Bush Contacts Outside Attorney in Leak Case

ABC News ^ | June 2, 2004

[vaudine]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely threw out some interesting facts-at least interesting to me. Sometimes there is a tacit agreement that some things are better left untold. I merely find it interesting --it may be that Bush 1 thinks Tenet is great.
You may LOL, but where the CIA is concerned, almost anything goes.

vaudine

[sarasota]

There is far more going on "under the radar" than any of us could imagine.

[plain talk]

He needs to do more of that but more importantly ne needs to create news that gets reported and commented on, that has legs and has a shelf-life of more than a few hours.

[Dave S]

Huh? Bush wouldn't have leaked anything to Novak. What's he need private counsel for?

There is a possibility that Bush may get called before grandjury investigating the leak, not necessarily that he was the leaker but to determine what he knows about the leak and who may have done it and why. Only a fool would go before grandjury without having an attorney.

[MEG33]

Do you think the media is going to give him good press for more than a day?...LOL

[Dave S]

Sarcasm noted, however, as a *general* rule, innocent folks never have a need to retain a lawyer.

Unless they are high profile and/or poltically connected and of the opposite political party from the prosecutor.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The CIA vetted these defectors? With what? "These defectors over here say these other defectors over here are legit." Our amount of true intelligence about Iraq could be counted on one hand. Hell, even Saddam barely knew what was going on in his country since all his underlings were lying to him and scamming him for money. It was one big insane asylum run by Enron-quality supervisors.

[plain talk]

The media won't give him good press period. But what Bush has to do is drive the news, get on the offense and be in more control of the news cycle. Create some stupid national monument, sign an executive order. Anything. Best things would be those that drive discussion amongst the talking heads.

[Stone Mountain]

I'm curious. What crime, precisely, did he commit?

We'll never know for sure because he was pardoned before any investigation could be completed. So technically, he wasn't a criminal. But it looked like he could have been charged with conspiracy regarding the Watergate break-in and the stealing the of the Ellsberg (I think - it's been a while...) files. Of course, if you believe that Haldeman, Erlichman, and the like initiated all of those things having never consulted the president, you are entitled to that opinion. However, given the hierarchy in the Nixon administration, that seems very unlikely to me.

[Stone Mountain]

What is the scenario where it is plausible that this could be an accurate report? I cannot believe that, under the premise of the story, President Bush could not locate an attorney without a reporter being informed. I do not believe the story.

What part don't you believe? You think that the president actually didn't consult an attorney at all? I think if that were the case, we'd hear an immediate statement from McClellan denying this whole story...

[A CA Guy]

He has to have a non-government lawyer because that lawyer would provide no privacy for the President.

So some private lawyer will I am sure volunteer his time so the President can have advice that isn't open to the public.

If he used a public attorney, every question the President asked and all advice given could end up in a campaign ad against him.

[huck von finn]

We'll never know for sure because he was pardoned before any investigation could be completed. So technically, he wasn't a criminal. But it looked like he could have been charged with conspiracy regarding the Watergate break-in and the stealing the of the Ellsberg (I think - it's been a while...) files. Of course, if you believe that Haldeman, Erlichman, and the like initiated all of those things having never consulted the president, you are entitled to that opinion. However, given the hierarchy in the Nixon administration, that seems very unlikely to me.

He knew about it and didn't stop it. That was enough.

[okie01]

But it looked like he could have been charged with conspiracy regarding the Watergate break-in and the stealing the of the Ellsberg (I think - it's been a while...) files.

Jerome Zeifman was the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee and, thus, in charge of drafting impeachment charges against Nixon.

After Nixon was pardoned, Zeifman was asked how many potential indictments had been neutralized. Zeifman said "None". In his view, there was insufficient evidence of any criminal activity that would warrant so much as an indictment.

In short, "abuse of power" is not a felony. And there was not enough evidence of Nixon's complicity to support an "obstruction of justice" indictment.

[linn37]

oh yeah he is sharp ,,,,,save a horse ride a cowboy