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

Case 1:08-cv-01468-EGS Document 18-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT B
Plaintiff’s 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 INMENT
Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT
15071
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS
FURNISHED
CONFIDENTIALITY
DECEMBER 242003
THE HONORABLE BRUCE SWARTZ
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON DC 20530
RE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTER OF DECEMBER 16 2003 TO COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT

CONCERNING POSSIBLE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORN
DEAR MR SWARTZ
THIS IS THE FOURTH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OVP AS PART OF
THE ROLLING PROCESS OF PRODUCTION IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVECITED LETTER ENCLOSED ARE DOCUI
PAGES NUMBERED 002870 THROUGH 002923 WITH PAGES 002878

INCLUSIVE 002880 002893
002915 ON THE REVERSE OF PAGES 002877 002879002892 AND 002914 RESPECTIVELY THATI
RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST IN YOUR LETTER THESE DOCUMENTSWERE RETRIEVED UNDER THE CERTIFICATION
OF LEWIS LIBBY
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE ALL ORIGINALS ALSO NOTE THAT ENCLOSED PAGES
NUMBERED 002878 AND 002880 ARE THE ORIGINALS FOR THE COPIES PRODUCED ON DECEMBER 22 2003 AS
PAGES NUMBERED 002579 AND 002580 RESPECTIVELY
PAGE 002919 WAS FURNISHED TO ME MARKED TREATED AS TOP SECRETSCI IN MY JUDGMENT
PAGE 002919 AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT MARKED AS CLASSIFIED
NEVERTHELESS CONTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED OR CLASSIFIABLE UNDER EXECUTIVE
ORDER 12958 AS AMENDED ON MARCH25 2003 AND INFORMATION CONCERNING INTELLIGENCE SOURCES
AND METHODS PROTECTED BY LAW 50 USC 4033C7 THUS REQUEST THAT YOU HANDLE THE
ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER AS CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND THAT YOU
ASK AN AGENCY WITH THE ANNROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER INTEREST AND CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION SEE SECTION OF 13E

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
LLOO50943
THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS INCLUDE MATERIALS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE VICE
PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO PRESERVE THE EFFECTIVE FHNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE
PRESIDENCY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE PRESIDEXITIAL RECORDS
ACT AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCH MATERIALS IN THE CONTEXT OF
RESPONDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LUSTICE LETTER CITED ABOVE AM PRODUCING THE FULL TEXT OF SUCH
MATERIALS TO YOU ASK THAT YOU RESTRICT ACCESS TO PAGES WITH ITEMS THAT REFLECT COMMUNICATIONS TO
OR FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE CONSISTENT WITH
YOUR JUDGMENT OF THE NEEDS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE INTRUSION INTO THE
EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY
THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN THE INVESTIGATION
YOU ARE CONDUCTING AND ON CONDITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY

THEY REMAIN
PRESIDENTIAL
EXECUTIVE RECORDS UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT AND REQUEST THAT YOU RETURN THEM WHEN
THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE FURNISHED IS SATISFIED THE DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED RESERVING ALL
LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
OR PRIVATE PARTIES
CERELY
DAVID ADDINGTON
COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
LLOO509432
EXHIBIT C


MENT
ISESI EXHIBIT

WAS IN GTD
UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ENCLOSURES
MARCH 2004
INSPECTOR JOBN ECKENRODE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIOI
935 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

ROOM7847
WASHINGTON DC 20535
TEL
DEAR INSPECTOR ECKENRODE
RE LETTER FROM DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IBRUCE SWARTZ TO DAVID ADDINGTON
COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT DATED DECEMBER 16 2003
THIS LETTER FORWARDS DOCUMENTSNUMBERED 007261 THROUGH 007267 THAT BE RESPONSIYE TO THE
ABOVECITED LETTER THE ABOVECITED LETTER REQUESTED TO THE EXTENT NOT ALREADY PRODUCED ALL
HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF LEWIS LIBBY AND CATHERINE MARTIN FOR THE FOLLOWING DATES MAY
TBROUGHMAY 10 2003 JUNE THROUGH JUNE 15 2003JULY4 THROUGH JULY25 2003 JULY28
THROUGH JULY 29 2003 AND SEPTEMBER 27 THROUGH OCTOBER 13 2003 AMONGOTHER THINGS THE
ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE FROM THE FILES OF LEWIS LIBBY AND WERE GIVEN TO ME TODAY
IN MY JUDGMENT THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED OR
CLASSIFIABLE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 AS AMENDED ON MARCH 25 2003 AND MAY INCLUDE
INFORMATION CONCERNING INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS PROTECTED BY LAW 50 USC 403
3C7 REQUEST THAT YOU HANDLE THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER AS CLASSIFIED
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND THAT YOU ASK AN WITH THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER
INTEREST AND CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION SEE SECTION
13E OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
PRESIDENT OR THE RESIDENT TO PRESERVE THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE
PRESIDENCY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
ACT AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCHMATERIALS IN THE CONTEXT OF
RESPONDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTER CITED ABOVE AM PRODUCING THE FULL TEXT OF SUCH
OR FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE CONSISTEHT WITH
LLOO509487
YOUR JUDGMENT OF THE NEEDS OF YOUR INYESTIGATION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE INTRUSION INTO THE
THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE FTRRNISHED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OFASSISTING IN THE INVESTIGATION
YOU ARE CONDUCTING AND ON CONDITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY THEY REMAIN VICE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE
RECORDS UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT AND REQUEST THAT YOU RETUM THEM WHEN THE PURPOSE
FOR WHICH THEY ARE FURNISHED IS SATISFIED THE DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED RESERVING ALL LEGAL
AUTHORITIES AND PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OR
PRIVATE PARTIES
DAVID ADDMGTO
COUNSEL TO TH8 VICE PRESIDENT
LLOO509488
EXHIBIT D


NMENT
EXHIBIT
15111 ID

WASHINGTON
UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ENCLOSURES
MARCH 18 2004
INSPECTOR JOHN ECKENRODE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
935 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

ROOM 7847
WASHINGTON DC 20535
TEL
DEAR INSPECTOR ECKENRODE
RE TELEPHONE REQUEST FROM DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROOS TO COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
ON MARCH 17 2004 FOR ENTIRE CONTENTS OF OVP FILE MAINTAINED BY MAYFIELD WITH
TITLE LIKE NIGERURANIUM THAT CONTAINS PRESS CLIPPINGS SOME OF WHICH MAY BEAR
MARKINGS
THIS LETTER FORWARDS DOCUMENTS NUMBERED 007270 THROUGH 007684 THAT MAY BE RESPONSIVE THE
ABOVECITED REQUEST IN REGARD TO THE INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE DISCLOSURE TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS
OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION CONCERNING AMBASSADOR JOSEPH WILSON HIS TRIP TO NIGER IN FEBRUARY
2002 HIS WIFE AND MATTERS RELATING THERETO THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED TO ME TODAY UNDER
THE CERTIFICATION OF JENNIFER MAYFIELD
DOCUMENTS CONTAINING NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXECUTIVE

ORDER 12958 AS AMENDED ON MARCH 25 2003 ARE ENCLOSED IN ADDITION IN MY JUDGMENT OTHER
DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED THAT ARE NOT MARKED AS CLASSIFIED MAY CONTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
CLASSIFIED OR CLASSIFIABLE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 AND MAY INCLUDE INFORMATION CONCERNING
INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS PROTECTED BY LAW 50 USC 4033C7 REQUEST THAT YOU
HANDLE THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER AS CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
AND THAT YOU ASK AN WITH THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER INTEREST AND CLASSIFICATION
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION SEE SECTION 13E OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
12958
PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO PRESERVE THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE
PRESIDENCY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
ACT AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCH MATERIALS IN THE CONTEXT OF
RESPONDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REQUEST CITED ABOVE AM PRODUCING THE FULL TEXT OF SUCH
P614
32 C64AOL
OR FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE CONSISTENT WITH
YOUR JUDGMENT OF THE NEEDS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE INTRUSION INTO THE
THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN THE INVESTIGATION
YOU ARE CONDUCTING AND ON CONDITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY THEY REMAIN VICE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE
RECORDS UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT AND REQUEST THAT YOU RETURN THEM WHEN THE PURPOSE
FOR WHICH THEY ARE FURNISHED IS SATISFIED THE DOCUMENTS ARE FURNISHED RESERVING ALL LEGAL
AUTHORITIES AND PRIVILEGES THAT APPLY INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OR
PRIVATE PARTIES
SINCE
DAVID
COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
EXHIBIT E


Case 1:08-cv-01468-EGS
President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders Document 18-7 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 3 7/7/09 10:51 PM
For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary
September 30, 2003
President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders

University of Chicago
Chicago, 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 sharing
with me their concerns about our economy. I think it's safe to say most people share the sense of optimism I do, but
recognize 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 energy
plan. We talked about fair trade for American manufacturers. We talked
about the need for China to make sure that China's got a monetary policy
which is fair. And I assured the leaders here that I would work to -- I'd
represent the manufacturing sector and the -- all sectors of our economy
when it comes to world trade.
The thing I'm concerned about is people being able to find a job. We put
the conditions in place for good job creation, but I recognize there's still
people who want to work that can't find a job. And we're dedicated to
hearing 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 significant
contribution 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 ramifications
of 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 classified
information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just
too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated
law, 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 have
done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be
fully 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/print/20030930-9.html Page 1 of 2
President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders Document 18-7 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 3 7/7/09 10:51 PM
would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true
and 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 a
minute. 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 classified
information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this
investigation 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 the
allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the
information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration.
And 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 information
are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've
had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and
the 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
EXHIBIT F


Press Briefing by Scott McClellan Document 18-8 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 15 7/7/09 10:52 PM
For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary
October 1, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:44 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. This afternoon here shortly the Press Briefing
President looks forward to going to the Department of Homeland Security, view
where he will receive a briefing and then sign the Homeland Security listen
Appropriations Act. The President believes the best way to defeat terrorists
is 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 prepared
as possible when it comes to responding to any attack that may come. We have taken unprecedented steps to secure
our 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.C.
appropriations bill, which includeds $40 million for improving D.C. public and charter schools, as well as scholarships for
a School Choice program here in Washington, D.C. D.C. School Choice will give parents more options to determine
what is the best school to meet their children's needs by providing scholarships for low income children. The silent
filibuster launched by a few Senate Democrats to prevent a vote is wrong. The measure has the bipartisan support
necessary to win passage and it deserves a vote. We will continue to work with Congress to secure passage of this
important 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 is
leaked, and they followed a process and that process has moved forward. And the Department of Justice is looking into
it. I don't know the specific time period, but the process was followed, and the President expects the process to be
followed, and that process was followed, and that what the President expects, because leaking classified information is
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 he
know in July that an undercover CIA official had been outed and that the person who outed that undercover CIA official
attributed 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're
still making in your remarks. The Department of Justice is looking into this to determine what you're saying about the
potential leak of classified information concerning an undercover CIA agent. And there have been some news reports
that I saw back to that period, some that have been cited recently, talking about how some of this information may have
been well-known within the D.C. community.
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. I
don't know, in answer to your first part of your question. But the President expects the process to be followed for
something like this, and it was. The CIA followed the process and information has been provided to the Department of
Justice. The Department of Justice is looking into it. But, remember, back in July, when this issue came up and I was
asked about it, it was an anonymous source in the newspaper. There are plenty of anonymous sources in news reports
on a daily basis, and we could spend all our time trying to track down the information from those anonymous sources.
But 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 media
reports with anonymous sources to suggest any White House involvement. But the process was followed, and that's
what's important. The President believes it's important that the process was followed, because the President believes
the 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 this
investigation 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 their
role, and the criminal division over there.
Q Scott, in the past, the Justice Department has used polygraph examinations in sensitive leak investigations. The
President has said he expects full cooperation. If I work at the White House and down the road in this investigation the
Justice Department came to me and said, we want you to submit to a polygraph investigation, the President would
expect the answer to be?
MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate the hypothetical, but that is a hypothetical and that is not where the process is. The
process is that the Justice Department has asked the White House to preserve any and all material related to the
specific 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 Department
team made a request of a White House official that is consistent with past practices in a similar investigation, would the
President 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 to
senior staff the other day -- that was the President -- at the President's direction. We will cooperate fully with the
investigation 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 know
you'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"?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, the issue here, and this came up earlier, the issue here is whether or not someone leaked
classified 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 about
Karl Rove, and then he backed away from it. And now he's saying other things. There's a changing of the issue here all
of a sudden. The issue here is did someone leak classified information, and, if so, who was that person, and then the
appropriate 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 further
questioning 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 that's
inaccurate.
MR. McCLELLAN: If Mr. Wilson -- well, he made some comments earlier and then he backed away from them, and
those 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 true
in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear. But I'm not going to -- we're
not going to go down every single allegation that someone makes. That's just -- we can do that all day long. Let's stay
focused on what the issue is here.
Q You said the issue here was whether someone leaked classified information. As I understand the applicable laws
here, 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 to
play a lawyer from here. But the leaking of -- I'll go back to what I have said and what the President has said, and what
he has always said, that the leaking of classified information is a serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest
extent. 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
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 Department
officials 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 deserved
it, he got it because his wife works at the CIA. Is there a concern about that side of the issue, regardless of whether or
not 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 job
because 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, was
there concern that news reports said that he may have -- or suggested that he may have gotten the job because his
wife 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 leak
of classified information, it was, one could argue, an attempt to belittle his credentials by saying he got the job because
of 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 information
brought 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 the
White House developed any rules of engagement between staffers and contacts with agents? Do the staffers have to
report 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 what
White House staff has been directed to do and we expect all White House staff to do. That's the issue here. The
Justice 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 point -
-
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 to
preserve and maintain a great deal of information. A lot of our information is already retained. I mean, the phone calls
that 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 -- the
possibility. In going back through your records and anyone else you've come in contact with, have you come upon any
documents that are covered by the "relevance" that either mention the Ambassador, mention his wife and her role at
the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: Are you asking if I, personally, have?
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 the
questions. If they have information related to the investigation, we made it very clear that we want that information
reported 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 might
have been emailed around the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, but at this point, staff has been directed to preserve the information and make sure they
maintain that information. They haven't been asked to do anything. Like, they haven't been asked to give it to anybody
or 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 the
Department of Justice, particularly people who are citing White House officials as being involved in news reports -- if
they 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 relevant
to 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 to
Andy 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 earlier
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 under
investigation, 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 that
accounts 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 was
an anonymous source making allegations -- I'm not even sure when it was specifically -- an allegation was specifically
made 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 the
initial article, suggesting that classified information had been leaked and citing senior administration officials. Again, the
appropriate way for this to be handled is the way it was. The CIA looked at this, made some determinations, sent some
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, and
then 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 in
July and August?
MR. McCLELLAN: Because there was no information -- there was no information brought to our attention beyond an
anonymous 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 was
published, toward the name --
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, here we go. I mean, this is -- I understand that this is the way Washington, D.C. operates, and
all 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 the
next 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 serious
matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. And the President does not condone the kind of activity you talked about.
Q He does not condone the -- people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would
not 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 will,
say 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 an
investigation 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 people
okay by this? Are you aware of that happening?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you need to talk to the CIA about those questions, if they've gone back and made those
determinations.
Q And if I can follow. Is there any need for Attorney General Ashcroft, given his relationship with Karl Rove and others,
to 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. The
Department 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 are
part of the investigation. It's being addressed by the career professionals at the Department of Justice and FBI. And the
President responded to that issue yesterday, as well.
Q Ambassador Wilson is meeting today on the Hill with congressional Democrats. Does the White House consider him
an 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 look
at that. That's part of the job of you all in the media, to look at and make determinations about -- or to at least present
it 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. There
is a lot of back and forth that goes on here in Washington, D.C. The President is most interested in determining what
happened and getting to the bottom of this investigation. There have been some serious allegations made and we need
to 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 through
everybody.
Q According to the chronology you outlined yesterday, there was this, approximately an 11-hour time lag between the
time the Counsel's Office was notified by Justice on Monday night and the memo and messages went out to staffers to
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 never
have allowed that. I understand what you said yesterday, that you were prepared to move immediately -- "you," the
Counsel'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 the
Counsel'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 not
getting into all the names -- at approximately 8:30 p.m. on Monday evening. I mean, the White House staff was not
notified 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 underway
until 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.
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 the
White House staff was not contacted. It went to Counsel's Office and I think Counsel, appropriately so, would inform the
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 House
staff 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't
bring them with me to read through that. But it was very specific information that was sent to us yesterday afternoon
from 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 to
people 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 Ambassador
Wilson, 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 Ambassador
Wilson on this mission? He's proven himself to be partisan, and does that cast doubt on the report that he filed in this
matter?
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 in
the 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
Rove or any others in the White House talk with reporters, not leak classified information, but talk with reporters about
Mr. 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 have
related to some of the issues you bring up. I'm not -- there's been no information brought to our attention to suggest
that anyone leaked classified information, and the President certainly doesn't condone the leaking, or the tactics you're
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 just
made it -- I made it clear early, you brought up Karl's name. Let's be very clear. I thought -- I said it was a ridiculous
suggestion, I said it's simply not true that he was involved in leaking classified information, and -- nor, did he condone
that kind of activity. This has been answered, and now we're trying to get in a whole bunch of issues, separate and
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's
not true that he was involved in the leaking of classified information or that he condoned some of what you're
suggesting.
Q No, but did he -- did he participate in that? Because then it would make sense that he said, she's fair game now, if it
was 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 the
issue was -- and someone asked about condoning that information. I made it very clear that he didn't condone that kind
of 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 far
as 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 such
as, did anyone talk about what was in the news, what was reported in the paper, things of that nature. That can go
down a whole lot of different roads. And that's why I think it's important to let the investigation take place. And the
investigation is specifically about potential leak of classified information. And you're asking me to try to determine
information 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 spelled
out in the letter from the Department of Justice, and that's the information that could be related to those topics and
those areas. And so we expect all White House staff to follow the directive from the President to cooperate fully in
preserving 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 the
fact, classified information --
MR. McCLELLAN: That is such a broad question, about is it okay to discuss news articles. I mean, news articles are
discussed 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 that
kind of --
MR. McCLELLAN: A news article that reported information?
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 original
article 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 was
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 this
article? I'm just not in a position to be able to do that. I think that's the position for -- that those issues will be
addressed 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 of
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 "buts"
in that question that would be difficult for me to answer from this podium. I think that's for -- the Department of Justice
is 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 was a
certain amount of legal activity that went -- involved before they decided to launch the investigation. What contacts
were 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 of
Justice. What I said, that the first contact about the investigation -- as far as I know, and I've checked on this -- was
when 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 investigation
was under consideration and that Monday night, there was no contact between the White House Counsel's Office and
the 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?
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 in
the 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 were
here. So, I mean, there's a lot of information that we have to maintain anyway. Some of this goes above and beyond
that, 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 issue
and how important it is to be held accountable from the top down. And I still -- I still don't understand why, when this
information came out and it was made public in mid-July, why the President didn't feel it was his responsibility to ask
his 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, I
was asked about it. I pointed out that it was an anonymous source that was being cited in news reports, that there was
no information beyond the media reports to suggest that the White House was involved in any way in what was -- the
questions 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 mistake
about it, the President has always held the view that the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And
the 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 classified
information 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 have
any information beyond an anonymous source in media reports to suggest White House involvement. We could go
through the paper, probably on a daily basis, look at anonymous sources, look at allegations that are made against the
administration and try to track down that information. But we would be doing a severe disservice to the American
people, 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 do
everything 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 be
addressed 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 might
call this a state of mind question. Back when Joe Wilson's op-ed came out in The New York Times criticizing the
administration, and when he went public and started giving TV interviews, saying that he thought that you were
exaggerating the intelligence and twisting the intelligence -- you have communications strategy meetings all the time, in
part to decide proactively what you want to say about the President's agenda, but in part, to decide how to respond to
people who are criticizing you. Do you recall ever being part of a meeting or meetings in which you said, this guy is
getting in our face, we need to rebut him, or we need to find our friends to rebut him?
Sometimes you do it from the podium. Sometimes you seek friends and allies in Congress. Sometimes, say the
Republican National Committee --
MR. McCLELLAN: John, like anybody else in the White House, I'll go back through all my records -- I'm making sure
that 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 maintain
relating to Mr. Wilson's trip. One, we addressed the issue of when we became aware of that, of the trip, which was this
summer when it was reported. But, you know, like anybody else in this -- hopefully, like anybody else in this White
House, 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 a
conversation 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 what I
remember. But I'm going to go back through my records like everybody else and see if there's anything else that may
be 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 number
two man of Osama bin Laden to the al Jazeera, and tape was coming from the Pakistani government of Pakistan. That
tape has been criticized now inside Pakistan and outside, that this may be creation of General Musharraf to gain more
sympathy 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 is
someone that is working closely with us in the war on terrorism. We appreciate their cooperation and we're continuing
to 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 and
over luncheon. What are the major issues here they are going to discuss, as far as the terrorism is going is concerned,
and 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 to
come 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 probably
through 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 expected
that they would talk about our cooperation in the war on terrorism. And they would talk about some of the regional
issues, such as Kashmir. The President made it clear last week to leaders of India and Pakistan that it's important to
have dialogue to help reduce the tensions in the region. And so I'm sure that that topic came up, as well, and other
issues.
Q Thank you. Scott, the AP is reporting that perhaps Saddam Hussein was bluffing, that he had no weapons of mass
destruction. AP says the man looking for such weapons, David Kaye, plans to tell the Congress this week that Saddam
may have been bluffing. Any comment?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, not seeing the progress report -- we have not seen the progress report that Dr. Kaye has been
working on. He will be testifying -- I believe tomorrow -- but we haven't seen the progress report, so I can't tell you
what 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 a
progress report, that the President directed him to pull together a full and complete picture of Saddam Hussein's history
of weapons of mass destruction.
We know he had weapons of mass destruction and we know he used weapons of mass destruction. Those are facts
that are indisputable. So we expect him to complete his work and the truth will come out. But at this point, what we're
talking 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 Capitol
Hill? And why is it that the administration is so opposed to a $20 billion loan to Iraq, as opposed to a $20 billion grant,
and 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 trying
to separate out reconstruction from what our troops need. They go hand in hand, they go together. This is about -- Iraq
has become the central front in the war on terrorism. And this package is about helping us prevail in the central front in
the war on terrorism. This package will help make sure our troops have all the resources they need to carry out their
objectives, 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 of
resources 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 neglected
the 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 to
accomplish their tasks better and sooner. And then it's also about creating an environment for investment and
economic 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 of
Saddam Hussein and his brutal, oppressive regime. We are trying to work as quickly as possible to transition to a free,
sovereign and democratic Iraq so that the Iraqi people can have responsibility over their future. This is about helping
the Iraqi people build a better future. We think that the best approach is to proceed forward with the grants and that is
exactly what we will continue to push for. And we're appreciative of members of Congress who are working with us to
do 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? And
some 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 Germany
and Japan after World War II. A free, sovereign and democratic Iraq is essential to our national interest and important
to our national security because this is about -- when we get there, we will have dealt a significant blow to the enemies
in 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
EXHIBIT G


Closing the Door | Print Article | Newsweek.com Document 18-9 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 4 7/7/09 11:24 PM
Closing the Door

An unusual new privilege claim shields Cheney in Plame probe.
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 16, 2008 | Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET Jul 16, 2008
The Bush administration today unveiled a set of novel and controversial legal arguments in
refusing to disclose key details about Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the leak of CIA
operative Valerie Plame's identity.
In two letters released Wednesday, the Justice Department revealed that, upon the
recommendation of Attorney General Michael Mukasey, President Bush had invoked executive
privilege 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 learn
answers to a swirl of questions that have surrounded Cheney's actions from the outset of the
Plame case. Indeed, in his summation to the jury last year in the trial that led to the conviction of
the vice president's top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald
repeatedly pointed to Cheney's actions, telling the jury at one point that "there is a cloud over
what 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 was
hardly unexpected, given the administration's history of fiercely protecting presidential
prerogatives. What was surprising to some legal scholars was the basis for shielding the FBI
interview report. It was covered, Mukasey said, by what he called "the law-enforcement
component 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's
communications with his top advisers. But in this case, the White House invoked the claim to
keep 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 they
disclosed to members of the press that Plame, an undercover CIA operative who was the wife of
Iraq War critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the agency. The disclosures were allegedly made as
part of a White House attempt to discredit Wilson by suggesting that a trip he took for the agency
to investigate claims about Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program was arranged by his
wife. Evidence in the case showed that Libby—who was convicted of lying and obstruction—first
learned about Plame's CIA work from Cheney and was later directed by the vice president to
meet 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
http://www.newsweek.com/id/146651/output/print Page 1 of 3
the White House had already agreed to permit congressional investigators to inspect the FBI 302
reports 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 White
House officials. Presidents and vice presidents would be reluctant to submit voluntarily to FBI
interviews because there would be "an unacceptable risk" that their accounts would eventually
become public, he contended in a letter to Bush recommending that the president invoke the
privilege. (Both Bush and Cheney had agreed to be interviewed by Fitzgerald and FBI agents
working for him. Waxman had initially subpoenaed Bush's FBI 302, as well, but the chairman
dropped the request in an effort to encourage White House cooperation).
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse disputed the contention that the arguments
used by Mukasey to protect Cheney's FBI report were novel. He cited a 1986 legal opinion in
which the Reagan Justice Department refused to turn over closed files from an independent
counsel probe on the grounds that their disclosure might impair "prosecutorial decision-making in
future cases."
The idea of applying this to "potential" future criminal investigations, as opposed to future
decisions to prosecute in cases already underway, "is simply a particular variation on the same
general concept," Roehrkasse said.
But a number of former federal prosecutors and legal scholars said that Mukasey's argument that
future White House officials wouldn't cooperate with the Justice Department if Cheney's 302
report were to be publicly disclosed seemed a stretch. (The legal claims were prepared in part by
Office of Legal Counsel chief Stephen Bradbury, whose legal opinions on interrogation and
torture have come under fire from Congress).
"Creative is a good word to describe it," said Mark Rozell, another executive-privilege expert who
is a professor at George Mason University's School of Public Policy, about the attorney general's
contention. "This is really an argument to protect the White House's own political interests and
save it from embarrassment."
As a practical matter, White House officials—including presidents and vice presidents—must

cooperate with Justice Department criminal investigations involving their administrations, noted
Michael Bromwich, a former federal prosecutor who investigated White House wrongdoing during
the Iran-contra affair and later served as the Justice Department's inspector general. The
alternative to submitting voluntarily to FBI interviews is simple: officials would invariably receive
grand-jury subpoenas—and pay a rather high political, if not legal cost—if they refused to
cooperate. "In the real world, high-level White House officials don't have the choice of not
submitting to FBI interviews," Bromwich said.
Investigators for Representative Waxman, the chairman of the House oversight panel whose staff
prepared the subpoenas, noted other problems with Mukasey's argument. Former attorney
general Janet Reno agreed to turn over to Congress closed Justice Department files from the
campaign-finance investigations into the Clinton White House in the 1990s, including FBI
interviews with both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Yet, as one staffer noted, that
didn't stop Bush or Cheney from submitting to FBI interviews by Fitzgerald's team. (Indeed, Bush
himself 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 California
congressman began his probe of the Plame affair shortly after the Democrats took back control
of the House in January 2007, claiming that there were still a host of key questions about the
matter (such as why no White House officials were fired or reprimanded for disclosing classified
information) that were left unanswered by Fitzgerald's more narrowly focused criminal probe.
(Fitzgerald ultimately prosecuted Libby for perjury and obstruction—not any underlying crime for
leaking Plame's status as a CIA agent.)
Among the documents that Waxman had subpoenaed—which the White House also refused to
turn over Wednesday—were notes taken by then deputy national-security adviser Stephen
Hadley about conversations he had with Cheney and other White House officials during the
course of the probe. Other subpoenaed material included papers relating to the preparation of
President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech and internal notes about how to rebut criticism
by Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Wilson, that the speech's claim that Saddam
Hussein was seeking uranium from Niger was untrue.
It was, of course, the Niger uranium claim—eventually shown to have been based on a crude
forgery—that triggered concerns that the White House had hyped and inflated intelligence to sell
the invasion of Iraq. But while he can always try to take the White House to court, Waxman's
hopes that he will get to the bottom of that matter—or any of the multiple controversies that
flowed from it, including the Plame affair—were 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&#39;s Supplemental Brief (4-9) (Document 18)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREW v. DOJ: Re: Valerie Plame: 7/10/09 - CREW&#39;s Supplemental Brief (4-9) (Document 18)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:08-cv-01468-EGS Document 18-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum in

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.

UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ATTACHMENTS

THE HONORABLE BRUCE SWARTZ

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

RE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LETTER OF DECEMBER 16 2003 TO COUNSEL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT

PAGES NUMBERED 002870 THROUGH 002923 WITH PAGES 002878

PAGES NUMBERED 002579 AND 002580 RESPECTIVELY

PAGE 002919 WAS FURNISHED TO ME MARKED TREATED AS TOP SECRETSCI IN MY JUDGMENT

DETERMINE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION SEE SECTION OF 13E

EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY

YOU ARE CONDUCTING AND ON CONDITION OF CONFIDENTIALITY

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum in

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ENCLOSURES

INSPECTOR JOBN ECKENRODE

935 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

DEAR INSPECTOR ECKENRODE

IN MY JUDGMENT THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED OR

13E OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum in

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

UNCLASSIFIED WHEN SEPARATED FROM CLASSIFIED ENCLOSURES

INSPECTOR JOHN ECKENRODE

935 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

DEAR INSPECTOR ECKENRODE

DOCUMENTS CONTAINING NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXECUTIVE

EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE VICE PRESIDENCY

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum in

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.

For Immediate Release

President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders

2:10 P.M. CDT

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 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 --

END 2:15 P.M. CDT

Return to this article at:

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum in

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.

For Immediate Release

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

12:44 P.M. EDT

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

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

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

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

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

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q Scott, I want to know --

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.

Q It could be about changing the tone, too.

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

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