I’ve read the transcripts of today’s press conferences (this one and this one), and it seems clear to me that Scott McClellan chose his words very carefully to avoid saying that Rove told him that he’s not the source of the leak. This certainly doesn’t prove that Rove is one of the leakers, but it’s pretty conspicuously not a denial.
Some people would consider this a long, nitpicking post. (Heck, I consider it a long, nitpicking post, but I don’t know another way to write it.) If you’re one of those people, and you know who you are, don’t continue reading.
Here’s an excerpt from Talking Points Memo. My comments are in parenthesis and italics. If I’m reading McClellan correctly, he’s continually making two points:
- I talked to Karl Rove
- The accusation that Karl Rove leaked this news is false/ “ridiculous”.
He repeatedly states these two points close to each other. But when directly asked the question “Did Karl Rove tell you that he was not the source for the leaks?”, he will not say yes.
QUESTION: Ambassador Wilson has said that he has information that Karl Rove condoned this leaking, and I’ve seen your comment that that’s absolutely false —McCLELLAN: It is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. (He doesn’t say false. In fact, he corrects the questioner who says “false”. What he says is “ridiculous,” which is not the same thing, and not an answer.)
QUESTION: What do you —
McCLELLAN: And keep in mind, I imagine that only a limited number of people would even have access to classified information of this nature.
QUESTION: So he doesn’t have information?
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
McCLELLAN: Yes, go ahead. And, Helen, you may always follow up. Go ahead.
QUESTION: What, then, do you think the — given that you say Rove condoning this is ridiculous, what do you think Ambassador Wilson’s motivation is for leveling such a scurrilous charge?
McCLELLAN: I can’t speculate about why he would say such a thing. I mean, I saw some comments this morning, where he said he had no knowledge to that effect. But I can’t speculate why he would say that.
QUESTION: Did Rove say, “ridiculous”?
McCLELLAN: I did, for him. (So what did Rove say, then? Did Rove say anything at all?)
QUESTION: Did you speak with him about it?
McCLELLAN: Yes, I’ve spoken to him. (Later, he seems to reveal that he spoke to Rove weeks ago, and he hasn’t spoken to him on the subject since.)
QUESTION: But he told you, “ridiculous”?
McCLELLAN: No, I said — I told some of your colleagues that it was ridiculous. And, remember, I said this back — what, July and September this issue came up, and said essentially what I’ve said now. (This is key. He says, I’ve spoken to him, and he said… what? Nothing. He changes the subject back to “this is ridiculous.” He never says what Karl Rove told him.)
QUESTION: Can you characterize your conversation with him about this?
McCLELLAN: I talk to him all the time, so —
QUESTION: About this?
McCLELLAN: No, about a lot of issues.
QUESTION: But can you characterize your conversation about this subject with him?
McCLELLAN: I don’t think there’s anything to characterize. I mean, I think that what I said speaks clearly, that the accusations just simply are not true. (He refuses to talk about their conversation, and he deliberately steers away from saying how he knows that the accusation is not true. What he doesn’t say is “And I know this because Rove denied it to me.” This is also the first time that he seems to shift from “ridiculous” to “not true”. Does he mean it, or is he just playing a word game, defining “the accusations” as some set of accusations that includes a false item?)
……
QUESTION: You spoke directly with Rove about this?
McCLELLAN: I have spoken — I speak to him all the time, on a lot of things.
QUESTION: He categorically denied to you —
McCLELLAN: I just told you, it’s simply not true. (Again, he says “not true”. He refuses to answer the question about whether Rove told him that it was not true or not. To avoid that question, he answers a different one.)
QUESTION: Yes, but you refuse to say whether or not it was Rove who told you it’s untrue.
McCLELLAN: No, no, I spoke to Rove. I spoke to him about — no, I spoke to him about these accusations, I’ve spoken to him.
QUESTION: And Rove told you that they were not true —
McCLELLAN: That’s why I would be telling — (“Would be telling”? He seems to be shifting into hypotheticals to avoid an answer.)
QUESTION: — or is it just you —
McCLELLAN: That’s why I would be telling you what I did. (“I would be telling you”, rather than “That’s why I told you”)
QUESTION: — or is it just you who is telling us?
McCLELLAN: No, I have spoken to him and been assured. And that’s why I reported to you and reported to the media that it is simply not true. I like to check my sources, just like you do.
Now, here, after repeatedly refusing to answer the question over and over again, he says something that comes perilously close to saying that Rove told him- “I have spoken to him and been assured.” Is he saying that Rove told him that he wasn’t the leaker? Not exactly, but I’ll bet that we’ll be arguing just this point with our right-wing friends before the week is over.
If it is supposed to mean that Rove told McClellan that he didn’t do it, McClellan certainly doesn’t amplify on it in his second press conference later on in the day. Rather, he backs away from it, saying that he hasn’t spoken to Rove recently. His statements about how “ridiculous” the accusations are seem to come from his intimate knowledge of Rove’s character; they certainly don’t come from Rove himself.
MR. McCLELLAN: I’ve made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I’ve known Karl for a long time, and I didn’t even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct. (Whoa! That’s a non-denial if I’ve ever heard one! He’s back to “ridiculous”! He didn’t even have to ask him? What’s up with that?)Q Have you read any book about him lately?
Q — have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation —
MR. McCLELLAN: I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I’ve already addressed it.
Q When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or this weekend?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I said then still applies today, and that’s what I’ve made clear. (“What he said then” was weeks ago. Furthermore, what he said then was “the accusation is ridiculous”, not “the accusation isn’t true”, and definitely not “I spoke to him and he said he wasn’t the source.”) What he said was-
A: That’s just totally ridiculous. But we’ve already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it’s totally ridiculous.Q: But did Karl Rove do it?
A: I said, it’s totally ridiculous.
Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson’s wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew —
MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know whether or not — I mean, I’m sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.
Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him?
MR. McCLELLAN: We’re going down a lot of different roads here. I’ve made it very clear that he was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.
Q Well, I’m trying to ask how —
MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn’t — it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this. (He’s gone back to strategic ignorance. He knows, in his heart, that Rove wouldn’t do this, and his faith is so strong that he doesn’t need to ask.
Q And that conversation that you had with Karl was this weekend? Or when was it?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry? No, I’ve had conversations with him previously. I’m going to leave it at that. (Previously? Previously when? How does he know? He doesn’t say; the only evidence that he gives is his own judgement of Rove’s character.)
Faced with the direct question over and over, McClellan repeatedly fails to say that Rove told him that he wasn’t the source of the leak. One logical conclusion is that Rove did not, in fact, tell McClellan that he wasn’t the leaker, and McClellan knows better than to ask.
If I was the White House press officer, I would have gone into Rove’s office and said something like, “Karl, people are going to ask me if you were the source of the leak. On one hand, I can tell them that those rumors are ridiculous, that you wouldn’t be involved in something like that. On the other hand, I can tell them that you have told me that those rumors are false, and that you didn’t leak Valerie Plame’s identity. Which strategy do you think would be better? Strictly from a communications point of view, you understand.”
It seems likely to me that they chose the former strategy, because Rove just can’t deny that he was the source. Time will show if I’m right.
UPDATE: Edited slightly to remove double negative
I’m in the process of reading the transcript of the second press conference. I am more than a little mystified by the repeated “Do you have specific information to bring to our attention?”. Am I dense in not understanding what the subtext of that is? Anyone? In the first press conference I thought I understood it to be a sort of diversionary tactic. But here in the second one, McLellan repeats it so often that it is striking, and makes me feel like there’s a coded message there I’m not getting.
Okay, I think I get part of it. I think the administration is looking to deflect some blame onto the press for not earlier reporting what they knew to be a crime. In other words, the harder the press pushes on the White House for failing to do something about this, the more the White House can push back. It seems like a very weak defense, really, but I think my detection of preparatory finger-pointing at the press is correct.
Also, I think they want to pressure the press into betraying sources, which would be convenient for the WH in many regards.
Wow… I read the transcript of the first press conference, and it seemed that Scott McLellan was simply avoiding answering a direct question directly, you know, for practice. But that second press conference looks much worse. Wow.
You know, I don’t think the “for practice” idea is so implausible. It’s a good idea for WH Press secretaries to get evasive occasionally when they’ve got nothing to hide, just so evasiveness won’t be a sure sign that they’re guilty as heck.
The problem is that press secretaries only do this because it works.
Check out the AP story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030930/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak&cid=544&ncid=716
As long as the news outlets continue to headline non-denial denials as actual denials (and this is not political — the do it for everyone), they will get away with it. Don’t reporters screen “All The President’s Men” in journalism school? We all should know the Non-Denial Denial by now.
All they need is the AP to headline “White House refuses to categorically deny . . .” and the White Houses will stop doing it.
That transcript reminds me of those frustration nightmares in which I try unsuccessfully to tie my shoes twenty times in a row.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review