Point out the lie, Joe.
Ticomaya wrote:Point out the lie, Joe.
Q Scott, the President told Brit Hume that he thought that Tom DeLay is not guilty, even though the prosecution is obviously ongoing. What does the President feel about Scooter Libby? Does he feel that Mr. Libby --
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature [that's simply not true, as is evidenced by the president's remarks to Brit Hume] [Perhaps you failed to read the word "typically"?] but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it. Our policy regarding the Fitzgerald investigation and ongoing legal proceeding is well-known and it remains unchanged. And so I'm just not going to have anything further to say. But we've had a policy in place for a long time regarding the Fitzgerald investigation. [Not so: administration officials have commented on the Fitzgerald investigation][The fact that the policy may have not been followed by individual staffers does not mean the policy is not in place, or hasn't been in place for a long time.]
Q Why would that not apply to the same type of prosecution involving Congressman DeLay?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you we had a policy in place regarding this investigation, and you've heard me say before that we're not going to talk about it further while it's ongoing. [That's not a lie, that's just a standard evasion][Right ... not a lie.]
Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question. [That is most definitely a lie: McClellan didn't even come close to answering the question] [Maybe I should find out what you consider a lie to be, because it's not a lie if McClellan believes he answered the question. You might not like the answer, you might want him to give a fuller answer, you might think his answer was not responsive, but if he's adopting his prior answer, he's answered the question.]
Q Can I follow up on that"? Is the President at all concerned that his opinion on this being expressed publicly could influence a potential jury pool, could influence public opinion on this in an improper way?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in this instance he was just responding to a question that was asked about Congressman DeLay, about Leader DeLay, and in terms of the issue that Peter brings up, I think that we've had a policy in place, going back to 2003, and that's a White House policy. [A policy that the White House has ignored whenever it saw fit to do so][Ignoring a policy is not a lie.]
Q But that policy has been based in part, in the leak investigation and other things, on the idea that it is simply wrong for a President to prejudge a criminal matter, particularly when it's under indictment or trial stage. Why would he --
MR. McCLELLAN: And that's one -- this is an ongoing investigation regarding possible administration officials. So I think there are some differences here. [No, there are no differences here: that's an equivocation][Not a lie.]
Q There are lots of times when you don't comment on any sort of legal --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are also legal matters that we have commented on, as well. And certainly there are legal matters when it goes to Saddam Hussein.
Q So the President is inconsistent?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, we put a policy in place regarding this investigation -- [Is the president inconsistent? Of course. Was that a lie? You bet.][That comes the closest so far. But he's claiming a distinction because one case involves the investigation of a legislator, while the other involves an investigation of of his administration.]
Q But it's hypocritical. You have a policy for some investigations and not others, when it's a political ally who you need to get work done?
MR. McCLELLAN: Call it presidential prerogative; he responded to that question. But the White House established a policy -- [Poor Scotty -- now he's reduced to calling the president's hypocrisy a "presidential prerogative."][Not a lie.]
Q Doesn't it raise questions about his credibility that he's going to weigh in on some matters and not others, and we're just supposed to sit back and wait for him to decide what he wants to comment on and influence?
MR. McCLELLAN: Congressman DeLay's matter is an ongoing legal proceeding --
Q As is the Fitzgerald investigation --
MR. McCLELLAN: The Fitzgerald investigation is --
Q -- As you've told us ad nauseam from the podium.
MR. McCLELLAN: It's an ongoing investigation, as well. [And thus we see how McClellan differs so profoundly from Fleischer: when cornered, as here, McClellan often inadvertently blurts out the truth. Fleischer would never do anything that stupid.][Not a lie.]
Q How can you not -- how can you say there's differences between the two, and we're supposed to buy that? There's no differences. The President decided to weigh in on one, and not the other.
MR. McCLELLAN: There are differences. [Nope, there aren't][There obviously are differences. You may not want to recognize them, but they exist. Not a lie.]
Q And the public is supposed to accept the fact that he's got no comment on the conduct of senior officials of the White House, but when it's a political ally over on the Hill who's got to help him get work done, then he's happy to try to influence that legal process.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. Not at all. You can get all dramatic about it, but you know what our policy is. [No, that can't possibly be true, since not even McClellan knows what the policy is. Indeed, there really is no policy.] [He believes there is a policy. If there is a policy, and if he believes the questioner knows what the policy is, there is no lie.]
Go ahead, Paula.
Q I do have a question about White House ethics guidelines --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the American people understand.
Q No, they don't. And the only thing that's dramatic is the inconsistency of the policy and you trying to defend it.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, the policy has been in place since 2003.
Go ahead, Paula.
Q I have a question about White House ethics guidelines which is outside the scope of the Fitzgerald investigation. I'm not talking about criminal offense. Last week, Robert Novak, in a public speech, said that reporters should be asking the President who the anonymous source is because he believes he knows. And my question is, was it ethical to change the grounds of dismissal from "anyone involved" in the disclosure of classified information, to "anyone convicted" in the disclosure of classified information? And if the President did not take action privately, is it ethical for him not to have done anything?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I've indicated, our policy hasn't changed on this matter. [Another pathetic lie. The reporter is correct: the president initially said that he would fire anyone "involved" in the Plame scandal, then later he said he would fire anyone "convicted." That's a change in policy.][That's just plain wrong, Joe. When he was first asked about the Plame case on September 30, 2003, Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Since you were wrong, shall I conclude that it is you who is lying?]
joefromchicago wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Point out the lie, Joe.
Q Scott, the President told Brit Hume that he thought that Tom DeLay is not guilty, even though the prosecution is obviously ongoing. What does the President feel about Scooter Libby? Does he feel that Mr. Libby --
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature [that's simply not true, as is evidenced by the president's remarks to Brit Hume] [Perhaps you failed to read the word "typically"?] Another weasel word but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it. Our policy regarding the Fitzgerald investigation and ongoing legal proceeding is well-known and it remains unchanged. And so I'm just not going to have anything further to say. But we've had a policy in place for a long time regarding the Fitzgerald investigation. [Not so: administration officials have commented on the Fitzgerald investigation][The fact that the policy may have not been followed by individual staffers does not mean the policy is not in place, or hasn't been in place for a long time.] If a policy isn't followed, then it isn't a policy, unless the policy is not to follow the policy.
...
Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question. [That is most definitely a lie: McClellan didn't even come close to answering the question] [Maybe I should find out what you consider a lie to be, because it's not a lie if McClellan believes he answered the question. You might not like the answer, you might want him to give a fuller answer, you might think his answer was not responsive, but if he's adopting his prior answer, he's answered the question.] So, in other words, you follow the George Costanza rule: "it's not a lie if you believe it." I don't.
Q Can I follow up on that"? Is the President at all concerned that his opinion on this being expressed publicly could influence a potential jury pool, could influence public opinion on this in an improper way?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in this instance he was just responding to a question that was asked about Congressman DeLay, about Leader DeLay, and in terms of the issue that Peter brings up, I think that we've had a policy in place, going back to 2003, and that's a White House policy. [A policy that the White House has ignored whenever it saw fit to do so][Ignoring a policy is not a lie.] But lying about the policy is.
...
Q There are lots of times when you don't comment on any sort of legal --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are also legal matters that we have commented on, as well. And certainly there are legal matters when it goes to Saddam Hussein.
Q So the President is inconsistent?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, we put a policy in place regarding this investigation -- [Is the president inconsistent? Of course. Was that a lie? You bet.][That comes the closest so far. But he's claiming a distinction because one case involves the investigation of a legislator, while the other involves an investigation of of his administration.] That's a distinction without any meaningful difference in this context
...
Q How can you not -- how can you say there's differences between the two, and we're supposed to buy that? There's no differences. The President decided to weigh in on one, and not the other.
MR. McCLELLAN: There are differences. [Nope, there aren't][There obviously are differences. You may not want to recognize them, but they exist. Not a lie.] George Costanza again
Q And the public is supposed to accept the fact that he's got no comment on the conduct of senior officials of the White House, but when it's a political ally over on the Hill who's got to help him get work done, then he's happy to try to influence that legal process.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. Not at all. You can get all dramatic about it, but you know what our policy is. [No, that can't possibly be true, since not even McClellan knows what the policy is. Indeed, there really is no policy.] [He believes there is a policy. If there is a policy, and if he believes the questioner knows what the policy is, there is no lie.] George Costanza again
Go ahead, Paula.
Q I do have a question about White House ethics guidelines --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the American people understand.
Q No, they don't. And the only thing that's dramatic is the inconsistency of the policy and you trying to defend it.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, the policy has been in place since 2003.
Go ahead, Paula.
Q I have a question about White House ethics guidelines which is outside the scope of the Fitzgerald investigation. I'm not talking about criminal offense. Last week, Robert Novak, in a public speech, said that reporters should be asking the President who the anonymous source is because he believes he knows. And my question is, was it ethical to change the grounds of dismissal from "anyone involved" in the disclosure of classified information, to "anyone convicted" in the disclosure of classified information? And if the President did not take action privately, is it ethical for him not to have done anything?
MR. McCLELLAN: As I've indicated, our policy hasn't changed on this matter. [Another pathetic lie. The reporter is correct: the president initially said that he would fire anyone "involved" in the Plame scandal, then later he said he would fire anyone "convicted." That's a change in policy.][That's just plain wrong, Joe. When he was first asked about the Plame case on September 30, 2003, Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Since you were wrong, shall I conclude that it is you who is lying?] Scott McClellan on Sept. 29, 2003:[list]Q: Scott, has anyone -- has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?
McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, 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 one would be authorized to do such a thing.
[...]
McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration[/list]Sorry, Tico, that's one day before your Bush quotation. So the first official statement from the White House was that Bush would fire anyone involved in the Plame case.
I expect to be busy for the rest of the day. I may not be able to reply until Sunday or Monday.
You're all we on this one, Tico.
DrewDad wrote:You're all we on this one, Tico.
Just so you know, I think you're all we too, DD.
<snip>
MR. McCLELLAN: As I've indicated, our policy hasn't changed on this matter.
Another pathetic lie. The reporter is correct: the president initially said that he would fire anyone "involved" in the Plame scandal, then later he said he would fire anyone "convicted." That's a change in policy.
That's just plain wrong, Joe. When he was first asked about the Plame case on September 30, 2003, Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Since you were wrong, shall I conclude that it is you who is lying?
ehBeth wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I believe he said he would fire someone if they committed a crime. And he said it was the Dept. of Justice's role to determine that. I don't recall him saying, "I'm gonna fire the leaker."
~~~~~~~
Quote:Mr. Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the president's Iraq policy.
On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have to be shown that a crime was committed.
will he change his mind again?
<snip>
link
I refer you to this 10/27/05 post of mine
<snip>
He initially was very specific about his requirement that there be a violation of the law. In 2004, he was less than specific about that, and all the leftist media jumped all over it. However, his specific statements on this subject control over the general ones.
so what is it?
it's gotta be shown ... it's gotta be a crime ... it's gotta be shown ... it's gotta be a crime.
MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so.
MR. McCLELLAN: ... My understanding is that if something like this happened and it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to pursue it further.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
Yes, let's see, Kemper -- he's from Chicago. Where are you? Are you a Cubs or White Sox fan? (Laughter.) Wait a minute. That doesn't seem fair, does it? (Laughter.)
Q Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q -- have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him --
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.
And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
Language may not be important to lawyers where you work, but this'd be a slam dunk if I wanted to go after someone in discoveries here. As my favourite lawyer here (IRL) says, "If you/your company representative made both of these statements, and the evidence says that you did, I win."
Do you remember when Mclellan told everyone that Karl Rove had personally informed him that he had nothing to do with the Plame matter?
That means that either:
Rove lied to Mclellan
or
Scotty lied to the pool.
You decide. But you can't f*cking weasel your way out of admitting that one of them was lying in this case.
Cycloptichorn
It's refreshing to see you actually refrain for once from explaining away every lie the Admin tells by using bullsh*t logic and word games, thanks.
Cycloptichorn
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace