You are herecontent / Transcript: McClellan Defends President On Failure to Fire Rove

Transcript: McClellan Defends President On Failure to Fire Rove


By E&P Press

NEW YORK -- It was another difficult press briefing for White House spokesman Scott McClellan today as reporters pounced on what appeared to be a changing presidential standard on what would prompt dismissal of Karl Rove or any other deputy: mere involvement in the Plame scandal or the committing of a crime? And if the latter, would an indictment be enough or would it take a conviction?

And why doesn't President Bush just walk down the hall and ask Rove for a full accounting?

Here's today's transcript of the relevant banter:

Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for -- in the leak of a CIA officer's name, in which he said that he would -- if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That's never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it's important for us to learn all the facts. We don't know all the facts, and it's important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.

The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that's what we've been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that's the way we've been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President's direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the -- so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn't say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we've been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know --

Q But we haven't talked about a crime.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that's something you may be trying to do here.

Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll leave it at what the President said.

Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.

MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.

Q Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --

Q Why doesn't he ask him?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --

Q You talked about it to reporters.

MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.

Q Scott, we don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent's identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don't know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Q But on the specifics -- on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that's exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it's important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.

The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those -- are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.

Go ahead, Bob.

Q Given the new formulation "if somebody committed a crime," would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I'm not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I've been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don't know that there's really much more to add at this point.

Q But the importance is the question of would -- if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That's what we've been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.

Q Scott, going back to the President's statements from earlier -- if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration -- it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.

MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we're not going to do that.

Q But if someone -- if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn't there some sort of regret?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a criminal investigation. We don't know all the facts to it.

Go ahead.

Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government --

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I've already answered it.

Q No, you didn't.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about -- he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it's only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that's why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.

***
Q Scott, I just want to sort of go back over this. Insofar as you're telling us that we shouldn't read anything new into the President's comments today, should we then take that to mean that if there is criminal activity, that person would be fired, but this does not render inoperative those things that the President has said "yes" or responded in the affirmative to in the past when asked, for instance, if you would fire somebody if they were involved in a leak?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't read anything into it. You said, "new." I wouldn't read anything into it beyond what he said.

Q So the previous statements remain operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, once the investigation is concluded, then we can talk about it at that point. But those are decisions for the President to make.

***

Q Scott, back in October 2003, you did assure us that you'd spoken with Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams, and they'd all assured you that they weren't involved in any of this. So with regard to Libby and Abrams, do you still stand by that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Last week I think I assured you that I want to do everything I can to help the investigators get to the bottom of this. I will be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete. I've been stating that position for a long time now, and that's where it stands.

Q So with regard to that, how concerned is the President and you that, notwithstanding that you don't want to talk about it, that Ken Mehlman and other senior Republicans are all over the airwaves doing just that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can direct those questions to the Republican National Committee.

Ken, go ahead.

Q Scott, without asking about the content of the conversation, has the President asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he might have had in any leaks?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President directed the White House to cooperate fully. This is a serious matter. As the President indicated, he doesn't know all the facts. And we all want to know what the facts are. He'll be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete, and we hope that the investigators get to the bottom of it soon. And that's the -- I think that's the response to that.

Q Has the special prosecutor made any request to this White House that prevents the President from speaking to his top aides about any topic?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask the prosecutors those questions, if they want to comment more on it.

Go ahead, Richard.

Q Has anyone here in the White House been assigned with coordinating with the Republican National Committee and other Republican members of Congress speaking out about this issue, the Karl Rove issue?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've addressed these issues. Some of this came up last week and again today.

Go ahead.

***
Q Scott, I just wonder -- Scott, on a personal, human note, how are you holding out? Are you enjoying this? (Laughter.) Seriously. And are you consulting with any of your predecessors who have also gone through crises, Mike McCurry --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are so few things I enjoy more. (Laughter.) Connie, this is nothing personal. Everybody is doing their job here, and I respect the job that you all are doing in this room. And I look forward to having a continuing constructive relationship with everybody in this room.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Press (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

Links referenced within this article

letters@editorandpublisher.com
mailto:letters@editorandpublisher.com

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

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

Scotty: "Now the President talked about how it's important for us to learn all the facts. We don't know all the facts, and it's important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation..."

My follow up question to Scotty:

How can Bush not know all the facts? They practically live and work in the same building. Does Rove purposely withhold information from Bush, and if so, why? Is the president on a need to know basis when it involves Rove? Is Bush just in the way of the old men's agenda??? What the fu*k are they doing up there?

Many comments on this site love to trash Republicans, which I love to do too. But we need to be reminded that when the Democrats were in power they freely used lies, deceit, abuse of power also. It seems each administration looks at the tactics of the previous administration and try to take it to the next level. We need to remember that Bill Clinton made lying an art form, and now little George Stupid has just taken it to the next level. The only difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is the number of people they have killed! Gerorge Bush is the winner on that subject!

The problems of lies, deceit, and abuse of power in government is inherent to the institution and not a problem limited to a particular political party. The organic problem is violation of the constitution, everybody gives lip service to the constitution as they go merely on there way violating it in almost everything they do. Our present state of affairs is that, in no meaningful way, do we really have a constitution. There literaly is no or very little limit on what the governement can or will do. If the president really wants to do something he can find a way around the constitution, but most of the time they do not even try to justify there actions in relation to the constitution, they just arogantly do it any way, and who is going to stop them? If the courts, legislature, presidency, the media and the people do not require a constitutional justification in little matters, how are they going to require a constitutional justification in the big issues like waging war?

Is it the GAO's responsibility to examine government contracts with corporations? I would certainly suggest that, if they're not already examining government contracts with the major corporations that are profiting so much from this illegal aggression, they certainly should be. If any advance payments have been made, perhaps they should be cancelled until there's an audit. I always heard, "birds of a feather flock together." Well, some of the president's buddies were involved in things like the Enron mess and Worldcom, so I believe I would be examining with a microscope.

I have a real issue with the amount of profit involved in Iraq. Since when is profit supposed to be part of the desire to go to war and yet, I believe, this was a factor in the decision. Companies like Haliburton have consistantly gotten bids, and have made huge profits on this war from the get go. There are non stop issues of corporate abuse and these companies continue to get bids. I listened to a former Marine talk about Iraq. I asked him in the question and answer about private contractors. He told me that he would see them fly past his unit in the most dangerous areas of Iraq. He really had no idea what they were doing there. I got a sense he wasn't really comfortable with what they were up to. As far as I'm concerned there should be a transparancy with respect to the contractors. If the Marine can't tell me what these guys are doing then what are the Iraqi people thinking.
The same goes for the White House. There is no transparency. The congress and senate have complained about the secrecy and lack of document sharing. I'm supposed to respect the White House? I'm supposed to feel confident in their handling of anything? Do I have confidence that the White House will do the right thing in the Rove issue? Why should I?

Does anyone know if the deferred payment to Cheny is linked to their current profits?

I think he owns stock options through 2009 but don't quote me.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html
Here is a clear version of how he is involved financially with Haliburton.

My question is simple why aren't people using the phrase FLIP FLOP when talking about these reversals on positions and stuff.
use there own weapons against them it's fun. Lets Get some headlines saying.
Bush Flip Flops on wether he would fire those who leak information.

The GOP already did a great job building that phrase (like waffling) into the lexicon of things middle class americans will hate and say they want out of government so pin it on them now! the tree has ripened.

Does it count that I have already written to Frist and referred to him as flip-flop Frist?

I've written to Bush on www.congress.org and accused him of flip-flopping.

Guess now we just need to get it into the MSM.

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.