Abstract

Not-So-Special Counsel

The author claims that the special counsel appointed to investigate a leak in the White House is not truly independent. When is a special counsel not a special counsel? When the Ashcroft Justice Department appoints one to investigate the White House. On December 30 James Comey, the newly ensconced deputy attorney general, held a press conference to announce that Attorney General John Ashcroft had recused himself from the department's investigation of the Bush Administration leak that appeared in a Robert Novak column this past July identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of Bush's actions in Iraq, as a covert CIA officer.Comey also disclosed that he, filling in for Ashcroft, had selected Patrick Fitzgerald, the US Attorney in Chicago, as a "special counsel" to lead the probe. It seemed as if the Justice Department was finally--after months of delay--bowing to requests from Democrats calling for an independent inquiry aimed at discovering who in the Administration blew Valerie Wilson's cover, possibly compromising national security. But calling Fitzgerald a "special counsel" is false advertising. Moreover, a presidential appointee (Fitzgerald) remains in charge, and another presidential appointee (Comey) is overseeing his work. Democrats should be demanding a Congressional inquiry into the leak that would also focus on White House actions after the leak. The latest developments signal that Justice is disinclined to do more than the minimum unless it is pressed from the outside. Both the leaker(s) and the investigators must be squeezed.