Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

A further clue to Bush's involvement in the leak appeared on June 24, 2004 when President Bush spoke with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald but refused to do so under oath and insisted on the hand-holding of his personal attorney. Word is that Bush and Cheney were not placed under oath because, at the time, they were not perceived to have had any "direct involvement in the potential criminal investigation: the leak itself." Note that, under oath or not, lying to a prosecutor is still a crime, so the contents of Bush's testimony is of the utmost interest to the nation.

And now, indicted White House Aide and Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has dropped the bomb.

According to ABC World News Tonight, "The President has been highly critical of anyone who leaks any information. But according to...documents, he was doing it himself." According to "court filings, Libby said he received 'approval from the President through the Vice President' to leak parts of the highly-classified National Intelligence Estimate to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The reason? To back up the Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons."

All this could bring Bush squarely into the crosshairs of the ongoing intelligence leak investigation. According to the New York Sun, the conservative paper that broke the story, "legal analysts said yesterday that the new information makes it more likely that either the defense or the prosecution could seek Mr. Bush's testimony for the trial. Such a request could lead to a high profile legal showdown between the judiciary and the executive branch at about the same time as the midterm election this fall." It would also mean that Bush would have to testify under oath. CNN's The Situation Room concurred.

The Los Angeles Times reports the story "connects the president for the first time to a case that until now publicly focused on the activities of senior aides and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney."

Regarding Legality

Missing the point, Fox News Special Report With Brit Hume reported that "even the prosecutor doesn't question the President's authority and power to declassify information and disclose it."

Hammering the point, the Los Angeles Times, headlined "Any Bush OK of Leak Is Probably Legal," also says "experts in national security law say a decision by President Bush to authorize the leak of classified information to a reporter probably would not be illegal." However, "if Bush did so...there could be significant damage to the credibility of a president who has repeatedly and publicly expressed his abhorrence of leaks."

Atypical Actions

Fitzgerald wrote that "Mr. Libby said the authorization from Mr. Bush via Mr. Cheney to release the classified information was 'unique in his recollection.'"

George Stephanopoulos said [ABC World News Tonight], "Staffers and bureaucrats leak classified information all the time. But I've never heard of a formal declassification by the President of the United States to a single reporter. ... All intelligence experts I spoke to today said it was irregular. And one said it smells because it's selective leaking to a favored reporter."

The Boston Globe says the leak "suggests a desire to shape the news to the administration's ends -- a possible misuse of the president's national security powers."

Denial?

Hardly. In fact, word is that Bush thinks his actions are a-okay! The Washington Post reports a "senior Administration official" said Bush "sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny."

In the meantime...

Let's not forget that Bush first mate, Karl Rove is still under investigation and that this investigation remains wide open. This thing is FAR from over.