Press Conference with Senator Charles Schumer
HEADLINE: NEWS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY)
TOPIC: ALLEGED LEAK OF COVERT CIA AGENT IDENTITY
LOCATION: SENATE RADIO/TV GALLERY, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay, good afternoon, everybody. You want to close that door?
Okay, today I am asking the attorney general to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether White House officials illegally leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent.
Two months ago, a column by Bob Novak appeared in newspapers across the country identifying the wife of an administration critic as an undercover CIA operative who specializes in weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Novak quoted senior administration officials as his sources for the woman's identity. Subsequent reports have said those senior administration officials were White House officials.
Now, if Miss Plame was a covert agent -- and I doubt the CIA would have asked for a Justice Department investigation if she were not -- these senior officials have committed a very serious federal crime, all in an effort to discredit her husband, Ambassador Wilson, who was one of the first to question the White House's allegations that Niger sold uranium to Iraq. As it turns out, the White House has admitted Wilson was right, and the allegations were false.
Now, I have been a backer of the president's foreign policy. I supported and voted for the war, and would do so again, because I firmly believe that we must make a strong stand against terrorism. But what has gone on in this case is one of the most dastardly, despicable things that I have seen in my more than 20 years in Washington and speaks to length of how far some will go to stifle dissent.
As somebody, as I said, who supports the president's actions in Iraq, I vehemently object to this White House's practice of knee- capping anyone who dares voices dissent with its policies. These practices stand in stark contrast to what the Founding Fathers envisions for our nation. Dissent, the open clashing of ideas, is what America is all about. And when people speak up against, and instead of being met by argument, are met by below-the-belt hits, it begins to fray our democracy.
And of course leaking the name of the CIA agent is a horrible thing to do. Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent's head. It compromises the agent's safety, the safety of that agent's loved ones, the safety of those agents' network of intelligence, and to all other operatives the agent may have dealt with. On top of that, leaking such information can jeopardize the security of this nation, security that brave young men and women are fighting for overseas.
Now, I have to tell you that I have no inside information about whether Ambassador Wilson's wife is an agent, and I won't speculate on her status. But I can tell you it is highly unlikely that the FBI -- that the CIA would have asked for an investigation by the Justice Department if she was not. And if she is who she has been reported to be, then senior administration officials may have made it impossible for her to do her job at a time when her specialty in intelligence, weapons of mass destruction, is sorely needed, as the threats in Iran and North Korea grow.
This is why senior administration officials who did this must be brought to justice, and brought to justice severely. I want to be clear that we don't know who was involved, or whether any White House officials are responsible. We only know that a leak has occurred, and high-level officials have been implicated. I am pointing fingers at no one. In fact, I hope it isn't someone at a high level in the White House.
I am, however, absolutely outraged about what has happened here. That's why I came into this room on July 22nd, with no knowledge who might have done it, just furious that someone would go to these lengths.
And I want to make a couple of other points. I heard that the White House press person today said that, "Well, this is just another leak, and we deal with leaks all the time." That statement is outrageous. When was the last time that a covert agent's name was leaked, jeopardizing that agent's life, the life of that agent's network of informants and the security of this country? This is not just an ordinary leak.
And let me read to you what the president's father said about such people who leak names of agents. Quote, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing our sources. They are in my view the most insidious of traders." So this is not just "any leak." Thank God this is not business as usual. This is one of the worst things that has been done in Washington in a very, very long time.
So, in my view, we need the most independent, most thorough, and most fearless investigation possible. And I have spent all weekend working with my staff and other experts to try to figure out how to get that best solution. Something as sensitive as this should not be conducted in a business-as-usual way and should not be conducted by somebody who is a political or direct appointee of the president.
Now, the best way to have done this would have been the independent counsel law, but unfortunately that law expired in 1999. And so we have to look for second alternatives that are not as good. Some of them are knocked out. To ask the inspector general of the Defense Department or the Justice Department or the CIA to do this doesn't make any sense, because none of those inspectors general have jurisdiction over the White House, where at least there are reports that this came from. So you can't use the inspector general.
As I said, the independent counsel is gone. And to do this within the regular Justice Department, where the chain of command leads directly to the attorney general, again, cannot be the way to go, because, first, the attorney general is an appointee of the president, and even if he were to do a complete and thorough investigation, the appearance of the conflict would mar any, any results.
The fact is there is a clear conflict of interest for the Justice Department, and whether you like John Ashcroft or not, whether you are Republican or a Democrat or an independent, that is irrelevant in this case. The attorney general was appointed by the president. He's close to the president and the administration. And no matter what the results are, people will doubt it because of that appearance of conflict.
The special counsel regulation is the best way to go. The special counsel regulation was passed in 1999 after the -- or was promulgated in 1999 after the independent counsel law expired. A special counsel has the same powers as a U.S. attorney, but his or her jurisdiction is determined directly by the attorney general, and his activities are overseen by the attorney general. But it has advantages, significant advantages, over a line Justice Department investigation. First, the attorney general does not control the investigation day to day, as he would in a line investigation. Second, if the federal regulations require the attorney general to report to Congress on any instance where the special counsel sought to take an action and the attorney general blocked it. That is a fairly strong measure. But, third, if the special counsel is a person of proven integrity and strength, the public will have confidence that the investigation will be complete and thorough and fearless.
And so it would seem to me that if we had a special counsel, and someone like a John Danforth or a Warren Rudman or a George Mitchell or a Sam Nunn were appointed, the public could have confidence that this dastardly crime would be completely and thoroughly investigated.
So that is my -- that is what I have written to the attorney general and asked him to do -- first to appoint the special counsel and to appoint a person of large integrity and stature, so that we all may have confidence that every stone will be unturned.
And I'd just like to make a couple of other points, and then I'll open it up to your questions. Two other points. One, there is some talk that this won't go anywhere, because the press won't reveal its sources. That is true, but by now it's pretty obvious that large numbers of people within the administration knew that this was being done, and some are obviously in conflict with each other. A good prosecutor can get to the bottom of this without having to go the press and forcing them to answer questions.
And the second point I want to make is this: Now, I truly believe the president was not involved in this. It doesn't seem to be his way. But I am deeply disappointed in the president's reaction to what has happened here. The president should be leading the way and insisting that we seek out who did this. This is a president who prides himself on defending our troops, as he should. CIA agents are troops in this war on terror. And what was done to Ms. Plame was harmful to every, every intelligence agent in this country and to all Americans.
And so instead of shrugging his shoulders and saying, "Well, let's find out what the Justice Department is doing," the president should want to find out himself what has happened, and particularly if it happened in his White House with close advisors to him. He should be leading the charge. He should be furious -- just as furious as he would be if someone betrayed our troops in Iraq.
And so this sort of noblesse oblige (sic) attitude, business-as- usual, we don't really think this is a big deal is almost as infuriating as what happened, because it means it can happen again and again and again. And, in fact, the fact that the White House seems to put such little importance in this can only lead to one conclusion, and that is that they're worried that there may have been high-up people in the White House involved. Otherwise they'd be going -- if they thought it was someone who didn't expose them to political liability, the logic is, given the way the president and the White House think, that they'd be going very, very hard after who did it.
So the bottom line is, this issue goes to the security of our intelligence; it goes to the fabric of our democracy, and it goes to finding out the truth and really changing the tone in Washington.
Ready for your questions. Yes?
Q Have you asked any other Democrats or any other Republicans to -- (inaudible) -- in this call yet? And do you anticipate -- (inaudible.)
SEN. SCHUMER: I do. I've gotten lots of calls from people who want to be helpful. Last night, when Senator Leahy heard about it for instance, he said he's fully supportive. And I believe that you'll find many, many, many senators supporters of what I have asked for today.
Q Any Republicans -- (inaudible) -- bipartisan --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I don't know yet. I would like it to be, and I hope it will be. I do not know that yet.
Q Senator, the Democratic leadership? Have you spoken with --
SEN. SCHUMER: I have spoken to Senator Daschle and others, and again they are supportive of what I'm doing.
Q Senator, what do you think of the fact that Bob Novak published this, that there was -- that they got this and went with it?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, if the reports in the Washington Post are true, and that six journalists were asked, and only he would publish it, it does say why. But he gave his explanation. It's not my job to judge Bob Novak.
Q (Off mike) -- Congressional investigation, staff on Judiciary or any --
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, that's one of the things I want to talk over with Senator Leahy, Senator Daschle and the members of the Judiciary Committee. But I think that a special counsel -- this is really a criminal investigation. This is a crime. This is not just an ordinary crime -- oh, that's a point I forgot to mention. The idea that if they find them out they'll fire them? That's not good enough here. That's like saying, you know, you'll find out if someone embezzled millions of dollars from your company, you'll just ask them to leave the company. A crime was committed here, a very serious crime. And the idea of just firing people who did this is not sufficient. There should be a full prosecution here. I say that as someone who is known as a law-and-order Democrat to a law-and-order administration.
Q Senator, the White House said today that their understanding is that career prosecutors at the Justice Department are going to be handling this. They say they have perfect confidence in -- (inaudible) -- to do this in an appropriate way.
SEN. SCHUMER: Again, if you look at -- well, if you look at a career prosecutor, the chain of command goes right up to John Ashcroft, and it's all done behind closed doors. There's no report to Congress if somebody higher up told the career prosecutor, "Do it this way. Do it that way." I think the special prosecutor, especially if the person appointed is a person of stature -- and everyone will get to make that judgment -- has a far greater chance of getting to the bottom of this,and, just as importantly, has a much, much better chance of giving the public and the intelligence community the feeling of assurance that something real is being done here. And I've got to tell you -- I mean, I know this from myself and from others -- the intelligence community, ever since this happened, is just livid -- from the highest levels, to the lowest levels.
Yes?
Q Does this controversy have any effect on the consideration of the $87 billion --
SEN. SCHUMER: To me it's independent. I just -- I'd like to see this be as nonpolitical as possible. I'd like to see them have someone of real integrity do it, and get to the bottom of it, and punish the people who did it, whoever they are.
Q What signal do you think the White House is sending to the intelligence community and the people within it with its response so far?
SEN. SCHUMER: I think they're saying, We don't care too much about you.
Q Senator, Karl Rove's name has come up repeatedly in this. Today he denied that he had anything to with it. Do you accept that denial?
SEN. SCHUMER: You know, again, I have no reason -- I don't know who did it. I've heard all the banter, I've heard all the reports. The way to do this -- the way to find out who did it is to get a special counsel appointed and get to the bottom of it. I have no information that Mr. Rove did it.
Q Do you think this has any effect overall on the administration's Iraq policy? I mean, to the extent that it's a policy that's seriously being debated now, lots of criticism, and here's an almost Nixonian kind of dirty trick. (Off mike) -- criticism?
SEN. SCHUMER: I think the idea that we weren't told the truth bothers Americans, whether they were for or against going into Iraq, and it should, because let's say, God forbid, next September the president comes forward and says, "I have evidence that Iran is on the verge of producing nuclear weapons." Well, that kind of statement is not going to be as fully accepted after we found out what happened here. And then to realize that either out of malice or out of silencing a critic, this horrible thing was done, it's hard to fathom. And that's why whoever did it just must -- doesn't belong anywhere near government integrity, or the president for that matter.
Q Senator, a two-part question. How likely do you think it is that the attorney general will accede to your request? And if he doesn't, how likely is it that your party leadership would be prepared to make him pay a political price for that decision?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I think it's the public who has to make them pay a political price if they don't do this. But, you know, from just what I've heard in the reports that have just come out and are just beginning to get out, just from being both in New York City yesterday and Albany today, there is real outrage about this. There is real -- it just gnaws at people. It is almost beyond belief, beyond credulity. But I for one am not shy, and I'm not going to rest. If they were to say no tomorrow, I'd try to figure out how we could make this happen.
Q And the first question, how likely to you think it is that the attorney general --
SEN. SCHUMER: I just don't know. I will tell you this -- you know, again, just to say this is sort of an ordinary type situation -- we hear about leaks all the time -- that doesn't help their cause. Everyone knows this is not just some kind of leak about some minor thing.
Q Senator Schumer, you said that a crime was committed here. Can you go over what crime was committed --
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, there is. I don't know the statute number -- maybe Jeff does. But there's a crime that says when you reveal the name of a covert agent, you are subject to imprisonment of up to 10 years. It's a statute in the criminal code.
Q Outside of supporting your call for a special counsel --
SEN. SCHUMER: Which, by the way, most other leaks are not criminal. They may be wrong, but they are not criminal. This is criminal.
Q Outside of supporting your call for a special counsel, what else would you expect the White House to be doing in the situation today to deal with the issue?
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, the president should be turning things upside down to find out who did this. He should have done it on July 22nd. But you could then say that the CIA had not certified that an investigation has to be done, which of course goes to who Ms. Plame is. And now they have. So the president ought to be -- he ought to be doing -- he ought to call the person he trusts in the White House the most, and say, "Find out who did this, and we're going to fire them and turn it over to the proper criminal authorities." And instead the attitude is business as usual.
Just imagine if this had happened, you know, in a White House of a different political party, what people would have been having. This should not be a political issue. This goes way beyond politics.
Q Should he call all the people who work for him and ask them point-blank --
SEN. SCHUMER: He should have somebody doing that.
Q Why do you the suppose the CIA waited? You were on this when it happened in July. Why was the CIA so slow in this?
SEN. SCHUMER: As I understand it, when this happened, the CIA -- the Justice Department sends to the CIA a -- I think it's a 16- question questionnaire, and the CIA has to answer those questions and then request the investigation. And evidently they did that this past week.
Okay? Thank you everybody.
Q Thank you, Senator.