Over at National Journal, Murray Waas has been burrowing into the Justice Department probe of how its own officials handled the NSA domestic spying program. In fact, he broke the news of the foiled investigation, prompting the revelation on Tuesday that President Bush himself blocked the probe by refusing to grant security clearances to investigators from DoJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility.
I talked with Waas on Wednesday to get his thoughts on the importance of the story, and how various media outlets, including the New York Times, chose to report the story:
“It’s surprising the story hasn’t gotten greater play. It’s unprecedented for the President of the United States to himself stymie a Justice Department investigation. And it’s obscure for a president to make a decision about who should get security clearances.
“When FBI agents and Justice prosecutors needed security clearances to investigate The New York Times and those who leaked the NSA story to its reporters, the clearances were granted almost immediately. The head of OPR pointed that out in a memo to the deputy attorney general.
“The OPR head pointed out that private citizens sitting on a presidential commission were also granted those clearances. They are a far greater security risk than career DoJ officials, he said.
“Historians will tell you that it’s unprecedented for a president of the United States to make the personal decision to halt an investigation of his own attorney general and his own attorneys, based on his personal decision. Earlier, the president played no role in approving clearances for the other people who were familiar with the program. It seems like this is a major story.
“I’m not being critical of any news organization, but people should note that if the Times is particularly restrained in its coverage of this story, it’s not for ideological reasons but that against their will, they have become part of the story instead of just covering the story, since the president has ordered an investigation of them and the House of Representatives has denounced the paper. I don’t think it’s bias; it’s the editor of the Times wanting to go forward with restraint.”