It sounds as if the Washington Post editorial board is officially sick of Stonewall Scottie.
Here are some things we know about Jack Abramoff and the White House: The disgraced lobbyist raised at least $100,000 for President Bush’s reelection campaign. He had long-standing ties to Karl Rove, a key presidential adviser. He had extensive dealings with executive branch officials and departments — one of whom, former procurement chief David H. Safavian, has been charged by federal prosecutors with lying to investigators about his involvement with Mr. Abramoff.
We also know that Mr. Abramoff is an admitted crook who was willing to bribe members of Congress and their staffs to get what he (or his clients) wanted. In addition to attending a few White House Hanukkah parties and other events at which he had his picture snapped with the president, Mr. Abramoff had, according to the White House, “a few staff-level meetings” with White House aides.
Here is what we don’t know about Jack Abramoff and the White House: whom he met with and what was discussed. Nor, if the White House sticks to its current position, will we learn that anytime soon. Press secretary Scott McClellan told the White House press corps: “If you’ve got some specific issue that you need to bring to my attention, fine. But what we’re not going to do is engage in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation.”
This is not a tenable position.
No, it’s really not, but McClellan is counting on the idea that reporters will grow tired of asking him these questions and he’ll be able to stop avoiding them. If the WaPo editorial is any indication, McClellan better wear comfortable shoes because he’ll be dancing for a while. As the piece explained, “[A]sking about Mr. Abramoff’s White House meetings is no mere exercise in reportorial curiosity but a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government.”
The stonewalling at yesterday’s press briefing was fairly routine, except McClellan did add one minor twist, which was even less coherent than usual.
Q: But if there was nothing improper about contacts with him, why not open up records about any visits or meetings Mr. Abramoff might have had?
McClellan: Well, I’ve already talked to you about that information and responded to questions that you have. There’s a difference between responding to questions like that and engaging in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation.
What a bizarre standard. McClellan won’t answer questions about matters relating to the investigation and he won’t answer questions that have “nothing to do with the investigation.”
Why even have press briefings with this guy?