Wampum

Target Letter

There have been any number of news stories concerning President Bush consulting with an outside attorney with regard to the Valerie Plame matter. We also now know that Vice President Cheney has been interviewed in connection with that investigation.

In none of those reports have I seen anyone ask or answer a basic question. Has President Bush or Vice President Cheney received a target letter?

When a Federal Grand Jury is investigating potentially criminal conduct it seeks evidence and testimony from various people. Before such testimony, if evidence links the potential witness to the crime and if the prosecutor thinks the potential witness may eventually be indicted, the prosecutor sends what is known as a target letter to the potential witness.

A sample target letter from the DOJ includes the following language:

We advise you that the Grand Jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving, but not necessarily limited to _____...

You are advised that you are a target of the Grand Jury's investigation. You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. Anything that you do or say may be used against you in a subsequent legal proceeding. If you have retained counsel, who represents you personally, the Grand Jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the Grand Jury room and confer with counsel if you desire.

Thus, the target letter is sort of a Miranda warning from the Grand Jury. If either Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney has received a target letter, then we can be sure that the investigation is focused, in part, on their conduct. If they have not received a target letter, it is likely that the investigation is focused elsewhere.

If the White House has been asked about a target letter, I have not seen the report.

Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post notes that one reporter, Terence Hunt of the Associated Press, came close to asking the right question:

Terence Hunt of the Associated Press asked: "Mr. President, why have you consulted an attorney in the CIA leak investigation? Have you received any indication from prosecutors that they want to question you? And what can you tell them might shed some light on this case?"

In my real life role as an attorney, if I heard that question I would stand up and object on the grounds that it is compound. When you ask three questions at once, you are likely not to get an answer to any of them. That proved to be the case as President Bush responded:

"I've told our administration that we'll fully cooperate with their investigation," Bush said. "I want to know the truth, and I'm willing to cooperate myself, and you need to refer your questions to them. In terms of whether or not I need advice from the counsel, this is a criminal matter. It is a serious matter. I have met with an attorney to determine whether or not I need his advice, and if I deem I need his advice, I'll probably hire him."

The press corps should ask the question of Scott McClellan in a a simple and direct manner. Do not ask McClellan what the prosecutor is thinking. How can he know? Do not ask how the President feels about the investigation. You will learn nothing from that question. Ask a simple, direct question of fact calling for a direct answer of fact. I suggest:

Has President Bush received a target letter with regard to the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame’s association with the CIA?

A similar question should be asked with regard to Vice President Cheney.

If the answer is “yes,” we will have learned a great deal indeed. If the answer is “no,” the reporter should wait a week or two and then ask the question again to determine if a target letter has been sent in the interim.

If McClellan evades the question, we will have learned almost as much as if the answer had been “yes.” After all, if neither Bush nor Cheney has received such a letter, there is no reason to dance around the question.

Members of the White House press corps should just ask the obvious question.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at June 5, 2004 08:01 PM | TrackBack