comments_image -

Why Bush Needs a Lawyer

The president's decision to consult a private lawyer in relation to the Valerie Plame investigation suggests that he knows more than he's telling.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Recently, the White House acknowledged that President Bush is talking with, and considering hiring, a non-government attorney, James E. Sharp. Sharp is being consulted, and may be retained, regarding the current grand jury investigation of the leak revealing the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA covert operative.

(Plame is the wife of Bush critic and former ambassador Joe Wilson; I discussed the leak itself in a prior column, and then discussed further developments in the investigation in a follow-up column.)

This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development. The President of the United States is potentially hiring a private criminal defense lawyer. Unsurprisingly, the White House is doing all it can to bury the story, providing precious little detail or context for the President's action.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush explained his action by saying, "This is a criminal matter. It's a serious matter," but he gave no further specifics. White House officials, too, would not say exactly what prompted Bush to seek the outside advice, or whether he had been asked to appear before the grand jury.

Nonetheless, Bush's action, in itself, says a great deal. In this column, I will analyze what its implications may be.

The Valerie Plame Grand Jury Investigation

The Plame investigation took a quantum leap in December 2003, when Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. Ashcroft's deputy appointed a special counsel, who has powers and authority tantamount to those of the attorney general himself. That means, in practice, that Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States Attorney from Chicago, does not report to the Justice Department regarding his investigation. (In this sense, Fitzgerald's position is similar to that of an Independent Counsel under the now-defunct independent counsel statute.)

Those familiar with Fitzgerald's inquiry tell me that the investigative team of attorneys is principally from his office in Chicago, and that they do not really know their way around the workings of Washington. This has resulted in an investigation that is being handled Chicago-style -- not D.C. -- style. That's significant because in Washington, there is more of a courtesy and protocol toward power than exists in the Windy City.

The Fitzgerald investigation has not made friends with the Washington press corps, many of who are being subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. Those journalists with whom I have spoken say they are not willing before any grand jury to reveal their sources. So this issue is headed toward a showdown. And under existing law, a journalist cannot refuse to provide information to a grand jury.

Nor, based on the few existing precedents, can a sitting president refuse to give testimony to a grand jury. And that appears to be the broad, underlying reason Bush is talking with Washington attorney James Sharp.

Reasons the Plame Grand Jury May Want Bush's Testimony

Why might the grand jury wish to hear Bush's testimony? Most of the possible answers are not favorable for Bush.

There is, of course, one totally benign way to view the situation. "It is hard for me to imagine that Pat Fitzgerald is going to be going aggressively after the president," one Washington lawyer told the Los Angeles Times. "My guess is that he feels a need to conduct an interview because he needs to be in a position to say, 'I have done everything that could be done.'" The lawyer added, "If [Fitzgerald] closes the case without an indictment and has not interviewed the president, he is going to be criticized."

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.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Occupy Protesters Mic-Check Palin During CPAC Speech

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Apple, Accustomed to Profits and Praise, Faces Outcry for Labor Practices at Chinese Factories

By Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez | Democracy Now!

 
 
Could Santorum Actually Beat Romney? And Would the Obama Campaign be Ready?

By Steve M. | Booman Tribune

 
 
Bill Moyers: The Economy Has Been Engineered to Screw Over Millennials (With an AlterNet Shoutout!)

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Maher: Conservatives Are the Ones Dividing the Country

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
In Kansas, Is Catholic Church Trying to Destroy A Victim's Advocates Organization?

By Julie Cain | Ms. Magazine Blog

 
 
Obama vs. the Concern Trolls on Nonsense "Religious Liberty" Issue

By Digby | Hullabaloo

 
 
At CPAC, Santorum Surges Despite Idiotic Claims; Romney Poses as 'Severe' Conservative; Gingrich Makes War on GOP

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Wisconsin's Gov. Walker Appeals to CPAC Crowd for Help Fending Off Recall

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
In Birth Control Debate, Cable News Disproportionately Asked Men What They Thought of Women's Health

By Faiz Shakir and Adam Peck | Think Progress

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]