McClellan Grilled On Rove

Raw Story has it. The media has woken up. This is just a start though--unless we can keep the press hammering on this it won't amount to much. Transcript in the extended entry.

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: 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.<p. QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?<p> MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.



Display:


This is up to the Democrats (none / 0)

On Air America this morning, Stephanie Miller said that a dozen Dems are actually asking for Rove's resignation or Bush to fire him or something.

We can yammer and waste bandwidth all day and night and twice as much on Sunday. If the bone head Democrats can't figure out how to get their head out of Bush's rectal cavity, it won't matter. Why do Democrats love George Bush? Are they congenitally incapable of bitching about anything?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 02:39:49 PM EST

Give me a break. (none / 0)

Democrats "love" bush? Get real. The question is why are so many dems afraid of bush. No one loves the fucking chimp.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 04:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WOW! (none / 0)

Think Progress has been counting down the days when the press would finally ask during the gaggle.  Mark July 11 as the day, and sheesh they sure seem to be united in not letting Scotty McWeasel off this time.

Let's hope they keep it up, and what ends up in the media after edits.

by Intellectually Curious on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 02:41:53 PM EST

More Good news from Raw Story!! (none / 0)

This is off topic, but I wanted you guys to see thishttp://rawstory.com/news/2005/Liberal_talk_radio_trends_ahead_of_Limbaugh_among_2554_i_0711.html, liberal talk radio is rebounding in Miami!!
by MichiganDemocrat on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 02:52:43 PM EST

It's about time. (none / 0)

Hey... there's more breaking news on CNN being reported as I type...

...NIXON RESIGNS!

by afs on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 02:53:23 PM EST

Bush Resigning? (none / 0)

I usually am not a big fan of psychics, but I was intrigued last week on Coast to Coast AM, an all-night staple of the AM radio dial.  Sean David Scott, a "remote viewer", (whatever the hell that is, some kind of psychic phenomenon), who supposedly predicted all kinds of events which came true, said that he does not see Bush finishing his second term.

Does this mean a resignation over scandal?  An impeachment over lying to the Contress on Iraq?  Who knows.  But stranger things have happened.  Who would have thought a simple burglary at the Democratic national headquaters in 1972 would have resulted in teh resignation of Richard Nixon 2 years later.  

by MichiganDemocrat on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 02:58:46 PM EST

Re: Bush Resigning? (none / 0)

Maybe it means that if there's a re-match with the pretzel, the pretzel wins.
by Crazy Vaclav on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 03:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Psychic Correction: (none / 0)

The psychic who predicted Bush would not finish his term is Sean David Morton, not Sean David Scott, as I had initially thought.  Here is his link:

http://www.delphiassociates.org/

by MichiganDemocrat on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 03:23:24 PM EST

The best we can hope for ... (none / 0)

... is a pardon for Rove after whatever happens happens.
by marchingorders on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 03:36:28 PM EST

The Pretzel Wins!! (none / 0)

Oh, I got a big laugh out of that, maybe this time the pretzel wins!!!   How can Bush get away with this, Karl Rove breaking federal law, and Bush knew about it!  No wonder Bush hired a lawyer last year, the federal prosecutor is on to him.  What does Rove have up his sleeve now?  An attack on Syria or Iran?  We are so stretched thin militarily because of the Iraq quagmire, so maybe we shouldn't worry about that.  But we still have a nuclear bomb, and Bush believes in the Rapture, so he thinks he will escape nuclear Armegeddon.  
by MichiganDemocrat on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 03:42:45 PM EST

Huuzah the press corps finally decided to act (none / 0)

Welp, so why now??  They had 6 years to call them on their BS.  But I doubt it because I think they are trying to get ahead of the curve on this criminal indictment of Rove.  Bush's approval ratings are in the tank and so soft framing of Bush Co., would result in bad ratings?
by Chavez100 on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 05:26:46 PM EST

Rove or Novak (none / 0)

I've got a question on this. If Rove is shown to be the basis for Novak's story and he isn't fired or indicted, shouldn't the heat go on to Novak? I'm getting the idea that Rove's defense is ignorance of Plame as being a undercover operative, maybe not even giving her name. It seems Novak's side of the story is that 2 WH officials outed Plame, essentially putting her out as "fair game". If Novak independently uncovered that classified info through his research on this story and decided to disclose it on his own, wouldn't he be the one culpable for indictment or at least be fired? Just asking. Would Novak go to jail for Rove?
by ruralvoter on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 11:05:59 PM EST

Nothing will happen (none / 0)

Its fun to see the squirming and to hope, but who really thinks this is the beginning of the end of Bush or Rove? It should be, but it won't be. These two have gotten away with so much over the past 5 years its mind boggling. If this story is going to last it has to last through one if not two supreme court nominees, the talk of filibuster again (The Dems had better use it), the London bombings and its aftermath (to include real AND contrived terror alerts here in the US), and the next hurricane or shark attack.  The Downing Street memos can't even catch a breath of air and they (and certainly others like them) are actually worthy of taking this administration down.  The prosecuter will drag this out until it fades from memory or until talk of it will be considered rehashing the past (its worked already). Bush doesn't care what Democrats think, he doesn't care what the public thinks, and turn-coat Republicans can kiss his lilly white a$$. Bush and Brain are suppose to ride off into the sunset together.
"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III
by jrflorida on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 11:50:40 AM EST

What did Bush know and when did he know it? (none / 0)

The press corps needs to keep the heat on Rove, but expand it to Bush. Do we really think that Bush wasn't involved in discussions about Joe Wilson's column and how to control the damage?
by BlueMD on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 04:51:14 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.