White House press secretary Scott McClellan brought this upon himself. He said he’d investigate what kind of access Jack Abramoff had to the White House. He said just last week that he wants to make sure he offers reporters “a thorough report…hopefully very soon.”
And now he’s also the one who doesn’t want to talk about it.
For the second straight day, the White House refused Wednesday to say who among its staffers met with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff or whom the recently convicted felon was representing when he visited the executive mansion.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, pressed to explain Abramoff’s contacts with the Bush administration, said, “We’re not going to engage in a fishing expedition” in the media.
“I know there’s some that want to do that, but I don’t see any reason to do so,” McClellan said.
Actually, there’s every reason to do so. A corrupt felon, who was given the title of “pioneer” by the Bush campaign for all the money he helped raise, helped corrupt the Republican machine. He was apparently given access to the White House, on an untold number of occasions, for official and unofficial events.
This isn’t a “fishing expedition”; it’s a legitimate inquiry into Abramoff’s ties to the White House, which McClellan can’t or won’t explain. From yesterday’s briefing:
McClellan: I did a check for you all, to provide you that information. But we’re not going to engage in a fishing expedition. I know that there are some that want to do that. But I don’t see any reason to do so.
Q: Can you explain why you wouldn’t want it out there?
McClellan: Well, this has been in keeping with past practice, in terms of what — in similar incidents. In terms of why we wouldn’t want what out there?
Q: Why wouldn’t you want to just clear up who these meetings were with, who was there, who wasn’t —
McClellan: Well, I think there are some people that are insinuating things based on no evidence whatsoever. I said if you have a specific issue of concern, then we’ll be glad to take a look into that. But no one has brought anything like that to my attention.
A few things to consider. McClellan said his policy is not to discuss staff-level meetings with the press. That’s wrong; he does so all the time. McClellan said there’s no evidence to even warrant questions about Abramoff’s White House ties. That’s very generous of him considering that the AP reminded everyone this week that Abramoff and his associates had nearly 200 contacts with the White House during Bush’s first 10 months in office.
As Atrios noted, the media should have a field day with all of this.
Look, back during the Clinton administration this kind of thing would’ve dominated cable news every night. Howell Raines would’ve been writing thunderous editorials demanding that we knew every detail of Abramoff’s White House connections. Tweety [Chris Matthews] would be cranking out spittle at a record rate, screeching about the “culture of corruption” in the White House. Nightline would’ve put up a little “X days since White House refused to disclose information about Abramoff contacts with the president” graphic on its show.
We’re clearly not there yet, but reporters are pushing McClellan a bit on information that he has but is too embarrassed to share. This only reinforces the notion that there’s some damning information out there, which should tantalize reporters even more.
Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group, said, “As with all of these scandals, the longer it takes them to answer the question, the more interest there will be in the answer. Answer the question and put the questions to rest.” Of course, this doesn’t work as well if the answer to the question raises the stakes on an already-damaging scandal.