When it comes to Abramoff, suddenly McClellan is shy

At a recent White House press briefing, Scott McClellan told reporters that he was reviewing WH records so he could get a better sense of Jack Abramoff’s dealings with the White House, including number of visits, meetings, pictures, etc. Reporters were naturally curious about the information and McClellan told them, “I’m making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that. And I’ll get that to you, hopefully very soon.”

That was last week. Yesterday, McClellan got back to reporters, but I think it’s fair to say the press secretary didn’t exactly have “a thorough report” for the press corps.

The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s visits with President Bush’s staff.

Abramoff had “a few staff-level meetings” at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.

The transcript was almost amusing. Reporters kept asking about Abramoff, a “pioneer” who helped raise at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, and McClellan kept saying, in no uncertain terms, that he didn’t want to talk about it.

A reporter asked if the White House would be willing to provide Congress or the public a list of Abramoff’s contacts with senior staff. McClellan wouldn’t answer the question. Asked when Abramoff attended staff-level meetings at the White House, McClellan said “early in the 2000 time period,” which is not only vague, but odd since Bush didn’t take office until 2001.

Who was in the staff-level meetings with Abramoff? McClellan wouldn’t say. What issues were discussed at the meetings Abramoff attended? McClellan wouldn’t say. Which clients were represented by Abramoff at his White House meetings? McClellan wouldn’t say. Did any of the president’s senior staff attend these meetings? McClellan wouldn’t say. Did Karl Rove meet with Abramoff? McClellan wouldn’t say.

McClellan’s strangest tack, though, was when he suggested it’s up to reporters to come up with specific information, not just specific questions. The reporters were not amused.

McClellan: Well, if you’ve got something to bring to my attention, do so, and then I’ll be glad to look into it.

Q: Scott, that’s not a fair burden to place on us. This is a guy who is a tainted lobbyist, and he has connections — we want to know — with whom in the White House. You shouldn’t demand that we give you something specific to go check it out. I mean, this guy is radioactive in Washington. And he knows guys like Karl Rove. So did he meet with him or not?

McClellan: I know of nothing that —

Q: Don’t put it on us to bring something specific. It’s a specific question about a specific individual.

Q: Can you tell us if he met with Karl Rove?

McClellan: Because we don’t discuss staff-level meetings —

Q: Of course you do, whenever you want to discuss staff-level meetings. And if Karl Rove, who has ties to Ralph Reed, which he does, we want to know if he has ties to Jack Abramoff, and if they met —

McClellan: Well, I can answer that.

Q: Oh, great. Well, before you said —

McClellan: No, I mean, about if he knows — yes, he knows — he knows Mr. Abramoff. They are both former heads of the College Republicans. That’s how they got to know each other way back, I think it was in the early ’80s. And my understanding is that Karl would describe it as more of a casual relationship, than a business relationship. That’s what he has said.

But if you’ve got specific matters that I need to look into, it’s my point that I think it’s your obligation to bring that to my attention and I’ll be glad to take a look into it.

Q: Well, I don’t —

McClellan: There’s been no —

Q: — no, no, but I don’t think it’s our obligation to do anything. If we want to know whether there was pending business that Abramoff represented to members of the staff here at the White House, what do we need —

McClellan: There’s been no suggestion of anything like that out of this White House.

Q: — some kind of an affidavit to bring you to —

McClellan: There’s been no suggestion of anything like this in this White House.

When reporters start getting feisty, it’s usually because they know they’re onto something and McClellan is trying to stonewall them. With any luck, they won’t let up.

How can people put up with this nonsense let alone defend it.

  • ummmmm… Hate to bust the optimism, Carpetbagger, but *sigh*, we’ve seen this one before. Agressive questions for a day or two, until the next breeze knocks the topic off of the front pages for the next scandal to hit…

  • Yeah, a tanker will overturn or someone will kidnap a white girl. Or a ballon will float to the sky. Something will distract the media.

  • This illustrates the problem with the the SCOTUS decision on Cheney’s “energy task force.” It provides for a curtain behind which the White House can engage in corrupt behavior unseen. Let wait for McClellan to invoke the decision as a reason for not revealing the info.

  • I have not seen a White House so secretive in its dealings since….well, I guess I have to utter “Nixon” again.

    I mean, really…now the WH is requiring reporters to bring specific information about WH dealings before the WH will answer questions??

    OK, so McClellan is basically saying, “If you have specific information about something we did then I will answer it. Of course, if you do then it must be from a whistle-blower or obtained from a leak, in which case, I won’t answer any questions.”

    Why don’t they just fire this guy and put up a sign that says, “We’ll let you know if there is anything we want you to know.” Might save taxpayers some money, at least.

  • If the press really wanted to do something, they could take a stand and walk out, telling McClellan that if and when he chooses to cooperate they will come back for the opinion of the White House. Until then, they will write and publish without their input. Call the bluff, man. But they won’t.

  • Why do reporters waste their worthless time with this man? I wonder what would happen if none showed up for the daily lies? or take bubba’s suggestion and just walk out?

  • Perhaps Scottie boy could put on a Wermacht uniform while doing
    his Sargeant Shultz impersonation and declare loudly to the
    press corps: “I KNOW NOTHING! NOTHING!!”
    I thought the Press Secretary was suppose to answer the questions
    and that reporters were supposed to ask them. Or doesn’t Scottie
    know that?

  • Really, it’s getting pretty ridiculous in the press room. Scotty Boy just gave the reporters his personal permission to go out and dig up all the dirt they can find about the administration. So they should get out there and dig, like what they’re supposed to be getting paid to do!

  • Somebody please lob a rotten tomato at that jerk.

    Just stand up, say on camera “Scott, nobody here in this room believes your bullshit, and the American people deserve better than this”, and then pull out a tomato and hit him in the face.

    Now that would be good TV.

  • “Chapeau” posting at Huffingtonpost yesterday in response to the story “White House Refuses To Reveal Who Jack Abramoff Met With…” writes that “its been reported that he [Abramoff] logged over 200 visits (according to Secret Service logs)”…take that post with a grain of salt, of course.

    LOL, I’m sure Scotty doesn’t want to be quoted confirming a number in the hundreds…I’ll wait for somebody to crunch the numbers but, if it’s true, that was almost one visit per week to the White House grounds for the Repubs #1 bag man…

  • Why do reporters waste their worthless time with this man? I wonder what would happen if none showed up for the daily lies? or take bubba’s suggestion and just walk out?

    Or how about they show up, ask questions, and then report on a) the questions they asked and b) how they weren’t answered. Do it often and ideally with some humor and the White House will be forced to change their behavior.

  • Comments are closed.