Other Rove Q&A Diaries:
White House Press Room Rove Q&A - Episode 1
White House Press Room Rove Q&A - Episode 2
White House Press Room Rove Q&A - Episode 3
White House Press Room Rove Q&A - Episode 4 (you are here)
Let me explain a few things. First, let me share the reason why I am posting this on a weekly basis. More after the flip.
Like many, I found my way to the blogs after Kerry's loss in November '04. Also like many, I definitely felt and continue to feel that the voting in Ohio stinks to high heaven. I measured the day-to-day success of the Ohio recounts by the amount of press coverage it received. The more it fell off the radar screen of the MSM, the more unlikely it was that anything would be done about the voting irregularities in Ohio.
In the six plus months that I've been here at Daily Kos, first as a lurker and then a commenter and occasionally a diarist, I have seen the power that "calls to action" can have. Current examples include Richard Cranium's diary on Latoiya Figueroa and diaries by and about Paul Hackett, one of which is at the top of the recommended list as I write. This community responds. So I post this weekly diary, updated daily with new press briefing information, because I believe that the questions and answers asked around the CIA leak investigation (or lack thereof) is indicative of whether the issue will slide out of the public eye or be brought to fruition. I intend it as a resource to keep the pressure up when the questions and press attention starts to wane.
If you're interested in day-to-day progress, hotlist the diary. I will update it every day as press briefings occur.
Monday, August 1, 2005
No Rove-CIA-leak-related questions at today's press breifing.
Diarist's Note: THIS is what I'm talking about. Take a minute and write LTEs and/or send an email to the major news networks on cable - get this back into the public eye!!
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
The White House did not hold a press briefing today. So, for your enjoyment, I'll include a transcript of a portion of last night's Hardball segment. Matthews is talking to Steve McMahon, Democratic strategist, and Ben Ginsburg, former Bush-Cheney campaign lawyer. Their exchange on the CIA leak investigation was particularly interesting. Enjoy!
MATTHEWS: Are we going anywhere in this CIA investigation? Here‘s the question I ask you. Will this end up in a simple report from Patrick Fitzgerald, the investigator, the investigator, the prosecutor from Chicago, or will he end up with some really serious indictments, Ben Ginsberg?
GINSBERG: I think we don‘t know, first of all.
But, no, it doesn‘t appear like right now that there are likely to be indictments, certainly on the leak. But there is, it seems, a lot going on underneath the surface and certainly a lot of speculation going on in Washington.
MATTHEWS: So you‘re not—you‘re betting against perjury indictments?
GINSBERG: I would...
MATTHEWS: Obstruction of justice indictments.
GINSBERG: I would suspect no. But, as I say, there‘s a lot going on. I don‘t think it‘s going to be perjury or obstruction if there are indictments at all.
MATTHEWS: Steve.
MCMAHON: I think it‘s pretty difficult to have an investigation of this length at this cost, to put a “New York Times” reporter in jail for this length of time...
MATTHEWS: Didn‘t they go after the secretary of agriculture for years and go for like 300 years and they never got anything on the guy?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: They got him on some basketball tickets?
MCMAHON: They never put a reporter in jail for something.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
MCMAHON: In fact, it‘s never happened before.
MATTHEWS: But she‘s not talking. They don‘t have a witness.
(CROSSTALK)
MCMAHON: Well, they have got plenty of witnesses and they have got plenty of—they have got plenty of ammunition.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Steve, what is the charge going to be?
MCMAHON: I think you‘re going to see perjury or obstruction of justice.
I, frankly, don‘t think that, on a technical specific intent crime, like the one that was originally alleged, they‘re going to probably return an indictment, because it‘s a specific intent crime. But on obstruction and on perjury, it looks like there‘s plenty of room.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Joe Wilson says that Karl Rove will be frog-walked out of the White House. He means in chains. Do you think that is going to happen?
MCMAHON: I think that‘s unlikely.
MATTHEWS: Unlikely.
GINSBERG: This investigation got so much scrutiny from the media when it started that, if you were going to do a no prosecution in this case, you would have to ask a huge number of questions, just as the prosecutor is doing, to be able to come up with that no prosecution.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You know what I think? I think they‘ve got a huge paper trail. They‘ve been interviewing people, interrogating them before a grand jury for months.
They have so many potential contradictions. And having watched what this fellow, Patrick Fitzgerald, did in Chicago a week ago with the Daley administration, where he took down the two top guys on patronage, which most people would say, isn‘t that what they do out there in Chicago? I think he‘s serious business. I would look out for this guy if I were on the White House staff.
MCMAHON: Yes. And, by the way, I was commenting on the frog-walk. I think Karl Rove may have a real problem on his hands. I don‘t think he‘ll be frog-walked.
I think, if there‘s any way the president can stand by his man, he will. But it‘s going to get maybe a little bit more difficult for him to do that.
MATTHEWS: Is anybody going to stay on the White House staff who has been indicted, Ben?
GINSBERG: I think, once you‘re indicted, it‘s difficult to keep anyone on a White House staff.
MATTHEWS: Do you think this is going to be they big second-term booboo of this administration? Like, they always seem to have one. This president hasn‘t suffered on yet. Iran-Contra, Watergate, Monica, they all seem to have a problem. You know, Sherman Adams with Eisenhower, the court packing by FDR. It‘s almost automatic, this second-term problem.
MCMAHON: And if you look at the way they‘ve handled this publicly, basically, if they handled it within the grand jury the same way they handled it publicly, by dissembling and misleading and in some cases maybe outright misrepresentation of the truth, it seems pretty likely that it‘s going to lead to some criminal activity, because this guy is there to do a job and he‘s not a partisan, but he‘s a very tough prosecutor.
In fact, he was originally an appointee of the president‘s father. So, this is not a Democratic witch-hunt. It‘s a very serious matter. And I think these guys may have some problems on their hand.
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
Press gaggle with Scott McClellan
Surprise surprise - in the abbreviated "gaggle", no questions about Rove and the CIA leak were asked.
Thursday, August 4, 2005
No press briefing from Crawford today.
Friday, August 5, 2005
No press briefing from Crawford today. How convenient.