We wrote yesterday about Bush's about-face on the leaks investigation into which senior administration officials disclosed the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush now says the leaker may not be found. Yet, he's sure it isn't one of his top three aides. Why? Because they denied it. The Chicago Tribune today details reaction of some in the legal community to Bush's statements:

Mary Cheh, a Georgetown University law professor, called such statements "quite irregular" and said they could have a chilling effect on the investigation. "It will take someone of considerable fortitude [in the Justice Department] to look past such statements" and investigate any of the three men, she said. Chilling effect? `Sure'

Abner Mikva, who served as White House counsel to President Bill Clinton, said that despite McClellan's statement absolving the three aides, "I would hope that the Justice Department will do whatever it is supposed to do anyway. But does it have a chilling effect? Sure it does."

Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense lawyer in Denver, said that if Bush does not know the name of the leaker, his White House certainly could not categorically rule out involvement by Rove, Libby or Abrams. "I think a special counsel would be an excellent idea," she said.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said McClellan could not have known whether the three aides were being truthful. In leak cases, he said, those who have secretly disclosed information go to great lengths to conceal their participation. Gillers also said it did not help that Bush appeared to be soft-pedaling the investigation by publicly doubting whether it will bear fruit, even if most probes into leaks don't yield the name of the perpetrator.

Don't miss Rep. John Conyer's letter to Karl Rove calling for his resignation.

Now that the documents have been turned over to White House Counsel, we expect the next battle to be over executive privilege. Here's more on the executive privilege issue.