Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (1269)	2/9/2004 11:17:45 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Top Bush Aide Is Questioned in C.I.A. Leak By DAVID JOHNSTON Published: February 10, 2004 ASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — President Bush's press secretary and a former White House press aide testified on Friday to a federal grand jury investigating who improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer, the press secretary and a lawyer for the aide said on Monday. The appearances of the press secretary, Scott McClellan, and the press aide, Adam Levine, reflected what lawyers in the case said was the quickening pace of a criminal inquiry in which a special prosecutor is examining conversations between journalists and the White House. When he was asked by reporters on Monday whether he had been questioned in the case, Mr. McClellan said he had been filmed by news organizations as he emerged from the federal courthouse. "I think that confirms it for you," he said. On Monday, a lawyer for Mr. Levine said the White House aide had also appeared on Friday. Mr. Levine left the Bush administration in December after working as the principal liaison between the White House and television networks. Mr. Levine's lawyer, Daniel J. French, said, "In keeping with the president's request, Mr. Levine is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation and in doing so appeared before the grand jury on Friday." In addition to the grand jury appearances, which are believed to include other Bush administration officials, prosecutors have conducted meetings with presidential aides that lawyers in the case described as tense and sometimes combative. Armed with handwritten White House notes, detailed cellphone logs and copies of e-mail messages between White House aides and reporters, prosecutors have demanded explanations of conversations between aides and reporters for some of the country's largest news organizations that under ordinary circumstances would never be publicly discussed. So far, no reporter has been questioned or subpoenaed. One set of documents that prosecutors repeatedly referred to in their meetings with White House aides are extensive notes compiled by I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser. Prosecutors have described the notes as "copious," the lawyers said. In addition, the prosecutors have asked about cellphone calls made last July to and from Catherine J. Martin, a press secretary for Mr. Cheney. In their discussions with White House aides, prosecutors have been careful to avoid signaling their overall theory of the case. Nor have they given hints about who they suspect leaked the information to Robert Novak, who wrote in a Washington Post column last July that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy, was Valerie Plame, a C.I.A. undercover agent. Mr. Wilson traveled to Africa in February 2002 at the C.I.A.'s request, but found no evidence to support the conclusion that Niger may have supplied raw uranium ore to Iraq in the 1990's. In an opinion article published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." The lawyers said that prosecutors have cited evidence that White House officials were extremely upset by Mr. Wilson's article and were angry at the C.I.A. for sending him to Africa — in contrast to the White House's effort to portray the reaction as only mildly concerned. Even so, the lawyers said, the prosecutors have not indicated whether they have any evidence that White House aides planned to take concerted action against Mr. Wilson by disclosing his wife's name and job. But prosecutors have said they would charge White House aides with obstruction of justice or false statements if they failed to provide truthful statements about specific conversations that some aides could not clearly recall among the hundreds of conversations with some White House reporters, the lawyers said. Prosecutors have emphasized the seriousness of the case, informing the White House employees that they are "subjects" of the inquiry. In legal terminology, a subject is in potentially greater jeopardy of being accused of a crime than a witness. But a subject is in a less threatening situation than a target, someone who may expect to be charged. nytimes.com