Rove was Time reporter's source.....Follow

Patrick Fitzgerald is the special prosecutor. Various senators and other... concerned individuals have been making noise about it for months, but the presentation of the evidence will be up to Fitzgerald as I understand it.

They're not reasonable requests. Rove has already appeared before 3 grand juries on this issue. He's already testified. Nothing has been found that incriminates him in any way.

What you're seeing is media spin. Pure and simple. Remember. The point is to find "the leak". But every piece of actual fact says that Rove was not the leak. He was at worst one of many people who had the information leaked to them. Despite the media implication Rove is not actually under any suspicion of being the leak. He's involved in the investigation because he (and many other people) clearly came to know something that they should not have had access to.

But the media puts Roves name in story "investigating the leak/source", and you all leap to the assumption that Rove must be the leak. While it's possible, I'm betting that's not the case. How about we wait and let the legal process do it's work instead of insisting on action before we know any facts?


Wow. Does that sound familiar or what? BTW,. Anyone got any new information on the report the US submitted to the UN about prisoner treatment in Guantanamo? Funny how that suddenly dissappears once actual facts become available...

Ok Yanari. So aside from Liberal talking heads, who exactly is demanding legal action against Rove? So far, all I've seen in news reports that string together words to make it sound like Rove might have been involved in something, maybe...

Again. Where's the due process? So far, we've not even seen a charge filed or any "real" legal accusation made. We've not seen a single piece of evidence that says that Rove is the leak. All we have is an email from a reporter that Rove said that Wilsons wife worked for the agency.

We don't know what Rove actually said to the reporter. We don't know where Rove got the information he used. We don't know if he had access to a NOC list and even could have known she was an undercover operative.

What we do have though is sworn testimony by Novak (the guy who *actually* wrote the story that outted Plame in case you've been following along) that said that Plame's status as an employee of the CIA was "common knowledge".


Let me say this again. The point of the investigation is to find the source of the leak. At some level, someone who knew Plame worked for the CIA leaked that information. Since she was supposed to be an undercover operative, no one should have had that knowledge except herself, her husband (presumably), a handful of directors at the CIA, and maybe the NSA as well (and even then on a need to know basis). That's the level at which the information was leaked, and that's the object of the investigation. Trying to crucify one person because he was one of the last in a chain of people from the original leak to a reporter (and we still have no confirmation whether Rove was the one who provided that information to Novak, or vice versa, or they both found out independantly).


Fact is that they're targetting Rove because he's part of the Bush administration. No other reason. None of the allegations I've seen you guys tossing around make the tiniest bit of sense, and would be thrown out of any court in a heartbeat. That's why he's not being removed from duty while the investigation is going on. For exactly the reason any other witness to a crime doesn't get punnished. He's testifying so that they can figure out where the leak was. They're not charging him with any crime that I'm aware of.

The same "actual facts" that apparently were sufficient for dozens of news stories about what "might have happened" at Gitmo.

Kinda exactly like the same facts that are circulating in our oh so informative media about the Plame Leak investigation.


Funny that I have to use deception to get you to realize something I've been saying over and over for weeks now. These stories have two things in common: They're based entirely on rummors. Treat them that way.

The July 11 White House Press Conference. Fun to watch Scott twist in the wind...

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

MCCLELLAN: And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation — or questions related to it.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

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.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: But you acknowledged 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.

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

QUESTION: Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Rove’s excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the president hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?

QUESTION: Scott, what was the president’s interaction today with Karl Rove? Did they discuss this current situation?

And understanding that Karl Rove was the architect of the president’s reelection (OFF-MIKE) how important is Karl Rove to this administration?

MCCLELLAN: Again, this is coming at it from…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation. And I think I’ve responded to…

QUESTION: Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?

MCCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this current administration?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question. I think I’ve responded.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

MCCLELLAN: I wouldn’t try to label anything.

QUESTION: Scott, I think you’re getting this barrage today in part because it is now clear that 21 months ago you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstrably false.

Now, are you concerned that in setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’m going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time.

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. I’m not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.

QUESTION: Scott, at this point are we to consider what you said previously, when you were talking about this — that you’re still standing by that or are those all inoperative at this point?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you’re still trying to come at this from a different angle, and I’ve responded to it.

QUESTION: Are you standing by what you said previously?

MCCLELLAN: You’ve heard my response.

QUESTION: 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.

Again, this is an ongoing matter. I’m just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time.

At the appropriate time, when it’s complete, then I’ll be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with…

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.

QUESTION: 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.

I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The president wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.

QUESTION: Was the request made of you or of whom in the White House?

MCCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.

====================================================

Sections of this transcript not pertaining to Rove (perhaps 20%-25%) were edited out. The full text can be read at: July 11 Briefing

Oh Gbaji, you don't think I'm ever going to enter a serious debate with you, do you?



I was just teasing about the misshapen head. I'm sure your cranial structure is intact. Of course that's a liberal assumption on my part.

Is that a bit like waiting until the weapons inspectors have done their work, instead of insisting on action before we know any facts? Oh wait...

Yeah, not that McCellan is anything but a tool (of course he's at least paid to be a tool, unlike Gbaji ) but I almost felt bad for him with all the reporters running him through the wringer and saying "You're full of sh[/i]it, we know you're full of sh[i]it and the reading public is going to know you're full of sh[i][/i]it about ten minutes after this 'briefing' is done."

But then I got over it and felt okay again.

Sorry, Judith Miller was offered a general waiver if she were to reveal her sources. She declined so either you have a liberal protecting Rove or she's protecting someone else. Either way we won't know who the source is until she reveals it. Anything else is liberal propaganda at worst, baseless speculation at best.

Varus

She is "protecting" the good faith journalists need to provide in order to get information from inside sources. No one would ever talk to a reporter if they knew that reporter would turn them in at the drop of a gavel.

I think she's misguided in this particular instance because she had been indemnified by a general release which theoretically freed her to talk, but it's her decision to make. Matt Cooper says he received permission directly from the source, which is why he went on the record. I don't know if she received the same permission.

Either way I'm still curious to know why Novak's feet aren't being held to the fire. Miller just did some research. Novak wrote the article.

I'm curious why the NY Times is protecting someone that has leaked confidential information and who her real source is.

Varus

Bhodi,



I'm sorry it's the NY Times that's protecting the person who leaked the info, which incidentally is why her ****** *** is rotting in jail now.

Varus