Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
You know the White House is in trouble when even McClellan can't spin this one. Funny how his story has changed. Where are your categorical denials now, Scotty??

link
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.
Click to expand...
 
C

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
"QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything."

FINALLY! The media is catching on!!
 
G

Gusty987

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2004
1,473
0
0
C

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
C

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Now More Than Ever: What Did The President Know and When Did He Know It?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/11/152214/588
Two years ago, Scott McClellan said that the President knew that Rove was not a Plame leaker:
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --. . . I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q . . . I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



This one's even better!

Doublechecking Scotty
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/11/141448/846

Esp. this gem from Oct. 2003:
No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.
Click to expand...
:D


Rep. Waxman raises the "T" word (treason). Wants Rove to testify under oath:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050711131514-97754.pdf
An article in the Washington Post this morning and recent disclosures in Newsweek and other reports are extraordinary. If true, they indicate that the President's top political advisor played a central role in the outing of a covert CIA agent.

[...]

The new disclosures also raise issues about whether Mr. Rove acted alone or whether there was a conspiracy with other White House staff to use classified information for the political purpose of discrediting Ambassador Wilson.

The recent disclosures about Mr. Rove's actions have such serious implications that we can no longer responsibly ignore them. The intentional disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity would be an act of treason. If there were evidence of such a serious breach during the Clinton Administration, there is no doubt that our Committee would have immediately demanded that the Deputy Chief of Staff testify at a hearing. This would have been the right course of action then, and it is the right course now.

[...]


A congressional hearing at which Mr. Rove testifies under oath remains the simplest and most effective means for Congress and the public to learn the truth about this disgraceful incident.
Click to expand...
 
G

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Hmm, Fricasseed Rove or BBQ grilled Rove??? Can't decide...

What I don't understand is why so tight lipped all of a sudden?

The way I see it: The innocent proclaim their innocence to their grave. The guilty cower and stay silent whilst hoping no one noticed.

Linky to article

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.

Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation.

"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 said in response to a barrage of questions about Rove and the previous White House denials.

"I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said," McClellan said. "And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time." He said the appropriate time would be when the investigation is completed.
Click to expand...
 
C

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Now More Than Ever: What Did The President Know and When Did He Know It?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/11/152214/588
Two years ago, Scott McClellan said that the President knew that Rove was not a Plame leaker:
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --. . . I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q . . . I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



This one's even better!

Doublechecking Scotty
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/11/141448/846

Esp. this gem from Oct. 2003:
No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.
Click to expand...
:D


Rep. Waxman raises the "T" word (treason). Wants Rove to testify under oath:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050711131514-97754.pdf
An article in the Washington Post this morning and recent disclosures in Newsweek and other reports are extraordinary. If true, they indicate that the President's top political advisor played a central role in the outing of a covert CIA agent.

[...]

The new disclosures also raise issues about whether Mr. Rove acted alone or whether there was a conspiracy with other White House staff to use classified information for the political purpose of discrediting Ambassador Wilson.

The recent disclosures about Mr. Rove's actions have such serious implications that we can no longer responsibly ignore them. The intentional disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity would be an act of treason. If there were evidence of such a serious breach during the Clinton Administration, there is no doubt that our Committee would have immediately demanded that the Deputy Chief of Staff testify at a hearing. This would have been the right course of action then, and it is the right course now.

[...]


A congressional hearing at which Mr. Rove testifies under oath remains the simplest and most effective means for Congress and the public to learn the truth about this disgraceful incident.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

yummmmmmmmy. a public hearing. I'm DEFINITELY loving it.
 
C

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006051
Reid on Rove: "I agree with the President when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security."
Click to expand...
Give 'em hell, Harry!
 
bamacre

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Front page of Yahoo now. This is getting good. Too bad this didn't all get out until after the election.
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So I've been away and won't read hundreds of posts on this one.

Someone recap.

If Rove did this, who supports letting him off, and who doesn't?
Click to expand...
Nobody that I know of supports letting Rove off, IF he is the guilty one.

That doesn't prevent ^^^certain people^^^ from trying to malign people in here that have pointed out that there's nothing substantial to implicate Rove thus far. In their loonie, confused, and convoluted minds, making such points is the exact same thing as letting Rove off the hook.
Click to expand...

I missed this my little balding friend. It must surely shock you to know that I am not convinced Rove outed Plume. BTW, ordering someone to out her is tantamount to doing it so don't try semantics with me. I believe him capible of the act, and I want to see it investigated. Certain of it? No, that is why I used the magic word "if". Better to omit little words that make sense so you can turn things around, eh?

My statement about some here stand, a few in particular. I haven't named anyone, and I don't intend to. If they do what I expect, I will point it out.

Far as Kerry goes, of course he :"flip flops" AKA changes his mind based on circumstances. In a rather good post someone pointed out the examples of Bush doing so. Of course context matters, but not in an election campaign it seems. What struck me about Bush is the short period between conradictory statements. No matter, I really don't let that bother me. Rove did the job well, and won. I am sure you would agree with him that the ends justified the means.
 
C

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
cooper testifies before grand jury wednesday. that testimony will be compared with Roves three other times he's testified. Any discrepencies will be investigated and further charges will be brought as a result. Until cooper testifies under oath everything we are doing here is just speculation.
 
H

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,058
70
91
McClellan: "Nobody wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States" (stated at least twice verbatim).

Guess he doesn't get it. The President of the United States IS the very bottom of it. :p
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
McClellan: "Nobody wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States" (stated at least twice verbatim).

Guess he doesn't get it. The President of the United States IS the very bottom of it. :p
Click to expand...

I would agree that Bush is the very bottom :p
 
C

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
RealVideo link for the entire press conference
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.v.smil


Note the ass-kissing question:
Q One follow-up. 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: He continues to give speeches. He was traveling this weekend talking about the importance of strengthening Social Security. And he has continued to go out and give speeches.
Click to expand...


And my favorite part:
Q 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. 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 Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. 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. 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.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, 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 is when the President made his comment 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"?

MR. 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. 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 okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. 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 underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- 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? :laugh: :laugh:

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an 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 Elliott 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" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. 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, 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, 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 Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. 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 out 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, 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.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- 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?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.

Go ahead.

Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q And a follow-up. 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?

MR. 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 Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Can I finish, please?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go ahead, Goyal.
Click to expand...

Two dozen times McLIEllan avoiding answering the question under the lame excuse of not commenting on an ongoing investigation (like that ever stopped them before.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom