Friday, December 16, 2005

Jam Tomorrow - Scottie-palooza!



There's way too much Scottie goodness to fit on Jam Tomorrow, so I'm going to put the best of it in the body of the post...(the best of the best bits are emphasized by me)

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, 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.

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.

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.

Q Are you saying the policy doesn't apply?

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.

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.

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 --

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 --

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.

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.

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.

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.


Notice how he called Tommi "Leader DeLay"? Even when he had to step down as Majority Leader? And what is a "possible adminisration official"?

5 comments:

G said...

So, after all this time, all the many repetitions by Scottie about how the GOP will not comment on ongoing investigations ...

... turns out it's OK to comment on the one that can't really hurt the Bush admin politically (that being DeLay's indictment), but off-limits to comment on PlameGate, which could do some serious damage.

I have a sneaking suspicion the policy regarding such matters, spoken so highly of by Scottie, was actually drafted by none other than Gumby. How else could it bend that far, without tearing?

Alicia said...

Gumby! That's classic. So, who's Pokey?

wanda said...

"Q--So the President is inconsistent?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, we put a policy in place regarding this investigation --

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?

Q--Doesn't it raise questions about his credibility..."


Well hell yeah! But when has a little inconsistancy or lack of credibility ever stopped this gang?
Their level of arrogance is astounding.

By the way have you heard the latest from Bob Novak? It seems he says that the President himself KNOWS who was responsible for the leak. In fact he's telling anyone who will listen, "ask the President..."
Which is where that whole "we don't comment on ongoing investigations" comes in real handy wouldn't you say?

Helen Wheels said...

The sucking sound is getting louder!!

GUMBY!! Haven't heard that one for a long time. HA!

McClellan must have to suck down quite a few Xanax before he gets onstage, is my guess.

"Leader" Delay, indeed....

Maybe shrub's admitting Tommie will be vindicated has its base in some plan on Cheney's part. If they can steal an election, they can rig a jury or pay off or threaten an attorney, right?

Alicia said...

And it just goes to show how much the Republican Party depends on the strong-arm tactics of Tommi, and how lost they are without him...Bush roll over on torture? Bush roll over on anything? That wouldn't have happened on Tommi's watch, I can tell you right now!