http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000977098
Press Batters McClellan on Rove/Plame Link
By E&P Staff
July 11, 2005
NEW YORK
At numerous press briefings last week, not a single reporter asked
White House Press Secretary about emerging allegations that top
presidential aide Karl Rove was a source, or the source, for Time
magazine's Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case.
On Sunday, Newsweek revealed a Cooper e-mail from July 2003 that
showed that Rove indeed had talked to him about Plame and her CIA
employment, although he apparently did not mention that she worked
under cover.
This development apparently freed the journalists to hit McClellan
hard at this afternoon's briefing.
Here is a full transcript of the Rove-related queries.
***
Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a
leak of the name of a CIA operative?
MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being
asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing
criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference
is something that continues at this point.
And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing,
the White House is not going to comment on it.
The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the
investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the
investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on
it while it is ongoing.
Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of
2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved
in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is
that still his position?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this
ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues
to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing
criminal investigation from this podium.
The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a
preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be
commenting on it from this podium....
Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on
September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you
clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if
anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And
then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of
this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he
would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have
you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the
past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the
statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing
investigation'?
MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to
get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it
more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to
be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an
ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing
the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that
policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at
some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the
investigation is complete.
Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it
was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but
now it’s not?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in
reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point,
when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the
investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their
preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the
investigation and get to the bottom of it.
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.
Q: 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.
Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin
down a date?
MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.
Q: 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.
Q: 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.
Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...
MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.
Q: 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.
Q: 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.
Q: 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.
Q: 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.
Q: 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....
***
Q: There’s a difference between commenting publicly on an action and
taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail
saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a
reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the
president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I
presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and
that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the
president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether
there’s an investigation or not.
So are you saying that he’s not going to do anything about this until
the investigation is fully over and done with?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.
This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants
to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United
States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that
investigation is complete.
***
Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president
believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of
the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was
submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could
see what transpired inside the White House at the time?
MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special
prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the
special prosecutor.
Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be
optimal to release as much information and make it as open…
MCCLELLAN: It’s the same type of question. You’re asking me to comment
on an ongoing investigation and I’m not going to do that.
Q: I’d like you to talk about the communications strategies just a
little bit there.
MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to
cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what he expects
people in the White House to do.
Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully
with…
MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.
Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White
House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr.
Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?
MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors.
I think probably more than one individual who’s involved in overseeing
the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into
commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing.
__________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
