KING: It is, to say the least, turning into a politically explosive summer here in Washington, with President Bush's deputy chief of staff and long-time friend and political adviser Karl Rove at the center of the drama.
Republicans are fiercely defending Rove against suggestions he leaked the identity of a CIA operative to journalists about two years ago.
Joining us now to talk about that and more is the chairman of the Republican National Committee and a close Rove friend, Ken Mehlman.
Welcome to "LATE EDITION."
KEN MEHLMAN, RNC CHAIRMAN: How are you?
KING: I'm doing fine. How are you?
MEHLMAN: Thanks for having me on.
KING: I want to begin first by, let's set the parameters of our discussion, first by listening to the president of the United States. This is back in September 2003, just as this investigation was getting under way. Let's listen to the president.
MEHLMAN: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it and will take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: That's the president from September 2003.
Now I want you, Ken Mehlman and our viewers, to listen to Matt Cooper, one of the reporters, of course, at the center of this investigation, Matt Cooper of Time magazine earlier today on CNN's "Reliable Sources."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW COOPER, TIME: Before that conversation, I had never heard about anything about Joe Wilson's wife. After that conversation, I knew that she worked at the CIA and worked on WMD issues.
But as I made clear to the grand jury, I'm certain Rove never used her exact name and certainly never indicated she had a covert status.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Matt Cooper says Karl Rove never used her exact name, but the first he learned that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA was from a conversation with Karl Rove.
You say Karl Rove has been vindicated by everything out in the last few days. How does that vindicate Karl Rove? MEHLMAN: Well, I think it starts with what you opened with: The president of the United States said we need an investigation, we need to see, was someone responsible for leaking classified information?
Pat Fitzgerald, a career prosecutor, is looking into it. The process is going forward. Karl Rove is cooperating fully and truthfully with the process.
And this past week, two things came out, both of which vindicate Karl and say he was not the source of a leak of classified information.
First, Bob Novak's story, according to Friday's newspaper, suggests that he had another source of the information, that Karl Rove found out, actually, from Bob Novak.
And secondly what Matt Cooper said was, Karl Rove told him, correctly, to watch out for some of what Joe Wilson was saying, and he told him that because much of what Joe Wilson has said has turned out to be misleading and false, but did not reveal her name or her undercover identity.
So, I think what we've seen this past week, unfortunately, has been a partisan smear campaign. And it's unprecedented. Look, politics gets tough in this town, particularly in the summer sometimes, but to have someone who is cooperating fully and truthfully with an investigation smeared by the Democrat leader in the Senate, by John Kerry, a candidate for president of the United States, a former first lady, to say this guy should lose his job and lose his security clearance is outrageous, and it's unprecedented.
KING: There is the political debate, but there also is the record. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, coming into the briefing room on several occasions, not just saying nobody broke the law, but saying he specifically went to Karl Rove and he had nothing to do with this, nothing to do with this. Did the White House not have a responsibility, once it realized that Karl Rove had some involvement in this, perhaps nothing illegal -- we don't know that, and we should be very clear we do not know that, and, as you suggest, the record so far indicates nothing illegal. But the White House press secretary went before the American people and said, nothing to do with this.
When he learned that that was -- that some might say that's not true, did he not have a responsibility to fill out the record?
MEHLMAN: The most important thing the White House has a responsibility to do, in my opinion, is to cooperate fully and truthfully with this investigation and say and do nothing that could impede it.
That's what's so important about what Karl Rove is doing and what Scott McClellan is doing. Scott is a friend of mine. He's a smart guy, and he's an honest guy. He'd love to be out here, talking and explaining himself. But unlike some administrations, this White House is totally focused on cooperating truthfully, and it doesn't want to comment, because it worries it could undermine or in some way hinder the investigation.
KING: Well, it did comment, Ken Mehlman, a number of times, up until this point, when it decided that perhaps it was in its interests or perhaps it got another admonition from the prosecutor. But the president himself and Scott McClellan on a number of occasions have commented.
I want you to listen to this from Scott McClellan. This is October 7, 2003. Scott McClellan had said a number of things about Joe Wilson's story, because the White House says some of his story is simply not true. I want you to listen to what Scott McClellan says about setting the record straight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCLELLAN: Now, that is perfectly acceptable, when you're talking about setting the record straight. It's perfectly acceptable, when someone makes statements that aren't based on the facts, to correct that information. And this White House will vigorously work to set the record straight when facts -- when information is presented that is not based on the facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Ken Mehlman, why, then, if the White House worked so vigorously to set the record straight on what it believed were inaccuracies presented by Joe Wilson, why did it not work so vigorously to set the record straight when they found out -- everyone at the White House had to turn in their e-mails that had anything to do with this investigation.
It turns out Karl Rove wrote an e-mail to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, saying he had a conversation with Matt Cooper in which this subject came up.
Why didn't the White House come forward, Scott McClellan come forward and say, "I told you once he had nothing to do with this, nothing. Now I have learned he did have a conversation with a reporter. We believe that was completely appropriate, but I wanted to set the record straight vigorously"?
MEHLMAN: I think you're prejudging what may or may not have been seen by people within the White House.
Look, here's what we know. There are two different issues.
One is the issue of the things Joe Wilson said. Joe Wilson misled the American public about who sent him to Niger. He misled the American public about what he found when he was there.
He misled the American public about which documents he did or did not look at. He misled the American public about who at the White House or in the administration may or may not have seen his documents.
When asked to explain himself, he said he sometimes used literary flair. He then appeared in a big spread in Vanity Fair magazine. And talking about this, he said, "I'm wondering who's going to play me in a TV movie."
This is not somebody who's got a good record of being a source of accurate information.
KING: I think it is, to use the term...
MEHLMAN: But separate and apart from that, separate and apart from that, is the question of how should the White House respond when it's being investigated.
And I think it's actually quite admirable and not in its immediate interest, and certainly not in its political interest, that this White House, rather than defend itself, says, "We're not going to comment so this investigation can go forward, and so that nobody can say..."
KING: But that is a selective decision, Ken Mehlman, the timing of the White House deciding it won't comment anymore.
MEHLMAN: Certainly right now it would be in the White House's interest to comment.
KING: To use a term overused in this investigation, it is perhaps fair game for you to say everything you're saying about Joe Wilson, to question his story. You have that right; you certainly do.
My point is you have a man who works for a president who promised to restore honesty and integrity to Washington, who promised to have a higher standard than the administration he succeeded, who came into the briefing room and said Karl Rove has absolutely nothing to do with this.
He then does not have an obligation to come back into the room and say, "Look, we are still confident. No laws were broken. Everything we did was appropriate. We had every right to rebut what we believe to be inaccurate information. But I wanted to be clear with you, because I said 'absolutely nothing,' Karl Rove did have a role."
MEHLMAN: The ultimate definition of that higher standard we're talking about is the fact that Scott McClellan is not out there defending himself. Again, this is an honest man, he's a good man, he's a smart man. He'd love to be out defending himself.
KING: But he has...
MEHLMAN: Listen, the president appoints the attorney general who is responsible for overseeing a special prosecutor. And the fact they're not commenting is only because they believe it could impede the investigation or create an appearance of impropriety. What you are mentioning, the fact that Scott doesn't defend himself, the fact that they allow the other side to be out there with these smears and not respond to these smears, is exactly what we're talking about when we say the higher standard.
And the fact we're seeing this on the other side, this kind of a smearing campaign, the fact they're trying to pre-judge, makes you first question if they don't have confidence in this process and in Mr. Fitzgerald. And second of all, what it shows, I think, is they're trying to have short-term political gain and smear a good man. And it's wrong, and they should apologize for it.
KING: I want to note for the record, since you are voicing so much confidence in the special prosecutor, that the White House initially resisted a special prosecutor and thought the Justice Department under General Ashcroft should handle this investigation.
But let me -- we talk about loyalty. And you call Scott McClellan a good man. I agree with you. A little dangerous for me. I'm supposed to be objective here.
(LAUGHTER)
He is a good guy. He has one of the toughest jobs in Washington. I've been in that briefing room during questions like this in this administration, questions like this in the Clinton administration.
He has, if you watch, fairly or unfairly, suffered some damage in that room. His credibility is at question with the people who cover the president every day because of this.
So you're essentially saying that it is a fair price, Scott McClellan, a man who has been loyal to this president back to his days as governor of Texas, his credibility is a fair price to defend Karl Rove?
MEHLMAN: What I'm saying is that Scott McClellan and Karl Rove and George W. Bush are less worried about personal credibility than they are about a process. They want to get to the bottom of this. They want to make sure that justice gets done.
And the way justice gets done is not to have the White House and president making comments from the podium about an investigation of the White House.
And so I think what he is doing is, frankly, very admirable, and I think the fact that he's willing to put himself second and put the process first is exactly what we talk about when we say somebody who's coming to Washington to serve rather than worry about themselves.
KING: I want to move on to another issue, but I want to button it up with this then. Let me accept for the sake of this conversation that you need to wait because of the sensitivity of all this. Do you think that Karl Rove needs to sit down with reporters and have a free- for-all and answer all these questions once it's over, once the special prosecutor says, "I'm done, going home"? MEHLMAN: Look, I'm an attorney, and the way I've approached this is that it's always wrong to prejudge how an investigation's going to come out. And it's always wrong for us to say this one ought to do this or that one ought to do that when the investigation (inaudible).
Let's let the process move forward. Let's see what happens. Let's see what comes out. And let's please allow the other side, including the leader of the Democrats in the United States Senate, including the former Democrat nominee for president last time, including the former first lady of the United States, to not be out there smearing and trashing people and showing a lack of confidence in an investigation. That is outrageous. It is wrong.
There was a terrible overreach this week. And it's time that people put partisanship second and follow the example the White House is showing, which is full cooperation and allowing Mr. Fitzgerald to do his job
What is amazing to me is the continuing attempts to "victimize Karl Rove." Few people, even some of the hard core political bloggers from the Right, will go so far as to call Rove decent. As for the message... It has become some convuluted that I am not even sure they know what defense to mount at this point. The BS about Plame not being a covert operative? If she wasnt, why did the CIA demand an investigation. Not using her name? That is probably the most dissengenous argument of all.
My view? This weeks Spin attempts have been a miserable failure...
