blog rove

A Call To Action

David Corn Online

July 2005
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

« June 2005
Full Archives


Recent Entries

* White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal
* Why Bush Has To Fire Rove
* It's Here! Newsweek Does Nail Rove
* New Explosive Rove Revelation To Come? Time to Frog-March?
* Rehnquist Resigning?




Articles
David Corn's Capital Games
Links
Alternet
Daily Kos
Eschaton
Iraq War Reader
LA Weekly
Marc Cooper
Misleader.org
Mother Jones
Salon
Slate
The Nation
The O'Franken Factor
The Progressive
The Village Voice
Tompaine.com



Blogads
THE SURREAL LIFE
THE SURREAL LIFE
All-new season!
Premieres Sunday, July 10 at 9/8c

Guess who’s in the House? Omarosa, Motorcross Star Carey Hart, Janice Dickinson, Sandi “Pepa” Denton of Salt-n-Pepa, Jose Canseco, Bronson Pinchot and model Caprice.
Read More...
HEART of the BEHOLDER www.Beholder.com
A young couple endure harassment and death threats until they lose everything when a fanatical religious group blackmails the prosecutor into ruining them over rental of Martin Scorsese’s film, “The Last Temptation of Christ.”

But the couple gets something the powerless seldom do - REVENGE.
Read More...
Advertise here.




< Previous | Main
July 11, 2005
White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal

Another post on the Rove scandal from my Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com If you've seen it already please scroll down to other postings and don't forget to check out this site's advertisers.

I advise all students of political speech to read the transcript of the press briefing conducted by White House press secretary Scott McClellan today. It was a smorgasbord of stonewalling. He entered the White House press room at 1:00 p.m., his eyes darting about, and started off by reading a statement from President Bush on the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica. Then the subject changed. Rather abruptly. Reporter after reporter asked McClellan about Karl Rove and the news--broken by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek--of a July 11, 2003 email written by Time's Matt Cooper that noted that Cooper had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." The email is proof that Rove leaked to a reporter information revealing the CIA employment of Valerie Plame (a.k.a. Valerie Wilson).

This puts Rove and the White House in a pickle. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, says that Rove did not mention Valerie Wilson's name to Cooper. But this is a rather thin defense. (I explain why here, and I also note why George W. Bush, if he takes his own rhetoric seriously, has no choice but to dismiss Rove.) But legal and criminal difficulties aside, the email is undeniable evidence that Rove leaked national security information to a journalist to discredit a critic (Joseph Wilson). How does that square with White House policy as it has been previously stated? Well, it doesn't. And the journalists in the White House press room knew that. Many had a list of previous McClellan statements at the ready. I was there, and I had a list, too. Here are some of the past White House statements I had collected.

On September 29, 2003, Scott McClellan said of the leak (which first appeared in a Bob Novak column on July 14, 2003):

That is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No would be authorized to do such a thing.

Asked then about the allegation Rove had been involved in the leak, he said,

Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion....It is simply not true....And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

He also said that the White House would not stand for such conduct:

If anyone in this administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration..

On October 1, 2003, McClellan reiterated the White House position:

The president certainly doesn't condone the leaking.

And he said of Rove:

I made it very clear that he didn't condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity.

On October 7, McClellan noted that prior to previously telling the press that Rove and two other White House aides--National Security Council staffer Elliott Abrams and Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby--were not involved in the leak, he had spoken to each of the three and determined they had not been part of the Plame/CIA leak:

I had no doubt of that...but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

How could McClellan defend such a record? His strategy was clear: don't even try. When the reporters began firing Rove-related queries at him, he refused to answer any of them. The first query came from Terrence Hunt of Associated Press: Does Bush stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the Plame/CIA leak? McClellan replied that "while the [leak] investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it." Hunt tried again: "Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak....And I just wanted to know, is that still his position."

McClellan would not say: "We're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation." He claimed that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had "expressed a preference to us" that the White House not comment on the matter. (I later called Fitzgerald's office and asked it to confirm whether Fitzgerald had made such a request. A spokeswoman for Fitzgerald said he would not have any comment regarding any part of the investigation. "Not even to back up what the White House said?" I asked. "No," she replied.)

Next up in the press room was John Roberts of CBS News. He asked if McClellan was contradicting himself since he had freely discussed the matter in the fall of 2003 when he claimed it was "ridiculous" to believe Rove had been involved in the leak. McClellan said, "I appreciate the question." (That was clearly not the truth.) He went on: "I remember very well what we previously said, and at some point would be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete."

NBC's David Gregory than piped up: "Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" Again, McClellan went to Index Card No. 1: "this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to that investigation." Did McClellan stand by his previous statements? No answer. A frustrated (justifiably) Gregory noted, "Scott, I mean, just--I mean, 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 decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?" McClellan: "There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time."

That was for sure. Other reporters took similar swings at McClellan. He just stood there, counting the minutes, perhaps silently trying to convince himself that he was in his happy place and that he was not being beaten into a pulp. One reporter asked when Fitzgerald had requested the Bush White House not to talk about the investigation. McClellan said the request came in the fall of 2003. A-ha, one reporter said; Bush spoke about the leak investigation in June 2004 and renewed his pledge to fire anyone involved. Had Bush violated the White House policy against speaking about the probe? "You have my response," McClellan said. Of course, the reporter did not.

Carl Cameron of Fox News asked if Bush continues "to have confidence in Mr. Rove?" McClellan wouldn't even touch this down-the-middle pitch: "Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this." And when another reporter asked McClellan to describe the importance of Rove to the Bush administration, he replied, "Do you have questions on another topic?"

By the time my turn came, I realized I was not going to be able to cause any crack in the wall. But I had to try, and I attempted to slightly redefine the issue. I noted,

There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an email 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?

In other words, how about forgetting the crime and focusing on the leak? He responded,

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.

But Bush has not said what he intends to do about Rove now that there is public evidence that Rove leaked information on Valerie Wilson. (And if Bush wants to get to the bottom of this, shouldn't he just whistle Rove into his office and ask, "Karl, what gives?") So I pushed on:

But you acknowledge that he is free, as president of the United States, to take whatever action he wants to in response to a credible report that a member of his staff leaked information? He is free to take action if he wants to?

But there would be no such acknowledging. McClellan said,

Again, you're asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I've responded to it.

He hadn't. But then why should my question receive special treatment this day.

Other Rove-related questions were hurled at him. He refused to touch a single one. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post took a stab as well:

Scott, I think you're [being] barraged[d] today in part because we -- it is now clear that 21 months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

McClellan showed no such concern:

Again, I'm going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. Dana, you all -- you and everybody in this room, or most people in this room, I should say, know me very well and they know the type of person that I am. And I'm confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that's once the investigation is complete.

Everybody in the room--and out of it--should review McClellan's exchange with the reporters to see how he and this White House do business. After what transpired, no reporter should take McClellan's word at face value (if they ever did). Moreover, the larger issue is not his--and Bush's--credibility, but the wrongdoing committed by a senior White House official and the apparent lack of a response from the White House. (And remember, Bob Novak's column outing Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer cited two unnamed senior Bush administration officials.) The White House is adopting a familiar media strategy: say nothing, don't fuel the story, wait for it to pass--and ignore the substance of the issue. Bush aides must be hoping that the media lose interest and are not provided any further reasons to headline this story. They are probably also hoping that the Democrats fail to create the sort of political storm that would compel journalists to continue to give the Rove scandal prominent play. Maybe their stonewall will hold. And what's the alternative? Tell the obvious truth and admit that Bush's most important adviser committed an act that Bush has said warrants dismissal? But what's the percentage in that? With McClellan providing no answers related to the Rove scandal, the question is whether the White House's we-can't-comment stance will allow it to dodge yet another troubling and inconvenient reality.

Posted by David Corn at July 11, 2005 09:12 PM
Comments
1

Have you ever compared the statements McClellan made with those of Ron Zeigler of the Nixon White House during the Watergate investigation? Where did stonewalling begin? And weren't Rumsfeld and Cheney "operatives" for the Nixon administration?

Posted by: gtash at July 11, 2005 09:51 PM
2

So what does the applicable law actually say? Does it limit the crime to naming specific names, or could it reasonably be interpreted to include revealing a specific identity?

If this is the straw they're grasping, it'll be a short story.

Posted by: emrys at July 11, 2005 09:51 PM
3

Democrats should pounce on this opportunity to agitate the Whitehouse with their own lame tactics. Why not get a bunch of senators and congresspeople to draft a letter and question the President about the loud, daily comments they made about the Newsweek Koran story WHILE there was an ongoing investigation of prisoner treatment? They really need to keep their mouths shut until the "appropriate" time, according to them. Who authorized the spin machine to talk to the press about Newsweek's report, when they now say the policy to talk about ANYTHING or ANYONE even remotely involved in an investigation is taboo in the extreme?

Posted by: johnd at July 11, 2005 10:02 PM
4

Is it just me, or is Scott McClellan using the exact same words as Robert Novack? He's trying to say in a patronly "all will be told in good time", like Novack did when asked why isn't he in jail, since he was the journalist who actually wrote the leak.

I think some plumber is working behind the scenes like mad to "fix" things with the prosecutor. What is happengin in the span of time they're making "no comment"?

I'm worried justice and truth will never be served regarding the entire Niger forgary/State of the Union speech/Wilson letter/Rove spinning/Plame outing mess. Meanwhile, Iraqis are dying by the dozens every few days for a war sold on lies.

Posted by: beth c at July 11, 2005 10:14 PM
5

Everybody knows that Rove did it directly or indirectly,including Bush, its his MO! The only task is smoking him out. The press should never give up on this for the good of the country. This adminstration is rotten to the top to bottom.

Posted by: Ned Cummings at July 11, 2005 10:15 PM
6

So Rove never "mentioned" Plames name:

By this logic, someone should be able to spin an imaginative tale about , oh, the eldest son of GHW Bush being a drug dealing child molestor or some other yarn and not be found guilty of any sort of personal defamation charges simply beacause his own name didn't "come up".
Ooooh- Kaaay!

Posted by: ardyjay at July 11, 2005 10:19 PM
7

Henry Waxman of California is demanding that Karl Rove testify before Congress. Stupid, stupid move. Until the criminal investigation is over, Congress should stay out of it regardless of the pleasure it would give us all to see Rove on the Congressional hot seat. I say this because this is exactly how Oliver North and John Poindexter got off in Iran-contra. They testified to criminal conduct (under some stupid immunity) and after they did that, Walsh (trying like hell) couldn't get a sturdy conviction because of what they testified to in front of Congress. So, if anyone lives in California, email Waxman and tell him to hold his water. Let Rove do the criminal walk before he does the Congressional walk. I think Bush & Co would welcome Rove testifying before Congress. Not truthfully, as I think we all know. But between Congress and Fitzgerald, I'd rather see him testify before Fitzgerald first. If that doesn't take, then he can testify before Congress. Let the criminal case go forward -- and if that doesn't work, then we bag his doughy ass!!

Posted by: Ellen at July 11, 2005 10:29 PM
8

Rove will get through this unscathed. He is far too important to Bush to be abandoned. But Miller and Novak deserve to be charged as criminals as well.

Here's a different take on their culpability:

Why Novak and Miller are CRIMINALS:

Best lines from this blog:

It was their responsibilty as journalists to inform the public that acts of treason were committed from within an admistration of a president for whom Americans were about to vote.

If the Plame case was about a child molester and not about treason would the public feel more outrage? Would reporters and Bush supporters think that Novak and Miller should spill the beans on the identity of their source had the source been a child molester?

Read the full blog:

HERE

Posted by: Reg at July 11, 2005 10:33 PM
9

Just wanted to say that I am in shock. After all this time and all the unanswered questions and unbelievable statements of this administration... FINALLY the press... reporters... asking questions... Real Questions.

Wow. This is a truly amazing event.

Maybe. Hopefully this may lead to other questions that have been avoided and ignored and left unspoken. Seriously. This is not RealTV... this is RealiTY. And there is a serious gap between what is true and what we see and are told to believe to be. This administration has NO Credibility.

Scotty proved it today.

Posted by: herenow at July 11, 2005 10:34 PM
10

David.
Why do you think the white house is going to come clean on this? Even if they are innocent? After taking down News week, CBS, Dan Rather for gosh sakes; how many writers do you think will be willing to get their 'necks chopped off' because they told the truth?
Whoops; sorrey; you're post 'White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal' clearley shows that you have 'stones' and are not afraid to put them on the table.
I don't know about Rove; but you surley have earned my respect!
Wandy


Posted by: Andrew Wanielista at July 11, 2005 10:38 PM
11

You ask why Bush doesn't fire Rove, and how McClellan can weasle around, but you do not ask what is an obvious follow-on: was the effort to discredit Wilson known to and fully endorsed by Bush and his whole team, as a necessary step to continue and conceal their major long-term effort to fix the facts and intelligence around the policy? I bet Scott would say that's ridiculous. Reporters who admire Woodward and Bernstein should perhaps be admonished not to aim too low.
Doppler

Posted by: Doppler at July 11, 2005 10:40 PM
12

Look, if McClellan couldn't even answer Carl Cameron's softball, Scotty knows his fanny is toast up there on the podium. Whatever fantasy credibility he thought he had, it evaporated in that out-of-body experience we saw on the tube.

Posted by: Pam's House Blend at July 11, 2005 10:40 PM
13

If Scott McClellan were vertibrate, he would have placed Rove's head on one of those cute little spikes on the White House fence long ago. Unfortunately, he is performing the role of a super in a slum-row tentament.

Posted by: Walt The Man at July 11, 2005 10:55 PM
14

Hey, during the original "frog march" hub bub when Wilson had to sort of recant on his speculation that Rove was one of the two leakers, wasn't part of Rove's and others defense the claim that Novak's story was available to Bush's staff long before publication (like a day or more)?

Is anyone in the administration on the record stating they learned Plame's identity and her CIA "operative" status from Novak or a subsequent news report, but they talked about it a little earlier because they get the news before it goes to print?

The dates on Coopers emails should blow a wide hole in this re-constitution of time defense. If Rove told a reporter fully outside the administration that Wilson's wife worked on WMD issues in the agency, days before Novak's article was published, he most probably wouild have shared it with the rest of the President's senior staff, right?

Otherwise these folks who said they had no pre-Novak knowledge of Wilson's wife working at CIA had less info than reporters about this two day old Whitehouse talking point.

So which is it? Does Rove not trust them with the message, or did they retroactively invent a plausible early conduit of the knowledge that now seems silly seeing as their colleague Rove had known it for days? Who had the special meeting with ONLY Rove to inform him that Wilson's wife worked on WMD at the agency?

Did the other senior staff sleep in that day, or are they simply not to be trusted with Rove's double secret info that he freely dispenses to reporters?

Posted by: johnd at July 11, 2005 11:02 PM
15

jeez louise... well mr. corn, you're a fine writer and journalist, but you've milked this rove/plame action just about long enough in my opinion... even the whore mcMedia has caught up with you on this one.
I believe that it won't make a c-hairs difference if rove goes down or not, or even if bush went down for that matter. would any real issues get resolved? ie: 911,DSM,darfur,the ECONOMY,etc.? no they will not. it doesn't really matter who is the figure head, who is the vice figure head, or who is the secretary of socks...bushco are a collective, and they are all interchangeable/replaceable sock puppet whores.

Posted by: James Ha at July 11, 2005 11:25 PM
16

To have Rove fired or resign would be a great result here but we should not forget the second adminstration source!! If miller's source is Rove, she must have some damning evidence on him.

However, I think it it possible Miller has a different source whom the adminstration will give up Karl to save

Posted by: jmk at July 11, 2005 11:33 PM
17

There once was a weasel named Rove
For Bush's agenda he strove
Now Bush and McClellan are hiding the felon
and all three should wind up on the stove

Posted by: TomSongs at July 11, 2005 11:58 PM
18

Another interesting factoid is the source of some of the recent info: Attorneys for administration witnesses sympathetic to Bush. What's up with that? What would make them want to get Rove fully under the wheels of the bus?

Speculating further, notice that since Rove claims no knowledge of Plame's maiden name OR that her job status was classified, he also is removing ANY reason to keep conversations about Joe Wilson's wife having a hand in his trip to Niger close to his chest among other senior Bush staff. (or anyone for that matter)

His story seems to go that he was very tight lipped (super secret background?) about Wilson's wife with the press not because he was reluctant to out a known spy (he didn't know she was a spook, and didn't even know her name his lawyer maintains), but for some other reason. What reason Mr Luskin?

You say he HAD to combat spurious stories of Cheney hiring Wilson for Niger. If all he knew was that his nameless paper pusher wife at CIA nepotistically sent him on an excursion junket, why all the cloak and dagger super secret background, why not crow it from the steps of the Whitehouse?

If there are others on Bush's staff who are speculating and guessing Rove's going to testify that not only HE knew about Wilson's "unknown staus at CIA" wife and her hand in the Niger trip, but he's going to say THEY knew too, they know they will probably have to either back up his story that they all didn't know her maiden name and that she was covert, or possibly get snared in a trap that Rove himself at least thinks HE can wriggle out of.

Posted by: johnd at July 12, 2005 12:01 AM
19

Where is Jeff Gannon during all of this mess? Wasn't he one of the "leakers," too? Was his information garnered during his paid sexual liaisons in the White House? Did McClellan and Rove, and Dumya pump their "inside reporter?"
Remember, too, congresspeople wrote to the White House months ago, asking how Gannon/Guckert was allowed to happen, and there's been no response. These people just shut up and go on committing crimes, and the media are just letting it go on. However, today's Q&A in the press room shows there may be some signs of serious journalism returning to DC. We'll see.
BB

Posted by: Brendan O'Maidian at July 12, 2005 12:21 AM
20

The WH is stonewalling because the WH are masters of deflecting attention away from this regime. I believe that bush will remove a rabbit from his hollow head and divert attention to some kind of Pentagon terrorist act either in the USA or in some other country. Rover is not going down for his treasonous act. bush will bestow upon rover some kind of medal of honor for meritorious treason.

Posted by: Gerald at July 12, 2005 12:25 AM
21

Mr. David Corn,

Thank you for asking the questions. The lack of a straight answer says more than any words ever will. Has this WH finally found the lies catching up with them, I hope so.

You have been posting some real good stuff. Rove and this WH will only get away if you let them. I cannot count on any other with access as they have destroyed their credibility with five years of lap-dog WH talking points parrot speak.

I hope this misadministration is exposed. I assume this WH will fight the truth with all of the consolidated power they can muster. True of any administration as all have their skeletons in their closets.

The fact that the press has taken a swing at the truth is a good thing. I hope they are in for a long hard slog. Does the compliant "press corps" that has been absent for five years have the stamina and focus to "stay the course" in the pursuit of exposing the ugly truths? I worry they have no recent experience. Time will tell.

There is hope somewhere deep in my cynical, jaded heart when I know you can at least still ask the questions. I hope that never changes.


Thanks

Kirk

Posted by: capt at July 12, 2005 12:35 AM
22

What will be affirmed in the coming months is whether we are a nation that abides by the rule of law or the rule of man. Since the busheviks
*rule* in their own interest, it will probably be that the *rule of man* will prevail.

Because we do not know what other information Fitzgerald holds, it is impossible to know whether a jury would be likely to convict Rove of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- or as John Dean suggests, violating the Espionage Act. But based on what we do know, assuming the accuracy of the leaked email, Fitzgerald appears to have a convincing prima facia case for seeking an indictment against Rove.

Man oh man, I am so sick of hearing that Rove claims neither to have known nor used Valeria Plame's name. THAT is irrelevant! Ask any good attorney. Also, Rove apparently claims never to have asked Cooper to publish the information -- THAT is irrelevant, too.

Posted by: micki at July 12, 2005 12:36 AM
23

Eack time a relevant question is asked the hearts of the people leap up. Each time it is ignored or spun or met with a lie the anger of the people grows. Thank you David, for all that you do.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse

Posted by: Art Durand AKA Whitebear at July 12, 2005 12:39 AM
24

Oh, BTW, David, I saw you on C-Span today! Way to go! Even though you were one of many being stonewalled!

Keep up the good work!

I was pleased to see that Terry Moran used the word "stonewall" on ABC News tonight.

Posted by: micki at July 12, 2005 12:40 AM
Post a comment
If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? Yes No

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)




"David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president." - Los Angeles Times


Buy the Book


Blogads
Fire Karl Rove!
Karl Rove should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Regardless of how he phrased it, regardless of how much detail he provided; he revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent putting her life in danger. CLICK HERE
Read More...
Stem Cells: FIGHT BACK!
It's time to fight back against the extremists holding up stem-cell research. We need your help NOW:

1) Vist StemPAC.com and join our effort;

2) Please steal this ad, and put it on your own blog.

This is a 100% grassroots effort, and we need your help. Fight back.
Read More...
You can help defeat CAFTA. Click to find out how.
Read More...
BeatBushGear.com
Anti-Bush and pro-America
shirts, stickers, buttons, magnets, mugs, etc.
Share your opinions and ideals
Beat Bush's right-wing agenda
Have a laugh or two
Get a few to express yourself
Perfect gifts for your
friends & family!
Read More...
Advertise here