We see the first attack on him by Pat Roberts and when Tim Russert asks Mehlman if he’ll respect the decision by the Special Prosecutor, Ken seems to have to find a lot of words to not say yes. Remember, Just Say Yes
Russert: You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.
Mehlman: I do.
Russert: If in fact he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?
Mehlman: Uh, first of all, I’m the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I’m not an attorney for anybody. Uh, the fact is, uh, I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this. I can’t speak for.
Russert: But, but if he indicts White House officials, will you pledge today because you have tremendous confidence in him that you will not criticize his decision?
Mehlman: Uh, again, I’m not going to speculate. I have tremendous confidence in him. I look to him to get to the bottom of this. Whatever he does, I can assure you people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by, but —
Podesta: Say yes
Mehlman: I think it would be inappropriate for me as the RNC chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future.
Russert: But if you have tremendous confidence in him, then you will accept and respect his decision?
Mehlman: I look forward to hearing what he has to say and I intend to respect what he has to say, but again I’m not going to speculate on what he might do.
For extra fun, check out Bob Schieffer making the point that, Presidents usually find it quite easy to get to the bottom of these things when they want to.
So, how about it Illinois Republicans? Care to speak up and back up Fitzgerald? Or was that only when he was convenient?
I’m a hard R and I’m with Fitzgerald. He’s the breath of fresh air we needed in Illinois. HE should be the Republican candidate for Governor in Illinois.
I’m confident in Fitzgerald. If he thinks he’s got evidence that someone broke the law, I’d expect him to do his job and prosecute. I’d also expect that the person indicted not be convicted by public opinion, but by the courts, but that’s probably naive.
Will Democrats promise not to act as if Karl Rove is guilty until he’s convicted by a Federal court? Will you make that pledge now, or do you only believe in the judicial system when it’s convenient?
That said, I don’t think Fitzgerald is going to indict Rove or Libby. There may be another administration target I’m unware of, but I think he’s probably at this point simply being extremely thorough so that he can justify no indicting anyone at all.
===Will Democrats promise not to act as if Karl Rove is guilty until he’s convicted by a Federal court? Will you make that pledge now, or do you only believe in the judicial system when it’s convenient?
Whether he’s guilty of a federal crime doesn’t excuse his actions. What I find odd about this is all of the excuses being given when his contact with reporters was clearly inappropriate. The President said he’d fire anyobody connected with the leak. What’s the hold-up?
The other troubling aspect here is that attacking a prosecutor for doing his job is a lot different than attacking the subject of the investigation who even if he can escape the law is certainly unethical.
—
Whether he’s guilty of a federal crime doesn’t excuse his actions.
—
I was hoping for better, but not surprised terribly by this response.
—
What I find odd about this is all of the excuses being given when his contact with reporters was clearly inappropriate. The President said he’d fire anyobody connected with the leak. What’s the hold-up?
—
Can you please show me the quote where the President said this? I think you’re misinterpreting it…
===I was hoping for better, but not surprised terribly by this response.
I’m disappointed you are covering for a political operative who talked to three reporters about the status of a covert CIA employee. Regardless of whether he has avoided breaking a law, how can you excuse the behavior? Is national security now just a part of a political game?
The comparison is odd anyway–I am suggesting that attacking the prosecutor should be out of bounds–and I will pledge to do the same–not attack the prosecutor if he doesn’t charge anyone. I’ll take that as evidence that the behavior, however unethical, is not criminal.
===Can you please show me the quote where the President said this? I think you’re misinterpreting it…
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/33463.htm
QUESTION: Given — given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to —
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
Q Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman —
MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.
Q — and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there’s no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he’s just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical —
MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you’re asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention —
Q No, but you say that —
MR. McCLELLAN: — that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. 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.
+++++++++++++++
Later
Q You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it’s so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House —
MR. McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q At a minimum?
MR. McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
________________________________
Now, we have three reporters saying Rove discussed Plame’s employment at the CIA and we have several CIA agents confirming her status.
What’s the question left to be answered? Certainly whether the specific conduct is criminal is a question for the Prosecutor and a jury, but the ethical standard is clear.