CIA seeks probe of White House:
The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman's husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush's since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa.
The way this works is that the CIA does its own investigation to determine whether there is reason to believe laws were broken. But the CIA has no law enforcement powers itself. So it makes a referral to the Justice Department, which obviously does have law enforcement powers. If the folks at Justice concur in the Agency's determination that there is reason to believe that laws were broken, they then task the FBI with mounting a formal criminal investigation. [...]On it's face, this news tonight almost certainly means that the CIA's internal investigation concluded that laws were broken or that there was sufficient evidence of wrong-doing for a criminal investigation to be undertaken. The decision on whether to task the FBI with investigating the White House is now in hands of John Ashcroft.
The most unfortunate part of this is the last line: "The decision on whether to task the FBI with investigating the White House is now in hands of John Ashcroft.". It'll be interesting to see how it's handled. Is there a mechanism - or even a precendence - for overriding the AG on the grounds that he's not acting in the best interests of the country?
Is there a mechanism - or even a precendence - for overriding the AG on the grounds that he's not acting in the best interests of the country?
hmm. it doesn't seem so. my (non-lawyer) ass was going to say that that's what the Office of the the Independent Council is for, but i forgot that the law providing for that has since expired, and the AG has far more leeway to make their decision- which doesn't seem to be reviewable. Actually, even under the initial 1978 law, it doesn't appear that the courts could override the AG's decision not to appoint a special prosecutor.
I guess failing that, congress can launch its own inquiry into the matter... :/
My recollection is that any censure of Ashcroft belongs to the office of Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is currently Ted Olsen who lost his wife on one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade center.
Between that and the fact that Olsen also handed over Florida to the Bushies makes it doubtful that Olsen will ever stand up to his boss.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20010226&s=editors
No, the office of the Solicitor General is to defend the United States in court; Ted Olson generally files Supreme Court briefs and argues before the Justices.
If anyone has oversight, it's Congress.
Wilson sure looks french to me.
Is that the press has the names of the leakers, but isn't releasing them because it ruins the insider access that they have to an already tight-lipped administration.
The White House are daring the press to cough up the names and go public so that it then shut them off from all access.
Well, the press would probably phrase that as, "we don't reveal our sources, even if they committed a felony."
Of course we know they don't really have that much spine.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/33106.html
Wouldn't that be heartwarming, if they could protect their sources?