October 15, 2003
John Dion, Chief, Counter-Espionage Section
Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Dion,
We write to express our concerns regarding apparent delays in
the White House’s production of evidence to the Department
of Justice in connection with the criminal probe into the disclosure
of a covert CIA operative’s identity.
There have been three different public reports as to the deadline
you set for the responses by White House staff to your request for
evidence. First, on Friday, October 3, “an official familiar
with” Justice’s letter to the White House stated the
deadline for production of evidence was Friday, October 10. Then,
the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said at a briefing on
Tuesday, October 7, that it would take two weeks for the White House
to produce evidence to DOJ. Finally, an October 8 report in the
Washington Post indicated that the deadline is October 17, with
“intermediate deadlines” in the interim.
Given the President’s commitment to total cooperation with
this investigation, any delay in disclosing evidence to the Department
of Justice is difficult to understand. A serious national security
breach appears to have been committed, reports have indicated that
someone (or some people) within the White House is responsible,
yet this investigation is moving at a snail’s pace. We hope
you can understand why we are concerned.
Until the Attorney General recuses himself from this investigation
and a special prosecutor is appointed, all reports of apparent delays
and unusual beneficial treatment of the White House will be looked
upon by the public with great skepticism. The conflicts of interest
run too deep for there to be public confidence in the integrity
of this investigation, especially when it appears a serious national
security breach is being treated with kid gloves.
In the interest of improving public confidence in the integrity
of this investigation we ask that you promptly address the following
questions:
1. What was the original deadline or set of deadlines in your request
for evidence transmitted to the White House on or about October
2?
2. Was the initial deadline or set of deadlines altered?
3. If so, what alterations have been made?
4. Please describe the process by which those deadlines were revised,
who was involved in the decision to revise them, and the substance
of all communications with superiors at the Department of Justice
and anyone at the White House regarding revising deadlines. Please
also identify with whom those communications took place.
5. If the White House sought any delay, please explain why the
White House stated it wanted a delay and why such a delay was granted.
Please describe the roles played by all superiors at the Department
of Justice in approving any such delay.
6. Please describe the process by which decisions regarding this
investigation are made. Specifically, under what circumstances are
you required to or do you actually consult with superiors or anyone
else at the Department of Justice? What role are Attorney General
Ashcroft, Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum, Solicitor
General Ted Olson, and Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division Christopher Wray playing in the investigation?
We are addressing this letter to you because you have been announced
as the person in charge of the White House leak and intimidation
investigation. If you do not have authority to respond to this inquiry
without consulting with a superior or with someone outside your
section, please let us know immediately the name of the person or
persons with authority to respond, so we may redirect this request
to the proper individual or office.
We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible regarding
these important questions.
Sincerely
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senator
