NBC's David Gregory Falsely States Libby 'Went to Jail'

Photo of Justin McCarthy.
By Justin McCarthy (Bio | Archive)
November 21, 2007 - 12:10 ET

NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory, accused of being a partisan, made a false statement about the "Scooter" Libby case. In reporting former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s charge that the Bush administration fed false information, Gregory claimed Libby "went to jail for obstructing the leak investigation."

Although Libby was sentenced to 30 months of prison, Libby never actually went to jail as Gregory claims. President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence, eliminating the prison term yet still upholding a hefty fine and probation.

"Today," however, did not spend a lot of time on the McClellan charge, just a brief story. The transcript is below.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

MEREDITH VIEIRA: Now to Washington and the scandal that just won't go away. Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is writing about the CIA leak case in a tell-all book and he's pointing fingers all the way to the Oval Office. NBC's chief White House correspondent David Gregory has the story.

DAVID GREGORY: A new twist in the CIA leak case that landed White House advisor "Scooter" Libby in jail. The president's former press secretary Scott McClellan in a new book claims the president himself was involved in spreading false information about the Valerie Plame leak case. McClellan writes in the book what happened. quote, "the most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." from the White House podium, McClellan exonerated advisers Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: They're good individuals. They're important members of our White House team. That's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved.

GREGORY: In the book, an embittered McClellan writes "there was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself." McClellan has said before he felt misled by Rove and Libby. The president's role, however, has never been clear. And despite the book's provocative excerpt, it still isn't. Today McClellan is still standing by what he told CNN earlier this year, that the president was as much a victim as he was. He told Larry King, quote, "I said what I believed to be true at the time. It was also what the president believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given." "Scooter" Libby went to jail for obstructing the leak investigation. Karl Rove was never charged with any crime. The president's exact role in all of this is still, for now, caught up in a publishing house's promotion and a press secretary's story, which won't come out until next spring. For "Today," David Gregory, NBC News, the White House.

Related stories:

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As soon as I saw the

November 21, 2007 - 12:23 ET by well99

As soon as I saw the headline I knew there had to be a book deal somewhere.

As I asked on the Open

November 21, 2007 - 12:27 ET by Chris Norman

As I asked on the Open Thread, is this an attempt by McClellan to pump up sells for an otherwise potentially pretty much unread book, or is he bitter about something? Was he fired or was he asked to leave?

Hmmm

November 21, 2007 - 12:32 ET by well99

I go with pump up book sales and bitter.

Thanks for the

November 21, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Chris Norman

Thanks for the enlightenment... :)

I think it's a bit of

November 21, 2007 - 13:21 ET by fitzfong

I think it's a bit of both.  Scott McClellan used to get taken to the wood shed by scum like David Gregory and Terry Moron on a regular basis.  This wasn't because the media was especially perceptive, it's because McClellan was breathtakingly inept.  Every time he got touched with a question, he went into that Jackie Gleason "ha-ma-na-ha-ma-na" mode.  Every time I saw Tony Snow or, to a lesser extent, Dana Perrino, handle these craven bullies, I was reminded of what an embarrassment McClellan was and continues to be.  Now he's trying to explain away his ineptitude by fraudulently selling out the Administration that propped up his incompetent a**.  Now he's using pimps like David Gregory to help him promote his book...he's giving Gregory what he wants (another obsessive stab at Bush).  Without the lefty kooks paying to feed their BDS, McClellan would just be a footnote...now he has an opportunity to make a little money.  That makes him a prostitute.

Good post, fitzfong. McClellan was inept and this is payback

November 21, 2007 - 14:46 ET by RJ

Also, in all this tempest in a teapot foolishness, two things are ignored:

1) There is nothing more than vague innuendo in what McClellan said.  It's just a (probably misleading) teaser.

2) McCllelan even said that "the president didn't know it wasn't true"...whatever "it" might be.

The Bridge Club

November 21, 2007 - 13:34 ET by KC Mulville

Maybe he knows what the Bridge Club knew when they put up their sign -- criticizing Bush gets you airtime on network television. Apparently, since the book isn't even published yet, this was just a snippet released by the publisher. Wonder why the publisher would say such a thing?

Fitz and KC,Thanks. I

November 21, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Chris Norman

Fitz and KC,

Thanks. I suspect your both right. McClellan always did seem to be out of his league. I suppose now he's seeking the "respect" and approval from the MSM like so many other weaklings have, before him. I mean, without his adding fodder for Bush bashing, can anyone honestly say they would read his book? Would he ever have been seen again on television? I'm expecting a book to be out soon from the cleaning lady of the third floor at the WH.

 

Two Predictions

November 21, 2007 - 14:10 ET by fitzfong

1) David "E.D." Shyster will be all over MSDNC today over-playing this hand as he always does.

2) Scott McClellan will come out a la Greenspan to downplay the relevant passages.  Sorry, Scott.  Too late.  Just because the Democrats try to have it both ways, doesn't mean you can.

McCellan

November 21, 2007 - 13:57 ET by shawn228

I have never been a big fan of Scott, but I believe these comments are coming out now because he feels genuinely betrayed.

He is bitter because the President and Vice President knew more than they were telling Scott and he made a fool of himself on tv.

This has the potential to be a very big problem for the GOP. Senator Dodd is already calling for an investigation and now that the AG is not one of the Presidents closest friends, it could present a headache almost as big as the attorney firings

Are you an idiot?  Of

November 21, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Dan The Man 2

Are you an idiot?  Of course the President and VP know more than some guy hired to do PR work.  This is a stupid canard that the Dims will chase and end up with nothing and conspiracy nuts like you will say see it is true but they dont want you to know.

uke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Dan

November 21, 2007 - 16:12 ET by shawn228

Do you always have to resort to calling people names? Yeesh. I am not saying the President or Vice President committed any crime, I just stated the obvious, that Scott feels betrayed.

Furthermore, I stated that this could be a big headache for the GOP. From what I recall, the result of the last two investigations resulted in the conviction of Scooter Libby, The resignation of deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General and others.

With a new Attorney General, and a new investigation, it could be another big embarrassment for the President. Even though he is not running, this cannot be good PR during an election year

I asked if McClellan (I

November 21, 2007 - 16:38 ET by Chris Norman

I asked if McClellan (I don't know him personally, so I don't call him by his first name), felt bitter about his leaving the press secretary job. I'm wasn't sure what his motives are, because I don't know him. You must be close to him, seeing how you're on a first name basis with "Scott" and seem certain of the purity of his motives. As for being bad PR during an election year, I'm certain that's what's behind the uber coverage.

Norman

November 21, 2007 - 17:02 ET by shawn228

I don't personally know you so I hope it is okay if I call you Chris. I did not mean to imply I know Scott personally but I will use McClellan now so I will not give off that impression. I guess alot of folks most be very close to "Hillary" then huh?

I don't know what his motives are either and I am surprised that he, intentionally or not is doing damage to the GOP. I suppose hes is aware now because he is backpeddling

Sawn I only asked if you

November 21, 2007 - 18:39 ET by Dan The Man 2

Sawn I only asked if you were an idiot and here is what you said "He is bitter because the President and Vice President knew more than they were telling Scott and he made a fool of himself on tv." and from taht it appears you did more than "I just stated the obvious, that Scott feels betrayed".  So I read that and stated an obvious fact taht the President and VP did in fact not tell heim what they know and he should not be privy to all they know.

But I am in a trollish mood tonight and sometimes I am snarky when some make stupid remarks or assumptions.  And yes I do make them also.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Dan

November 21, 2007 - 20:21 ET by shawn228

No problem Dan, I wonder how many conservative members of RB would think it was ok if Liberal Shawn asked if they were an idiot?:-)

Since the former Press Secretary seems like he is backpeddling now, the story might die down.

Shawn you do know it is Wedsday

November 21, 2007 - 17:48 ET by well99

So that means there must be a new investigation of some type.Since the Dems have took over there has been a constant witch hunt every week it seems.Well might be exaggerating just a bit but not much.Next weeks investigation will be where's Waldo.

well99

November 21, 2007 - 20:27 ET by shawn228

I have said many many times before that this congress is just as bad as the last congress and deserve their percent approval rating. I really try to look at it from both sides.

Dan said that something like the Dems will chase and end up with nothing as usual. I just wanted to point out that it resulted in a conviction and several resignations.

A bogus conviction based on

November 21, 2007 - 20:48 ET by fitzfong

A bogus conviction based on a sham trial before a biased judge and jury...but Schumer and company won't mind putting it in the "win" column.

Shawn

November 22, 2007 - 03:23 ET by well99

There is nothing wrong with looking at it from both sides.It just seems convient on Scotts part to all of a sudden bring this out.If you look at the first post that is why I mentioned about book deal.If you are talking about Scooter Libby I really thought that was hokey.You look at what Sandy Berger did and the Justice Dept looks like alot of partisan politics going on.Even if there is a republican President.

David Boies on the Libby case

November 21, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Gary Hall

We should all remember David Boies from Bush v Gore. Specifically, he was Gore's lead counsel in front of the Florida Supreme Court who argued that the court had no legal gound to stand on in ordering a statewide recount, and that the US Supreme Court would surely overturn it. Smart man. 

David Boies on H_C on Fox – March 5th, 2007

 "That's exactly the problem. People can't remember everything. Now, people have got to tell the truth in front of a grand jury. That's very important. And if you are conducting an investigation where you really need to get people's testimony, and they lie, they need to be prosecuted, even if you ultimately conclude there was no underlying crime. That's not really the situation here, as I see it. Because from the outside it looks like the prosecutor knew, before some of this testimony was taken, that there was not an underlying crime. And then to go forward and try to get people maybe to slip up, make a mistake, so you can bring a perjury or obstruction charge, I think that's what's troubling here."  

Those last two sentences of Boies are striking. then he continnued 

…The problem is I don't see any evidence that that's right. That is I don't see any evidence that they needed Libby's testimony to determine whether there was a crime or not. They knew who leaked it. Ok? They knew who leaked it."

 

Drunken Gregory

November 21, 2007 - 12:40 ET by Six String Spiff

Since when does ANYONE take what that alcoholic slob says seriously? Oh wait, other alcoholics. I wonder if he'll appear on the Imus show again. Hammered... again. Journalist. Riiiiiight

Alcoholic slob?

November 21, 2007 - 17:56 ET by Blonde

David Gregory?

My tag seems particularly apt for this thread today, doncha think? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

McClellan Book

November 21, 2007 - 13:26 ET by allanf

With all due respect to McClellan  I'm trying to figure out what the issue was in the Plame affair.   A former Ambassador reveals the classified results of a trip made on the behest of the US Government in a New York Times Op-Ed piece. He claims to have made the trip at the behest of the Vice-President.

Naturally, there is wonderment. Why was he chosen for the trip. Well it soon comes out that his wife, who was an analyst in the weapons of mass destruction area of the CIA recommend him for the job.

So how, under any circumstances is that a crime or outing a covert agent? Why was Wilson's disclosure of his trip not a crime?

How very confusing. Is there a problem with the DC water supply that causes mass confusion?

One big problem . . .

November 21, 2007 - 15:01 ET by WingletDriver

One big problem with McClellan's acount: It doesn't mention that RICAHARD ARMITAGE was the one who told Robert Novak. Armitage has admitted it. Novak has verified it. Colin Powell has corroborated it. Patrick Fitzgerald has documented it.

What is Scott McClellan smoking?

David Gregory

November 22, 2007 - 02:31 ET by DaMama

Gregory has always been liberally biased in all his news reporting. I really do like Brian Williams best of the 3 network newscasters. I won't watch Katie Couric, and Charles Gibson is OK. But NBC is getting harder to watch with fools like Gregory broadcasting personal opinions rather than truth. I hardly watch the news anymore.

}}---> Justin makes the Drudgereport

November 22, 2007 - 22:53 ET by Cool Arrow

Congratulations Justin on making the Drudgereport.