Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 4 of 5   <       >

Another Thunderbolt from Wilkerson

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

In yesterday's gaggle aboard Air Force One, McClellan said "there's a lot of speculation going around at this time that relates to an ongoing investigation and an ongoing legal proceeding, and I'm not going to get into speculating about anything relating to that. You know, I will reiterate what I said the other day: there is no discussion of staff changes, beyond the usual vacancies that occur and beyond the ones we just announced relating to the vacancy that occurred in the Vice President's Office."

Is McClellan on His Way Out?

Don Gonyea writes for NPR that something has to give in the briefing room. "The legal proceedings McClellan refers to could last a year or longer. Surely he can't expect to hold off commenting on false statements he has made until then.

"If he intends to do so, he'll have a hard time standing at the podium as a credible spokesman for the administration. He can no longer count on the assumption of trust that makes it possible for a spokesman to do his job.

"Most reporters at the White House believe that Rove and Libby told McClellan they were not involved in the Valerie Plame matter, and that McClellan simply passed this along.

"This puts him McClellan in a difficult position, but whether he has discussed that fact with either Libby or Rove is not known. Neither man has apologized so far for talking to reporters on background about Plame. Nor has either come forward to let McClellan off the hook by admitting publicly that he told him a lie. It may not be possible for either to do so without complicating his own legal situation. That's why, some speculate, McClellan's only way out of the vise is to step down."

Libby Watch

Carol D. Leonnig writes in The Washington Post: "Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges of lying to the FBI and a grand jury about his conversations with reporters in the CIA leak investigation, and his lawyer promised to fight the accusations in a trial that could bring government secrets into open court. . . .

"Libby, 55, entered the courthouse on crutches because of a foot injury but came with a show of legal strength: Theodore V. Wells Jr. and William Jeffress Jr., two nationally prominent white-collar criminal defense litigators he had recently hired for his defense. . . .

"Jeffress said that there could be numerous First Amendment 'issues' that may produce 'protracted litigation' and delay the case. Libby's lawyers are expected to seek to review the notes, records and source information of several reporters who may be called as witnesses, several defense lawyers said, and the likely resistance from reporters and their news organizations could provide delays that help the defense. . . .

"Libby's next court date was set for Feb. 3, by which time Walton said he hopes the defense would have obtained the proper security clearances and been able to review the government's evidence."

Eric Lichtblau writes in the New York Times that "legal analysts said the defense might be planning to seek access to reporters' notes regarding the leaking of a C.I.A. officer's identity. That would set the stage for another round of confrontations with journalists who have proved central to the investigation. . . .

"The prospect that the case will progress slowly means that the White House may be forced to buffet extended criticism of Mr. Libby's conduct - and by implication, of the administration's polices on Iraq - through 2006, even as it seeks to regain its footing for the Congressional midterm elections."

Mark Memmott writes for USA Today: " 'This is a trial the White House would rather not see happen,' says Randall Eliason, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. 'It's going to be next spring, not too long before the midterm elections, and it could tell a pretty unflattering story about what went on in the vice president's office. . . . For the White House, it could be a circus.' "


<             4        >


© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive