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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (128195)	4/2/2004 10:19:43 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Inquiry widens in leak of CIA name; Possibility exists of charges other than for any illegal disclosure By DAVID JOHNSTON AND RICHARD W. STEVENSON THE NEW YORK TIMES Friday, April 2, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a CIA officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials said. In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and, for the first time, raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself. The expansion of the inquiry's scope comes at a time when prosecutors, after a hiatus of about a month, appear to be preparing to seek additional testimony before a federal grand jury, according to lawyers with clients in the case. It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment. The broadened scope of the inquiry is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago. Republican lawyers worried that the leak case, in the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, might grow into an unwieldy, time-consuming and politically charged inquiry, like the sprawling independent-counsel inquiries of the 1990s, which distracted and damaged the Clinton administration. Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered in the case and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation conducted last fall by the FBI and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to FBI agents with their lawyers present; others met informally with agents in their offices and even at bars near the White House. The White House last year took the unusual step of specifically denying involvement in the leak on the part of several top administration officials, including Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, has said repeatedly no one wants to get to the bottom of the case more than Bush. But Bush himself has said he does not know whether investigators will ever be able to determine who disclosed the identity of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, to Robert Novak, who wrote in his syndicated column last July that Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a CIA employee. Wilson was a critic of the administration's Iraq policies. Democrats have accused the White House of leaking his wife's name in retaliation because Wilson, in a July 6, 2003, op-ed commentary in The New York Times, disputed Bush's statement in his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear bomb and had sought to purchase uranium in Africa. The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements made by various witnesses in FBI interviews, the lawyers and officials said. The conflicts are said to be buttressed by documents, including memos, e-mail messages and phone records turned over by the White House. seattlepi.nwsource.com