Republicans don't think perjury is a big deal after all

It's OK for Republicans to lie under oath and commit perjury. But not OK for Democrates, including Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart. Will the Republicans rescind their impeachment of Clinton for lying about a blow job, and pardon Martha Stewart for lying like Bill Frist has? Sure, they will do the right thing? I've got to start taking my meds so I can recognize hypocracy. ---BBB

MSNBC.com
Transcript for October 23 - Meet the Press
George Allen, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chuck Schumer, Stephen Hayes, George Packer & Frank Rich
NBC News
Updated: 11:57 a.m. ET Oct. 23, 2005

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the war in Iraq, and the investigation into the CIA leak case. With us, three United States senators with very different views: Republican George Allen of Virginia, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, and Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.

(Excerpt):

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the situation here in Washington, the CIA leak investigation, very much tied in obviously to the war in Iraq and the way it was presented to the American people. And bringing you all back to September 30, George Bush addressing the American people and he said this.

(Videotape, September 30, 2003):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If there's 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.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Now, one week later, Scott McClellan was asked specifically about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby whether they had been involved in disseminating information about Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and this is what Mr. McClellan said.

(Videotape, October 7, 2003):

MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN: They are good individuals. They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, 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.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "They were not involved." Senator Allen, is that statement still operative?

SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I wasn't in any of the grand jury investigations, and I think that from what you're saying and most indications is the prosecutor, special prosecutor Fitzgerald, will be coming out with whatever the resolution of those grand jury investigations are. So I don't know what the testimony is, what the evidence is, and I guess we'll find out sometime this week.

MR. RUSSERT: Based what's in the public domain from Judith Miller when she wrote in The New York Times and others have said publicly, do you believe that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby discussed Joseph Wilson's trip and his wife's employment at the CIA?

SEN. ALLEN: I don't know. I know that's rare from a politician. I don't know. I've been more focused on Harriet Miers' qualifications and reducing energy prices and others, and I'll leave this to the prosecution and by the way, again, due process rather than a lot of speculation on what actually is known or not said in testimony in a very closed grand jury proceeding.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hutchison, you think those comments from the White House are credible?

SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, do you believe that comments from the White House are still credible?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, Tim, I have a different take on this than Kay Bailey Hutchison. As you know, I was very involved in this. I had called for an investigation, had helped George Tenet talk to the FBI about why he was outraged and asked for a special counsel.

Patrick Fitzgerald is above reproach. He is totally non-political. He is a prosecutor's prosecutor. And nobody has called into question his motives. He's the type of prosecutor who will not indict just because an indictment would make headlines or he's done this for a year and a half. Nor would he shy away from an indictment if it were for real.

I, for one, am prepared to say here this morning that I will abide by Patrick Fitzgerald's decision. I think we all should. I think that Kay and George should do the same. Because Patrick Fitzgerald is a prosecutor's prosecutor, and we should abide by that. I would say one other thing about this. I think the president should make clear--he's been all over the lot on what he would do if there were indictments in the White House. And I think the president should make clear what his standard will be before prosecutor Fitzgerald makes his decision, so no one thinks that what the president does is aimed at a particular person, whether it be a secretary or the top people in the White House.

So I think it would be very, very advisable for the president to say: "Here is what my standard will be in terms of whether these people will remain in their positions should they be indicted." But Fitzgerald, prosecutor's prosecutor, totally non-political. I am willing to accept his decision, and I have no idea what it will be. I think everyone, Democrats and Republicans, should do just that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, there's been a widespread discussion that this is bigger than just Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame and White House aides; that it really goes to the core of the Iraq War, what cases were made to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and other systems and other analyses and other intelligence data. Based on what you now know today, do you regret having voted for the war?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, no, Tim, because my vote was seen and I still see it as a need to say we must fight a strong and active war on terror. But I would say this, Tim, and I would take your point in a slightly different direction. I think what we've seen in the last several months is a White House in some real degree of disarray: the war in Iraq where nobody knows what the game plan is; the budget, which is just out of control and nobody seems to have a handle on it and could wreck our economy; the prescription drug bill, the major accomplishment and everyone's confused about how it's going to be administered. The Web sites don't even work. And, of course, Katrina.

And, you know, when President Reagan was in a similar situation in his second term, he brought in a whole lot of new faces, Howard Baker, Colin Powell, and these were people who could work in a bipartisan way, whose reputation for competence was aboveboard, and I think it's time now for the president to seriously consider bringing in some new blood into the White House. He's just sort of--you know, sort of staggering along on issue after issue, and this investigation is just one of many examples of that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Allen, you agree with that?

SEN. ALLEN: No, I don't agree with it. And Senator Schumer is a good partisan, articulate Democrat. And I don't think the president ought to be taking advice from Senator Schumer on some of these. And you can--Karl Rove, who's a very smart, sharp and very able advisor to the president--I like Karl Rove a great deal. And, of course, the Democrats would like to have Karl Rove out. Insofar as the war in Iraq...

MR. RUSSERT: But if Mr. Rove--if Mr. Rove and/or Mr. Libby is indicted, should they step down?

SEN. ALLEN: That'll be--I think they will step down if they're indicted.

MR. RUSSERT: And they should?

SEN. ALLEN: Yes, I do think that's appropriate that--I don't see where--if they're in the midst of an indictment. But let's not say that they have been indicted. Let's--I will take this point from Senator-- from Charlie Schumer, and that is: Let's see what happens rather than get into all this speculation and so forth.


(EXCERPT):

MR. RUSSERT: And let me turn again to the CIA leak and show our audience and our panel the comments I showed our senators, from the president and Scott McClellan, because I think the country's going to be seeing a lot of these this week. George Bush, September 30, Chicago, Illinois.

(Videotape, September 30, 2003):

PRES. BUSH: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: And again, a week later, Scott McClellan, asked specifically about the roles of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the dissemination of any information in this matter, said this.

(Videotape, October 7, 2003):

MR. McCLELLAN: They're good individuals. They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, 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.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Frank Rich, how is the White House going to square those comments?

MR. RICH: Those comments are very important. First of all, they're not going to be able to square them clearly. They can't square them now because whether it was illegal or not, we now know that these guys were involved in disseminating information about the Wilsons. But here's the interesting thing to me, Tim, about those two statements. People forget that Patrick Fitzgerald was not always on this case. And in September of '03 when the investigation opened, it was a Justice Department investigation. It was something that Ashcroft nominally was in charge of, delegated to Justice Department officials.

So when they were making the statements, they did not see a tenacious, tough prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald having them in their crosshairs. They thought this was in the hands of the Justice Department. It was not until the end of that year, December 30th, that Ashcroft recused himself and turned it over to a prosecutor who would turn out to be Fitzgerald. So I think there's a--it's my theory, I can't prove it, but I think people were playing a little bit fast and loose then, thinking this thing was sort of in the bag.

MR. RUSSERT: Frank Rich, what did you think of Senator Hutchison's comments about perjury and obstruction of justice?

MR. RICH: I thought they're obviously--I thought they were a real bellwether, that they're extremely nervous. Those are the charges clearly they think are coming, and there's a story in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus today that gives further evidence that that might be the case. And so now they're trying to trivialize those crimes, and the Martha Stewart defense, which Senator Hutchison adds, to me, it's like a Twinkie defense. I don't think it's going to go very far. And it's clear to me that if there are indictments--and we don't know--this prosecutor has been leak-proof. He's sort of the un-Ken Starr in that way. It almost would have to involve these crimes because we have to assume that Robert Novak, even though he hasn't said so, told the prosecutor who talked to him long ago, and why then would that not be the end of the story if the only crime is the possible leaking of a covert CIA operative's name? There's been something else going on for months.

MR. RUSSERT: Stephen Hayes, when Scott McClellan says they were not involved, is that still operative?

MR. HAYES: No. It seems like it's not. We now know, I think, if we are to believe all these reports and all these leaks, that they were involved in fighting back against Joe Wilson. I happen to think that, you know, unless they broke the Agents' Identities Protection Act or have subsequently committed perjury or created--or tried to obstruct the investigation, that it's perfectly defensible for them to have tried to counter Joe Wilson's claims.

We have to remember, Joe Wilson came back, and when he went public, first anonymously then later with his name attached, claims that he had debunked forgeries that suggested an Iraq-Niger uranium deal, the chronology doesn't work. Wilson was in Niger in February of 2002. The U.S. government came into possession of those forgeries in October of 2002. He could not have done what he said he had done. So if you're in the White House at the time, why would you not say, "Gosh, who is this guy? Why is he saying these things that we know aren't true? And how do we fix this?"

MR. RUSSERT: But it's interesting; in terms of the sale of uranium, the State Department found his findings much more credible than did other parts of the government. We saw that--again, that division play out.

MR. HAYES: We saw--I mean, the CIA analyst who received Mr. Wilson's information or report, oral briefing, on March 5, 2002, believed that it actually enhanced the possibility that such a transaction had taken place because Wilson spoke with the prime minister of Niger.

MR. RUSSERT: And the State Department thought the exact opposite?

MR. HAYES: The State Department was on the other side.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you, Stephen Hayes and George Packer--this is a Web site that went up suddenly on Friday night on the Department of Justice Web site. It says their Office of Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, special counsel--suddenly, a Web site which has created another whole uproar in Washington.

MR. PACKER: Yeah. Well, people around Patrick Fitzgerald say it's coincidental timing. They've been trying to get this Web site up for weeks. They finally got it up in the week that he may well reveal his findings of his investigation. And it's also a rather bare-bones Web site. It doesn't have a lot to tell us yet. But who knows what we'll all be reading there in a few days?

MR. RUSSERT: Frank Rich, a lot of discussion about what is going on at your paper, The New York Times. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said that Judy Miller may have misled the Washington bureau chief, and then added, "...if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense, and perhaps more willing than I had been to support efforts aimed at exploring compromises."

And your colleague Maureen Dowd let loose with this on yesterday: "Woman of Mass Destruction. Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover `the same thing I've always covered--threats to our country.' If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands."

What is going on at The New York Times?

MR. RICH: Nothing good. It's a very traumatic time for the paper, and a lot of people, including myself, are in agony about it. We really don't know all the facts. The facts we do know, that The Times has tried to put out, suggests that Judy Miller might have had other opportunities to avoid going to jail that would not have compromised principle, but we're still--you know, she is in the hands of a lawyer now, Bob Bennett. She stonewalled some New York Times journalists last Sunday by refusing to answer certain questions about the whole history of this affair, and it's very troubling and it's very upsetting. And I think we need still to learn more about the story, and we also need to learn the part of the story about our own WMD stories that Judy Miller and others were contributors to, which put out some of this what we now know to be erroneous information about WMDs that were used to publicize the war and the run-up to the war in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Stephen Hayes, based on all your reporting and what you know, what's your sense what's going to happen this week?

MR. HAYES: Well, I think there is a strong possibility that we'll see indictments of one or two or maybe a handful of Bush administration officials.

MR. RUSSERT: And then what?

MR. HAYES: And then I think, as Senator Allen said, I think it would be difficult for those officials to remain in their positions if they were indicted, even though indictments don't mean convictions. If they were indicted, it would be tough for them to stay and provide that advice.

MR. PACKER: We seem to see this every second term. Iran-Contra, the Lewinsky affair and now the Bush administration. The difference this time is we're at war and that we were not at war under Reagan and under Clinton. And it's pretty concerning to imagine if the White House has handled the Iraq War as badly as it has with its--without indictments, without the immense political pressure that it's now under, how is it going to handle the next year in Iraq with key aides possibly having to leave, with a sense of siege at the White House, with Republican Party pressure to see some kind of a change in Iraq? I worry about how this is going to affect the situation in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. George Packer, "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq," "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes, and Frank Rich, we read you every Sunday in The New York Times. Gentlemen, thank you.

We'll be right back.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9764239/