John Dean:Serious Implications of Bush lawyering up in Plame Investigation

[TruthIsAll]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0604-09.htm

snip

But from what I have learned from those who have been quizzed by the Fitzgerald investigators it seems unlikely that they are interviewing the President merely as a matter of completeness, or in order to be able to defend their actions in front of the public. Asking a President to testify - or even be interviewed - remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion. It is not done lightly. Doing so raises separation of powers concerns that continue to worry many.


Undoubtedly, those from the White House have been asked if they spoke with the president about the leak. It appears that one or more of them may indeed have done so. If so - and if the person revealed the leaker's identity to the President, or if the President decided he preferred not to know the leaker's identity. -- then this fact could conflict with Bush's remarkably broad public statements on the issue. He has said that he did not know of "anybody in administration who leaked classified information." He has also said that he wanted "to know the truth" about this leak.

snip


It is possible that Bush is consulting Sharp only out of an excess of caution - despite the fact that he knows nothing of the leak, or of any possible coverup of the leak. But that's not likely.

On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.

What advice might Bush get from a private defense counsel? The lawyer I consulted opined that, "If he does have knowledge about the leak and does not plan to disclose it, the only good legaladvice would be to take the Fifth, rather than lie. The political fallout is a separate issue."

I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law -- opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."


more...

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. "remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion"....

Asking a President to testify - or even be interviewed - remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion. It is not done lightly. Doing so raises separation of powers concerns that continue to worry many.




Hmm, but it was okay to drag Bill Clinton in re: blue dress stains? :wtf:

[TruthIsAll]

2. You have just hit on the unbelievable hypocrisy of the media....

(WSJ, FOX, other MSM reporters) who decry this investigation of WH TREASON as being nothing more than a Rove hatchet job on the part of Dems. They spout WH talking points which are false and misleading in spite of the evidence. They are digging themselves into a hole so deep that the GOP won't recover for 20 years and will forever be known as the party of treason.

But they were gung-ho to impeach Clinton for that stained dress.

[NewJeffCT]

6. well, the sex life of a president is very sensitive you know

I mean, it was a crisis of an epic scale - and then some. It turned every right wing whacko into the country into a presidential penis obsessed right wing whacko... just think of the latent homosexuality there.

[enough]

3. Very interesting article

snip>

I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law -- opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."

That may not stop Bush from trying to invoke executive privilege, however - or at least from talking to his attorney about the option. As I have discussed in one of my prior columns, Vice President Dick Cheney has tried to avoid invoking it in implausible circumstances - in the case that is now before the U.S .Supreme Court. Rather he claims he is beyond the need for the privilege, and simply cannot be sued.

Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on. Clearly, the investigation is heading toward a culmination of some sort. And it should be interesting.

snip>

[DeepModem Mom]

4. kick

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Just to be clear...

...this piece is more than a year old:

Published on Friday, June 4, 2004 by FindLaw

Not that it changes anything.