Press Corps Must Put McClellan’s New Standard to the Test
Press Corps Must Put McClellan’s New Standard to the Test
At today’s press briefing, Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was willing to speak openly about his role in the Plame investigation yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation:
QUESTION: I know that none of you are speaking about this because it’s an ongoing investigation. Can you explain why Alberto Gonzales would go on TV yesterday and do that and talk about it?
MCCLELLAN: Well, what he said was already said from this podium back in October of 2003, and I don’t think he got into commenting in any substantive way on the discussion.
This is a very different standard than the one he has operated under for the past three weeks. Until now, McClellan has refused to answer many of the very same questions he responded to freely in the past. Take this exchange, from 7/11/05:
QUESTION: Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. … And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.
But now McClellan says that administration officials can repeat previous claims while still honoring the special prosecutor’s request not to speak about the case. As such, White House reporters should ask him to repeat or confirm his previous assertions about the Plame investigation, such as:
- There’s been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office as well. [link]
- If anyone in this administration was involved in [leaking classified information], they would no longer be in this administration. [link]
- “The President knows” that Karl Rove wasn’t involved. [link]
McClellan created the standard. The only question is whether the press corps will make him stick to it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Press:
Keep asking the questions! Even when they get old and trying to hear. Keeping the same damn questions!
July 25th, 2005 at 3:45 pmWas it new information that Gonzales called Andrew Card to tell him of the DOJ’s investigation that first night? The 12-hour delay wasn’t news, but what of the call to Card?
July 25th, 2005 at 3:59 pmThe press needs to begin their questions as “From this podium, you have already stated…and without commenting in any substanstive way, do you stand by what you’d said previously?”. They need to nail Scott with his own words and throw it back at him. Curious as to why Gonzalez isn’t towing the don’t speak line but maybe he’s one of the few left there with a brain and/or conscience.
July 25th, 2005 at 4:07 pmThe mushrooming Karl Rove CIA scandal increasingly looks like it will rack up quite a body count within the White House. It was only two years ago that President Bush concluded of the Valerie Plame outing, “I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official.” Now it is beginning to appear that he will have no credible senior officials left.
What started with Karl Rove and Scooter Libby appears to be spreading to Alberto Gonzales, Andrew Card, Scott McClellan, Ari Fleischer, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton and more.
For the details, see:
“All the President’s Men – and Women.”
July 25th, 2005 at 4:17 pmI see he is telling us that Judge Roberts was NOT a member of the Federalist Society.
Based on his past record of telling the truth, that must mean he WAS.
Interesting that Roberts “can’t remember” if he was a member or not. Is that evidence of early Alzheimers, a case of convenient amnesia or the fact that he can’t look at his checkbook records to see if he (or his lawfirm) ever paid dues.
Why would he lie about something that surely can be verified independently of his remarks? And if he’s starting out on this footing, why would we want him on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years?
Why would McClellan feel the need to tell the press Roberts was never a member. Why shouldn’t he just say, “I don’t know for sure…you’ll have to ask him” That’s been a favorite response in many other situations.
Add McClellan to the list of those who need “early retirement” from the administration.
And keep on asking those questions!
July 25th, 2005 at 4:41 pmGonzales is talking now because he was passed over as the Supreme Court nominee. Gonzales is going to be the next guy to “rat” on Bush and Cheney and all the rest.
His credibility is going down hill. But he still is acting like he is Bush’s attorney instead of America’s Attorney General. Big difference. I just don’t think he gets it yet.
July 25th, 2005 at 4:46 pmCaricature of a Parody
ThinkProgress has a post describing the apparent new WH standard on Rove:
July 25th, 2005 at 5:00 pmI agree, keep asking the same questions. And this would be an excellent time to ask about the Downing Street Minutes, since they are directly related to the Rove/Plame outing.
July 25th, 2005 at 7:48 pmThanks to Victoria above, and yes, call the DSM back into the light again.
Regarding Roberts: his “informal” response that he would have to recuse himself from any case that legally required a judgement that went against his faith, is VERY troubling, since we would have someone who would be a Supreme Court Justice second, and a churchgoer first. I don’t want anyone in the Supreme Court who isn’t THERE, completely and totally.
It’s great that he was honest enough to say that, but not so great that he would subordinate the Supreme Court to a particular religion – a court that must defend people of many religions can not be subordinated to one, or it is not truly “Supreme.”
July 26th, 2005 at 4:24 amI would like to see someone in the WH press corps challenge Scotty on this BS about not yanking security clearance from Rove because they won’t act on “media reports”
Sorry, the statements from Rove’s attorney are hardly “media reports” in any sense other than that they have been widely reported by the media. As such, were they inaccurate or completely untrue, Rove’s attorney would reasonably be expected to know about them and make some response to the inaccuracies, rather than remain silent. (I recall a certain legal doctrine known as “adoption by acquiesence.”) Remember how Cooper’s attorney went to court with Luskin’s published statement that Rove had given a ’specific’ waiver?
And no one could credibly argue (not that that has prevented the idiots in the past) that Luskin was not authorized to speak for Rove. Thus, Rove has effectively made the same statements publicly. This is generally sufficient to meet the standard of admissibility for the statements in a court case against Rove (and as an admission against interest would be considered even more reliable).
It would be nice to see Scotty twisting in the wind trying to create a back-up to the “media reports” line on the fly…
July 26th, 2005 at 5:39 amWhere was all the outrage for the past five years? The Pitiful Press Corps sat on its duff (except for fearless Helen Thomas), and asked no questions of significance for all that time.
TvNewsLIES.org challenged the Press Corps(e) over and over…to no avail. Finally, now that journalists themselves are involved in a news story, they awaken. Too little, too late. No one listens to the press conferences anyway. Perhaps, if they were covered in full on prime time by major networks, some truth would emerge.
To check out the shameful inaction of the WH Press Corps:
July 26th, 2005 at 10:01 amCLICK HERE
Correction on URL
Hope this works for Pitiful Press Corps
CLICK HERE
If not, use this:
July 26th, 2005 at 10:03 amhttp://www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_pitiful_press_corps_.html
I just did a quick search on CNN, MSNBC, FOX and CBS news websites and not one is posting a current story on this. You guys seem to be the only ones still talking about this. Let it go. Rove did not commit any crime and you will not have his resignation. Time to moveon.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:10 pmThanks for the advice, Steve. Always good to see an altruistic Republican.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:52 pmSay, where were you between 1972-August, 1974? Telling Dems to “moveon (sic)”? Heh.
McClellan says what I tell him to say.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:31 pmSteve here is with the new “Republicans for Treasonists committee”.
They are steadfast in their support of Republicans that commit treason.
At least Steve is being honest in his belief and “values” system that he and his Republican breathren rely on in these matters. He supports Republicans that commit treason and by golly he’s sticking to his guns.
Right Steve?
July 26th, 2005 at 8:07 pmI’m more than a little surprised that no one has brought up another charge that could be made in this investigation. Conspiracy. If two or more persons discuss breaking the law to benefit themselves, isn’t that conspiracy? Bill O’Reilly sure was eager to get the staff at Air America Radio arrested for sedition or treason a while back. Where does he stand on this?
July 26th, 2005 at 10:44 pmTIVO the press briefings.
Tell everyone you know who has a TIVO to record the press briefings and rewind whenever a report asks a real question.
TIVO collects this data and sells it to the media companies. If the media companies know we want to watch this, they will report it.
July 27th, 2005 at 12:31 am