5wh-Mcclellan on Miers-Au Dat Bani Lui Gore3oct

8/7/2019 5wh-Mcclellan on Miers-Au Dat Bani Lui Gore3oct

1/12


2/12

the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association. She has

been a leader in the American Bar Association. She is someone who is

exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. She

has earned the respect and admiration of the legal profession, and she

will earn the respect and admiration of the American people -- we are

confident of that.

The President was looking exactly for someone with her qualifications andexperience and judgment. She has great legal ability and good judgment.

She is someone of the highest integrity who will faithfully interpret our

Constitution and our laws.

Just to give you a little bit more information on how this came about, the

President was pleased to get the input and advice of the United States

Senate. We consulted with more than 80 senators. The President took

their advice very seriously. There were two things that stood out to the

President in those consultations: one, that Republicans and Democrats

alike had suggested Harriet Miers by name as someone that would serve well

on the United States Supreme Court; and, two, that the President should

consider someone that is not a judge, someone that would bring some unique

and different perspective to our Court. As you all are aware, there are a

number of justices that have served -- served with exception and servedwith distinction that were not previously members of the bench, or not

previously served on the bench -- Chief Justice Rehnquist is one; Justice

Byron White is another one.

The President -- and remember, we consulted with more than 70 senators in

the first round when the President was considering the first vacancy.

This process was really a continuation of that first. There were a number

of people considered; there were a number of people interviewed during

this whole nomination process. There was a committee that the President

had set up the first time around with Andy Card, Harriet Miers, Judge

Gonzales, the Vice President, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and Chief

of Staff to the Vice President, Scooter Libby.

The President considered a diverse group of potential nominees. He was

looking at people from all walks of life. This is not a position that

Harriet sought. She was someone who, as I mentioned, was involved in the

selection process. But as others on this committee were looking at

credentials and qualifications -- and the President, as well -- they

recognized that she was someone who had the kind of qualifications and

experience and judgment that was needed to serve on the nation's highest

court.

And the President met with Harriet on four separate occasions to discuss

the vacancy with her specifically, including on September 21st, was the

first, and September 28th and 29th. He met with her last night over

dinner in the residence, and that was when he formally offered her the

position.

The President had called Andy Card just before 7:00 p.m. last night to let

him know that he had made a final decision. Andy Card informed the Vice

President. And then this morning, the President called Chief Justice

Roberts around 7:00 a.m. to let him know about the decision. And he spoke

with Justice O'Connor around 7:15 a.m. to let her know about the decision,

as well.

And as you all are aware, Harriet has been over at the Capitol meeting

with leaders of the Senate to begin the consultations during the

confirmation process. And she met earlier with Senator Frist and Senator

Specter and Senator Stevens, and had good discussions with them. She's

scheduled to be meeting with Senator Reid this afternoon. And we've also

reached out to Senator Leahy to set up a time that will be good for him to

visit with her, as well.

And with that, I will be glad to go to questions.

QUESTION: Scott, some conservatives appear to be less than thrilled with

this nomination. One noted conservative columnist said that he had

expected the President to pick someone with a visible and distinguished


3/12

constitutionalist track record -- a suggestion that the President flinch

from a fight on constitutional philosophy, that this appears to be a

combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the President.

What would the President say to his conservative base to allay them of

those concerns?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you ought to look at those who know Harriet

Miers well, because they have said other things than what you just cited.There are a number of people who have praised her for her great legal

ability and her sound judgment and her extensive experience. She is

someone, as I just mentioned, who brings great legal ability to this

position. She is someone who has earned the respect of the legal

community.

The President was looking for someone who has a philosophy of strictly

interpreting our Constitution and our laws, and she is someone who has

committed to do that. She will look at the law and she will apply the

law. And I think that that's what the American people want on the bench.

She was appointed, or nominated by the President because she is the best

person in his mind to fill this vacancy.

Q: How would you describe her? Is she a bedrock conservative, an

ideological conservative, a moderate? What words would you use to --MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I would describe her the way I did, John. As you

know, ideology, religion, politics, things of that nature don't really

have a place when it comes to making decisions on our highest court. The

decisions should be based on the law. Harriet Miers will apply the law.

She will look at the law, look at the facts of the case, and then apply

the law. That's what she's committed to doing, and that's what the

American people want on the bench.

Tom, go ahead.

Q: Scott, she's a total skeleton candidate with no paper trail. Do you

think the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree with your characterization, because she

is someone who has a very distinguished career and a long record of

accomplishment.

Q: Well, let's say without judicial experience, and without having taken

public positions on issues, if that will -- if you're concerned that that

will give Democrats in the Senate more desire to take a long -- very long

time looking into her background to sort things out?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me back up. There were -- and we appreciate

Leader Frist expressing his commitment to move forward in a timely manner

and have this confirmation completed by Thanksgiving. Senator Specter

made it clear that he was going to move forward on a thorough confirmation

process. We welcome that. Harriet looks forward to sitting down with

members of the Senate, visiting with them in person. She welcomes the

opportunity to go through the confirmation process and answer their

questions. I know that she's very much looking forward to that. This is

our nation's highest court, and it should be a thorough process.

The President went through a very thorough and deliberate process when

selecting her, and we would expect nothing less. We hope they will move

forward in a prompt and timely manner and that they will remain committed

to moving forward in a civil and dignified way, as Senator Frist and

Senator Specter expressed their commitment to doing so earlier today.

But let me back up, because I think it's important to look at the Court.

There are a number of justices who have served on the United States

Supreme Court that had no prior judicial experience. I think that is a

strength that can be brought to the Court. It will help offer a broader

perspective and bring some broader experience to the Court.

That's something the President did consider as he was making this

selection. Neither Chief Justice Rehnquist, nor Justice White had prior

judicial experience when they were appointed to the bench. But they both

become two of the most distinguished and respected justices in recent


4/12

memory. And they served for 30-plus years with great excellence, and so I

think you have to look at that. But there have been, I think, some 38

people appointed to the highest court that did not have prior judicial

experience. But she does have experience as a practicing lawyer, very

extensive experience. And that is something that the President

considered, as well.

Q: Harry Reid said that he likes her. Are you encouraged by that commentfrom him?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, there are Democrats and Republicans alike

who suggested that she would be a good nominee.

We did take those into consideration.

Q: Was he one of them?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into any individual discussions; I'll

let them speak for themselves. But I think you've heard from a number of

senators, Republican and Democrat, who said that the President should look

outside the bench for when he makes this selection.

Kelly, and then I'll come back here.

Q: To what extent did the President's personal friendship with Harriet

Miers have an impact on his ultimate decision? And those who say that it

is sort of the appearance of cronyism, that -- did this relationship giveher an advantage, and the fact that she was heading the search committee?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President knows her well. He has known her for

some time now. But the decision was based on who was the best person to

fill this vacancy. And she has the qualifications and experience needed

to do an outstanding job on the United States Supreme Court, and that's

why the President selected her.

Q: Was he rewarding a friend?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said he was appointing someone who will make an

outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And all you have to do is go and look

at her record and what she brings to the Court. She brings very diverse

and broad experience that will be very helpful to the Court.

Go ahead, Terry.

MR. McCLELLAN: Scott, you mentioned her legal experience. Part of that

experience is that she was the President's personal lawyer. Can you tell

us some of the matters that she would have represented the President in?

I understand there was a real estate matter. Did she get involved in the

National Guard stuff, the jury duty -- can you tell us --

MR. McCLELLAN: There will be a confirmation process. No, I don't have

specifics on that in front of me. She did, originally, I think, serve as

counsel to the President's gubernatorial committee that was set up when he

was first running for governor, back in '93, and I think it was some time

after that she did represent him in some personal matters.

Q: And you can get us details on what those matters were?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll work on getting you more information. Obviously,

that will be something that, I'm sure, will come up during the

confirmation process.

Q: And something else will come up, and I just want to let you have the

opportunity to answer directly, and Kelly was getting at. What do you say

when people will say he put his own lawyer on the Supreme Court? That's

definitional, cronyism.

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd say look at her record. As I said, she is someone

that he knows well. But look at her record. Her record is one of being a

trailblazer for women in the legal profession and a record of being a

tough and strong litigator who has represented clients before state and

federal courts on a broad range of issues. She is someone who brings the

exact kind of experience and qualifications needed on our nation's highest

court, and that's why the President selected her.

Helen, go ahead.

Q: I have a two-part question. She's going to obey the law of the land

--

MR. McCLELLAN: You're taking the Les mode now.


5/12

Q: She's going to pay strong attention to the law of the land, which

means she should support Roe versus Wade. And, also, what policies has

she participated in, in the White House, that are already on the record?

Can you say what her participation was?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she's been very involved in the policy process here

at he White House. She started as the Staff Secretary for the President

when he first came into office. Then she became the Deputy Chief ofStaff. And then, just about six/seven months ago, the President named her

his White House Counsel. So she's been very involved in policy matters

here at the White House. That was part of her role, and that's one of her

strengths, is that she has served within the administration at some of the

highest levels of government. The two justices I mentioned earlier, Chief

Justice Rehnquist and Justice White, were --

Q: No, I'm asking --

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but I'm pointing out, they were members of the

administration prior to being nominated to the bench.

Q: Well, what policies --

MR. McCLELLAN: So it's helpful that she has that kind of broad

experience. She has served as a city councilwoman in Dallas. She has

served as a state official on the Texas Lottery Commission -- she helpedclean it up when it needed cleaning up. And she is someone who has

produced positive results.

Q: Can we assume that his policies -- that she had a big, strong hand in

the policies that we've watched over the -- since 2001?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she's been very involved in the policy process here.

She's been a senior member of the President's White House staff.

Q: On treatment of the prisoners of war, for example?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the General Counsel of the White House during the

time you're referring to was Justice -- was Judge Gonzales, or Attorney

General Gonzales.

Q: Scott, he --

Q: She gave money to Al Gore in the --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he's answered those questions before the Court, but I

think she's going back to some of the previous directives that were

issued.

Q: She give money to Al Gore and Bentsen in the '80s. Do you have any

information that she was ever registered as a Democrat?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what her affiliation was back then. I do

come from Texas, and I do know that there were not a lot of Republicans

back in the '70s and early '80s in Texas. And most of the elected

officials in Texas, and certainly the statewide level, were Democrats at

the time. They were conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats. And I

think that since probably about 1988, she has contributed exclusively to

Republicans as an individual.

Q: So you don't know what -- before that, you don't know her affiliation

before that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I was just pointing out the history of Texas. Many

of

us in Texas grew up Democrats because there really wasn't much of a --

there weren't many Republicans elected to statewide office. Many of the

elections were decided in the primaries, and so I think some of those

contributions go back to primary time.

Q: Did you give money to Al Gore? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I did not. When I became 18 I was a Republican and

voting

Republican, and proud of it.

Q: Scott, back on Tom and Helen's question --

MR. McCLELLAN: I supported the President's father, too. (Laughter.)

Q: Back on Tom and Helen's question, people are trying to zero in on her

opinions. They are concerned that, you know, granted, she doesn't have

any paper trail from the bench or what have you, but they want to know


6/12

specifically what her thoughts are on issues. Specifically, can you give

us something that, from the White House Counsel's Office, what she has

thought, what she has worked on, the opinions that she's put into the work

that she's done?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as Staff Secretary you have involvement in a broad

range of issues; as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, you have involvement

in a broad range of issues; as General Counsel to the President, you haveinvolvement in a broad range of issues. And the confirmation process will

be an opportunity to discuss these matters. I'm sure that she will answer

questions appropriately.

Q: Well, people like Howard Dean, are asking -- they're, like, the jury

is still out because they want to know what her opinions are. What would

you say to Howard Dean, beyond the spinnage [sic] you're giving now, to

give something specific --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, beyond what?

Q: The spin --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm giving the facts.

Q: No, you're not answering directly, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I'm giving the facts, April.

Q: No, you're not answering directly, Scott, about her opinion.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I'm giving the facts. There's some spin going

on from you. (Laughter.)

Q: Okay, so anyway -- okay, thank you. So, anyway, on another subject --

MR. McCLELLAN: I would say they ought to look at what Senator Leahy said.

It's too early to reach any firm judgment about such an important

nomination, if there are Democratic members of his own party that are

saying otherwise. Senator Harry Reid said -- made some very positive

comments about Harriet Miers.

The standard that we should look at, April, is qualifications. That has

been the precedent, and certainly in recent history, is what are the

person's qualifications. Are they qualified to serve on the highest

court? Do they have the kind of background and experience and judicial

temperament to represent the American people well on the United States

Supreme Court? Harriet Miers is someone who will make the American people

very proud. She has the kind of experience that is needed on the United

States Supreme Court.

And so I encourage you to look at her record. She welcomes the

opportunity to talk about her distinguished career, and to talk about her

record of accomplishment. These will be questions that will come up

during the confirmation process, but there's been a precedent set. The

precedent is based on the Ginsburg and Breyer standard, and even people

before that. We should look at qualifications. There are many that may

have disagreed with some of the philosophical views or political views

that those justices took, but there was broad support when it came time to

confirm them to the Court, because people on both sides of the aisle

recognized they were qualified to serve on our nation's highest court.

The one thing that the Court should not become is subject to partisan

politics. We would hope that Democrats wouldn't become -- wouldn't become

beholden to liberal special interest groups that want to prevent a civil

and dignified process from moving forward. That would be unprecedented.

Q: And another -- Scott, quickly. On Bill Bennett, the President was

upset when he saw the issue about the stamp coming out of Mexico. What

are his thoughts about Bill Bennett and his statements about blacks and --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I spoke about that last week, and I think I've

already addressed that matter.

Q: Can you address it again, please, because it's still an issue and many

people --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I've already answered that. I don't think --

Q: People are calling for an apology.


7/12

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I need to again. Bill Bennett is someone who has done

a lot of good things in life for a lot of people from all walks of life.

Go ahead, Goyal.

Q: Scott, two questions. One, as far as Katrina is concerned, and Rita,

there are hundreds of small businesses are out of business, and they are

nothing now to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Small businesses where?Q: In Louisiana and those affected areas.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q: And they were employed -- hundreds of thousands of people they were

employed. Now they can't --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you what, can I come back to you? Because I

think there's probably more people that have questions about the Supreme

Court. And if we have time, I'll come back to you.

Q: Can I get one? Can I ask you real quick?

MR. McCLELLAN: You've had one. Dana.

Q: No, just real quick.

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q: Are you going to make available all the documents regarding her time

here --MR. McCLELLAN: Dana. I'll come back to you.

Q: That's my question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Is that your question?

Q: It's my question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you defer -- do you defer to John Roberts?

Q: No, no. What I was going to say is essentially that recent history

shows that Democrats, especially when there's virtually no paper trail,

they want to know what the nominee has done, particularly --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what the confirmation process is for. And

Harriet Miers looks forward to that process.

Q: If and when the Democrats ask to see the documents, the papers, the

consultations that Harriet Miers was involved in, in the White House and

the executive branch, will --

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. She welcomes the opportunity to

answer questions during the confirmation process. That's an important part

of the confirmation process. And I'm sure that she will answer questions

in an appropriate manner. We will also make sure that we provide them

appropriate information so that they can do their job.

Q: Does that mean we'll be more inclined to show them some of the

documents that perhaps before were --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to speculate. And I'm not aware of any such

requests that have come at this point.

Q: Okay. Wait, can I just follow up on one thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, yes, go ahead.

Q: Along the lines of what Terry was asking. There's a report that the

President hired Harriet Miers to look through his background for anything

that could be derogatory when he first started thinking about running for

office, back when he was in Texas, back in --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me double-check. I wasn't working for him at that

point. Go ahead.

Q: Scott, could you please elaborate on the four meetings, including the

dinner the President had with Ms. Miers? It seems like that they're in

contact with each other anyway, throughout the normal working process.

Why did it take four meetings -- did she readily agree to serve, or did he

have to talk her into it? Can you tell us a little bit about each of

those meetings?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I mentioned, I don't think this was something

that she expected. She was not seeking this out. She, earlier today,

said how honored and humbled she was to be selected by the President to

serve on our nation's highest court. The President, having known her,

believed that she would make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. And


8/12

that's why the first meeting began on September 21st, to talk to her about

the possibility. And those discussions continued over time.

I wouldn't look at that as being surprising or anything, I think that's

just part of the nomination process. The President was doing his

homework. He was seriously considering a number of people, from all walks

of life. And it became clear to him, having known her and having been

very familiar with her record of accomplishment and her long career,distinguished career, that she would be the best person for this position.

Q: Did she readily agree to it, or did she have to kind of be brought

along?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think if you look at her record, she is always

someone who has answered the call to serve. She is someone who has done

an enormous amount of pro bono work. The President talked about earlier

in his remarks all the community service activities that she has been

involved in. And that is something that she has always been committed to,

serving the people and helping people who are in need.

Q: Scott, when I asked earlier about whether or not some conservatives

who have expressed concern that this is a capitulation, and that perhaps

Ms. Miers isn't going to be conservative enough, you said that ideology,

religion and politics, things of that nature, don't really have a place.Do you think --

MR. McCLELLAN: When you're on the Supreme Court and you're making

decisions, you make decisions based on the Constitution and based on the

law and then you apply that law. I think that that's what the American

people want, including conservatives.

Q: So that said, then, what would you say to cheer those conservatives

who are concerned that this is a capitulation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they ought to look at some of the comments,

and, again, this is an appointment of someone who will represent all

Americans well. And I think, as I said, the American people want someone

who is going to strictly interpret our Constitution and our laws, and is

going to apply the law -- that's going to look at the facts and apply the

law.

And they ought to look at some of the comments from people who know her

well -- many of their colleagues, people who are very familiar with her,

because they have spoken out about how well-qualified she is and what an

outstanding jurist she would make.

Q: And can you give us some indication as to how the President decided he

would deal with these charges of cronyism, what his reaction might have

been as it was discussed during the process?

MR. McCLELLAN: He doesn't spend time thinking about it. He's looking for

the best person for the position, and that's what he focuses on.

Go ahead.

Q: If I understood your opening remarks, it sounded like some Democrats,

in advance of the announcement, had said flattering things about Ms.

Miers.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Q: I'm wondering if -- who were --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of the consultative process. I'm not going to

get into names. If they want to talk more about it, they are welcome to

do so, but I'm not going to get into names from this podium out of respect

for that process.

Q: But we can assume that some key Democrats said, she's not radioactive,

she's okay with us?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think they used those words. (Laughter.)

Republicans and Democrats alike both suggested her name as someone who

would make an outstanding Supreme Court nominee.

Sarah, go ahead.

Q: I have a different subject, so I'll wait until --

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay. Supreme Court. Les? No? Okay, go ahead.

Q: Scott, it's been suggested that because she has no body of judicial


9/12

rulings to examine, that Harriet Miers should be more forthcoming than

other Supreme Court nominees. Is that a reasonable suggestion?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you ought to look back at what Justice Ginsburg

said and what other justices have said, that -- are you talking

specifically about answering questions about cases that may come before

the Court? Because that's never been a --

Q: Well, about --MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the judicial philosophy is one of strictly

interpreting our constitutional laws, and certainly, there will be

questions talking about the law and how you apply the law. That's part of

the confirmation process. Judge Roberts did that. And I disagree with

your assessment of the previous confirmation process, because it has never

been a precedent before the Supreme Court that justices -- or nominees

should get into answering questions about cases that may come before the

Court. Go back and look at recent nominees and look at what justices on

the Supreme Court have said. You shouldn't be prejudging cases that could

come before you.

Q: I wasn't being -- I wasn't making any judgment, I'm just saying that

it has been suggested that there should be a higher standard if there

isn't this body of legal work. Is that not fair?MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I -- I think the question you're getting

to is talking about cases that could come before the Court. And that's

why I was making clear what that precedent has been. But, certainly, she

will answer all questions appropriately.

Q: There must be many other female corporate lawyers around the country

who are also extremely well-qualified in the way that she is. Is there

anything particular in her background with regard to her knowledge of

constitutional law that makes her particularly well-qualified for this

nomination?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's everything the President mentioned earlier today, as

well as everything we've put out on her and her long distinguished career.

I mean, if you go and look at -- I mean, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice

White, they were nominated at a much younger age than Harriet Miers, and

had not had as much legal experience as someone like she has had. She is

very uniquely qualified to sit on our nation's highest court.

She is someone who was selected by her colleagues, who know her best, in

Texas, to serve as the first president of the Texas Bar Association. She

was a candidate for the second-highest position at the American Bar

Association before withdrawing her name so she could come to Washington

and serve in the administration of the President, back in 2001.

Q: So in terms of writings or constitutional law, you're not aware of

anything?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has certainly talked to her about the

philosophy that she applies. And that's why he said --

Q: Can you tell us about she said?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. She is someone who will strictly interpret our

Constitution and our laws, that will look at the law and apply the law

based on the facts of the case.

Q: Just a quick follow up. It seems to me that every justice on the

Supreme Court would say that that is exactly what they do. It seems that

there's a very different understanding of what that means by different

justices. We don't know what their understanding is.

MR. McCLELLAN: There's a confirmation process that will come along in due

course. They are moving forward on the confirmation process already.

Those are all questions and issues that they can discuss during that

process.

Ken, go ahead.

Q: Scott, two Miers-related topics. Does the President invite and hope

there will be close Senate scrutiny of her tenure at the Texas Lottery

Commission?


10/12

MR. McCLELLAN: Certainly, that's part of her record, and I'm sure she

would welcome the opportunity to discuss her time there.

Q: And what do you think her record there shows?

MR. McCLELLAN: That she helped -- what I said earlier. She is someone

who helped clean up the Lottery Commission. It was an agency that was in

need of cleaning up. And papers in Texas, not the one you work for, I

don't know -- well, maybe they did, but The Dallas Morning News, certainlya well-read paper in Texas, praised her for the results she accomplished

at the Texas Lottery Commission. That's why the President selected her;

she was someone of the highest integrity, who brings a very

straightforward approach to the issue, and was able to get results and

turn that agency around.

Q: In 1992, she was part of a group in the ABA that moved for neutrality

by that body on the topic of abortion. Is that to be viewed as her

feelings on the merits of the issue, or just on the merits of what the ABA

should be saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think that's correct. I think in 1993 the

American Bar Association had voted to endorse -- essentially endorse

abortion, and taken a position on that. And she was head of the Texas Bar

Association at the time. She took the position that if the Bar was goingto take a position on the issue, that the members should be allowed to

take a vote. And that was her position, that the entire membership should

be able to vote on it.

Q: Was it a statement at all about her position on abortion?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q: Was it a statement at all about --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you're getting into asking questions about litmus

tests, the President doesn't have litmus tests.

Q: What kind of test does he have?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking specific questions about issues.

Q: Has he been tested? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Peter, go ahead. I didn't hear that. Must have been

funny, though. It came from Ken Herman. It's not worth going back to.

Q: One conservative group is circulating a memo on the issue that Ken

just mentioned, on this abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded-abortions

stand by the ABA, characterizing her as the leader of that campaign. Is

that --

MR. McCLELLAN: She was the leader of the Texas Bar Association.

Q: Was she the leader of this campaign, though, to have the ABA in the

practice of supporting, "abortion on demand"?

MR. McCLELLAN: She felt that the membership ought to be able to vote on

it.

Q: How many cases -- how many, aside from -- separate from this, how many

cases was she actually at the defense table for? How many cases has she

actually been involved in?

MR. McCLELLAN: She's argued a number of cases, on a broad range of

issues. She's a well-known, proven litigator, and someone who has

represented clients before state and federal courts, and someone who has

represented clients before appellate courts.

Q: Do you have an exact number?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's her background as a practicing lawyer.

Q: Do you have an exact number on how many?

MR. McCLELLAN: I can check on that. I'm sure that -- I'm sure we can

pull that together. I don't have that specific number off the top of my

head.

Go ahead. Supreme Court still?

Q: Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, go ahead.

Q: The Anna Nicole Smith case is coming before the Supreme Court, and

she's from Texas. And if this confirmation goes through smoothly, would

Harriet Miers have to recuse herself because she may know some of the


11/12

legal people involved out of Dallas in this --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's out of left field. I hadn't even thought about

that, and, no, I don't know that there's any connection there whatsoever.

Q: Would she have to step aside because of the players involved --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't even know who the players are that are involved.

Q: Her husband is a wealthy Texan, oil man and --

MR. McCLELLAN: So that has a connection to the case?Q: No, but Harriet Miers might have had some social or legal interaction

with some of the people out of Dallas --

MR. McCLELLAN: None that I know of.

Q: What about Paris Hilton? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth. Your seat is open up here.

Q: Okay. Two things. One, did she do pro bono work for the Exodus

Ministries, or Exodus Prison Ministries?

MR. McCLELLAN: It was the prison ministries. She did serve on the board

of that ministry, which helped prisoners who had served their time adjust

back into society and reunite with their families.

Q: -- Exodus Ministries -- so is that --

MR. McCLELLAN: The one I just described to you.

Q: You mean Exodus Prison Ministries?MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct, yes. And I just described which one she

was a board member of.

Q: Okay. She had no relation to Exodus Ministries?

MR. McCLELLAN: No.

Q: Okay. Secondly, these four meetings, were they similar to the other

interviews for the Supreme Court -- you know, potential nominees the first

time around --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know if you can necessarily describe them as

similar. Oh, were they all in the residence? I think some may have been

in the Oval Office. I'll have to double-check which ones were where. I

can check that for you. But I don't know if you can necessarily say

"similar." There are some people the President interviewed last time that

he didn't know as well as he knows Harriet.

Q: But how many people did he interview this time?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't think you can separate out the first

nominating process from this nominating process. He interviewed a number

of people previously. The committee that was involved has interviewed a

number of people, as well. And --

Q: You don't have the number of how many he sat down with?

MR. McCLELLAN: He interviewed five the first time, and he interviewed

some additional ones this time.

Q: How many?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'd leave it at that.

All right, questions on other topics, or are we still on Supreme Court?

Supreme Court? Finlay.

Q: Maybe I missed this, but do we know anything about her academic

rankings as an undergraduate and law school? Was she law review,

summa/magna cum laude?

MR. McCLELLAN: We can get you that biographical information, but I think

she did very well academically.

Q: Okay now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, Goyal, then Sarah.

Q: A question as far as the economy is concerned in those affected areas

of (inaudible). Small businesses, especially minority-owned businesses,

they are in trouble, putting back together their businesses because

they've been hiring hundreds of thousands of those affected victims. So

what is President doing about those -- putting together those businesses

so they can hire back those affected victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've issued some waivers that will help open up the

process to more small businesses, and that would include women-owned, or

minority-owned small businesses. The President very much believes that


12/12

the role of the federal government is to support the state and local

vision for rebuilding the region in the Gulf Coast. And Mayor Nagin

announced the appointment of a private sector-led commission on renewal

and rebuilding. The Governor of Mississippi has announced -- is moving

forward on a commission to look at all these issues.

We want to continue to support those efforts. And one thing that is

important that you bring up to do is to help people get back into theircommunities, particularly at the jobs that are most needed right now. So

that helps -- if we can get them the temporary housing that they need,

help put them in a position to get back to work and help their companies.

The President visited Folgers Coffee Plant in New Orleans, and they had

taken a number of steps to get trailers right on the property there so

that they could get the workers and contractors back in place to get those

jobs going again and get the economy going again. That's an important

part of the process.

Sarah, go ahead.

Q: Thank you. Scott, there are those in New Orleans and Louisiana who

want to destroy all structures in the lower Ward Nine of New Orleans.

That is a predominately poor and black neighborhood, and many families

there don't want to relocate. How does the President feel about thisproject and massive relocation and destruction of a historic neighborhood?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two things. One, the President has committed to a locally

inspired vision. He wants that to be decisions of the local officials and

local community leaders and others. And, two, the President believes that

it's up to the people from those communities to decide where they want to

live and where they want to go. And we want to help assist them in that

effort.

END 12:58 P.M. EDT

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.

Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Page Tools: Printer friendly version E-mail this article

5wh-Mcclellan on Miers-Au Dat Bani Lui Gore3oct

Documents

Transcript of 5wh-Mcclellan on Miers-Au Dat Bani Lui Gore3oct