Scott McClellan Earns His Paycheck



Q: 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.

Q: 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"?

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.

Q: 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...

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

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: 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.

Q: 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... 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.....

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.

Full Transcript

And if you want to keep track . . . here's the GOP's "Talking Points" for any media contacts, just so that everyone stays on message

Talking Points

How exactly does one do the Frog March? Can one Frog March with leg cuffs on? Can you combine the Perp-Walk with a Frog March? So many questions...

It's going to be interesting to see what GWB does with this one.

If he doesn't fire Rove, he's a GD liar.

If he does fire Rove, he loses the most important strategist in the administration.

Tough choice.

Bet you guys all thought my real name was CJ. CJ was my cat Curious Jorge. Well..here I am.

Even more important (no, couldn't be, could it?) is who broke what laws and when. Then, who knew about it. Looks like this prosecutor is not playing games with anybody. I have a lot more faith in him doing his job fairly and objectively in this instance than I do in the Whitehouse, Congress, RNC or DNC.

what's the problem? we already know he is a liar and he doesn't need rove anymore because he can't run for office again. "mr. nukulur" does not give a rat's arse what the people of this nation think.

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

Not that simple.

I don't think "liar" will be as clear cut as it will be here.

Rove is excellent at measuring the political winds. George is still sensitive to that, believe it or not.

i am too that simple!

__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.

Looks like the words, "Grand Jury" and "Prosecutor" are less important than I thought.

Bot

Whats the CIA officers story?

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

The law concerning revealing a clandestine CIA officer appears to be convoluted as hell (at least from news reports. I have not read the law). Apparently, it is a federal crime to reveal the name of a CIA clandestine officer, but only if you know that the officer is clandestine and that it is illegal to reveal it. If I have that right (and I sure as heck am not certain), then anybody, including a gov employee, who knows of the law but defies it and reveals a clandestine officer's name, is liable for criminal prosecution.

When CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson,s name appeared in print in Robert Novack's column, Congress called for an investigation. Bush asked for appointment of a prosecutor to investigate the release of her name to determine whether a law had been violated and if so, who broke the law.

Bush also said he'd like to have whomever broke the law prosecuted and he'd fire the perp.

During his grand jury investigation, it appears from tea-leaf reading that the guy who revealed the name is not going to be prosecuted. Also, it appears that the prime suspect, Karl Rove is not going to be prosecuted, since the prosecutor has informed Rove's attorney taht he (Rove) is not a target.

Here's my take, FWIW.

Joe Wilson wrote a NY Times pice extremely critical of the Administration. Rove orchestrated a campaign to discredit Wilson. This included hints by him and others to newspeople that there were some un-kosher transactions including that Wilson lied, misled or mispoke on several verifiable instances, including that his wife in the CIA campaigned for her husband to get a particular appointment. Each of Rove's subordinates hinted at different parts of the whole story to different reporters over a span of several weeks. Rove determined that Plame-Wilson was not currently enrolled in clandestine work and so, she was unsheilded by the law. So he had her identity leaked, too.

The prosecutor is no longer concerned about the crime itself--essentially reading the law and agreeing with Rove that Plame was not then protected by the clandestine designation. BUT! Some folks appear to have lied before the Grand Jury. That is a federal offense, people. So he (the prosecutor) is obliged to determine if anybody violated that law.

In the political arena, Democrats smell blood in the water and that blood is Karl Roves. What they do not realize or haven't yet realized is that Rove broke no laws. Or perhaps they don't care about law and are wrapped-up in perceptions of honesty--which is itself, a dishonest game.

What this whole sordid story tells me is this:
1) It was a stupidly written law;
2) taken advantage of by a very smart, amoral man;
3) both 'sides' are revealed as being contemptible.

Vote Libertarian.

Bot

My only question to you is this:

Did GWB state, precisely, that he would fire the perp who "broke the law" or that he would fire the person who revealed the name of the CIA agent?

It's a question of semantics. If he specifically stated "broke the law", then, clearly, he's got a loophole to wiggle fat Karl right on through.

I think with Rove gone Bush might come off better... his marrage to the unsavory is the first blood to Bush's dectractors... going back to the campaign against Mccain.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

I see you've adopted the administration's position on that issue. Rove will probably escape prosecution because the statute is so narrow. There will be at least one element of the statute that can't be proven. So, Rove will avoid indictment, the administration will claim that he is vindicated, and the media lap dogs will fall in line. The same game plan worked for Ed Meese when the grand jury decided not to indict him. So much for bringing honor back to the White House.

What did the Democrats do that was wrong?