You are herecontent / Reporters Found in the White House

Reporters Found in the White House


TRANSCRIPT: WHITE HOUSE GRILLED ON ROVE...
RAW STORY

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday... You can see the video here.

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...

(LAUGHTER)

... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Billmon:
Vouching for Karl
If the eunuchs in the White House press corps ever remember where they misplaced their professional courage, and decide to ask Scotty McClellan a few questions about Karl Rove's role in the outing of Valerie Plame, this digest of past statements on the subject might come in handy.

QUESTION: The Robert Novak column last week . . . has now given rise to accusations that the administration deliberatively blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative, and in so doing, violated a federal law that prohibits revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives. Can you respond to that?
McCLELLAN: Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the way this President or this White House operates. And there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 22, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, has there ever been an attempt or effort on the part of anyone here at the White House to discredit the reputations or reporting of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, his wife, or ABC correspondent Jeffrey Kofman?
McCLELLAN: John, I think I answered that yesterday. That is not the way that this White House operates. That's not the way the President operates . . . No one would be authorized to do that within this White House. That is simply not the way we operate, and that's simply not the way the President operates.

QUESTION: In all of those cases?

McCLELLAN: Well, go down -- which two?

QUESTION: Joe Wilson and his wife?

McCLELLAN: No.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
July 23, 2003

QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . .
McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it?

McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 16, 2003

This morning, ABC News producer Andrea Owen happened to find herself near Karl Rove (who was walking to his car), and an ABC camera.
Owen: "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?"

Rove: "No."

At which point, Mr. Rove shut his car door as Ms. Owen asked, "What is your response to the fact that Justice is looking into the matter?"

ABC News
The Note
September 29, 2003
(courtesy of Think Progress)

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

Scott McClellan
Press Gaggle
September 29, 2003

QUESTION: Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?
McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.

QUESTION: Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it?

McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

QUESTION: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information?

McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 29, 2003

QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
September 30, 2003

McCLELLAN: Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he [Karl Rove] was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it.
QUESTION: He does not condone people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying?

McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 1, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them?
McCLELLAN: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

QUESTION: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 7, 2003

QUESTION: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
McCLELLAN: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

QUESTION: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
October 10, 2003

Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.
The American Prospect
Plugging Leaks
March 8, 2004

I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name.
Karl Rove
CNN Interview
August 31, 2004

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else . . . Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl." Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."
Rove attorney Robert Luskin
CNN Interview
July 4, 2005

Luskin confirmed that Rove and Cooper had spoken prior to the publication of the original Time article, but said that Rove “did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA

Karl Rove: Not As Careful As You Think
Reuters’ write-up of Rove’s involvement in the leak scandal captures the emerging consensus within the media that Karl Rove is an astute wordsmith who carefully-parsed his statements:

Rove has carefully chosen his words when questioned about the leak. “I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name,

So.......
Is W really so stupid as to not know what his "underling" Rove is doing?

How deep is W in all of this?

Conspiracy?

Doggies nippin' at your heels boy? Now thats the press we need to see.....

It looks like Rove is being marginalizd by the press. The Bushies usually throw someone already dead off the sled to slow down the wolves... I bet Karl gets tossed off the back of the sled.*

* NOTE: Metaphor stolen from (I forget) but it was used by a
Republican talking head refer ring to Mrs. Clinton
in 1996.

I love the title here. Maybe there should be some pictures of Bush looking everywhere in the White House for reporters and saying "nope, none here..."

For now, this is a one off for me. I hope it is a sign of things to come, but until I consistently start hearing the administration having to answer many tough questions, then I won't fall for the head fake. I do hope that this Rove story can be a way to draw attention to the DSM and finally push the case for an investigation to impeach Bush. I will admit, it is nice to finally see one of the Bushies squirm.

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2005/07/nine-days-later-white-house-press.html

The next step is now to force the print media and the TV outlets to report on the White House Press Corps! Forget CBS, with Dan gone.

CNN US TV reports on the White House Press Secretary, no details on the asked questions!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leaks.ap/index.html

Well, what is new and/or the news? The days of Ted Turner are long gone.

Can it be, can it actually be that a couple of reporters, afert all these years of lying and deceit have somehow managed to grow some balls?

I love it, these bozos in the Casa Blanca are going down, going down big time.

This just demonstrates the total disregard Bush and cronies have for the American people.

It is all about them and their pathological need for raw power.

That was so funny! I don't think anything could have been been better than to catch Scotty masturbating to a picture of George Boi Bush. Was he backpeddling...uh..no...he was moonwalking.... this administration is disgraceful. Impeach, we must! Please, write your representatives.... Please??????

Perry Jordan
Colossians 3:23

We are asking the wrong person the right questions. We need to call the President out and make him answer our questions himself. As a public servant is is required to answer TO the people. Now is the trick. How do we call him out? We the people can go to the grand jury to express our concerns about the issues of the DSM. Just like a procecuter can. Below is something that i came across on the net. Maybe it can help us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello to everyone

It has been a while since I posted. In New Jersey people can call on the grand jury and Louisiana, and 1981 ruling of the West Virginia Supreme

Court allowing any citizen to present a complaint to the grand jury. So what is good for one state should be good for another.

Here is an article below that explains what I am talking about. I hope this can be of some use.

N.J. Appellate court: Let citizens seek grand jury probe
"Coburn noted that a federal law allows citizens to ask federal grand juries for permission to appear and make complaints."
Wednesday, June 30, 2004BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERGStar-Ledger StaffBreathing new life into a long-forgotten right, a state appeals court ruled yesterday that ordinary citizens who have evidence of criminal wrongdoing can bring their suspicions to a county grand jury and request an investigation.If it stands, the ruling would end the monopoly that county prosecutors hold on bringing allegations to a grand jury and create a new opportunity for concerned citizens to attack official corruption.But the Attorney General's Office vowed to appeal, warning that the ruling invites unprecedented troublemaking by vindictive ex-spouses, political opponents and others with a grudge."It is a ludicrous decision," said John Hagerty, a spokesman for the state Division of Criminal Justice. "It allows for any citizen or gadfly to walk into a grand jury and try to indict a neighbor. It allows for public officials, during an election, to walk in and endeavor to indict an opponent."Late yesterday, the Attorney General's Office asked the appeals court to stay its ruling until the New Jersey Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case.The ruling was a victory for Larry Loigman, an activist lawyer who tried to present allegations of official wrongdoing to the Monmouth County grand jury. A judge told him to take his evidence to the county prosecutor and Loigman, a vocal critic of that office, appealed.In a unanimous decision, three appeals court judges directed that a letter containing Loigman's allegations be read to the grand jury, which would then decide whether to launch an investigation and call Loigman as a witness."It is an excellent ruling for the citizens of the state," Loigman said. "Anyone who's dissatisfied with what's going on, they don't have to rely on the county prosecutor or the attorney general. They have their own representatives sitting there -- the grand jurors -- and now they have a way to approach those people.""It certainly opens up the door to a whole new area for going after official misconduct," Loigman said.Actually, the ruling reopens a door that has been so little used in recent years that even judges and prosecutors had forgotten it was there.Taking a long view of legal history, Appellate Division Judge Donald Coburn concluded that a citizen's right to present allegations to a grand jury is well established. The most recent example he could find of its use in New Jersey was 47 years ago, and one case, from Louisiana, went back to 1893.But some other states have embraced the right more recently.Coburn quoted at length from a 1981 ruling of the West Virginia Supreme Court allowing any citizen to present a complaint to the grand jury by applying to the judge in charge of it."If the grand jury is available only to the prosecuting attorney and all complaints must pass through him, the grand jury can justifiably be described as a prosecutorial tool," the West Virginia high court wrote."If the grand jury is to be a meaningful institution, its integrity must be maintained as an independent body, free from all outside interference and prosecutorial control or direction."Quoting a 1977 decision by Minnesota's supreme court, Coburn wrote that allowing citizens to bring complaints directly to the grand jury "serves as a kind of 'safety valve' and has much to commend it."In light of the grand jury's "extraordinary powers of investigation,"he rejected claims by the Attorney General's Office that citizens had no right to bring complaints to the grand jury. Appellate Division Judges Stephen Skillman and Harold Wells joined Coburn's opinion.Loigman said the case began when a client advised him of financial irregularities in the Middletown Township payroll related to a state grant from an agency within the Attorney General's Office. He said he alerted that agency to the improprieties but "they never conducted an investigation."In February 2002, Loigman put his allegations into a letter addressed to the Monmouth County grand jury at the county courthouse. When he got no reply, Loigman said, he contacted Assignment Judge Lawrence Lawson, who told him to contact the county prosecutor or attorney general. Instead, he appealed.The appeals court directed Lawson to have Loigman's letter read to the grand jurors along with any instructions the judge deems appropriate. Coburn said that every letter addressed to a grand jury should be delivered to the assignment judge, who will then "determine whether he or she should instruct the jury on the matter."Loigman said the ruling applies only to county grand juries as a state law requires the Attorney General's Office to present all cases to the state grand jury. Coburn noted that a federal law allows citizens to ask federal grand juries for permission to appear and make complaints.Robert Schwaneberg covers legal issues. He can be reached atrschwaneberg@starledger.com or (609) 989-0324.

Simper Fi, Fernando Powers

Yesterday morning I sent this to the Key White House Journalists and others:

"We need your help. It's time to be a journalist again.
If ALL of you do your jobs, Rove and these thugs can no longer intimidate you.

Please focus on the NEWS. DARE to ask the toughest questions, and for
God's sake, FOLLOW UP with a question that actually gets to the ANSWERS.

America needs you.

Thank you."

Today, it's time for a new message...

The key White House Reporters obviously engaged in a bit of a conspiracy of their own yesterday (finally) to take these bastards on in numbers rather than individually. The tide has turned.

Obviously McClellan has made it known that he will stonewall the media on any questions pertaining to Rove. Today I'm going to be sending out more e-mails suggesting the following of these reporters:

"THANK YOU from all patriotic Americans, THANK YOU for holding McClellan's feet to the fire and making him personally accountable to the people of this country, for whom he works.

Next step:

As this administration has obviously CONSPIRED to prevent you from learning the truth, it's time to counter these tactics with a conspiracy of your own. If ALL OF YOU collectively refuse to ask any question other than those pertaining to Rove's Treason, The White House Press Briefings will themselves become an indictment of this administration. McClellan lied right to your faces, repeatedly, and now he doesn't want to talk about it?

Consider this strategy to be a Press Fillibuster - for as many days as it takes - until McClellan or the President himself ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. Let's see how the opinion polls deal with a few days of "No Comment" from the President's spokesperson, or the President himself.

There are NO OTHER TOPICS to ask questions on until these questions are ANSWERED (unless of course they want to switch the subject to who was actually behind 9/11 and what Dick Cheney and NORAD were really up to on that morning)."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.