Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congressman Conyers: WHEN WAS THE PRESIDENT TOLD?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:48 AM
Original message
Congressman Conyers: WHEN WAS THE PRESIDENT TOLD?
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 10:50 AM by hiley
WHEN WAS THE PRESIDENT TOLD?

Cross-posted at blackprof.com and Huffington Post





Q: You asked these individuals. Did the President ask you to ask those individuals whether they were the leaker?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear that we should cooperate fully with the Department of Justice. And in that, keeping with that direction, I am making sure that we are doing that, from my standpoint. And I think part of cooperating fully is looking into these unsubstantiated accusations that were made to make it clear to everybody that those individuals were not involved.

Q: But I still want to nail down, because I don't think this is clear. Does the President want you, or will he, himself -- or does he want someone else within the administration, besides the two of you, to individually poll senior staff members to find out who the leaker is?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, keep in mind that there has been no information brought to our attention, beyond what's in the media reports. to suggest that there was White House involvement. As the President talked about earlier, there are a lot of senior administration officials in Washington, D.C. And the President wants the career officials at the Department of Justice, who are charged with looking into matters like this, to get to the bottom of this. And we are doing everything we can to assist them get to the bottom of this. They are the appropriate officials to look into this. They have vast experience in looking into matters like this, because they are involved in these types of matters. And that's exactly what they are doing. " (October 7, 2003)




If this story is true, it raises troubling questions to me -- and I think should trouble the White House Press Corps as well.

If Rove told the President about his role in the leak, why did the President say what he said last year?

If Rove told the President about his role in the leak two years ago, did that occur before or after McClellan made these statements? If it was before, why did McClellan say what he said? If it was after, why has he never corrected the record?

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000278.htm

cross-posted at: http://www.blackprof.com /

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/when-was-the...

The New York Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c....

Press Briefing: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/2003100...

Press Briefing October 7,2005: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/2003100...

http://www.conyersblog.us/default.htm

Conyers DU Group http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jasmeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think this is very important. They are trying to paint the president
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 10:57 AM by jasmeel
as an unknowing bystander. I believe that is an underestimation of his role in the leak. Last night on "The Colbert Report" Leslie Stahl said the Watergate Scandal didn't take off until higher ups were seen to be involved-Pres and VP- so maybe this is the tipping point to get * involved?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. a misunderestimation....
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalinNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Yeah, but they can only "paint" him as innocent for so long...
when it comes fown to it, if he doesn't know what is happening in the WH then he is to blame. IMHO HE KNOWS and is trying to get someone to take the fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. meet the smoking gun of the cover up....
They're starting to self-destruct now.

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. HURRY UP I say!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Let the party begin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samdogmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I agree--this latest story is beyond unbelievable--
and it contradicts so many other public statements. Hm mm, do you think Mr. Fitzgerald has the goods on Dubya too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. There is nothing more interesting
or sad than watching a country who has for the most part been hornswoggled (great word for this crew) wake up. I would be delighting in this if it were not for the fact that the aftermath is going to be hell. Still, in comparison to the hell if this does not all come about, I am more than happy to deal with it. I am almost past the point now where schadenfreude will cover my anger even briefly. We have a lot of work to do.

Do you know, or does anybody how we ever ended up with presidential pardons? I would guess it was something given to the president with the benefit of the doubt that he/she would be of good character. I am totally unclear why this is allowed anymore since good character is now in very short supply. I will have to do some research on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Too Many Lies To Use As A Cloak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marbuc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. They thought this would blow over
and given the past, I thought it would too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bush would never have been able to pull off the 2004 election
without Rove.

We was robbed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. Leave it to Mr. Conyers to bring attention to this! Nom!
I continue to love him! :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. Why did the President say what he said last year?
Let me take a really wild stab at this. He lied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. ooops..burned by their own leak
choice, just like their stupid crack pot decision to invade Iraq in the first place

simple points to sum up:

A. Judith Miller sat in jail for 85days to protect her source only to forget the name of the source who told her Valerie "F"lame once released, so you sat in jail because?

B. Bush stated he had no knowledge of leaker, only to have the white house leak that Bush was angry with Rove about leaking, TWO YEARS AGO, before he stated I have no knowledge
so which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
13. I'll say the word if John won't.... Cover-up
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
14. My comment at Congressman Conyers blog - re: EO 12958
Comment #6: UL said on 10/19/05 @ 12:44pm ET...

Thank you again for your leadership, Congressman Conyers.

What I find most interesting about the "presidential counselor's" rumor is how much damage it inflicts on Bush.

If the rumor is true then Mr Bush has been in continuous violation of Executive Order 12958 since he learned of Rove's actions, for starters.

As noted, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So, any attempt to "shield Bush" by making the kinds of statements being quoted by the NY Daily News (and being echoed throughout the blogosphere) are doing exactly NOT anything helpful for Bush, or for any other person whom they implicate in the "ham-handed and bush-league way" (great pun by the way). They effectively are saying that Bush has been in willful violation (at a minimum) of Executive Order 12958 since the exposure of Valerie Plame began and that those participating have violated their respective SF312s.

No way Bush's legal eagles (are ya reading this one Harry?) are going to be allowing anyone inside the tent to be planting these kinds of stories.

Whomever is planting these rumors is definitely not a friend of Bush or any of those being named.

Peace.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. UL
you are as sharp and quick as Conyers!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC