Senator Dianne Feinstein Calls for Special Counsel
in CIA Leak Case
September 30, 2003

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today urged President Bush to direct Attorney General John Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel to investigate senior Administration officials who may have leaked the name of a CIA operative to the media to discredit a former diplomat who was critical of the Bush Administration.

Feinstein also announced her support for an amendment, sponsored by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), making it the Sense of Congress that Attorney General Ashcroft should appoint a special counsel to conduct a thorough, independent investigation into the leak.

The following is Senator Feinstein's statement:

"Senior Administration officials have been accused of leaking the identity of a CIA Agent in order to discredit a White House critic. The Central Intelligence Agency has already urged the Justice Department to launch an investigation into this matter.

I believe that the President needs to go one step further and direct the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel -- someone from the outside, who has the respect and the independence to conduct a real investigation into the who, what, when and where of this leak.

The first President Bush said about the leaking of this kind of information, '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 traitors.' I could not agree more.

The leaking of this information is an extremely serious matter - revealing the identity of CIA agents could endanger their lives - and if someone is prosecuted for this crime, he or she could face 10 years in prison.

In my view, Attorney General Ashcroft, who was appointed by this President on the advice of some of those likely to be investigated, has an inherent conflict of interest on this matter. At the very least, there is certainly the appearance of a conflict of interest.

It has been reported that the leak came from "senior administration officials", and I believe that it would be a mistake for this investigation to be conducted by Justice Department employees who, in the end, are paid subordinates of people who might be among those investigated.

Instead, I believe that the matter should be investigated by a special counsel, who would have the independence to run a complete investigation into the most senior members of the Bush Administration.

This is an extremely important case. The CIA sent retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium. Wilson reported that it was highly unlikely that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger, as had been alleged.

President Bush mentioned this alleged purchase in his 2003 State of the Union Address. He has subsequently backtracked, attributing his information to the British government.

But this issue has resulted in some embarrassment for the White House, and there are allegations that someone took it upon themselves to retaliate against Wilson by revealing to the press that his wife is a CIA agent. These are serious charges.

According to Section 421a of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, the unauthorized identification of a CIA operative is a criminal act punishable by up to ten years in federal prison.

On Sunday, news accounts reported that an unidentified senior administration official said that two high-level White House officials called six reporters and disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife as part of an attempt to impugn Wilson's credibility and intimidate other critics of the Administration.

The Special Counsel is the only option available to perform a more independent investigation of White House officials. The Independent Counsel statute, which allowed a panel of judges to appoint a wholly independent investigator, expired in 1999, and was not renewed.

Today, the Attorney General may appoint a Special Counsel when there is a need to investigate a unique case involving high-ranking Executive Branch officials and/or there is a conflict of interest for the Department.

The Attorney General has total discretion over whether to appoint a Special Counsel, controls the Special Counsel's jurisdiction, and oversees the Special Counsel's investigation.

The Special Counsel essentially has the same powers as a US Attorney, including subpoena power and the ability to convene a grand jury. But there is a key difference - the Special Counsel must be someone from outside government, and is thus more independent than a line attorney who relies upon this Administration to earn a living and advance his or her career.

Additionally, the Attorney General must eventually inform Congress of any instance where he precludes the Special Counsel from taking any proposed actions during the investigation (such as subpoenaing documents, interviewing witnesses or presenting evidence to a grand jury).

In other words, there is some accountability, and thus less of a likelihood that the investigation will be, or in any event will appear, to be slanted one way or the other. Clearly, a well respected special counsel from the outside - Democrat or Republican - is the only option to ensure a fair and thorough investigation that will have the confidence of the American people.

Senator Schumer has announced that he will offer an amendment to the DC appropriations bill that would express the Sense of the Congress urging Attorney General Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the Schumer amendment."

###