About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Gregory omitted White House interview preconditions for a third time

March 23, 2007 2:24 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

14 Comments

On the March 23 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory -- for the third time in four days -- omitted the preconditions stipulated by the Bush administration for allowing White House senior adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and other current and former staff to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Gregory also reported that, according to White House press secretary Tony Snow, the White House "signaled some room for compromise" on these preconditions, apparently ignoring Snow's March 22 statement that the administration is "not negotiating. This is our offer."

In his report, Gregory noted that the White House "has refused to allow Rove or other officials to testify under oath" but omitted the further demands laid out by White House counsel Fred Fielding in his March 20 letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees:

  • that interviews be conducted behind closed doors;
  • that they not be televised or transcribed;
  • that there be no "subsequent testimony";
  • that no subpoenas be issued following the interviews;
  • and that committee members ask no questions concerning internal White House communications.

Gregory also aired a clip from the Senate Judiciary Committee's March 22 meeting regarding the Bush administration's offer of interviews, during which Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is shown rejecting Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) suggestion that the committee members "take what we can get" from the White House. The clip ended with Leahy saying: "[W]hat we're told we can get is nothing -- nothing, nothing." However, in his full response to Specter, as shown on the March 22 edition of CNN Newsroom, Leahy defined "nothing" by noting several of the preconditions that Gregory omitted: "We're told that we can have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, limited number of people, and the White House will determine what the agenda is. That, to me, is nothing."

Gregory went on to report that "[t]he White House has ... signaled some room for compromise," then aired a clip of Snow, from a March 22 press briefing, saying: "I don't think members are all that eager to have a big fight either. We don't want to fight." But while Gregory appeared to interpret this statement as evidence that the White House is open to "compromise," he apparently ignored Snow's response to a reporter's question during that same March 22 briefing about whether the White House's "offer" was "non-negotiable." Snow replied: "We're not negotiating. This is our offer. This is our position." In contrast with Gregory's report, a March 22 Associated Press article described Snow as unyielding, reporting that he "cast the administration's offer to allow Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies [to] talk to lawmakers in private as the best deal Democrats are going to get."

After airing the clip of Snow, Gregory reported: "Seizing on some of that language, Senate Democrats have sent a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding asking whether his original offer about those interviews with White House officials was a take-it-or-leave-it offer or ... whether there was some room for compromise." Presumably, Gregory was referring to the March 22 letter sent by all 10 Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to Fielding, which did not suggest in any way that they interpreted any statements made by the White House as indicating an openness to compromise. Rather, the Democrats wrote: "Some of us have heard that your letter is a 'take it or leave it' offer and that you have characterized it as your best and final offer. We cannot accept the limitations and conditions you seek to impose on the Committee's investigation in your March 20 letter."

From the March 23 edition of NBC's Today:

GREGORY: At the same time, the Senate has joined the House by authorizing subpoenas for White House officials, including Karl Rove, even as some Republicans counseled compromise.

SPECTER: Why not take what we can get in the interests of --

LEAHY: No, no -- what -- no, what we're told we can get is nothing -- nothing, nothing.

GREGORY: The White House has refused to allow Rove or other officials to testify under oath, but signaled some room for compromise.

SNOW: I don't think members are all that eager to have a big fight either. We don't want to fight.

[end video clip]

GREGORY: Seizing on some of that language, Senate Democrats have sent a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding asking whether his original offer about those interviews with White House officials was a take-it-or-leave-it offer or, [co-host] Matt [Lauer], whether there is some room for compromise.

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the March 22 edition of CNN Newsroom:

DANA BASH (CNN congressional correspondent): Listen to this brief exchange between the two of them.

[begin video clip]

SPECTER: If we don't like what we get, we can always issue a subpoena and move with the subpoena if we don't like what we hear.

LEAHY: That's not --

SPECTER: Why not take what we can get in the interests of --

LEAHY: No, no -- what -- no, what we're told we can get is nothing -- nothing, nothing. We're told that we can have a closed-door meeting with no transcript, not under oath, limited number of people, and the White House will determine what the agenda is. That, to me, is nothing.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by lindenbully (March 23, 2007 2:49 pm ET)
         

      Just listening to Specter's snivelling attempt to try and put forth the idea that the Administration's offer is anything but a cynical ploy to avoid damning testimony is sickening. I'll bet anything the words that were coming next from Specter before Leahy cut him off included conservative smokescreens such as "compromise" and "bipartisan."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dr Zaius (March 23, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
         

      David Gregory is better than that.  I don't get it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by monkeyboyiv (March 23, 2007 3:20 pm ET)
           

        I never thought he was. He has is good moments and his bad moments. This is clearly one of his BAD moments. It's like he's decided that this is a non-issue and he doesn't want to do the homework to make the story effective.

        I guess he would rather go cover Anna Nicole Smith's corpse. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by valentinian (March 23, 2007 4:24 pm ET)
             

          Yeah, I like his press briefing act, but it's just an act. When he's not in the press room, he is much an acolyte of the High Broderists as any of them.

          It will be much less fun watching him push around whatever sorry individual they get to replace/cover for Snow.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (March 23, 2007 3:36 pm ET)
           

        Rather than looking at David Gregory, look at his employer - S.C.U.M.*!

        *So-Called Unbiased Media acronym by Easy To Refute Wingnuts

        Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (March 23, 2007 5:25 pm ET)
           

        DR Z,

        I thought so too, but like all the rest of us, even David Gregory can have an 'off day'

        I do like it when David spells out to Tony Snow, in detail so that there is no mistaking what he is getting at and then watching in amazment how Snow goes about a five minute answer that doesn't even come close to answering the original question.

        Since I've mentioned his name, I will go on to say to Tony Snow personally, as one American to another, even though I can't stand the job you do, I wish you well with your surgery and will hold out some hope that perhaps you might consider how lucky you are that you have insurance to be able to see that doctor and have your problem fixed, unlike the 47 million of us that don't have the same luck with insurance, even though we all should have a right to do so!!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by valentinian (March 23, 2007 5:32 pm ET)
             

          I am sure there will be one commenter somewhere out in Blogistan who will say "good!" about Tony's cancer, or make the well-nigh-irresistible rhetorical link between colon cancer and certain personality attributes... and that one commenter will be endlessly reported on and tut-tutted about in the MSM.

          That one commenter will not be me - much as I revile what the man does for a living, he is a human being with the same frailties and fears as all of us, and worthy of our sympathy and good wishes.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (March 23, 2007 4:46 pm ET)
         

      Trying to make the White House appear "forthcoming," and not wanting to have a big fight.  Those nasty Democrats are to blame.

      God, these right-wing hacks like Gregory are clever aren't they?

      Great job here by Media Matters.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (March 23, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
         

      Leahy is right...the White House is offering NOTHING.  If he's not under oath, the hearings aren't public, there's no record...Rove can just lie, or tell the Senators to go pound sand, and no one would know.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (March 23, 2007 6:12 pm ET)
         

      What's funny is that the White House could budge without any risk of indictments.  They could have the hearings not under oath, but in public and on the record, so that only 2 or so journalists would complain but everyone else will let it go.  But they're so arrogant that they set demands that would embarrass any honest conservative.

      Look around to see how many conservatives are embarrassed to see how many honest conservatives there are.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (March 24, 2007 12:37 am ET)
         

      It's becoming increasingly hard not to think that there's criminal liability found somewhere in the firings of these U.S. Attorneys, given the way the members of George W. Bush's administration are refusing to co-operate with this investigation.

      And is anyone offering any reason WHY they refuse to be sworn?

      WHY they don't want their words transcribed?

      I mean, if any person co-operating with any legal investigation or other proceeding, ever said that they refused to be sworn, and also insisted their words not be recorded, wouldn't the first and immediate thing asked by everyone be WHY?

      And when you consider the two conditions, that there be no recall or subsequent testimony on the part of those testifying, and that no subpoenas may be issued following their testimony...

      Don't those two conditions constitute essentially a request for IMMUNITY?

      And if you should think so, then you'd have to wonder, IMMUNITY from what?

      Again, it's becoming rather hard not to think a crime has been committed somehow someway, as a result of these U.S. Attorneys being fired...

      ...by the defensive and guilty way these people are acting.

      I guess the only way to know for sure, is to have an investigation, supported by sworn testimony and on the public record... and without IMMUNITY.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (March 24, 2007 2:25 am ET)
           

        IMMUNITY... Impunity...a little of both, and the opportunity to carry on the contradiction of framing reality inside of their fiction.

        If they can pull off the act of testifying with neither binding oaths to check their lying nor transcribed records for eventually trying their cases regarding willful defying of those that they serve,well, that will serve them well because, it will be as if reality never was. 

        Sorry Demo, you set me off all rhyme-y.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (March 24, 2007 9:43 am ET)
             

          HBL, that creating their own reality thing, sounds like classic post modernist mentality. That's why these guys are so ineffective at governing.

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by time to fight back (March 24, 2007 12:56 pm ET)
         

      To quote the right's oft mentioned saying "What's the problem? If you have nothing to hide then let us tap your phones....I mean let us question you under oath."

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.