Abuse of Power and Culture of Corruption

No Libby Questions During the Gaggle

Posted by Michael Link on July 6, 2007 at 05:07 PM

Something as important as the Bush administration commuting the sentence of convicted felon Scooter Libby -- a former top White House aide who obstructed justice to cover-up the circumstances around the outing of a covert CIA agent -- deserves some follow-up questions.

Yet today at the gaggle (the morning press briefing), not a single question was asked about the cloud that now exists over this entire administration. Certainly the topic that dominated the gaggle was important, but there should also be some time dedicated to such an abuse of power.

For well over a year, the White House has stonewalled attempts to get to the bottom of this mess. They blamed it on an "ongoing investigation" that prevented them from telling us the truth. Well, now that the investigation is over, Scooter Libby has been convicted, and President Bush has commuted the sentence, you'd think that the press corps would be asking every one of those questions again.

You'd be wrong.

From just the first page of results that I got at WhiteHouse.gov, here are some questions that never got answered. You can check them out below the fold.

July 13th, 2005:

  • Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?

  • Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.

  • Q Was it a knowing leak with the intent of doing damage? I'm just wondering when he talked about that, what those parameters were?

  • Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?

July 14th, 2005:

  • Q Does the President believe it's appropriate for the RNC to continue to weigh in on this matter? They put out another memo today, with a top-10 Joseph Wilson lies. If indeed it's an ongoing investigation and it's improper for the White House to discuss it, does he think it's proper for the Republican Party to weigh in on it?

  • Q Wilson was on the shows today. He basically said there was a massive cover-up being conducted by the White House, and that Rove should be fired. What do you say to Wilson?

October 19th, 2005:

  • Q Scott, did the President talk to Karl Rove two years ago about the leak?

  • Q Can you tell us if any White House staff members, or people who work for the Vice President, or anyone who works for this administration has received a target or a subject letter from the prosecutor?

  • Q Scott, yesterday you told us that Harriet Miers had been very involved in the leak investigation as White House Counsel. Back in 2003, she held a couple of other positions: Staff Secretary, I think Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Has she been involved in any way in the investigation as a witness?

October 25th, 2005:

  • Scott, a couple of years ago, you told us that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove had nothing to do with the CIA leak. It appears that you may have gotten bad information before you made that statement. Now, today, we learn through extrapolation that when the Vice President said in September of 2003 that he didn't know who said Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake, that he was not speaking the truth. My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?

  • Q But in terms of public trust, if it is true that Scooter Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from Vice President Cheney in June of 2003, would that not mean then that the Vice President made a false statement three months later when he said he didn't know who sent Wilson to Niger?

  • Q Are you not commenting on whether this report is accurate or not? Will you comment?

  • Q Given the fact that the Vice President did say publicly in September of 2003 that he never knew about Joe Wilson or who sent him, as John points out, and now there appears to be information to contradict that, how do you explain that contradiction?

  • Q Have you attempted to clarify it with the Vice President's Office?

  • Q Scott, last week there was a story in The New York Daily News, I think, that you -- the question is accuracy -- a question about -- or a story about the President dressing down Karl Rove. So it would not be inconsistent if you thought that The New York Times story was inaccurate for you to say that?

  • Q Can you give us -- I have to ask -- do you know if the Vice President talked to the President about Plame, or if the President may have talked to Tenet, himself, about Plame?

  • Q Okay. Going back to John's question about truthfulness, you replied our relationship is based on trust and we all think that you are truthful to us. So in light of that, if we go back to that October 2003 question, in reply to which you said that you'd spoken with Scooter Libby and Karl Rove and they'd assured you that they were not involved in this, aren't you sort of mad as all get out that you were set up, hung out to dry?

  • Q Scott, just to try to put a finer point on it, is what you were trying to signal in a couple of your earlier responses is that, perhaps, your -- as you wait to see where this CIA leak investigation is going, are you waiting to see if you were dealt truthfully -- dealt with truthfully?

  • Q So at this point, you can tell us that you don't know for a fact that you were dealt with truthfully when you came out here in October --

November 1st, 2005:

  • Q And everyone who is currently working here has done that [adhere to the highest standards] in this affair, is that the President's position?

  • Q But whether or not it was a crime, does the President feel that Karl Rove acted appropriately in this matter, given what he knows about his involvement?

  • Q But it must be somewhat of a distraction -- it doesn't seem like a distraction that's going to go away any time soon?

  • Q Given all the tantalizing questions that were left in the wake of the Special Prosecutor's news conference, et cetera, about Vice President Cheney, does the White House feel that the Vice President should, or does the White House plan to have the Vice President explain his role in all of this any time soon?

  • Q But what about those who believe that taking that position -- in taking that position, you shirk -- "you" being the White House in general -- shirk your responsibility to the public accountability?

November 8th, 2005:

  • Q Does the President think that Karl Rove lived up to the highest ethical standards -

  • Q Do you think that while Karl Rove is under investigation that he should retain his security clearance?

  • Q Does he stand by Karl Rove a hundred percent?

  • Q Will the President pledge not to pardon Lewis Libby?

  • Q Scott, the President was asked about an apology to the Wilson family, and he did not answer it. And if -- I'm wondering if that non-answer goes to the fact that an apology would be under review right now from the administration.

  • Q So are you saying an apology would compromise the investigation?

And that's just the first page...

Comments - 13 »

Comments are now closed for this entry.