Ashcroft cites progress in CIA leak probe - CNN

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76

Ashcroft cites progress in CIA leak probe

'Leaks are a serious matter'
Thursday, October 16, 2003 Posted: 2127 GMT ( 5:27 AM HKT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday that progress is being made in the investigation into the leak of a CIA undercover officer's name.

Ashcroft repeated that he has not ruled out any option, including appointment of an outside special counsel to run the investigation, a move Bush administration critics say is necessary to ensure the probe is thorough.

"I am directing and will do everything within my power to make sure that this investigation is professional, thorough, prompt and complete," Ashcroft told reporters. "This is a matter of great concern to me. Leaks are a serious matter."

Democrats contend that Ashcroft should appoint an outside special counsel or, at the very least, recuse himself from involvement in the investigation.

"From conflicts of interest to inexplicable delays, the actions so far of the attorney general and the Justice Department make it far less likely that the culprit will be found," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York.

President Bush and Ashcroft have repeatedly expressed confidence that a team of career Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents will uncover who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover officer married to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson.

Ashcroft said the team is making progress in the case, although he provided no details.

Wilson has said he believes Bush administration officials leaked his wife's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in an attempt to discredit his contentions that the White House was manipulating intelligence to justify war with Iraq.

The White House has turned over thousands of documents to the Justice Department, including phone logs, e-mails and other records. The FBI has also been conducting interviews with administration officials and asked the departments of State and Defense and the CIA to preserve relevant records.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Has there been a reason given for not appointing an independent? It seems to me that unless someone is found out, there will always be questions and/or suspicions. We don't know for a fact that an independent would get different results, but it would do wonders for the PR of this administration.

That said, it's good news that Ashcroft is giving a confident report...I guess. What else would you expect to be said?
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Whether or not it was Rove, it's obviously someone very high up leaked and someone else very high up confirmed it. I'm not sure it is Rove, but it would seem like his style of smearing and he has done something like this before with Novak and got fired for it.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Let's see.....

Political appointee Atty General Ashcroft is heading the investigation.

The president's lawyer is vetting all documents turned over.

The president has declared 3 of the most likely culprits as innocent.

The president has said that it is unlikely the guilty party will be discovered.


Why would anyone be questioning the goals of those conducting this "investigation"
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
What kind of dummies does everyone think lives in the white house and there abouts. Folks learn to not leave evidence of this ascertion in traceable format.. really.. Even Conservatives learn stuff.. They knew, if they did it, that the public would know.. right? So if they did it there will only be Novak and who told him.. who will fall on his sword? doubt it.. only one Liddy per government existence.. The fellow who told Novak would know who told him to tell Novak.. and on.. and on..

It has to be a frustrated utterance.. based on political ideology.. someone who knew and was a defender of the administration.. maybe Rove.. maybe someone else but not with WH direction.. IMO
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Why bother with an investigation? BOBDN already declared it was Rove.

Becuase we still need to know who the second "senior White House official" is so you can defend both of the traitors.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: alchemize
Why bother with an investigation? BOBDN already declared it was Rove.

Becuase we still need to know who the second "senior White House official" is so you can defend both of the traitors.

:D
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: alchemize
Why bother with an investigation? BOBDN already declared it was Rove.

Becuase we still need to know who the second "senior White House official" is so you can defend both of the traitors.

Actually, I won't defend whoever it is, if/when they are brought to trial and convicted.

But I'm not the person crucifying folks. I prefer the rule of law, fact and logic. You prefer the rule of assumption, innuendo and rumour, as has been evidenced endlessly.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
<<I prefer the rule of law, fact and logic.>>

Cool! Another one for the vault. ;)
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<I prefer the rule of law, fact and logic.>>

Cool! Another one for the vault. ;)

The vault is the appropriate place for your storage Gaard. There it can gather dust...
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
I'll be keeping an eye on you alchy. When you least expect it...BAMM...out comes your quotes. ;)





And don't think you're not on my list either Corn. ;)