Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Interview With Adam Rosman, Paul Rosenzweig
Aired October 05, 2003 - 09:17 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KELLI ARENA, CNN ANCHOR: The Justice Department is waiting to receive documents from the White House that may be a help in the CIA leak investigation. Democrats, though, continue their calls for an independent counsel.
Two guests join us from Washington to debate this issue. Adam Rosman, a former federal prosecutor, and Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.
ADAM ROSMAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good morning.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good morning.
ARENA: Well, let's start for those calls for a special counsel. We've heard from the Justice Department. This is in the hands of career professionals.
Paul, do you think it's too early for that?
ROSENZWEIG: It's way too early. I mean, if Santa Ana said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, it seems like we're going to forget it just four years after we let the independent counsel lapse.
We know that the independent counsel type law does not work. That's why we let it go. And I think the best answer is to let the careers in the department do the work, if they are going to find out anything. And if necessary, perhaps the attorney general may recuse himself personally, but there's no need for creating this independent counsel mechanism that will just roll on for two years and produce nothing.
ARENA: Adam, I have a feeling you'll disagree. Of course, Justice says that all options remain open and on the table.
ROSMAN: Well, I do disagree with that. I have no doubt that the career prosecutors at the Department of Justice can do a thorough and fair job. The problem is their investigation is going to be reviewed by the attorney general and his staff, all of whom are close to the White House.
And there's nothing wrong with the attorney general being close to the White House. But a friend should not investigate a friend. It is a fundamental principle of prosecution. Furthermore, another fundamental of prosecution is that you freeze evidence as soon as you possibly can. And there have already been lapses in this case on that score. And that should also give the attorney general and others pause about whether the department itself can adequately investigate this case.
ARENA: And when you talk about lapses, you're talking about alerting the White House to an investigation, and then giving them some time to alert staff and giving them time to turn over documents.
Paul, do you see a problem?
ROSENZWEIG: Not really. In fact, not at all. The notification occurs through the press, not through the White House notification -- the notification of official investigation.
In fact, if we're really serious about this, if this is such a serious investigation that -- we can solve it tomorrow. Congress can issue a subpoena to Robert Novak and ask him who the leaker is. The fact that this...
ARENA: But that's -- they tread very carefully when it comes to journalists.
ROSENZWEIG: No, but they have -- If this is such a serious investigation, a violation of national security, that it requires an independent counsel and an extended two-year investigation, the Supreme Court is absolutely clear that the First Amendment privilege would yield.
We could answer this tomorrow, instead of going through this whole rigmarole of an independent counsel investigation. The reason we don't -- a, I think Congress and the government are a little afraid of the press. And B, they'd rather have the issue to fight about. It's not the type of thing that can't be solved readily.
ROSMAN: I just disagree with that, if I may. We do not want to subpoena Mr. Novak. We want to respect the First Amendment. And just because it's potentially a tough investigation to undertake, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
There are many ways to dig into this by talking to a lot of people at the White House, State Department, and the Department of Defense, to find out who leaked the information. You do not have to take the Draconian step of subpoenaing a reporter.
ROSENZWEIG: I'm sorry but...
ARENA: Well, Adam, you brought up an important point, though. Let me interrupt you, because...
ROSMAN: Sure.
ARENA: ... this is not, as the FBI and Justice Department have said, a White House investigation. This is a leak investigation that could end up involving hundreds of people from a variety of government agencies.
Adam, this is not all about the White House.
ROSMAN: Right. It's not. And we don't know where the investigation is going to lead. It could be about the White House, but it also could be someone from the Department of Defense or State or otherwise. And that's why you need a thorough investigation and an unbiased investigation.
ROSENZWEIG: Two quick points, if I may. Actually, that's one of the reasons why an independent counsel isn't necessary. The old independent counsel law only required one if the person who is the subject was a high-level cover person, some high political. Chances are very, very good there's no...
ARENA: There's no target here. Right, there is no target. Not like someone saying the president released this information or something.
ROSENZWEIG: Right. Could very well be some third level DOD official for all we know, if it's anybody at all. So it's premature in that regard.
But the other thing is that no amount of thoroughness in an investigation is going to establish the substance of a telephone conversation that nobody recorded the details of.
I am 100 percent certain that a thorough investigation will establish that more than 85 different people spoke to Robert Novak during the week in question. That's his job. But not a one of them is going to have a record that said, "I leaked Plame's name to Novak today." And Novak is the only one who's going to have written notes. And we've just rejected going after that.
So this is just going to keep us going on for over and over again. And we're going to get to a point where we know absolutely nothing more than we know now.
ARENA: Well, it's probably important to point out to our viewers that most leak investigations do not end up ever naming a suspect, anyway.
Gentlemen, I'm going to thank you both for joining us and taking the time out.
ROSENZWEIG: Thanks.
ROSMAN: Good to be here.
ARENA: Adam Rosman, Paul Rosenzweig, thanks so much. Have a good day.
ROSMAN: Thank you.
ROSENZWEIG: Good deal.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired October 5, 2003 - 09:17 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KELLI ARENA, CNN ANCHOR: The Justice Department is waiting to receive documents from the White House that may be a help in the CIA leak investigation. Democrats, though, continue their calls for an independent counsel.
Two guests join us from Washington to debate this issue. Adam Rosman, a former federal prosecutor, and Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.
ADAM ROSMAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Good morning.
PAUL ROSENZWEIG, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Good morning.
ARENA: Well, let's start for those calls for a special counsel. We've heard from the Justice Department. This is in the hands of career professionals.
Paul, do you think it's too early for that?
ROSENZWEIG: It's way too early. I mean, if Santa Ana said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, it seems like we're going to forget it just four years after we let the independent counsel lapse.
We know that the independent counsel type law does not work. That's why we let it go. And I think the best answer is to let the careers in the department do the work, if they are going to find out anything. And if necessary, perhaps the attorney general may recuse himself personally, but there's no need for creating this independent counsel mechanism that will just roll on for two years and produce nothing.
ARENA: Adam, I have a feeling you'll disagree. Of course, Justice says that all options remain open and on the table.
ROSMAN: Well, I do disagree with that. I have no doubt that the career prosecutors at the Department of Justice can do a thorough and fair job. The problem is their investigation is going to be reviewed by the attorney general and his staff, all of whom are close to the White House.
And there's nothing wrong with the attorney general being close to the White House. But a friend should not investigate a friend. It is a fundamental principle of prosecution. Furthermore, another fundamental of prosecution is that you freeze evidence as soon as you possibly can. And there have already been lapses in this case on that score. And that should also give the attorney general and others pause about whether the department itself can adequately investigate this case.
ARENA: And when you talk about lapses, you're talking about alerting the White House to an investigation, and then giving them some time to alert staff and giving them time to turn over documents.
Paul, do you see a problem?
ROSENZWEIG: Not really. In fact, not at all. The notification occurs through the press, not through the White House notification -- the notification of official investigation.
In fact, if we're really serious about this, if this is such a serious investigation that -- we can solve it tomorrow. Congress can issue a subpoena to Robert Novak and ask him who the leaker is. The fact that this...
ARENA: But that's -- they tread very carefully when it comes to journalists.
ROSENZWEIG: No, but they have -- If this is such a serious investigation, a violation of national security, that it requires an independent counsel and an extended two-year investigation, the Supreme Court is absolutely clear that the First Amendment privilege would yield.
We could answer this tomorrow, instead of going through this whole rigmarole of an independent counsel investigation. The reason we don't -- a, I think Congress and the government are a little afraid of the press. And B, they'd rather have the issue to fight about. It's not the type of thing that can't be solved readily.
ROSMAN: I just disagree with that, if I may. We do not want to subpoena Mr. Novak. We want to respect the First Amendment. And just because it's potentially a tough investigation to undertake, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
There are many ways to dig into this by talking to a lot of people at the White House, State Department, and the Department of Defense, to find out who leaked the information. You do not have to take the Draconian step of subpoenaing a reporter.
ROSENZWEIG: I'm sorry but...
ARENA: Well, Adam, you brought up an important point, though. Let me interrupt you, because...
ROSMAN: Sure.
ARENA: ... this is not, as the FBI and Justice Department have said, a White House investigation. This is a leak investigation that could end up involving hundreds of people from a variety of government agencies.
Adam, this is not all about the White House.
ROSMAN: Right. It's not. And we don't know where the investigation is going to lead. It could be about the White House, but it also could be someone from the Department of Defense or State or otherwise. And that's why you need a thorough investigation and an unbiased investigation.
ROSENZWEIG: Two quick points, if I may. Actually, that's one of the reasons why an independent counsel isn't necessary. The old independent counsel law only required one if the person who is the subject was a high-level cover person, some high political. Chances are very, very good there's no...
ARENA: There's no target here. Right, there is no target. Not like someone saying the president released this information or something.
ROSENZWEIG: Right. Could very well be some third level DOD official for all we know, if it's anybody at all. So it's premature in that regard.
But the other thing is that no amount of thoroughness in an investigation is going to establish the substance of a telephone conversation that nobody recorded the details of.
I am 100 percent certain that a thorough investigation will establish that more than 85 different people spoke to Robert Novak during the week in question. That's his job. But not a one of them is going to have a record that said, "I leaked Plame's name to Novak today." And Novak is the only one who's going to have written notes. And we've just rejected going after that.
So this is just going to keep us going on for over and over again. And we're going to get to a point where we know absolutely nothing more than we know now.
ARENA: Well, it's probably important to point out to our viewers that most leak investigations do not end up ever naming a suspect, anyway.
Gentlemen, I'm going to thank you both for joining us and taking the time out.
ROSENZWEIG: Thanks.
ROSMAN: Good to be here.
ARENA: Adam Rosman, Paul Rosenzweig, thanks so much. Have a good day.
ROSMAN: Thank you.
ROSENZWEIG: Good deal.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
