Q Scott, what's the President's reaction? And what does he do now?
MR. McCLELLAN: He is deeply disappointed in the process. He will move forward in a timely manner to name a new nominee, as he indicated in his letter -- or as indicated in his statement.
Q Would that be Miers? Would she maintain her role as the person to seek out --
MR. McCLELLAN: She is going to continue as White House Counsel, and as she indicates in her letter to the President, she looks forward to continuing to help him select people to the bench that have a conservative judicial philosophy, so I fully expect her to be involved, as she was before.
Q Is he also deeply disappointed in the way some of his own allies have treated her and him?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've always been focused on the Senate, not on the outside commentary or outside groups. Our focus has always been on the United States Senate. And it was the discussions that we had had, and the meetings that Harriet Miers had had with senators that led us to the belief that this was simply a conflict that could not be resolved.
Q You can't ignore what the Bill Kristols, the Charles Krauthammers, people who were supportive of him on so many other things have said about this. Has it had -- are you just calling this background noise, has it not had any effect on this?
MR. McCLELLAN: The focus was always on the Senate. And it was Harriet Miers that came to this decision. She made a courageous decision, and the President has only grown deeper in his admiration and respect for her during this process.
Q Did he talk about this with her at all before?
MR. McCLELLAN: Sorry?
Q Did he talk about this at all --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this was a decision that she came to.
Q He never -- it never came up?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, she was not asked to -- this was a decision she came to.
Q Why is he disappointed with the process --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I think it shows the type of person that she is. She is someone who is very selfless and wise, and she recognized that it was more important to protect this important separation of powers and principle than it was to move forward on her personal ambition.
Q Scott, why is the President disappointed with the process? Because it's inconceivable that you could put forward a nominee whose background and expertise in constitutional law you can't illuminate to the people who have to confirm her.
MR. McCLELLAN: Harriet Miers is an extraordinarily well-qualified individual. And the President reiterated that in his statement that you all now have. And there have been people who have not previously served on the Court that have been confirmed to the nation's highest court. They --
Q Right -- can look into their background.
So, they are not really dissapointed in themselves, but the process. Humm, talk about Chutzpah. I suppose they are going to be dissapointed in the Grand Jury Process that resulted in at least one indictment (Scooter - I'll resign now, but I'm innocent until proven guilty - Libby). Batter up and Fitzy's going to toss nothing but hard, fastball strikes.
Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false," the prosecutor said. "He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And he lied about it afterward, under oath, repeatedly."Just for kicks, you can view the indictment - and it is snazzy - a matter now of public record, start on page 11 for what he is alledge to have done:
...defendant herein (Libby), did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due adminnistration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, Libby acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concering the employement of Valerie Wilson by the CIA...If you ask me, Libby's Five Counts sounds substantially worse offense than recieving sexual gratification in the oval office from a willing intern - even if you are married. I still suggest that we exercise the portion of the Patriot Act that allows us to sequester Libby to a fine residence like Gitmo and keep him there indefinately, without trial, so he can no longer do any harm to these fine United States of America.