Bush Retains Attorney Over CIA Leak - Plame

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in620810.shtml

(CBS/AP) President Bush has consulted an outside lawyer in case he needs to retain him in the grand jury investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative last year, the White House said Wednesday.

There was no indication that Bush is a target of the leak investigation, but the president has decided that in the event he needs an attorney's advice, "he would retain him," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said.

The lawyer is Jim Sharp, Buchan said, confirming a report by CBS Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.

"The president has said that everyone should cooperate in this matter and that would include himself," the spokeswoman said.

She deflected questions about whether Bush had been asked to appear before a grand jury in the case.

In an exceptionally secretive process, Roberts reports, a federal grand jury has been hearing testimony since January from dozens of administration and government officials. The probe is aiming to pin down the source of the leak that identified Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, as an undercover CIA agent.

Wilson charges that Plame's cover was blown as payback for his challenge to President Bush's claim in last year's State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was actively shopping for uranium to build a bomb.

"Saddam Hussein has been trying to buy uranium from Africa," Mr. Bush said in the Jan. 28, 2003 address.

Wilson has pointed fingers at the Vice President's office -- and the President's political director Karl Rove -- in a recent book claiming Rove told a reporter that "Wilson's wife is fair game."

The Justice department assigned a special team of investigators to the case last fall. It demanded thousands of e-mails and other correspondence from the White House -- and has either interviewed or brought before the grand jury several high ranking officials.

Sources tell CBS News President Bush has retained Washington Attorney Jim Sharp to represent him in the Wilson case.

[strandinthewind]

Just wait until W asks the taxpayers to pay for it, which is his right and many others have asked as well

[DeeGeMe]

So he's "lawyered up" huh? Hmmm. . . . Hee-Hee-Hee. I'm loving it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Just wait until W asks the taxpayers to pay for it, which is his right and many others have asked as well

Which is abhorrent.

Of course, the source will never be discovered, even though it came from the WH.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Which is abhorrent.

Of course, the source will never be discovered, even though it came from the WH.

Yea, I tend to agree. But, by the same token, one false charge, that could be made by anyone, could cost someone a million dollars in attorney's fees. I mean look at La Lewinsky. She was a pawn in that whole mess. She had nothing to do with Whitewater, etc. Although she was a witness to demonstrate an alleged pattern of sexual abuse, the way the gov. treated her was horrid. So, I guess that if the gov. cannot prove its main case as it could not with Clinton, they ought to pay the bill of the wrongly accused party.

Iterestingly, I am unsure of W's hiring of a lawyer in the instant case qualifies W for reimbursement. This is just for Congressional testimony on a matter realted to being the Pres. Clinton's was unrelated to his Presidency in that it happened before it, etc. So, who knows. If it does qualify, I think W would be wise not to claim it as he can clearly afford the limited amount we are talking about here - assuming it does not drag on and on. But, I wonder if it is not automatically paid for by the Gov. because it is directly related to his Presidency. Interesting question.

For the record and to head off at the pass any comment to the contrary - I am just bringing up Clinton because he and the others in that matter are the most recent lawyer fee in question. I am not bringing it up in any way to justify or excuse W I would bring up Reagan, Ollie North, Bush I, and others, but I am unfamiliar with them, even though I think they claimed reimbursement too.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I would bring up Reagan, Ollie North, Bush I, and others, but I am unfamiliar with them, even though I think they claimed reimbursement too.

Ollie North, the convicted war criminal? One of the biggest pieces of **** that ever graced this earth. I'm still shocked that his conviction was overturned. But, when it was overtruned on a technicality, the courts did say that regardless of the technicality that got him freed, he was guilty as sin. Now he tries to lie about and say he was never convicted or investigated. What a sack of ****.

And now he has his own show on Faux News.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Ollie North, the convicted war criminal? One of the biggest pieces of **** that ever graced this earth. I'm still shocked that his conviction was overturned. But, when it was overtruned on a technicality, the courts did say that regardless of the technicality that got him freed, he was guilty as sin. Now he tries to lie about and say he was never convicted or investigated. What a sack of ****.

And now he has his own show on Faux News.

Ollie North, the great American hero - He was just following orders What a joke. And - people just love him to this day I just do not get it. AND - he tends to ruin JAG, one of my fav. shows, because he is on it every now and then and I just cannot watch it when he is on it

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Ollie North, the great American hero - He was just following orders What a joke. And - people just love him to this day I just do not get it. AND - he tends to ruin JAG, one of my fav. shows, because he is on it every now and then and I just cannot watch it when he is on it

He's a wet fart of a human turd. The Nuremburg defense doesn't work, let alone from his sorry ass. He really is pathetic. I mean, he's right up there on my ****-list next to Dubya. I'm glad that he lost when he ran for governor (or senate, I can't remember which). He's one person this world would be better off without.

He went on Randi Rhodes a couple years ago, not knowing what kind of radio person she was, and he walked out when she said he was a war criminal and should be in jail. I'll try to find the sound file for you.

PS: I can't watch Law & Order when Fred Thompson is on it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

He's a wet fart of a human turd. The Nuremburg defense doesn't work, let alone from his sorry ass. He really is pathetic. I mean, he's right up there on my ****-list next to Dubya. I'm glad that he lost when he ran for governor (or senate, I can't remember which). He's one person this world would be better off without.

He went on Randi Rhodes a couple years ago, not knowing what kind of radio person she was, and he walked out when she said he was a war criminal and should be in jail. I'll try to find the sound file for you.

PS: I can't watch Law & Order when Fred Thompson is on it.

LOL - talk about an idiot not to research the talk show host and/or what they are capacble of. He prob. thought if was going to be a Larry King like interview

LOL - I do not mind Fred as much - it is just that Ollie is so MF repugant.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

LOL - talk about an idiot not to research the talk show host and/or what they are capacble of. He prob. thought if was going to be a Larry King like interview

LOL - I do not mind Fred as much - it is just that Ollie is so MF repugant.

He couldn't believe it. She had court transcripts and documents right on her desk as she asked him questions and he even denied ever being investigated. Here's the transcript of the interview:

http://therandirhodesshow.com/archiv...llienorth.html

Oliver North was in-studio on Friday... He almost made it to the end of the interview with Randi--when he abruptly threw off his headphones and bolted to the door.

The Randi Rhodes VS Oliver North Transcript:
A Take Back The Media Exclusive:

One of our fabulous Media Watchers took the time to create a transcript of the drubbing Randi Rhodes gave Oliver North in her Studio. It was so intense that North threw down his headphones and fled from the station. Enjoy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RANDI: Can you kill somebody with a paper clip?

NORTH: I can if you want me to show you how, but then I'd have to kill you.

RANDI: Well, that's ok. I mean, really, can it be done?

NORTH: Sure it can.

RANDI: Really.

NORTH: Take that thing and stick it real deep in your eye, and you'll die.

RANDI: So it's an eye thing.

RANDI'S HUSBAND JIM: It's an eye thing.

RANDI: Can you snap my husband's neck like a pencil?

NORTH: No, not like a pencil.

RANDI: Not like a pencil.

NORTH: All those things can be done; and, of course, we train people to do those kinds of things in the armed forces.

RANDI: Why are you standing up?

NORTH: I've been sitting on my duff all day in the other studio.

RANDI: Oh, I know. I asked you what you were talking about on your show, and you said you were talking about Tom Daschle. What were you saying about Tom Daschle?

NORTH: Nothing kind. I mean, Daschle's gone on the attack against talk radio, and made some very irresponsible claims.

RANDI: He missed the point, I agree. I have to agree with you. I think that, you know - I'm a devout liberal, and I say it proudly - but the truth of the matter is he missed the point, that talk can incite violence or that Rush Limbaugh is inciting violence against him.

NORTH: And then made the point that it was just like what's being taught to people over in the Middle East today, where radical - I've got the quote, and you've probably got it. It's outrageous.

RANDI: We played it. It misses the point. The point I think that needs to be made, and the point that , if you are an honest person, that needs to be made is that, if you are a conservative talk radio is talk radio, - and there are very few voices like mine, and voices like mine don't get syndicated on Clear Channel because of guys like Rush Limbaugh. And it kind of limits the range of things that are being talked about on talk radio.

NORTH: Clear Channel, Fox News Radio, Rush Limbaugh, no matter who it is, they will put on what people want to hear.

RANDI: That's not true. I have actually, I have actually heard that Rush has said that he would take his show elsewhere if they did anything with mine. Now that's not freedom of the marketplace.

NORTH: I have heard that, and I can't comment on it.

RANDI: I know you've heard it, because I know you're friends. And you know it's true.

NORTH: We are friends.

RANDI: I know you are, and that's great. But you know that's what he does. And that is the hypocrisy of conservatism. They scream free marketplace, but God help you if you don't agree.

NORTH: If you could pull the numbers that Rush Limbaugh pulls, then they would put you up there -

RANDI: Oh, you gotta be kidding me. Rush is twenty-first in his home market, and I'm two, I'm number two.

NORTH: Then somewhere along the line, it's the profit motive that pilots this business. You and I both know it's the numbers.

RANDI: Yes, but when you have a guy who's making X amount of dollars, and you have this person who's only worked in the one market, and he says, "Hey, fine, I'll just take my stuff and go to Westwood."

NORTH: Randi, my heart bleeds for you.

RANDI: Yeah, I know. This is the hypocrisy of conservatism. What do you make of Homeland Security and how do you feel about your old boss Admiral Poindexter heading up the Total Information Awareness Department?

NORTH: They couldn't have found a better person to do it. He's a person who is wedded to the idea of the Constitution of the United States. He's taken an oath to defend it for the better part of thirty-five years of his life.

RANDI: And then breaks his oath.

NORTH: He never broke his oath.

RANDI: He was convicted, what are you talking about? He lied to Congress, like you did. I mean -

NORTH: One of the reasons why liberals don't make it in radio is they can't tell the truth. Listen -

RANDI: I have the whole thing -

NORTH: No one has convicted me of lying to Congress.

RANDI: Lawrence Walsh and I are very good friends. And Lawrence Walsh and I have talked about you at length any number of times.

NORTH: I think that's wonderful that Lawrence Walsh finally has an outlet.

RANDI: And Lawrence Walsh found you guilty of lying to Congress, shredding documents, and then it was overturned on appeal. These are the facts.

NORTH: Randi, first of all, those aren't the facts.

RANDI: Yes they are.

NORTH: No one even charged me with lying to Congress.

RANDI: Oh, please.

NORTH: I wasn't even charged with it.

RANDI: What were you charged with?

NORTH: It was a 23-count indictment. If you've got Lawrence Walsh's book there, you ought to be able to read it.

RANDI: I did. And what were you charged with?

NORTH: You asked me a question, let me answer the question. What he wanted to do was to indict dozens of people close to Ronald Reagan in hopes that one of us would sell Ronald Reagan down the river. What Ronald Reagan did was not violate the Boland Amendment, which said, and I quote the Boland Amendment, this is from memory - it goes back 15 years - ready? "No funds made available by this act shall be used for the purposes or which shall have the effect of providing direct or indirect support for military or paramilitary operations against the government of Nicaragua." And you know what?

RANDI: And?

NORTH: No funds were made available by -

RANDI: Oh, God! You're hallucinating. I don't know how you twist this in your head.

NORTH: This is why liberals don't make it, Randi - look at the facts.

RANDI: This is why conservatives are hypocrites. The fact is you were convicted. It was overturned -

NORTH: What was I convicted of?

RANDI: - for immunity, for using immunized testimony.

NORTH: You don't get convicted for that.

RANDI: No, that's how you were -

Male Voice: That's how it was overturned.

RANDI: Yeah.

NORTH: Here's what happened. After the trial, Randi -

RANDI: No, you're going to talk your way through this. No, you're denying that you were ever convicted in a court of law?

NORTH: That's right, I'm denying it.

RANDI: Wow. That's amazing. That's really frightening to me. You were convicted.

NORTH: All 23 counts?

RANDI: Just basically. What was the, what was the thrust of the case against you?

NORTH: Le's just deal with the -

RANDI: Why was it a crime? Why was it a criminal case?

NORTH: Well, one of the things that they wanted to do was they wanted to try people for violating the Boland Amendment.

RANDI: Yes, exactly.

NORTH: Do you remember what the Boland Amendment said?

RANDI: Yes, it said, "No more money to Nicaragua." And you took $25 million from the Saudis, laundered it, and then you gave it to them.

NORTH: It was $35 million.

RANDI: According to him it was $25 million.

NORTH: The guy can't even count.

RANDI: Oh, well, so Lawrence Walsh -

NORTH: That's why the Special Prosecutor -

RANDI: But here's the point that I want to talk about. I want to talk about Poindexter.

NORTH: You asked me a question, let me answer the question.

RANDI: Right.

NORTH: See that's - you don't like the constitution.

RANDI: Poindexter was convicted.

NORTH: You don't like the constitution.

R Secor pleaded guilty. No, all these people pled guilty. All these people are convicted, including yourself.

NORTH: So you want to indict me on your show for what others did.

RANDI: There were fourteen convictions - there were fourteen convictions in Iran-Contra, and you were one of them, and you want to stand here and tell me that you weren't.

NORTH: I'm telling you the constitution of the United States says that someone has their conviction overturned on appeal -

RANDI: Okay. So I agree you were overturned on appeal, but were you convicted?

NORTH: Excuse me. Excuse me. Are you going to let me finish my sentence?

RANDI: Was there a moment in time when you -

NORTH: Okay, you go ahead and answer the question.

RANDI: - was there a moment in time when you were convicted of a crime against the United States of America?

NORTH: You are answering my questions for me.

RANDI: I am asking the question. Was there a time when you were convicted for a crime against the United States of America?

NORTH: Randi, let me state, the way the constitution works, the way the constitution works, Randi -

RANDI: Fine. If this is the way you want to be known, that's fine with me. I thought you were more honest. I thought you would admit it. I really did.

NORTH: Admit what, Randi?

RANDI: I thought that you would admit that you were, that you had been convicted at one time, and that it was overturned.

NORTH: That's not the way the constitution works.

RANDI: Oh, god.

NORTH: You don't like the constitution, that's your problem.

RANDI: You didn't like the constitution. You violated Congress' order not to do this stuff.

NORTH: What? Well, then, why didn't they try me for that?

RANDI: You just told me it was $35 million that you took from Saudi Arabia.

NORTH: Well, actually, I didn't take it.

RANDI: It had to be laundered.

NORTH: It wasn't laundered. It was deposited from one bank account in the Saudi government to another bank account that the Nicaraguan Resistance had.

RANDI: With Reagan's knowledge?

NORTH: Oh, absolutely, he asked for it.

RANDI: So what was the problem?

NORTH: I don't know.

RANDI: Then why did you go to trial?

NORTH: No one was ever tried for that.

RANDI: Well, Ronald Reagan, they tried to depose him, here's what happened, "In late June, I filed my third…" - this is the Independent Council speaking - "In late June, I filed my third interim report. The reports purpose was to inform Congress of the status of my investigation, but my goal was to stave off the political attacks and to assure the public that the final phase of the investigation was to determine whether officials at the highest levels of government had sought to obstruct official inquiries."

NORTH: Randi, wait -

RANDI: Let me finish. "So I decided to take the President's deposition myself." If Lawrence Walsh is lying - "I decided to take the former President's deposition myself. John ____, ____ and I flew to California.

NORTH: What year is this? What year is this?

RANDI: That he deposed Reagan? - When he went to indict Caspar Weinberger.

NORTH: When did Ronald Reagan leave office? When did Ronald Reagan leave office?

RANDI: 1988.

NORTH: Well done. That's good.

RANDI: Don't start this crap. Because I remember the first time I ever went on a conservative radio show.

NORTH: Yeah.

RANDI: And the very first time, they were so hypocritical and insulting, that a woman could possibly read this book or that a woman could possibly read this indictment.

NORTH: You ought to read Firewall (?). Nobody read Firewall (?).

RANDI: This is your hand writing. I have been working on this for years. Talking to Lawrence Walsh.

NORTH: This is your big chance to break the case.

RANDI: Well, you won't admit that you were convicted, so there is no breaking the case.

NORTH: You don't like the constitution. They brought the case back -

RANDI: YOU don't like the constitution, and Admiral Poindexter hates it. Because I have a right to privacy, and the point of this conversation was to try and figure out whether or not you came down on the side of the constitution, you came down on the side - you're able now to go into my computer and read my emails, and all political dissent will be duly noted, and -

NORTH: I can?

RANDI: Admiral Poindexter, and you are saying he's brilliant, and he's the guy you want for the job, but you love the constitution.

NORTH: How often did YOU take an oath to support and defend the constitution?

RANDI: Oh, I was in the military, Oliver North, you have no idea!

NORTH: I just asked you the question, how often did you do it?

RANDI: Many times.

NORTH: Once, twice, five, ten?

RANDI: Probably three.

NORTH: Okay, I did it 22 times. John Poindexter -

RANDI: So what does that mean? You're still less honest than I am. It doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't mean anything to you.

NORTH: Randi, first of all, it's never polite to call somebody into your studios and then insult them by calling them -

RANDI: Sorry, you just proved yourself to be a person who is less than honest about being convicted.

NORTH: The fact is, Randi, that's the constitution of the United States.

RANDI: I mean, you, you did do the crime. You didn't have to do the time. Because you had friends in high places.

NORTH: No, Randi, there were no crimes, Randi. Let me just tell you this is why liberals don't make it in television and radio.

RANDI: I can guarantee you if I were in the military and I subverted my oath, believe me, I wouldn't have the President stepping in for me.

NORTH: That's outrageous. It's unconscionable. The President didn't step in for me.

RANDI: Who protected you?

NORTH: The President didn't, the constitution of the United States.

RANDI: Lawrence Walsh - everything was "national security," and he had to -

NORTH: Lawrence Walsh had every record from my office. He had absolutely everything.

RANDI: You shredded everything.

NORTH: No, no, that's not true.

RANDI: Oh, you didn't shred anything either?

NORTH: Why wasn't I convicted of that?

RANDI: You were!

NORTH: No, I wasn't.

RANDI: Oh, god.

NORTH: It's just not true, it's not true.

RANDI: So tell me what you were convicted of, in your mind. What were you convicted of?

RANDI'S HUSBAND JIM: Nothing?

RANDI: Nothing? You were convicted of nothing? It didn't happen? This is just a sad -

NORTH: Right. Let me just tell you - you don't understand the constitution -

RANDI: It's a sad - imagination - you were never convicted of a crime? You never had to defend yourself in a court of law and lost?

NORTH: No, that's not the case. I did defend myself in a court of law.

RANDI: Did you lose? And did you lose?

NORTH: And it was sent to appeal.

RANDI: Did you lose at adjudication, not appeal?

NORTH: You don't lose, you don't lose - that's the process in America - you don't like the process, we go change it - you vote for guys like Daschle or Bush.

RANDI: So you feel comfortable with Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted of the same sorts of crimes you were, conducting the Total Information Awareness office? You think that's a really good step for America? You think that's a constitutional idea, that every person's papers and effects, every person's home can be -

NORTH: Where are you getting this drivel?

RANDI: From the darpa.mil website.

NORTH: The darpa.mil says nothing about -

RANDI: Oh, no? Maybe you should look at that too. But of course you won't acknowledge that.

NORTH: Can I finish one sentence in this very brief interview?

RANDI: Yes.

NORTH: The darpa.mil webside says absolutely nothing about going into your home or anyone else's home or going through your paperwork. It says nothing about it.

RANDI: The Patriot Act? How about Section 203 of The Patriot Act? That says "sneak peeks" are now permissible. Warrantless searches are okay in America?

NORTH: How do you want to stop terrorism?

RANDI: How do I want to stop terrorism.

NORTH: Yeah.

RANDI: I would like to go where they are and kill them. But, see, you would like to keep everybody in fear so you can erode civil liberties.

NORTH: I'm curious as to how liberals understand what's going on in their head.

RANDI: If you could possibly be for any sort of invasive technology that would take away my privacy in my own home, then you are absolutely for the erosion of civil liberties. Period. If you don't want to fight terrorists where terrorists live -

NORTH: What are you talking about?

RANDI: - then you need to -

NORTH: How many other people in your studio have been shot at and hit besides me? You?

RANDI: Me.

NORTH: You? Okay, where were you shot?

RANDI: (Laughter)

NORTH: What country were you shot in?

RANDI: This country. I don't know, nobody's patriotism is as good as yours, Oliver North, that's really sad, but you won't admit you were convicted of a crime against the United States.

Then he bolted.

[strandinthewind]

Bless his heart, he is correct, once a conviction is overturned on appeal, there is no conviction. It is as if it never existed. In other words, a formerly convicted person can truthfully say "I was never convicted." But, that is not the point. The point is, and RR should have brought this up instead of harping on semantics, that the conviction was overturned on a techinicality. Thus, ole Ollie really did the bad things they initially convicted him for. An overturning of a conviction on a technicality just means you are no longer and never were convicted, it does not in any way mean you did not do them. The guy is a twat.

[gldstwmn]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 04, 2004

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 whom are being subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. Those journalists with whom I have spoken say they are not willing appeared 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.

Instead, it seems the investigators are seeking to connect up with, and then speak with, persons who have links to and from the leaked information - and those persons, it seems, probably include the President. (I should stress, however, that I do not have access to grand jury testimony, and that grand jury proceedings are secret. But the facts that are properly public do allow some inference and commentary about what likely is occurring in the grand jury.)

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 [his] administration who leaked classified information." He has also said that he wanted "to know the truth" about this leak.

If Bush is called before the grand jury, it is likely because Fitzgerald believes that he knows much more about this leak than he has stated publicly.

Perhaps Bush may have knowledge not only of the leaker, but also of efforts to make this issue go away - if indeed there have been any. It is remarkably easy to obstruct justice, and this matter has been under various phases of an investigation by the Justice Department since it was referred by the CIA last summer.

It seems very possible the leaker - or leakers, for two government sources were initially cited by columnist Robert Novak -- may have panicked, covered up his (or their) illegality, and in doing so, committed further crimes. If so, did the President hear of it? Was he willfully blind? Was he himself the victim of a cover-up by underlings? The grand jury may be interested in any or all of these possibilities.

Bush Needs An Outside Attorney To Maintain Attorney-Client Privilege

Readers may wonder, why is Bush going to an outside counsel, when numerous government attorneys are available to him - for instance, in the White House Counsel's Office?

The answer is that the President has likely been told it would be risky to talk to his White House lawyers, particularly if he knows more than he claims publicly.

Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr who decimated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients - which, to paraphrase the authority Wigmore, applies when legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, where the advice is sought in confidence.

The reason the privilege was created was to insure open and candid discussion between a lawyer and his or her client. It traditionally applied in both civil and criminal situations for government lawyers, just as it did for non-government lawyers. It applied to written records of communications, such as attorney's notes, as well as to the communications themselves.

But Starr tried to thwart that tradition in two different cases, before two federal appeals courts. There, he contended that there should be no such privilege in criminal cases involving government lawyers.

In the first case, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, former First Lady Hillary Clinton had spoken with her private counsel in the presence of White House counsel (who had made notes of the conversation). Starr wanted the notes. Hillary Clinton claimed the privilege.

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with Starr. The court held that a grand jury was entitled to the information. It also held that government officials -- even when serving as attorneys -- had a special obligation to provide incriminating information in their possession.

In the second case, In re Lindsey, Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey refused to testify about his knowledge of President Clinton's relationship to Monica Lewinsky, based on attorney-client privilege. Starr sought to compel Lindsey's testimony, and he won again.

This time, Starr persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to follow the Eighth Circuit. The court ruled that exposure of wrongdoing by government lawyers fostered democracy, as "openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government."

Based on these precedents, President Bush has almost certainly been told that the only way he can discuss his potential testimony with a lawyer is by hiring one outside the government.

What Might a Private Attorney Advise Bush to Do?

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."

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.