africa. (David Johnston, "Top Bush Aide is Questioned in CIA Leak," NY Times, Feb. 10, 2004; Allen and Schmidt, "Bush Aides Testify in Leak Probe," Wash. Post Feb. 10, 2004 at A1.)

So all the president's mouthpieces testified. This could be nothing, ruling them out as the leakers, but it also could open the door to discussing what the president knew and when he knew it.

What else?

Well the GJ also decided they needed to get phone records from Air Force One... doesn't mean Bush made the call to the journos, but it means he was on the plane and likely debriefed on the subject matter.

The grand jury subpoenas a week's worth of phone logs from Air Force One. (Mike Allen, "Leak Investigators to Get Phone Log," Wash. Post, Mar. 5, 2004)

Finally, our friend Alberto testified as well...

June 16, 2004 - White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales testifies before the grand jury. (Susan Schmidt, "Bush Aide Testifies in Leak Probes," Wash. Post, June 16, 2004 at A7.)

This is stronger in my opinion than the press aides testifying. The White House counsel testified... but about what? About what Bush knew? About the 11 hour delay in securing the records? About the instructions provided to the WH aides to not sign waivers? Who knows, but whatever it is it's not good news for the WH.

Does this mean the president will be indicted? I'd eat a shoe if that actually happened, so no, that's not what I'm getting at. What I do see though is that this goes further than just Cheney. McClellan and Bush lied directly to the American people (and potentially the GJ in the case of Scottie or Fitz in the case of Bush) and tried to obstruct justice.

My prediction... He ain't off the hook yet.

cross posted @ Jaded Reality