crew v. doj: re: valerie plame: 7/10/09 - crew's supplemental brief (4-9) (document 18)

8/7/2019 CREW v. DOJ: Re: Valerie Plame: 7/10/09 - CREW's Supplemental Brief (4-9) (Document 18)

1/31

EXHIBIT B

Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum in

Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.U.S. Department of Justice, C.A. No. 08-1468 (EGS)

Case 1:08-cv-01468-EGS Document 18-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Pa


2/31

INMENTEXHIBIT15071

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENTWASHINGTON

UNCLASSIFIED WHENSEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS

FURNISHEDCONFIDENTIALITY

DECEMBER 242003

THE HONORABLE BRUCE SWARTZDEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEWASHINGTON DC 20530

RE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTER OF DECEMBER 16 2003 TO COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENTCONCERNING POSSIBLE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORN

DEARMRSWARTZTHIS IS THE FOURTH PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTSBY THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OVP AS PART OFTHE ROLLING PROCESS OF PRODUCTION IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVECITED LETTER ENCLOSED ARE DOCUIPAGES NUMBERED 002870 THROUGH 002923 INCLUSIVE WITH PAGES 002878 002880 002893002915 ON THE REVERSE OF PAGES 002877 002879002892 AND 002914 RESPECTIVELY THATIRESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST IN YOUR LETTER THESE DOCUMENTSWERERETRIEVED UNDER THE CERTIFICATIONOFLEWIS LIBBY

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE ALL ORIGINALS ALSO NOTE THAT ENCLOSED PAGESNUMBERED 002878 AND 002880 ARETHE ORIGINALS FOR THE COPIES PRODUCED ONDECEMBER 22 2003 ASPAGES NUMBERED 002579 AND 002580 RESPECTIVELY

PAGE 002919 WAS FURNISHED TO MEMARKED TREATED AS TOP SECRETSCI IN MYJUDGMENTPAGE 002919 AND OTHERDOCUMENTS ENCLOSED EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOTMARKED AS CLASSIFIEDNEVERTHELESS CONTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED OR CLASSIFIABLE UNDER EXECUTIVEORDER 12958 AS AMENDED ONMARCH25 2003 AND INFORMATION CONCERNING INTELLIGENCE SOURCESAND METHODSPROTECTED BY LAW 50 USC 4033C7 THUS REQUEST THAT YOU HANDLE THEENCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER AS CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND THAT YOUASK AN AGENCY WITH THE ANNROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER INTEREST AND CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY TODETERMINE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION SEE SECTION 13E OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

LLOO50943



3/31

THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS INCLUDE MATERIALS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE VICEPRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO PRESERVE THE EFFECTIVE FHNCTIONING OFTHE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICEPRESIDENCY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE PRESIDEXITIAL RECORDSACT AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCH MATERIALS IN THE CONTEXT OFRESPONDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LUSTICE LETTER CITED ABOVE AMPRODUCING THE FULL TEXT OF SUCHMATERIALS TO YOU ASK THAT YOU RESTRICT ACCESS TO PAGES WITH ITEMS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TOOR FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE CONSISTENT WITHYOUR JUDGMENT OF THE NEEDS OFYOUR INVESTIGATION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE INTRUSION INTO THEEFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OFTHE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY

THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN THE INVESTIGATIONYOU ARE CONDUCTING AND ON CONDITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY THEY REMAIN PRESIDENTIALEXECUTIVE RECORDSUNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT AND REQUEST THAT YOU RETURN THEMWHENTHE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE FURNISHED IS SATISFIED THE DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED RESERVING ALLLEGAL AUTHORITIES AND PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIESOR PRIVATE PARTIES

CERELY

DAVID ADDINGTONCOUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT

LLOO509432



4/31

EXHIBIT C






5/31

MENTEXHIBITISESI

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENTWAS IN GTD

UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ENCLOSURES

MARCH 2004

INSPECTOR JOBN ECKENRODEFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIOI935 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NWROOM7847WASHINGTON DC 20535TEL

DEAR INSPECTOR ECKENRODE

RE LETTER FROMDEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IBRUCE SWARTZ TO DAVID ADDINGTONCOUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT DATED DECEMBER 16 2003

THIS LETTER FORWARDS DOCUMENTSNUMBERED 007261 THROUGH 007267 THAT BE RESPONSIYE TO THEABOVECITED LETTER THE ABOVECITED LETTER REQUESTED TO THE EXTENT NOT ALREADY PRODUCED ALLHANDWRITTEN NOTES OF LEWIS LIBBY AND CATHERINE MARTIN FOR THE FOLLOWING DATES MAYTBROUGHMAY 10 2003 JUNE THROUGH JUNE 15 2003JULY4 THROUGH JULY25 2003 JULY28THROUGH JULY 29 2003 AND SEPTEMBER 27 THROUGH OCTOBER 13 2003 AMONGOTHER THINGS THEENCLOSED DOCUMENTSARE FROM THE FILES OFLEWIS LIBBY AND WEREGIVEN TO ME TODAYIN MYJUDGMENT THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED ORCLASSIFIABLE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 AS AMENDED ONMARCH 25 2003 AND MAY INCLUDEINFORMATION CONCERNING INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODSPROTECTED BY LAW 50 USC 4033C7 REQUEST THAT YOU HANDLE THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER AS CLASSIFIEDNATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND THAT YOU ASK AN WITH THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTERINTEREST AND CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION SEE SECTION13E OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS INCLUDE MATERIALS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE VICEPRESIDENT OR THE RESIDENT TO PRESERVE THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICEPRESIDENCY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDSACT AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCHMATERIALS IN THE CONTEXT OFRESPONDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTER CITED ABOVE AM PRODUCING THE FULL TEXT OF SUCHMATERIALS TO YOU ASK THAT YOU RESTRICT ACCESS TO PAGES WITH ITEMS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TOORFROM THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE CONSISTEHT WITH

LLOO509487



6/31

YOUR JUDGMENT OF THE NEEDS OF YOUR INYESTIGATION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE INTRUSION INTO THEEFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY

THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE FTRRNISHED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFASSISTING IN THE INVESTIGATIONYOU ARE CONDUCTING AND ON CONDITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY THEY REMAIN VICE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVERECORDS UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT AND REQUEST THAT YOU RETUMTHEM WHEN THE PURPOSEFOR WHICH THEY ARE FURNISHED IS SATISFIED THE DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED RESERVING ALL LEGALAUTHORITIES AND PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ORPRIVATE PARTIES

DAVID ADDMGTOCOUNSEL TO TH8 VICE PRESIDENT

LLOO509488



7/31

EXHIBIT D






8/31

NMENTEXHIBIT15111

ID

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENTWASHINGTON

UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ENCLOSURES

MARCH 18 2004

INSPECTOR JOHN ECKENRODEFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION935 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NWROOM7847WASHINGTON DC 20535TEL

DEAR INSPECTOR ECKENRODE

RE TELEPHONE REQUEST FROMDEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROOS TO COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENTON MARCH 17 2004 FOR ENTIRE CONTENTS OF OVP FILE MAINTAINED BY MAYFIELD WITHTITLE LIKE NIGERURANIUM THAT CONTAINS PRESS CLIPPINGS SOME OFWHICH MAY BEARMARKINGS

THIS LETTER FORWARDS DOCUMENTS NUMBERED 007270 THROUGH 007684 THAT MAYBE RESPONSIVE THEABOVECITED REQUEST IN REGARD TO THE INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE DISCLOSURE TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONSOF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION CONCERNING AMBASSADOR JOSEPH WILSON HIS TRIP TO NIGER IN FEBRUARY2002 HIS WIFE AND MATTERS RELATING THERETO THESE DOCUMENTSWERE FURNISHED TO METODAY UNDERTHE CERTIFICATION OF JENNIFER MAYFIELD

DOCUMENTS CONTAINING NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXECUTIVEORDER 12958 AS AMENDED ON MARCH25 2003 ARE ENCLOSED IN ADDITION IN MYJUDGMENT OTHERDOCUMENTS ENCLOSED THAT ARE NOT MARKED AS CLASSIFIED MAYCONTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATIONCLASSIFIED OR CLASSIFIABLE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 AND MAY INCLUDE INFORMATION CONCERNINGINTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS PROTECTED BY LAW 50 USC 4033C7 REQUEST THAT YOUHANDLE THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER AS CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATIONAND THAT YOU ASK AN WITH THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER INTEREST AND CLASSIFICATIONAUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CLASSIFICATION OFTHE INFORMATION SEE SECTION 13E OF EXECUTIVE ORDER12958

THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS INCLUDE MATERIALS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE VICEPRESIDENT ORTHE PRESIDENT TO PRESERVE THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICEPRESIDENCY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDSACT AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCH MATERIALS IN THE CONTEXT OFRESPONDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REQUEST CITED ABOVE AM PRODUCING THE FULL TEXT OF SUCH

P61432 C64AOL



9/31

MATERIALS TO YOU ASK THAT YOU RESTRICT ACCESS TO PAGES WITH ITEMS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TOOR FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE CONSISTENT WITHYOUR JUDGMENT OF THE NEEDS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE INTRUSION INTO THEEFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY

THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN THE INVESTIGATIONYOU ARE CONDUCTING AND ON CONDITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY THEY REMAIN VICE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVERECORDSUNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT AND REQUEST THAT YOU RETURN THEM WHEN THE PURPOSEFOR WHICH THEY ARE FURNISHED IS SATISFIED THE DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED RESERVING ALL LEGALAUTHORITIES AND PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ORPRIVATE PARTIES

SINCEDAVID

COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT



10/31

EXHIBIT E






11/31

7/7/09 10:resident Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders

Page ttp://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/print/20030930-9.html

For Immediate ReleOffice of the Press Secre

September 30, 2

President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders

University of ChicagoChicago, Illinois

2:10 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I want to thank the business leaders here from the Chicago area for sharingwith me their concerns about our economy. I think it's safe to say most people share the sense of optimism I do, butrecognize there's still work to be done, particularly when it comes to job creation.

We talked about good legal policy. We talked about the need for an energyplan. We talked about fair trade for American manufacturers. We talked

about the need for China to make sure that China's got a monetary policywhich is fair. And I assured the leaders here that I would work to -- I'drepresent the manufacturing sector and the -- all sectors of our economywhen it comes to world trade.

The thing I'm concerned about is people being able to find a job. We putthe conditions in place for good job creation, but I recognize there's stillpeople who want to work that can't find a job. And we're dedicated tohearing the voices of those folks and working hard to expand our economy.

And so I want to thank you all for taking time. Mr. Mayor, I wish the Cubs all the best. (Laughter.) I made a significancontribution to the Cubs, as you might recall --

PARTICIPANT: Sammy.

THE PRESIDENT: -- when I was a -- yes, Sammy Sosa. I'll take great delight when they win.

PARTICIPANT: Thank you for Sammy.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming.

Let me answer a couple of questions, then we've got to go to Cincinnati. Deb.

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramificatioof the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classifiedinformation in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's justtoo many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know w ho it is. And if the person has violatelaw, the person will be taken care of.

And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job.There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they havedone this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to bfully cooperative.

I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.es.html


12/31

7/7/09 10:resident Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders

Page ttp://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/print/20030930-9.html

would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are truand get on about the business.

Yes, let's see, Kemper -- he's from Chicago. Where are you? Are you a Cubs or White Sox fan? (Laughter.) Wait aminute. That doesn't seem fair, does it? (Laughter.)

Q Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it - -

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him --

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classifiedinformation. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And thinvestigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of theallegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside theinformation who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administrationAnd we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out.And I would hope they would.

And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified informationare a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we'vehad leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch anthe legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

Thank you.

END 2:15 P.M. CDT

Return to this article at:

/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html


13/31

EXHIBIT F




Case 1:08-cv-01468-EGS Document 18-8 Filed 07/10/2009 Pag


14/31

7/7/09 10:ress Briefing by Scott McClellan

Page 1ttp://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/10/print/20031001-6.html

Press Briefing

viewlisten

For Immediate ReleOffice of the Press Secre

October 1, 2

Press Briefing by Scott McClellanThe James S. Brady Briefing Room

12:44 P.M. EDT

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. This afternoon here shortly thePresident looks forward to going to the Department of Homeland Security,where he will receive a briefing and then sign the Homeland SecurityAppropriations Act. The President believes the best way to defeat terroristsis to take the fight to them, and we are making significant progress in the global war on terrorism.

We are also making great progress here at home in securing the homeland, and making sure that we are as preparedas possible when it comes to responding to any attack that may come. We have taken unprecedented steps to secureour borders, strengthen aviation security, improve our detection capabilities, protect our critical infrastructure and give

our first responders the resources they need. So the President looks forward to signing this legislation today.

One other statement I'd like to make. After five days of debate, the Senate has now set aside consideration of the D.Cappropriations bill, which includeds $40 million for improving D.C. public and charter schools, as well as scholarships fa School Choice program here in Washington, D.C. D.C. School Choice will give parents more options to determinewhat is the best school to meet their children's needs by providing scholarships for low income children. The silentfilibuster launched by a few Senate Democrats to prevent a vote is wrong. The measure has the bipartisan supportnecessary to win passage and it deserves a vote. We will continue to work with Congress to secure passage of thisimportant legislation, and we hope the Senate will move forward quickly to pass this legislation.

And with that I will just go right into questions. Terry.

Q Scott, when did the President first find out that someone in his administration had outed an undercover CIA official?

What was his reaction? What did he do about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, there's an allegation that that has happened, at this point.

Q It was an undercover official who has now been exposed; that's fact, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I'm sorry -- an allegation that a senior administration official did that, that's what I'm referring to

Terry, there is a process in place that was followed. The CIA has a process to look at classified information if it isleaked, and they followed a process and that process has moved forward. And the Department of Justice is looking init. I don't know the specific time period, but the process was followed, and the President expects the process to befollowed, and that process was followed, and that what the President expects, because leaking classified information a very serious matter.

Q That's what I'm asking about. He said that -- I want to know what he's done about it. This story broke in July. Did hknow in July that an undercover CIA official had been outed and that the person who outed that undercover CIA officattributed it to senior administration officials?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think there -- no, I understand what you're saying. But I think there are certain assumptions you'rstill making in your remarks. The Department of Justice is looking into this to determine what you're saying about thepotential leak of classified information concerning an undercover CIA agent. And there have been some news reportsthat I saw back to that period, some that have been cited recently, talking about how some of this information may havbeen well-known within the D.C. community.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/10/print/20031001-6.html#http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.a.ram


15/31



Q Fair enough. But when did the President know it?

MR. McCLELLAN: But, see, that's what I just told you, Terry. The process is in place, and it followed that process. Idon't know, in answer to your first part of your question. But the President expects the process to be followed forsomething like this, and it was. The CIA followed the process and information has been provided to the Department ofJustice. The Department of Justice is looking into it. But, remember, back in July, when this issue came up and I wasasked about it, it was an anonymous source in the newspaper. There are plenty of anonymous sources in news repoon a daily basis, and we could spend all our time trying to track down the information from those anonymous sourcesBut we want to be able to focus on the people's business - -

Q Right. But you were asked about it in July --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I made it very clear back there in July, too, that there was no information beyond the mediareports with anonymous sources to suggest any White House involvement. But the process was followed, and that'swhat's important. The President believes it's important that the process was followed, because the President believesthe leak of -- the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter.

Q Fair enough. If you get a chance, if you could establish for us when it came to the President's --

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, that was back in July and I --

Q Is that not knowable? That's knowable, right? It's checkable?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- just don't know. I looked into it and I just don't know.

Q Do you know if anyone has yet come forward to offer any information to the Department of Justice about this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you need to talk to the Department of Justice about that. They're the ones who are doing thinvestigation and they would be the appropriate ones to ask that question.

Q Would you know? Would you know? Are you trying to stay away from it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have any reason -- I don't have any reason to. That's the Department of Justice, that's theirrole, and the criminal division over there.

Q Scott, in the past, the Justice Department has used polygraph examinations in sensitive leak investigations. ThePresident has said he expects full cooperation. If I work at the White House and down the road in this investigation thJustice Department came to me and said, we want you to submit to a polygraph investigation, the President wouldexpect the answer to be?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the hypothetical, but that is a hypothetical and that is not where the process is. Theprocess is that the Justice Department has asked the White House to preserve any and all material related to thespecific information they put in their letter. And that's --

Q Well, let's set that specific hypothetical aside. If an FBI agent or the Justice -- somebody on the Justice Departmenteam made a request of a White House official that is consistent with past practices in a similar investigation, would thPresident expect someone on his staff to comply with that request?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has directed the White House to cooperate fully, that message was sent as soon as

he learned of the investigation. He made it clear to White House Counsel, and White House Counsel made it clear tosenior staff the other day -- that was the President -- at the President's direction. We will cooperate fully with theinvestigation and make sure that we preserve the integrity of the investigation. So that's where things are right now.

Q Ambassador Wilson says that he was told by a reporter that Karl Rove said, "Wilson's wife is fair game." I knowyou've spoken with Karl, does he deny that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he deny that he ever used those words, "Wilson's wife is fair game"?



16/31



MR. McCLELLAN: Look, the issue here, and this came up earlier, the issue here is whether or not someone leakedclassified information. That is a serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. I have seen comments from Mr.Wilson. And I have seen him back away from those comments later. It seems to be, he said one thing previously aboKarl Rove, and then he backed away from it. And now he's saying other things. There's a changing of the issue here of a sudden. The issue here is did someone leak classified information, and, if so, who was that person, and then theappropriate action should be taken.

Q You have said previously from the podium that these types of accusations against Karl are "ridiculous."

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q On the very line that Ambassador Wilson says that Karl used, "Wilson's wife is fair game," is that wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've just said, he has said a lot of things and then backed away from what --

Q Scott, I want to know --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and then backed away from what he said. So I think part of your role is to do some furtherquestioning there.

Q I'm asking you, that's why we're asking, to make sure -- I mean, we don't want to continue to report something thatinaccurate.

MR. McCLELLAN: If Mr. Wilson -- well, he made some comments earlier and then he backed away from them, andthose comments were reported previously.

Q Does Karl deny that he said that?

MR. McCLELLAN: What were the words again?

Q "Wilson's wife is fair game."

MR. McCLELLAN: And who did he say it to?

Q To a reporter that then repeated it to Wilson.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is -- the issue here -- what is the issue here? Did someone leak classified information?Is that the issue?

Q It could be about changing the tone, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: All of a sudden now, we're trying to change the topic in this room.

Q There's a legal issue, there's an ethical issue, too. Going after a man's wife is unethical.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not truein terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear. But I'm not going to -- wenot going to go down every single allegation that someone makes. That's just -- we can do that all day long. Let's stafocused on what the issue is here.

Q You said the issue here was whether someone leaked classified information. As I understand the applicable lawshere, isn't the real issue whether someone knowingly leaked classified information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, yes, you may -- I may stand corrected on that, you'll have to look at the law. I'm not going toplay a lawyer from here. But the leaking of -- I'll go back to what I have said and what the President has said, and whhe has always said, that the leaking of classified information is a serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullesextent. And the Department of Justice is doing that now.

Q But I mean, isn't one of the questions here whether or not people knew that she was undercover and went ahead



17/31



and disclosed that to a journalist, or whether they were --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that is part of the investigation and part of the issue that the career Justice Departmentofficials will look at as they move forward on this investigation.

Q Now, the other side of this, of course, is that the conversation -- senior administration officials, not White House --suggested that they were trying to belittle Joe Wilson's credentials by saying, he didn't get the job because he deserveit, he got it because his wife works at the CIA. Is there a concern about that side of the issue, regardless of whether onot classified information --

MR. McCLELLAN: Repeat the last part -- the last part of your question?

Q Is there concern about the fact that some senior administration official somewhere suggested that he only got the jbecause his wife worked at the CIA -- which is apart from the classified aspect.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think the issue before us is the classified aspect of things. Your specific question is, wasthere concern that news reports said that he may have -- or suggested that he may have gotten the job because hiswife worked at the CIA? Is that what you're asking?

Q Yes. I'm asking if there's any concern now about that -- an effort that appears to be, if it was not an intentional leakof classified information, it was, one could argue, an attempt to belittle his credentials by saying he got the job becausof his wife. And I'm just saying, is there a concern about that, as well as the classified?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone any such activity and, you know, I have not seen any informationbrought to our attention to suggest that.

Q Scott, with agents possibly hours or days from either showing up at the White House or making phone calls, has thWhite House developed any rules of engagement between staffers and contacts with agents? Do the staffers have toreport contacts first to the legal Counsel's Office, or do they just start answering questions? What are the rules here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ed, what has been asked of us at this point is simply to preserve information. And that's exactly whWhite House staff has been directed to do and we expect all White House staff to do. That's the issue here. TheJustice Department hasn't asked us anything beyond that, at this point.

Q I understand.

MR. McCLELLAN: I am sure that we will receive additional requests from them and we will cooperate fully at that poin-

Q -- think that somebody here is thinking about the next day or the next --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- when we do.

Q -- this afternoon or tomorrow?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, making sure that information is preserved. I mean, the White House already is required topreserve and maintain a great deal of information. A lot of our information is already retained. I mean, the phone callsthat you make to my office, that information is retained.

Q On that point, could I quickly follow up? This is in no way to suggest any responsibility --

MR. McCLELLAN: On a piece of paper, Terry. (Laughter.) The message.

Q -- trying to get a sense of how widespread certain information might have been within the White House, if -- thepossibility. In going back through your records and anyone else you've come in contact with, have you come upon anydocuments that are covered by the "relevance" that either mention the Ambassador, mention his wife and her role atthe CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Are you asking if I, personally, have?



18/31



Q Yes, if you've come across anything in your email or anything that's come across --

MR. McCLELLAN: I was traveling most of yesterday, so -- got back about 10:00 p.m. last night.

Q Did anyone come to you and say they found -- here's this document that came through their email?

MR. McCLELLAN: Come to me? Well, first of all, if they have questions, the Counsel's Office is ready to answer thequestions. If they have information related to the investigation, we made it very clear that we want that informationreported to the Department of Justice. I'm sure that staffers are -- that feel they need to are going back and making

sure that those records are maintained. That's what we expect.

Q I'm just trying to get a sense if anybody, any sense of the scope. Just news clips about Joe Wilson's -- that mighthave been emailed around the White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, but at this point, staff has been directed to preserve the information and make sure theymaintain that information. They haven't been asked to do anything. Like, they haven't been asked to give it to anybodyor anything beyond what the President has made clear, that if they have information relevant to the investigation,anybody -- not only in the administration, but outside the administration -- should report that information to theDepartment of Justice, particularly people who are citing White House officials as being involved in news reports -- ifthey have relevant information, they should report that to the Department of Justice.

Q Does "preserve it" mean just do not delete it? Or does "preserve it" mean actually, proactively, go back and look to

see if you have anything that's relevant?

MR. McCLELLAN: It means preserve it and maintain it, make sure you do not get rid of that information if it's relevantto the Department of Justice request.

Q Scott, the President used the words, "come forward," yesterday. Does he not want anybody to 'fess up to him or toAndy Card or somebody --

MR. McCLELLAN: To the Department of Justice. To the Department of Justice.

Q He doesn't want to know --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is investigating this, they're the appropriate agency. As I have said earli

in the week, that is where information should be reported.Q First, have any investigators yet contacted any members of the White House staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Any members -- all they've asked us to do at this point is what's in the letter.

Q No investigators have come, there haven't been any specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you might ask the Department of Justice if they tried -- I'm not aware of any such contacts,beyond contacts they've had with the Counsel's Office to say, we're going to be sending this letter, this is underinvestigation, and then the letter sent -- follow-up letter sent yesterday afternoon.

Q Okay. To follow up on what Terry was asking about earlier, what changed between July 14th and yesterday thataccounts for the President not having spoken out then, where he is speaking out on this now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, for the very reason I've already said, and the very reason I said back in July, is that there waan anonymous source making allegations -- I'm not even sure when it was specifically -- an allegation was specificallmade that it was a White House person involved in this. But the process was followed. There is a process for if --

Q But that remains the case now.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and there is discussion -- again, I think there was a news report several days later, after theinitial article, suggesting that classified information had been leaked and citing senior administration officials. Again, thappropriate way for this to be handled is the way it was. The CIA looked at this, made some determinations, sent som



19/31



information to the Department of Justice. And that's what the President expects to happen.

Q But isn't the underlying question --

MR. McCLELLAN: And as soon as the Justice Department contacted us and said that an investigation is underway, athen the President was informed, he made it very clear that he expects the White House to cooperate fully.

Q But the question remains, if he feels so strongly about this, why was there nothing earlier? Why was there nothing July and August?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because there was no information -- there was no information brought to our attention beyond ananonymous source in media reports to suggest that there was White House involvement, that's why.

Q There's also been some suggestion that White House aides may have pointed reporters toward that story after it wpublished, toward the name --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, here we go. I mean, this is -- I understand that this is the way Washington, D.C. operates, aall of the sudden --

Q Well, let me --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the first allegation, well, maybe it was shaky, and then they go to the next allegation and then thnext allegation --

Q But that's the real issue.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and that's not --

Q You want to knock it down, clearly, but that's the real issue.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the real issue here is that this President --

Q Did the President think there was anything wrong with that?

MR. McCLELLAN: The real issue here is that this President thinks the leaking of classified information is a very seriomatter and it should be pursued to the fullest. And the President does not condone the kind of activity you talked abo

Q He does not condone the -- people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he wouldnot condone that either? Is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.

Q Scott, long-term intelligence experts, former CIA employees who have now become a talking head class, if you willsay beyond the problem with the leak, itself, is the contacts that Mr. Wilson's wife may have had.

Can you tell us what type of investigation is underway to look into either protecting those kind of contacts, or actually ainvestigation into whether or not any of her contacts may have been compromised because of this leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you might want to direct those questions to the CIA.

Q Are you aware of any investigation along those lines? Are you confident --

MR. McCLELLAN: You mean of the CIA looking back and seeing if anything --

Q -- presumably someone here - -

MR. McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the CIA.

Q Presumably someone here in the White House would have asked someone at the CIA to say, hey, are your peopleokay by this? Are you aware of that happening?



20/31



MR. McCLELLAN: I think you need to talk to the CIA about those questions, if they've gone back and made thosedeterminations.

Q And if I can follow. Is there any need for Attorney General Ashcroft, given his relationship with Karl Rove and otherto recuse himself in this investigation at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said earlier, those are determinations that the Department of Justice will make. TheDepartment of Justice publicly said that they had not ruled anything out. I mean, remember, this investigation has just

gotten underway and there are career Justice Department officials and FBI officials who are looking into this, who arepart of the investigation. It's being addressed by the career professionals at the Department of Justice and FBI. And thPresident responded to that issue yesterday, as well.

Q Ambassador Wilson is meeting today on the Hill with congressional Democrats. Does the White House consider han honest broker in this?

Q That was canceled.

MR. McCLELLAN: I did see those reports. You know, I think that I will leave it to you to raise those issues and to lookat that. That's part of the job of you all in the media, to look at and make determinations about -- or to at least presenit to the public in the way that you determine best.

Q Scott, the Republican Party has launched an offensive, impugning Mr. Wilson's credibility. Does the President

condone that?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President is focused on getting to the bottom of this. We need to get to the bottom of this. Theis a lot of back and forth that goes on here in Washington, D.C. The President is most interested in determining whathappened and getting to the bottom of this investigation. There have been some serious allegations made and we neeto get to the bottom of it.

Ken.

Q And given that they're so serious --

MR. McCLELLAN: I may come back to you later, because we've already -- I'm going to try to keep going througheverybody.

Q According to the chronology you outlined yesterday, there was this, approximately an 11-hour time lag between thetime the Counsel's Office was notified by Justice on Monday night and the memo and messages went out to staffers be -- some Democrats, such as Senator Schumer, have jumped on that time lag and been very critical of it.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what do they say?

Q He said that this illustrates -- this illustrates the need for a special prosecutor, that a special prosecutor would nevehave allowed that. I understand what you said yesterday, that you were prepared to move immediately -- "you," theCounsel's Office was prepared to move immediately and you were told by Justice, no, tomorrow morning is okay.

But Schumer and other people are saying that a special prosecutor never would have allowed that. Who in theCounsel's Office got the call Monday night? And who did they then notify?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I'll leave it that the Counsel's Office was contacted by the Department of Justice -- I'm notgetting into all the names -- at approximately 8:30 p.m. on Monday evening. I mean, the White House staff was notnotified at that point because they said, it's fine to notify them tomorrow morning.

So I don't think -- you know, it wasn't known amongst the White House staff that there was an investigation underwayuntil the next morning.

Q Who was notified? Did the person in the Counsel's Office who got the call, call Mr. Gonzales --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can expect that the Chief of Staff would have been notified.



21/31



Q The Chief of Staff was notified. And did he -- did he then send the information to anyone else?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it was -- the President was informed of the investigation the next morning.

Q So nobody else -- it went from the Counsel's Office to the Chief of Staff on Monday night, and --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what I know. What I just told you is what I know. I don't know beyond that. But I know that thWhite House staff was not contacted. It went to Counsel's Office and I think Counsel, appropriately so, would inform t

Chief of Staff at that point.

Q Scott, two quick questions, if I may, to a less serious one --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, do we want to stay on this subject? Does anybody have some --

Q Yes.

Q Yes, could you just lay out --

MR. McCLELLAN: All right. Let me stay on this subject so we can go through some more hypotheticals. (Laughter.)

Q To get away from hypotheticals, would you lay out the details of what Counsel Gonzales has now told White Housestaff they must preserve? I mean, it's a rather detailed --

MR. McCLELLAN: You have it all in the memos. You have it in the memo -- we released those two memos. I didn'tbring them with me to read through that. But it was very specific information that was sent to us yesterday afternoonfrom the Department of Justice.

All right, who has a hypothetical? (Laughter.) No, you've already had one. We'll come back -- we'll try to get back topeople later.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: You have a hypothetical? (Laughter.) I asked for a hypothetical. No, no. (Laughter.)

Q I'm no Bob Novak, but my feelings are really hurt that nobody leaked anything to me. (Laughter.)

Has the White House asked George Tenet or anyone else at the CIA why they would send a partisan, like AmbassadWilson, on this mission? And because he is so partisan --

MR. McCLELLAN: Has who asked? Has who asked anybody?

Q Has the White House asked George Tenet or anyone at the CIA why they would send a partisan like AmbassadorWilson on this mission? He's proven himself to be partisan, and does that cast doubt on the report that he filed in thismatter?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think we've kind of been through this issue already. I don't know of any such conversations.Certainly, I don't think it's my position to get into speculating about someone's motives. I think that is a role for you inthe media to determine how to follow.

Q Isn't the White House the least bit curious --

MR. McCLELLAN: And how to -- and how to present it to the public.

Q -- about how the process was, that Ambassador Wilson was chosen to go on this very important mission?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen the news coverage, just like you have. I've seen the issues that have been raised, and,again, I think that that's best left for you in the media to determine, not me from this podium.

Q Scott, this is not hypothetical at all. You say the issue is leaking classified information. So my question is did Karl



22/31



Rove or any others in the White House talk with reporters, not leak classified information, but talk with reporters abouMr. Wilson's wife and her CIA status after the initial report by Robert Novak?

MR. McCLELLAN: After his initial report? Again, you're -- now the issue is changing. The issue was --

Q No --

MR. McCLELLAN: The issue is, did someone leak classified information. That's a serious matter.

Q Right. But if someone --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's being investigated. Do people talk about what's in the news? That's a whole a different --that's on a different --

Q There is talk about a woman who's still undercover.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I just made clear --

Q I believe --

MR. McCLELLAN: I just made clear that -- well, was it reported that, one, was that what was reported in the article?

Q I'm just asking, did --

MR. McCLELLAN: Was that what was reported in the article?

Q She was an undercover operative.

MR. McCLELLAN: In the original article?

Q Yes.

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it was reported "operative" in the Novak column.

Q Operative by definition - -MR. McCLELLAN: I think it was reported -- and he said, you shouldn't use the word "operative." I think the word was"operative." So, I don't know that it said -- I don't --

Q My question is pretty straightforward. Did Karl Rove or others have conversations with reporters about Mrs. Wilson

MR. McCLELLAN: In what way?

Q And her CIA status.

MR. McCLELLAN: There's an investigation going on in asking everybody to preserve any information they would haverelated to some of the issues you bring up. I'm not -- there's been no information brought to our attention to suggestthat anyone leaked classified information, and the President certainly doesn't condone the leaking, or the tactics you'r

suggesting.

Q You seem to be suggesting that perhaps they had conversations, but weren't leaking classified information.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's an investigation going on to pull

together all the information. But the issue is, did someone leak classified information? That's a serious issue. And I jumade it -- I made it clear early, you brought up Karl's name. Let's be very clear. I thought -- I said it was a ridiculoussuggestion, I said it's simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and -- nor, did he condonethat kind of activity. This has been answered, and now we're trying to get in a whole bunch of issues, separate and



23/31



apart from that.

Q Did your conversation with Rove include whether or not he had tried to highlight that story for reporters?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Did your conversation with Rove include asking him whether or not he had tried to highlight that story for reporters,the Novak story?

MR. McCLELLAN: I made it very clear -- I have spoken with him. I have spoken with him. I made it very clear that it'snot true that he was involved in the leaking of classified information or that he condoned some of what you'resuggesting.

Q No, but did he -- did he participate in that? Because then it would make sense that he said, she's fair game now, iwas after the fact. Did you ask him whether or not he participated in that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the individual who said that has already backed away from other previous comments.

Q I'm asking what you asked Rove.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I made it very clear that the issue was regarding the leaking of classified information. And theissue was -- and someone asked about condoning that information. I made it very clear that he didn't condone that kiof activity and was not involved in that kind of activity.

Q Just to be clear, whether Rove condoned it or not, he did -- he also did not participate in that type of activity, as faras you're aware? Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: There is an investigation going on to pull together all that information. I've answered this question.And you can ask it a million different ways, but my response is still going to be the same.

Q Are you saying that it's okay to discuss some -- a leak --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm going to try to keep going around to other people, but go ahead.

Q Are you saying that after the fact, after such a --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, now we're getting into -- well, let me put it in perspective. Now we're getting into issues suchas, did anyone talk about what was in the news, what was reported in the paper, things of that nature. That can godown a whole lot of different roads. And that's why I think it's important to let the investigation take place. And theinvestigation is specifically about potential leak of classified information. And you're asking me to try to determineinformation that's going to be pulled together by the Department of Justice. They --

Q I'm just asking --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the request, or the information that we've been asked to preserve and maintain was spelledout in the letter from the Department of Justice, and that's the information that could be related to those topics andthose areas. And so we expect all White House staff to follow the directive from the President to cooperate fully inpreserving and maintaining that information.

Q What I'm asking very specifically is, is it okay, in the President's view, to discuss -- for a staffer to discuss, after thefact, classified information --

MR. McCLELLAN: That is such a broad question, about is it okay to discuss news articles. I mean, news articles arediscussed all the time.

Q A news article that contains a piece of classified information that is leaked -- is it okay to discuss after the fact thatkind of --

MR. McCLELLAN: A news article that reported information?



24/31



Q Classified information.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not -- and again, I'll have to go back and check, but I'm not sure that the article, the originalarticle said anything about classified information or said specifically, "undercover." I may be wrong -- I think it did say"operative."

Q It didn't say --

MR. McCLELLAN: And the columnist made it clear he probably shouldn't use that word, because his understanding w

that she was, indeed, an analyst. So those are the facts.

Now, you're asking me to go back and try to talk to everybody throughout the White House, did anybody talk about tharticle? I'm just not in a position to be able to do that. I think that's the position for -- that those issues will beaddressed by the Department of Justice in the investigation.

Q I'm not asking you that. I'm just asking, as a matter of policy, does the President draw a distinction between a leak classified information --

MR. McCLELLAN: And talking about news articles?

Q -- which includes --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I want to be clear what you're asking. In talking about news articles?Q Peddling them.

Q A specific news article that contained a piece of classified information. Is that okay in the President's view?

MR. McCLELLAN: Was it known that that information was classified?

Q Well, as a matter of policy --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's an important question. Was it known that information was classified information?

Q The article certainly identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. That fact presumably was not known --

MR. McCLELLAN: And the columnist said that it was his understanding that that individual was an analyst.

Q -- we don't know what he --

MR. McCLELLAN: But did the article say, "classified information," though? I mean, there are all sorts of "ifs" and "butin that question that would be difficult for me to answer from this podium. I think that's for -- the Department of Justiceis looking at all this.

Q Scott, you said that the first the White House Counsel's Office was notified of the investigation was Monday night.Attorney General Ashcroft said yesterday that the investigation was launched Friday, and that prior to that, there wascertain amount of legal activity that went -- involved before they decided to launch the investigation. What contactswere there between the White House Counsel's Office during that period of time and after the Sunday report --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, keep in mind that our Counsel's Office on a lot of issues is in contact with the Department ofJustice. What I said, that the first contact about the investigation -- as far as I know, and I've checked on this -- waswhen the Counsel's Office was contacted by the Department of Justice Monday evening.

Q So during this period of time, this sort of 48 hours between when The Washington Post reported that an investigatiwas under consideration and that Monday night, there was no contact between the White House Counsel's Office andthe Department of Justice concerning the scope or whether there was going to be an investigation on it?

MR. McCLELLAN: To the best of my knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, that's correct.

Q I have another issue. Are we still -- do you want to stay on this?



25/31



Q I have a --

MR. McCLELLAN: On another issue? The same issue, anybody? Bill. Hypothetical?

Q No, no hypothetical. Does this investigation extend to former administration officials, as well, people who worked inthe White House who might not work here now?

MR. McCLELLAN: You might direct that to the Department of Justice. What they've asked us to -- all White House

staffers to maintain their information. There are records that are maintained from former White House staffers that werhere. So, I mean, there's a lot of information that we have to maintain anyway. Some of this goes above and beyondthat, but those records that we have to maintain are always maintained. So if that's the question you're asking, I think

Q Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue?

Q This issue.

MR. McCLELLAN: Paula, not this issue? Paula, John, and -- well, I'll come back to you if I can at the end, John.

Paula, go ahead.

Q The President has been going around the country in his speeches talking about the corporate accountability issueand how important it is to be held accountable from the top down. And I still -- I still don't understand why, when thisinformation came out and it was made public in mid-July, why the President didn't feel it was his responsibility to askhis staff if they were involved in this? His inner-circle staff, who would have had access to the information.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me see if I can try to help you understand. First of all, back in July when this issue came up, Iwas asked about it. I pointed out that it was an anonymous source that was being cited in news reports, that there wno information beyond the media reports to suggest that the White House was involved in any way in what was -- thequestions that were raised at that time.

There is a process that the administration has in place to address the leak of classified information. Make no mistakeabout it, the President has always held the view that the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. Andthe process was followed. And the CIA reported information to the Department of Justice. That's what the President

expects to happen. It did happen. Now there's an investigation going on to determine whether or not classifiedinformation was leaked.

Q But prior to that process, the President didn't believe that he had any personal obligation to ask the staff --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President expects the leaking of classified information to be taken seriously. We did not haveany information beyond an anonymous source in media reports to suggest White House involvement. We could gothrough the paper, probably on a daily basis, look at anonymous sources, look at allegations that are made against thadministration and try to track down that information. But we would be doing a severe disservice to the Americanpeople, because we are staying focused on their business and the highest priorities that are going on in here.

I know there is a -- there sometimes is the media frenzy that happens around an issue like this. We are going to doeverything we can, at the direction of the President, to cooperate fully with this investigation. But we are also

remembering that we are here to serve the American people, and there are important priorities that need to beaddressed and we're going to continue focusing on those important priorities.

Q I want to set aside the issue of classified information, or leaking classified information for a minute -- a lawyer mighcall this a state of mind question. Back when Joe Wilson's op-ed came out in The New York Times criticizing theadministration, and when he went public and started giving TV interviews, saying that he thought that you wereexaggerating the intelligence and twisting the intelligence -- you have communications strategy meetings all the time,part to decide proactively what you want to say about the President's agenda, but in part, to decide how to respond topeople who are criticizing you. Do you recall ever being part of a meeting or meetings in which you said, this guy isgetting in our face, we need to rebut him, or we need to find our friends to rebut him?



26/31



Sometimes you do it from the podium. Sometimes you seek friends and allies in Congress. Sometimes, say theRepublican National Committee --

MR. McCLELLAN: John, like anybody else in the White House, I'll go back through all my records -- I'm making surethat I maintain them, too, and see if there's any information that's related to this investigation. If I find any --

Q I'm not asking --

MR. McCLELLAN: I know. But if I -- but if there's information that was requested of -- or requested, that we maintainrelating to Mr. Wilson's trip. One, we addressed the issue of when we became aware of that, of the trip, which was thsummer when it was reported. But, you know, like anybody else in this -- hopefully, like anybody else in this WhiteHouse, I'm going to do exactly what has been requested that we do and directed by the President of the United States

Q That's a Justice Department issue. I'm asking you, as someone who sits in this room everyday, was there ever aconversation or meetings where this -- you know, there was a big political debate going on then, as you well know --that this guy's kicking us, and we need to respond and rebut?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I remember is addressing the issue of the trip, and when we learned about that. That's whatremember. But I'm going to go back through my records like everybody else and see if there's anything else that maybe indirectly or directly relevant to what the Justice Department has asked.

Other issues? Goyal, I started with you, and we'll go back to you.

Q Yes, sir, thank you. Two quick questions. One, talking about the tape in Pakistan that was delivered by the numbertwo man of Osama bin Laden to the al Jazeera, and tape was coming from the Pakistani government of Pakistan. Thtape has been criticized now inside Pakistan and outside, that this may be creation of General Musharraf to gain moresympathy from the United States because of opposition back home. Any comments about the tape? How serious --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've heard nothing of the such. You're the first -- first place I've heard that is from you. Pakistan issomeone that is working closely with us in the war on terrorism. We appreciate their cooperation and we're continuingto work with them on the war on terrorism and other issues, as well, other bilateral issues, as well.

Q Number two, ongoing meeting now with Prime Minister of Pakistan with the President was in the Oval Office andover luncheon. What are the major issues here they are going to discuss, as far as the terrorism is going is concerneand Afghanistan problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I know, I expected -- I could be at that lunch right now, but I thought it would be more fun tocome out and answer all these hypotheticals. (Laughter.)

Actually, I didn't want to make you wait too long -- I didn't want to make you wait too long, and I guess he's probablythrough with that lunch by now and on his way to the Department of Homeland Security.

So I'll try to get you more information about the meeting and lunch. But, as I said earlier today, that I -- I fully expectethat they would talk about our cooperation in the war on terrorism. And they would talk about some of the regionalissues, such as Kashmir. The President made it clear last week to leaders of India and Pakistan that it's important tohave dialogue to help reduce the tensions in the region. And so I'm sure that that topic came up, as well, and otherissues.

Q Thank you. Scott, the AP is reporting that perhaps Saddam Hussein was bluffing, that he had no weapons of massdestruction. AP says the man looking for such weapons, David Kaye, plans to tell the Congress this week that Saddamay have been bluffing. Any comment?

MR. McCLELLAN: One, not seeing the progress report -- we have not seen the progress report that Dr. Kaye has beworking on. He will be testifying - - I believe tomorrow -- but we haven't seen the progress report, so I can't tell youwhat the progress report is going to say or what he's going to say. He'll have those remarks. But keep in mind, it's aprogress report, that the President directed him to pull together a full and complete picture of Saddam Hussein's histoof weapons of mass destruction.



27/31



We know he had weapons of mass destruction and we know he used weapons of mass destruction. Those are factsthat are indisputable. So we expect him to complete his work and the truth will come out. But at this point, what we'retalking about is just a progress report. And the CIA has commented specifically about what that will likely -- I mean,generally speaking, what the focus of or the scope of that progress report is.

Q On the $87 billion, is the administration concerned at all about the direction the debate is taking about it on CapitoHill? And why is it that the administration is so opposed to a $20 billion loan to Iraq, as opposed to a $20 billion granand then using the oil reserves as collateral?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's keep in mind a few things. One, this package, we view it as one package. Some are tryto separate out reconstruction from what our troops need. They go hand in hand, they go together. This is about -- Irahas become the central front in the war on terrorism. And this package is about helping us prevail in the central frontthe war on terrorism. This package will help make sure our troops have all the resources they need to carry out theirobjectives, to accomplish their task.

But part of helping them accomplish their tasks is bringing about a civil, orderly society, a society that is functioning.And there are really three different parts to that reconstruction package, so I think it's important to point those out:providing the people of Iraq with the tools and resources they need for their security, and this is in the form ofresources for an Iraqi army, for border security, for prosecutions and criminal -- investigating criminal activity.

There's also resources in there for establishing basic living standards. They were under a brutal regime that neglectedthe country. So it's addressing things such as building a children's hospital, improving the sanitation, building minimal

standard housing. All this helps to bring about a more secure environment, and that means our troops will be able toaccomplish their tasks better and sooner. And then it's also about creating an environment for investment andeconomic independence. And those are kind of the three parts of the reconstruction efforts.

But going back specifically to your question, Iraq was saddled with debt from the previous regime. It was the result ofSaddam Hussein and his brutal, oppressive regime. We are trying to work as quickly as possible to transition to a freesovereign and democratic Iraq so that the Iraqi people can have responsibility over their future. This is about helpingthe Iraqi people build a better future. We think that the best approach is to proceed forward with the grants and that iexactly what we will continue to push for. And we're appreciative of members of Congress who are working with us todo that and get it passed as quickly as possible.

Q Are you concerned, however, about the way the debate is being staged, that there seems to be a lot pressure? Ansome Republicans, including Arlen Specter, are expressing interest in the loan as opposed to a grant program.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I walked back through some of this. Keep in mind, we didn't walk away from Germanyand Japan after World War II. A free, sovereign and democratic Iraq is essential to our national interest and importantto our national security because this is about -- when we get there, we will have dealt a significant blow to the enemiin the war on terrorism by helping bring about more stability in a very volatile regime.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thanks.

END 1:30 P.M. EDT

Return to this article at:

/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html


28/31

EXHIBIT G






29/31

7/7/09 11:losing the Door | Print Article | Newsweek.com

Page ttp://www.newsweek.com/id/146651/output/print

Closing the DoorAn unusual new privilege claim shields Cheney in Plame probe.

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek Web ExclusiveJul 16, 2008 | Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET Jul 16, 2008

The Bush administration today unveiled a set of novel and controversial legal arguments inrefusing to disclose key details about Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the leak of CIAoperative Valerie Plame's identity.

In two letters released Wednesday, the Justice Department revealed that, upon therecommendation of Attorney General Michael Mukasey, President Bush had invoked executiveprivilege rather than turn over to Congress a never-released FBI report (known as a "302")recounting a confidential 2004 interview with Cheney about his knowledge of the Plame affair.

The White House move effectively closes the door on the last chance for the public to learnanswers to a swirl of questions that have surrounded Cheney's actions from the outset of thePlame case. Indeed, in his summation to the jury last year in the trial that led to the conviction ofthe vice president's top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, special counsel Patrick Fitzgeraldrepeatedly pointed to Cheney's actions, telling the jury at one point that "there is a cloud overwhat the vice president did."

The decision by the White House to refuse to honor the subpoena from Democratic Rep. Henry

Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for Cheney's interview washardly unexpected, given the administration's history of fiercely protecting presidentialprerogatives. What was surprising to some legal scholars was the basis for shielding the FBIinterview report. It was covered, Mukasey said, by what he called "the law-enforcementcomponent of executive privilege."

"As far as I know, this is an utterly unprecedented executive-privilege claim," said Peter Shane,an Ohio State University law professor who is an expert on executive privilege and separation-of-powers issues. "I've never heard this claim before."

Normally, claims of executive privilege are invoked to protect the disclosure of the president'scommunications with his top advisers. But in this case, the White House invoked the claim tokeep secret Cheney's responses to FBI agents (hardly what anybody would call his advisers),who were grilling him as part of the now-closed criminal investigation headed by Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald's probe focused on whether any administration officials broke the law when theydisclosed to members of the press that Plame, an undercover CIA operative who was the wife ofIraq War critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the agency. The disclosures were allegedly made aspart of a White House attempt to discredit Wilson by suggesting that a trip he took for the agencyto investigate claims about Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program was arranged by hiswife. Evidence in the case showed that Libbywho was convicted of lying and obstructionfirstlearned about Plame's CIA work from Cheney and was later directed by the vice president tomeet with reporters on an off-the-record basis to rebut criticism by Wilson.

What makes the decision to withhold the Cheney interview all the more unusual was the fact that



30/31


Page ttp://www.newsweek.com/id/146651/output/print

the White House had already agreed to permit congressional investigators to inspect the FBI 302reports of other top White House aides in the Plame case, including Karl Rove.

So what was different about Cheney?

Mukasey argued that giving Congress a copy of the FBI 302 report on Cheney would"significantly impair" the Justice Department's ability to investigate wrongdoing by future WhiteHouse officials. Presidents and vice presidents would be reluctant to submit voluntarily to FBIinterviews because there would be "an unacceptable risk" that their accounts would eventuallybecome public, he contended in a letter to Bush recommending that the president invoke theprivilege. (Both Bush and Cheney had agreed to be interviewed by Fitzgerald and FBI agentsworking for him. Waxman had initially subpoenaed Bush's FBI 302, as well, but the chairmandropped the request in an effort to encourage White House cooperation).

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse disputed the contention that the argumentsused by Mukasey to protect Cheney's FBI report were novel. He cited a 1986 legal opinion inwhich the Reagan Justice Department refused to turn over closed files from an independentcounsel probe on the grounds that their disclosure might impair "prosecutorial decision-making infuture cases."

The idea of applying this to "potential" future criminal investigations, as opposed to futuredecisions to prosecute in cases already underway, "is simply a particular variation on the samegeneral concept," Roehrkasse said.

But a number of former federal prosecutors and legal scholars said that Mukasey's argument thatfuture White House officials wouldn't cooperate with the Justice Department if Cheney's 302report were to be publicly disclosed seemed a stretch. (The legal claims were prepared in part byOffice of Legal Counsel chief Stephen Bradbury, whose legal opinions on interrogation andtorture have come under fire from Congress).

"Creative is a good word to describe it," said Mark Rozell, another executive-privilege expert whois a professor at George Mason University's School of Public Policy, about the attorney general'scontention. "This is really an argument to protect the White House's own political interests andsave it from embarrassment."

As a practical matter, White House officialsincluding presidents and vice presidentsmustcooperate with Justice Department criminal investigations involving their administrations, notedMichael Bromwich, a former federal prosecutor who investigated White House wrongdoing duringthe Iran-contra affair and later served as the Justice Department's inspector general. Thealternative to submitting voluntarily to FBI interviews is simple: officials would invariably receivegrand-jury subpoenasand pay a rather high political, if not legal costif they refused tocooperate. "In the real world, high-level White House officials don't have the choice of notsubmitting to FBI interviews," Bromwich said.

Investigators for Representative Waxman, the chairman of the House oversight panel whose staffprepared the subpoenas, noted other problems with Mukasey's argument. Former attorneygeneral Janet Reno agreed to turn over to Congress closed Justice Department files from thecampaign-finance investigations into the Clinton White House in the 1990s, including FBIinterviews with both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Yet, as one staffer noted, thatdidn't stop Bush or Cheney from submitting to FBI interviews by Fitzgerald's team. (Indeed, Bushhimself publicly ordered everybody in the White House to cooperate when the Plame probe

began.)

The White House move left Waxman and his team momentarily stymied. The Californiacongressman began his probe of the Plame affair shortly after the Democrats took back controlof the House in January 2007, claiming that there were still a host of key questions about thematter (such as why no White House officials were fired or reprimanded for disclosing classifiedinformation) that were left unanswered by Fitzgerald's more narrowly focused criminal probe.(Fitzgerald ultimately prosecuted Libby for perjury and obstructionnot any underlying crime forleaking Plame's status as a CIA agent.)

Among the documents that Waxman had subpoenaedwhich the White House also refused to



31/31


turn over Wednesdaywere notes taken by then deputy national-security adviser StephenHadley about conversations he had with Cheney and other White House officials during thecourse of the probe. Other subpoenaed material included papers relating to the preparation ofPresident Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech and internal notes about how to rebut criticismby Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Wilson, that the speech's claim that SaddamHussein was seeking uranium from Niger was untrue.

It was, of course, the Niger uranium claimeventually shown to have been based on a crudeforgerythat triggered concerns that the White House had hyped and inflated intelligence to sellthe invasion of Iraq. But while he can always try to take the White House to court, Waxman'shopes that he will get to the bottom of that matteror any of the multiple controversies thatflowed from it, including the Plame affairwere considerably dimmed today.

Terror Watch appears weekly on Newsweek.com

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/146651

2008


crew v. doj: re: valerie plame: 7/10/09 - crew's supplemental brief (4-9) (document 18)

Documents