Justice Department Ignores Democrats' Calls for Special Counsel

CNSNews.com ^ | 10/01/03 | Jeff Johnson

[Loyal Buckeye]

Interesting point to me: Didn't Pres. Bush say yesterday that there were leaks and he wanted an investigation into leaks arising inside and OUTSIDE the Administration? This was a subtle point that is not being highlighted.

[Arrowhead1952]

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction," Novak explained. "Another senior official told me the same thing."

Something is very strange about this statement.

There are two people who normally have been very critical of the Bush administration, yet remain totally quiet about this issue. Why haven't El Schneakmiester and Hitlery said one thing about the leak?

HMMMMMMMMMMMM!! Makes one wonder!

[Daveinyork]

I have a perfect candidate for an independent counsel to investigate this case - Kenneth Starr.

[Victor]

"...He also refused to answer any questions about the probe because it is "an ongoing criminal investigation."

Gotta love it....Jake Reno's standard answer...right up the stupid Dems' arse.

[RJCogburn]

As Ashcroft has shown no interest at all in pursuing government corruption in other, more clear examples, it will be of no surprise if he does nothing here.

[johnb838]

Somethin' really don't smell right about this affair. I wouldn't put it past the rat enemies to have manufactured the whole thing -- including the leak. After all, they're the ones that hate the intelligence services. And they're teh ones that are well known for leaking because they think they're more important than some spook. If this lady was so great, why is she married to a loser like Wilson?

[Diogenesis]

"If this lady was so great, why is she married to a loser like Wilson?"

Maybe the stolen FBI files (and their influence)
are much more widespread than originally thought.

[Redcoat LI]

Just how undercover can you be, if you are married to a diplomat? She'd really stand out when she showed up at an embassy ball wearing a ninja suit.I don't buy it.

[ChuckShick]

If she were undercover then why didn't the CIA give the Glomar response, which is typically used in document requests?

[Guyin4Os]

...undercover for three decades ....

Reports say she is 40 years old. Did the CIA employ her when she was 10? Now we have a greater scandal, breach of child employment laws. Endangerment of a minor, forcing her into covert ops while still a child. It's time we investigate the CIA!!!

[roses of sharon]

Johnson has been bashing Bush for 3 years on Chrissy Matthews show.

[ClearCase_guy]

I rather suspect Johnson is like the Letter-to-the-editor "Republicans" who say they used to be right-wing Clinton haters, but this latest stunt by President Bush (whatever it happens to be that week) has turned them into Democrats. I say he's lying about his political allegiance.

[Redcoat LI]

Thats another thing,Novak called the C.I.A,and they confirmed her identity and that she worked for them.If they were that concerned about not compromising her wouldn't they have,at the very least say"no comment", or better still"who?". This is as fishy as Hillaries'(fill in the blank).

[CaptRon]

She may very well have been undercover, but no definitive confirmation of her status has yet been made.

Which I find very odd at this late date.

[cordeiro]

Two points:

Compare the Bush reaction to the DOJ investigation - mostly a 'bring it on' mentality. If there was a leak of classified information, find the perp and we'll hang him/her from the White House balcony.

Now how would Clinton handle the situation? Delay, delay, delay. Deny, deny, deny. Bold faced outright lies from the press room.

Enough said.

[mewzilla]

All I know is that some talking head on one of the news nets said that intent to harm was needed for a conviction.

[zook]

Bob Novak says otherwise-that she was not an undercover agent. If she was, why would the CIA even have admitted to him over the phone that she worked for them? Novak also points out that the CIA refers an average of one case like this per week to the Justice Department; thus, it's highly "routine."

[zook]

That's just one guy, Larry Johnson. Why should we believe him any more that we should believe Novak, Wilson, or anyone else?

Why would the CIA have told Novak she worked for them, if indeed she was an "undercover" agent?

[AntiGuv]

Bob Novak says otherwise-that she was not an undercover agent.

Bob Novak says he was not told she was an undercover agent.

...it's highly "routine."

When was the last "highly routine" investigation that you recall?

[zook]

According to Novak, Justice investigates cases like this, i.e., the disclosure of an agent's name, on an average of once per week. This current investigation actually began early last summer. It's being hyped now as part of the ongoing Democrat effort to undermine and damage President Bush.

It's important to note that Justice is not actually "investigating the White House," but rather, are investigating the identification of a CIA employee who, based on my reading of the facts, was probably not an undercover operative.