Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 5/20/2010
EmailJAKE TAPPER: Can you shed some light on the announcement — not the announcement — the direction from the EPA to BP yesterday?
ROBERT GIBBS: Well, look, we — I think first and foremost, we are — we are seeing — as a result of the scope and the size of the spill in the Gulf, we have seen a large quantity of dispersants used primarily on the surface, some underneath the sea. Monitoring and testing has continued to take place during that. But as we move forward, the EPA believed best to use the least toxic dispersant again as we — as we are into — well into the fourth week of what has happened in the gulf. Even as we continue to monitor air and water quality, we have asked and are asking BP to be transparent about the measurements that it is taking, as it relates to air and water quality. And we'll be asking them to more publicly provide, as I talked about last week, the video that they may have of the structure on the floor of the sea. This is — again, even as EPA continues to monitor the area.
TAPPER: But BP was telling the public that the dispersant they were using was essentially soap suds. My understanding is that the dispersant is actually not used in several Western countries because of toxicity. Should they have been using a different dispersant from the beginning?
GIBBS: Well, again, I think the dispersant that they're using is part of a broader list of approved dispersants. Our feeling and the EPA's feeling is, given the extent to which they are — we are having to continue to use them, that to use the least toxic of those makes the most sense.
TAPPER: And just to follow up on the election victory of Joe Sestak the other night, first of all, this makes four candidates that President Obama has endorsed — Deeds, Corzine, Coakley and Specter — that have lost. He's 0-for-four in terms of his campaigning for candidates. Is that a concern at all of this administration, or the president, the political operation?
GIBBS: No. No.
TAPPER: And Sestak — several months ago, I asked you, on February 23rd, if you could find out more about what Sestak said about the White House making him an offer to not run. And I know that in March you said whatever conversations have been had or not are problematic. But I'm wondering, since this has become an issue in Congressman Sestak's campaign and will likely be — continue to be an issue, if you could — if you want to put it to rest right now, what exactly was the conversation?
GIBBS: I don't have anything to add to what I said in March.
REPORTER: But you never — you never really explained what the conversation was.
GIBBS: And I don't have anything to add today.
TAPPER: But if the White House offers a congressman a position in the administration in order to convince that congressman to not run for office…
GIBBS: I don't have anything to add to that.
REPORTER: But you said a number of times that you would get something for us on that.
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Well, and — and I did. And I gave that answer in March. And I don't have anything to add to that.
TAPPER: But do you really think the American people don't have a right to know about what exactly the conversation was?
GIBBS: I don't have anything to add to what I said in March.
- Jake Tapper
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts 
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
The WH tried to get rid of Sestak so that Specter would have a clear path to victory. It’s the way Obama works, the way he gets what he wants, the easy way–offer bribes.
Sestak to his credit said No Thanks.
But now that Sestak is the winner I wonder if he’ll ever bring up the WH bribe again.
A potential felony just swept under the rug.
Posted by: greg c | May 20, 2010, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
Cmon Jake!
Gibbs isn’t going to talk about White House Bribes™.
All you did was make him look bad.
Posted by: Noz | May 20, 2010, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Thank you mr. Tapper for asking some good questions. You are one journalist that I follow because I believe you do your job. I can’t say that for much if our media.
Posted by: Suziq | May 20, 2010, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
This Administration is sooooo transparent, my eyes hurt from all the sunlight.
Posted by: Aaron | May 20, 2010, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
Gibbs cannot hide behind his non-responses — he is combative for a reason.
What else is left except to hold Gibbs’ feet to the fire?
If ABC continues to pursue the Sestak story, I think I will have to start watching TV again. Even on Sundays.
Posted by: Mike, CO | May 20, 2010, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm
Stonewall Bob Gibbs
Posted by: tjp612 | May 20, 2010, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
The WH tried to get rid of Sestak so that Specter would have a clear path to victory. It’s the way Obama works, the way
greg c | May 20, 2010 4:42:32 PM
The way politics has worked for over a hundred years. Nothing illegal, not even considered immoral by most. It’s sorta a key feature of political parties – they like to pick the candidate they will support. Ultimately, of course, the voters decide in November who actually gets the seat.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 20, 2010, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
Jake, if you continue to ask the tough questions, I just may start watching ABC news again! Thanks for posing this question. Please keep on asking questions!
Posted by: TXmom | May 20, 2010, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm
White House says Barry’s offer to Sestak ‘Shouldn’t Have a Place in Our Political Dialogue in 2010′
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 20, 2010, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm
The way politics has worked for over a hundred years. Nothing illegal, not even considered immoral by most. It’s sorta a key feature of political parties – they like to pick the candidate they will support. Ultimately, of course, the voters decide in November who actually gets the seat.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 20, 2010 7:12:38 PM
That might be true, but that also explains the reasoning behind most people’s dislike for the Obama administration. He promised change, a ‘new era’ in Washington, transparency, accountability, and so on. Yet, as can be seen in this article, it’s just more of the same. He was voted in for all the ‘newness’ he promised. A clean break from the status quo. Problem is, there is nothing new, there is no clean break.
I sincerely hope Tapper and others in that room will continue to stay on Gibbs when he gives his typical “I’ll get back to you” or “let me check on that”, etc. and follow up until he gives an ANSWER. The little smart ass frat boy routine is getting old.
Posted by: Shoe | May 20, 2010, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
Jake, I am so glad that you continue to ask tough questions. Too many in the media don’t. That is why I follow you. Thank you!
Posted by: Lynn | May 20, 2010, 8:47 pm 8:47 pm
The way politics has worked for over a hundred years. Nothing illegal, not even considered immoral by most….
Posted by: jhw539 |
In a letter to White House general counsel Robert Bauer Wednesday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that, if Sestak’s allegation is true, administration officials may have violated a federal statute which makes it a crime for a government employee to use his authority “for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for certain offices, including Senate seats.
“While the White House may think this is politics as usual, what is spectacularly unusual is when a candidate – a U.S. congressman no less – freely acknowledges such a proposal,” Issa wrote. “Almost always candidates keep quiet about such deals, and for good reason – they are against the law.”
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 20, 2010, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
“Nothing illegal, not even considered immoral by most….(liberals)”
Now, if Bush had done this, liberals would call this illegal and immoral..
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 20, 2010, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
In a letter to White House general counsel Robert Bauer Wednesday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that, if Sestak’s allegation is true,
Foghorn Leghorn | May 20, 2010 8:52:35 PM
Wow, a Republican Representative baselessly accusing the president of breaking the law? Shocking. Next they’ll be yelling at him when he has the floor for the State of the Union address or something.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 20, 2010, 9:14 pm 9:14 pm
That might be true, but that also explains the reasoning behind most people’s dislike for the Obama administration. He promised change, a ‘new era’ in Washington, transparency, accountability, and so on.
Shoe | May 20, 2010 8:41:14 PM
Oddly enough, the majority of people who ACTUALLY VOTED FOR OBAMA are satisfied with what he has achieved in less than 18 months. Not surprisingly, all the people who didn’t vote for him aren’t. His administration is far more transparent the prior administration; the improvement is undeniable and documented. That political parties are still trying to recruit and promote their favored candidates is not what the majority of people are upset about.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 20, 2010, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm
Wow, a Republican Representative baselessly accusing the president of breaking the law? Shocking.
Posted by: jhw539 |
That’s what we thought when one of Barry’s sycophants told us there was nothing illegal or immoral here.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 20, 2010, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm
Wow, a Republican Representative baselessly accusing the president of breaking the law? Shocking.
_______________________________________
The Republicans will scratch away at the tiniest little shred they find and pronounce it ‘illegal’ because they find SO LITTLE.
It’s the only tactic they’ve had from the start – smear. And fear mongering.
Posted by: tierra | May 20, 2010, 10:25 pm 10:25 pm
His administration is far more transparent the prior administration; the improvement is undeniable and documented.
Posted by: jhw539 |
Ironic you would pick this blog post to make that unverifiable assertion….
GIBBS: I don’t have anything to add to what I said in March.
GIBBS: And I don’t have anything to add today.
GIBBS: I don’t have anything to add to that.
GIBBS: Well, and — and I did. And I gave that answer in March. And I don’t have anything to add to that.
GIBBS: I don’t have anything to add to what I said in March.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 20, 2010, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
tierra wrote: “The Republicans will scratch away at the tiniest little shred they find and pronounce it ‘illegal’ because they find SO LITTLE.
It’s the only tactic they’ve had from the start – smear. And fear mongering.”
.
So, was Joe Sestak lying when he provided evidence of a crime by this job offer from the White House? Do you have an obvious LIAR as the DEMOCRAT candidate for senator or do you have a CRIMINAL white house. Which one is it? Its one or the other.
Posted by: gk | May 20, 2010, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm
So, was Joe Sestak lying when he provided evidence of a crime by this job offer from the White House? Do you have an obvious LIAR as the DEMOCRAT candidate for senator or do you have a CRIMINAL white house. Which one is it? Its one or the other.
Posted by: gk | May 20, 2010 11:32:29 PM
______________________________________
Just because you’re able to use the phrase ‘criminal act’ in a sentence is no proof a criminal act of any kind was committed. That’s just a phrase you chose.
Same as you’ve been badmouthing the President for EVERYTHING he’s ever done since he began running for the office.
We operate in this country under the rule of law, not what you happen to think might be right. Judge and jury decide criminal guilt, not you at your keyboard.
Seems to me it’s your judgment that is skewed . . . why should we care how you chose to distort things? You’ve shown your obvious bias over and over . .. regardless of what the President does.
Posted by: tierra | May 21, 2010, 5:01 am 5:01 am
tierra wrote:”Just because you’re able to use the phrase ‘criminal act’ in a sentence is no proof a criminal act of any kind was committed. That’s just a phrase you chose.”
.
But the seriousness of the charge demands at least an investigation, don’t you agree? You say there is no proof, but Joe Sestak disagrees. He was offered a bribe in return for dropping out of the race. Somebody is lying here.
.
“Same as you’ve been badmouthing the President for EVERYTHING he’s ever done since he began running for the office.”
.
I gave this fraud a year and he has shown himself to be everything he is NOT. He DID LISTEN to Rev. Wright for those 20 years that he sat in his pews. He did listen to Bill Ayers. I can’t think of anyone that oBama has hung out with in the past who is anyone that a true traditional AMERICAN would want to associate with.
.
“We operate in this country under the rule of law, not what you happen to think might be right. Judge and jury decide criminal guilt, not you at your keyboard.”
.
Some animals are more equal than others. We get the drift from you.
.
“Seems to me it’s your judgment that is skewed . . . why should we care how you chose to distort things? You’ve shown your obvious bias over and over . .. regardless of what the President does.”
.
Willful ignorance is difficult to maintain, but you do an excellent job at it. Someone is paying you well.
Posted by: gk | May 21, 2010, 7:36 am 7:36 am
Jake, I have a question for you. What has happened to the daily war casuality reports being headline news? It really hasn’t seemed as important an issue to report since Bush left office. I’m just wondering….
Posted by: TXmom | May 21, 2010, 7:49 am 7:49 am
“His administration is far more transparent the prior administration; the improvement is undeniable and documented.” – jhw539
Gibbs is so transparent that I can easily see his heart not beating in his chest.
Posted by: Noz | May 21, 2010, 9:06 am 9:06 am