A. Yeah, we've been through these issues over the past week, I know what was said previously.

Q. Did the president equate the word leaking to a crime? Is the only threshold for firing someone involved being charged with a crime?

Q. Two years and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? (Helen Thomas, love her) All he has to do is call him in?

A. Because there's an investigation continuing at this point, the appropriate people handling these issues are the people investigating this investigation.

Q. We don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. Given the facts you said these men didn't discuss a CIA agent's identitity, does the white house have a credibility problem?

A. No.

Q. You made statements that have proven to be untrue.

Q. Given the new formulation of somebody committing a crime....

A. I'm not going to add to what the president said...

Q. What about president's previous statements. Do they remain operative? (funny, the media is using Watergate language here, statements remaining "operative")

Q. Dancing around definitional issue. You're telling us there's nothing new in what the president said today, yet you said before that someone would be fired if they were even involved in the leak. The president appears to have set up a higher bar. They are not the same thing on their face.

A. I would not read anything into it more than what the president said.

Q. You said you talked to Scooter and Rove and Abrams, you said they weren't involved. Do you stand by that?

A. blah blah blah

Q. Has the president asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he's had.

A. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully.

Q. Has the prosecutor asked the White House not to speak to his top aides about this topic?

A. You can ask the prosecutor.

Q. Has the White House coordinated with the RNC and GOP members of congress on this issue?

A. I answered that last week.