Still a lot of smoke, and Justice thinks there’s a fire

The Associated Press reports that the Justice Department has started a full investigation of the Novak leak:

The Justice Department launched a full-blown criminal investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA officer, and President Bush directed his White House staff on Tuesday to cooperate fully. The White House staff was notified of the investigation by e-mail after the Justice Department decided late Monday to move from a preliminary investigation into a full probe. It is rare that the department decides to conduct a full investigation of the alleged leak of classified information. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales told the staff: “You must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department’s investigation.” Presumably that would include telephone logs, e-mails, notes and other documents…. “The president has directed the White House to cooperate fully with this investigation,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters. “The president wants to get to the bottom of this.” Senior staff members were told of the investigation at their morning staff meeting, and then Gonzales sent an e-mail to all the staff notifying them of the probe. Even before the Justice Department investigation was announced, Democrats were calling for the appointment of a special counsel to insure impartiality. McClellan said the decision rests with the Justice Department. 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. (emphasis added)

Here’s a copy of the memo that Gonzales sent to the White House staff:

PLEASE READ: Important Message From Counsel’s Office We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee. The department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you. In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department’s investigation. Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Associate Counsels Ted Ullyot or Raul Yanes in the counsel to the president’s office. The president has directed full cooperation with this investigation. (emphasis added)

The end of the New York Times story also describes where things go from here:

As is standard, the Justice Department asked the C.I.A. to complete an 11-question report addressing issues like who had access to the classified information and what harm was caused to national security. The C.I.A. gave the Justice Department its response several weeks ago, a government official said. Mr. Ashcroft decided over the last several days to move ahead with a preliminary inquiry, and the Justice Department notified the F.B.I. late Monday that the bureau would lead the investigation. “We’ll start with the C.I.A.,” said an F.B.I. official. “They’re the ones that held the information, so we’ll go from there to find out who had access to it.”

So far, the system appears to be working. As I’ve said previously, what I would like to see is a strong denunciation by President Bush about what took place. [But his press spokesman, national security advisor, and other subordinates have already said that the President would not tolerate this sort of behavior!–ed. There’s a big difference between assertions by intermediaries and a video feed of the President himself. The latter commands a lot more attention — see the Trent Lott affair. But the Washington Post says the following today:

A senior official quoted Bush as saying, “I want to get to the bottom of this,” during a daily meeting yesterday morning with a few top aides, including Rove.

Surely that counts for something?–ed. Again, this is an anonymous leak — not a formal statement] For more, go read Tom Maguire. Oh, and check out this Post story explaining the relevant statute otherwise known as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. UPDATE: Drezner gets results from ABC!! The Note has some powerful words in today’s update:

In all our back-and-forth history(onics) about the Wilson matter yesterday, we inadvertently left out one really important notion, which we insert here now high up: The press and the opposition party should NOT go around assuming that because someone MIGHT be guilty of something that they ARE guilty of something. Karl Rove’s name was out there yesterday, but there are bound to be others, and there is just no reason to rush to judgment (even in our current 24/7 media culture) just because someone hears a name, or even if someone hears that someone else has hired a criminal defense lawyer. If you care even a whit about America having a civil national public discourse (during this time and forever), read every word of David Brooks’ brilliant New York Times column, and thank Arthur for hiring him.

ABC is correct, which is why I said what I said yesterday about Rove, given my speculation on Sunday. Let me repeat — this is a serious allegation, and I want to see the President address it directly and publicly. [But we don’t really know if Plame was an operative, and we don’t really know whether Bush administration officials leaked the story in the way that the Post alleges.–ed.] Oh yes we do. Kevin Drum provides a solid rundown of the evidence. From CNN (link via alert reader B.M.):

In addition to Novak, as many as six other journalists may have been told the CIA operative’s name, CNN’s Ensor reported, citing sources. At least one of the journalists spoke to a Bush administration official who revealed the name, Ensor said, but it was unclear who had initiated the call…. Ensor reported that sources at the CIA said Plame is an employee of the operations side of the agency. “This is a person who did run agents,” Ensor said. “This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information.” (emphasis added)

So, to quote James Woolsey from the CNN story:

This is a serious leak. You can endanger intelligence and people’s lives by revealing the identities of CIA case officers, so it’s a serious matter.

But we don’t know who did what yet. The only connection to Rove in this incident came from an assertion by Joseph Wilson that he later retracted. It’s worth noting that Mark Kleiman acknowledges my point on this as well (though he’s suspicious of Rove due to prior bad acts).