Don't miss journalist David Neiwert of Orcinus on the spectre of the White House raising executive privilege in the Valerie Plame-CIA affair.

Here's more on executive privilege. Here too.

We wrote yesterday about Bush's about-face on the leaks investigation into which senior administration officials disclosed the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush now says the leaker may not be found. Yet, he's sure it isn't one of his top three aides. Why? Because they denied it. The Chicago Tribune today details reaction of some in the legal community to Bush's statements:

Mary Cheh, a Georgetown University law professor, called such statements "quite irregular" and said they could have a chilling effect on the investigation. "It will take someone of considerable fortitude [in the Justice Department] to look past such statements" and investigate any of the three men, she said. Chilling effect? `Sure'

Abner Mikva, who served as White House counsel to President Bill Clinton, said that despite McClellan's statement absolving the three aides, "I would hope that the Justice Department will do whatever it is supposed to do anyway. But does it have a chilling effect? Sure it does."

Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense lawyer in Denver, said that if Bush does not know the name of the leaker, his White House certainly could not categorically rule out involvement by Rove, Libby or Abrams. "I think a special counsel would be an excellent idea," she said.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said McClellan could not have known whether the three aides were being truthful. In leak cases, he said, those who have secretly disclosed information go to great lengths to conceal their participation. Gillers also said it did not help that Bush appeared to be soft-pedaling the investigation by publicly doubting whether it will bear fruit, even if most probes into leaks don't yield the name of the perpetrator.

Don't miss Rep. John Conyer's letter to Karl Rove calling for his resignation.

Now that the documents have been turned over to White House Counsel, we expect the next battle to be over executive privilege. Here's more on the executive privilege issue.

It didn't take long. President Bush has switched horses again since his strong comments yesterday about finding the leaker of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak.

Bush is now saying the leaker may never be found. And, he's ruled out his three senior aides as sources of the leak.

"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters after he met with his Cabinet.

If he doesn't know who the leaker is now and he has doubts as to whether he ever will, how can he rule out his three aides? Because they denied it? Would he really expect them to do anything else?

We think Bush is dissembling- big time.

Monday, President Bush discussed the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Of course he said it's a serious matter. But he also said it's a criminal action. Let's see him backtrack from that one. Or, maybe he knows who will take the fall for the leak and it's not one of his top henchmen. Or they've figured out a way for Karl Rove to be insulated.

Bush, in his most extensive comments about the leak to date, urged the person who disclosed the information to come forward. "I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker," the president said.

Bush added that "we're talking about a criminal action" and that he looked forward "to finding the truth."

As of Monday, only 500 of the 2,000 White House employees had responded to the Justice Department's request for documents. The deadline is 5:00 pm today.

Investigators say they want access to electronic records, phone logs, documents and diaries that relate to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, a trip he took to Niger in 2002, his wife's relationship with the CIA, or any contact with the syndicated columnist Robert Novak and two other reporters who wrote about Wilson.

Then there's this: White House officials are going to review all material before turning it over to the Justice Department--a review they say may take weeks:

Matt Welch, associate editor of Reason Magazine, has an excellent article on the Joseph Wilson-Valerie Plame affair and what it says about the Bush Administration in today's National Post (Canada).

But even the most generous possible interpretation of events -- minimizing Plame's covertness, maximizing Wilson's partisan motives and assuming the leakers acted alone -- still provides more evidence of the Bush administration's most alarming pathologies. These are people who all too frequently confuse themselves with the U.S. government, see their enormous power as a tempting means to an end, and treat their critics like enemies of the state.

[Thanks to Smythe's Blog for the heads up]

Update: MadKane has the TraitorGate song.

Buzzflash interviews David Corn, Washington editor of the Nation, on CIA leaks in the Wilson-Plame affair--a story Corn broke. Here's a snippet of the interview about what Buzzflash calls "Treason Gate."

DAVID CORN: So say the reporters who have covered him over the years. Let's be fair to Karl Rove -- even if he isn't to his opponents. (Just ask John McCain!). He may or may not be involved in the leak, but he has a past record of engaging in below-the-belt politics. So if now he is a chief suspect, well, he brought that on himself. What goes around comes around. But the attacks on Wilson have been shameful. What a surprise, he's a Democrat! He also was widely praised -- by Bush the First, by Evans and Novak -- for his courageous stint as the last acting ambassador in Iraq before the first Gulf War. This is, as you know, not about Wilson. The only relevant issue is whether Bushies leaked sensitive information as part of a political hit job.

Of course, Wilson is mad. Wouldn't you be? Of course, he wants to raise a stink. But this is a campaign of blaming the victim. The strategic point here -- and there is one -- is for the GOP'ers to make this scandal look like another one of those nasty partisan mud-wrestles that the public never likes. Turn it into a political controversy, not a criminal one. Then it all comes out blurry and muddy in the wash. (Bad metaphor, I know.) But that is the intent: to fuzzy up the picture and cause people to shrug their shoulders and say, "it's just politics."

Notice how Reuters begins its afternoon's article describing the White House request of its employees to provide information on the Wilson-Plame matter:

The White House said on Wednesday that anyone with information about a leak that blew the cover of a CIA officer, whose husband is an Iraq war critic, should report it to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

Plame is named as an officer, not an undercover operative.

Joseph Wilson is described solely as an "Iraq war critic," rather than as former ambassador or by other titled position he held.

We don't know if this is Reuters' doing or if Reuters just passed along the language the White House provided to it. We suspect it's White House language because three paragraphs down, Reuters gets it right:

The Justice Department is investigating whether someone at the White House or CIA disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose husband, a former U.S. diplomat in Iraq, Joseph Wilson, challenged President Bush's claims about Iraq's weapons threat. Revealing classified information is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The problem is, many people will just read the first paragraph and move on. The first paragraph of this article is misleading at best. Maybe we're being too picky as we've been writing a brief and playing with words all day, but it just strikes us as poor and biased reporting.

Hesiod at Counterspin has the latest on the varying reports as to whether Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst or undercover operative and who knew what when. He's got really good links up to sites with additional info on the topic. And he says the evidence is mounting.

There seems to be some interest focusing on whether Robert Nowak can be made to divulge the source of the leak about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. First Amendment expert and law professor Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy tentatively weighs in. Here's the applicable provision of the Code of Federal Regulations:

28 CFR 50.10

§ 50.10 Policy with regard to the issuance of subpoenas to members of the news media, subpoenas for telephone toll records of members of the news media, and the interrogation, indictment, or arrest of, members of the news media.

Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory process, whether civil or criminal, which might impair the news gathering function. In balancing the concern that the Department of Justice has for the work of the news media and the Department's obligation to the fair administration of justice, the following guidelines shall be adhered to by all members of the Department in all cases:

(a) In determining whether to request issuance of a subpoena to a member of the news media, or for telephone toll records of any member of the news media, the approach in every case must be to strike the proper balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice.

(b) All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information from alternative sources before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media, and similarly all reasonable alternative investigative steps should be taken before considering issuing a subpoena for telephone toll records of any member of the news media.

Via Atrios: The Guardian's Julian Borger says that journalists are privately naming Karl Rove as the source of the CIA-Valerie Plame leak.

And, Kicking Ass notes it looks like the Justice Department gave the White House Counsel's office a heads-up and 12 hour pass on its order to preserve documents.

The department notified the counsel's office about 8:30 p.m. Monday that it was launching an investigation but said the White House could wait until the next morning to notify staff and direct them to preserve relevant material, McClellan said.

It's just silly to say this Administration can investigate itself. Left Coaster has a wrap-up of the reasons the Conservatives have given for appointment of special counsel. Now, of course, they try to wiggle out from under.

David Corn was the first jounalist to report on Robert Novak's column about White House officials outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in The Nation. He follows up with this report on the White House's handling of the CIA's request to have the Justice Department investigate the leak.

Here is a compilation of Corn's earlier coverage of the Valerie Plame affair:

7/16/2003 - "A White House Smear"

7/23/2003 - "White House Ducks Smear Inquiry"

8/16/2003 - "Will the CIA Protect the White House?"

David Corn's new book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception, is out today.

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
by David Corn

People for the American Way has an online petition calling for an independent investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. Go sign. [Thanks to Renee for the tip.]