McClellan transcript: "Democrats' lines of attack against the President"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050726-2.html

Q On the Roberts documents again. Can you understand that people would say that the work he did as an assistant solicitor general, because it was his more recent work, would be a better representation of his more mature legal thinking, as compared to when he was a young staffer working for the Reagan administration, and that it would be, perhaps, a better indication of his views or his qualifications by seeing those documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, remember, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals is a court that many people refer to as the second highest court in the land. Judge Roberts was nominated to that court back in 2001, as part of the President's initial nominees. And he went through a confirmation process. People on the Judiciary Committee and members of the Senate had ample information that was available to them to understand his views on the role of a judge and the role of the judiciary. And that's why they moved forward and approved him by unanimous consent.

Now, since that time, Judge Roberts has served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and we have seen that he is someone who is impartial and fair, and a judge that is committed to applying the law, not trying to make law from the bench.

Q Wouldn't his later work be more relevant than thousands of pages of what he did 25 years ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: His work on the court is absolutely something for people to look at, the last two years that he has served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And that's why I pointed back to the confirmation hearing process that he had been through previously.

Q Senator Leahy responded to this. He said if it's --

MR. McCLELLAN: I keep saying, Judge Roberts, and I keep looking at John Roberts. (Laughter.)

Q He said, if this is meant to be a dialogue, he welcomes it. But he said, "if it is intended to unilaterally preempt a discussion about documents the Senate may need and is entitled to, then this is a regrettable beginning." And he also said, it is for the Senate and not the White House to decide what documents the Senate will need to fulfill its responsibilities in the confirmation process.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you've heard from a number of senators who have said that the attorney-client privilege is something that's important to protect, for the reasons that those seven bipartisan former solicitor generals said. And I want to go back to something I said a minute ago. The White House has not seen or reviewed the documents from Judge Roberts' time in the Solicitor General's Office. There was ample information that was available on Judge Roberts during his previous confirmation hearing for members of the Judiciary Committee and members of the Senate to understand his views on the role of a judge and the role of the judiciary. And since that time, as I just pointed out to Kelly, Judge Roberts has shown he is someone who is committed to applying the law in an impartial and fair and open-minded way. He is not someone who is going to legislate from the bench.

Now, I hope Senator Leahy is not trying to demand documents that the President has not even seen as part of their lines of attack against the President. You'll recall that back prior to the President even making a decision on a nominee, that the Democrats had outlined a political strategy based on three lines of attack. The first was that they were going to say that there wasn't enough consultation. Well, I think since that time we've seen that -- the consultations that we've engaged in are unprecedented, according to longtime members of the United States Senate.

The second line of attack was that the nominee is an extremist. Before the President even made a decision, this was all reported in the media and outlined in the media. Well, what we know about Judge Roberts is that he comes from the mainstream of American law and the mainstream of American values. He is someone who believes in interpreting law, not making law.

The third line of attack that the Democrats said that they were going to engage in, even before the President had made a decision, was that the White House hasn't provided a sufficient amount of documents. It's not appropriate for us or for others to have these documents, and it has no bearing on Judge Roberts' suitability to serve on the Court.

Q But if you haven't seen the documents and the President hasn't, either, how do you know if it has any --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he's gone through a confirmation hearing previously, as I just pointed out. And that's why I said we hope Senator Leahy is not demanding to see documents as part of their lines of attack against the President's nominee -- something that they said they were going to engage in even prior to the President making a decision.

Q Just one other follow-up, based on what Senator Leahy said. This is it -- I mean, this is your decision and it's non-negotiable, correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: What we wanted to do was to make sure that we did our part to provide them all the appropriate information, and that's why we moved forward and had consultations with Chairman Specter, who expressed his appreciation for what we are doing. And that's why we're moving forward in expedited fashion to get these documents released from the Reagan Library. So I don't look at it in those terms.

Q On the solicitor general documents, which you are not going to release, that is non-negotiable, the end of story, as far as the White House is concerned?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've made our views known.



Q Scott, on another topic, former President Bill Clinton spoke to the "Today Show" recently and he basically called the CIA leak issue terrible. And he said, "Rove is a brilliant political strategist and he's proved brilliantly effective at destroying Democrats, personally." He says, "I mean they've gotten away with murder and he's really good at it. He's good at playing psychological head games that damage our side." What are your comments to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I've said previously, and I don't have anything else to add to what I've said previously.

Q Former President Clinton, a friend of the first President Bush and a friend of this President Bush, has said "they've gotten away with murder."

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, thank you. And you know our response on questions related to the investigation.

Q This is not a question. I'm asking you what are your thoughts as it relates to this quote from a former President of the United States.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question.

Go ahead, Connie.



Q Scott, in the wake of the Valerie Plame incident, on which you will not comment, intelligence officials have indicated there's a growing concern among operatives in the field, a fear that they might be the targets of political manipulation. And they have indicated that something must be done on the part of the White House to help allay these fears. And given that these people are in the forefront of the war on terror, isn't it necessary to do something more than simply stonewalling all discussion of the incident in order to restore confidence?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I'll reject your characterization. What we're doing is helping to advance the investigation forward. And the President said he's not going to get into trying to draw conclusions based on reports in the media. Let's let the investigators complete their work. And that's what we've said, so I'll reject your characterization. We have for a long time said that we want to help them get to the bottom of this and the best way to do that is to cooperate fully in that investigation. And that means not commenting on it here from this podium.

Q Well, Senator Lautenberg, yesterday in a press conference, indicated that there is probably more concern in the White House about the men in uniform, our operatives in uniform than those who are not in uniform. Is there any justification for that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, he said what?

Q He said that there's more concern for the people in uniform who are fighting this war, rather than the operatives --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's all part of the politics. Again, these are all questions you're bringing up related to an ongoing investigation, and the President has expressed our views on where we are right now.



Q Scott, when the Reverend Jesse Jackson admitted that he fathered a child out of wedlock, the President, as you remember, telephoned him after this admission. And since Karen Stanford, the mother in this case, has just stated, "I was attacked by friends, strangers in the black press without mercy and labeled by them a political stalker, gold digger and opportunist," will the President now telephone Jesse's victim, as he did, Jesse?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate your question, Les, and I don't have --

Q You appreciate the question?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Les --

Q Do you think I could appreciate an answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I don't think it's worthy of an answer.

Q You don't think it's worthy of an answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because your characterization is not accurate.

Q It's not? How is it inaccurate?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

[prodigal_green]

1. Dear Simple Scotty

WE reject your characterizations, and your character.

[acmejack]

2. He certainly is a master at never answering anything!

What a pious little asshole old Snotty is.

[fooj]

3. He is a shameless coward. Just like the rest of the thugs he works for.

:grr:

[Vickers]

4. Wow, he says it 3 times!

"part of their lines of attack against the President"

"the Democrats had outlined a political strategy based on three lines of attack"

"as part of their lines of attack against the President's nominee"

Scotty, you stupid fat fuck, one thing's for sure, you can regurgitate them talking points like
nobody's business! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[ncteechur]

5. Hey, his pants are on fire!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

7. This was a very carefully prepared script.

It's obvious that there going to be Roberts questions.

He just waited for the window of opportunity and jumped through it.

[Supersedeas]

6. I think we've made our view known....pfft

[evolved Anarchopunk]

8. he has been itchin for days for someone to say the word

"stonewall"... its all right there, thats when this "i reject your characterizations" parroting begins.

nobody gives a fuck scotty, you're a joke. let readers decide if a question is slated to evoke a certain response, we don't give a fuck what you reject or accept. I repeat we dont give a fuck about you.

and that last exchange, whew, Moonface- you really outdid yourself

[Eloriel]

9. He is not someone who is going to legislate from the bench.

Well, that would be quite odd since that would literally be his JOB if confirmed.