在患者患者的权利中出发时的Potus备注2000年9月14日
[...]
Q主席先生，你能拿一个问题吗？主席先生，我想知道，如果你分享了联邦法官在新墨西哥昨天昨天表达的尴尬，关于在联邦当局的监禁年度在他的监禁期间待遇温浩·李？
主席：嗯，我一直有关于正在拒绝他保释的索赔的保留。让我说 - 我觉得我为白宫的每个人都说说话 - 我们在政府中的人民善意地对待他们的人，以及在他们提出这个男人不能做出的一些日子之后可能会在保释中放弃监狱，因为他将是一个危险的飞行，或者对美国的安全如此危险 - 突然间他们达成了恳求的协议，如果有的话，让他所谓的防守看起来谦虚与对他所做的索赔相比。
所以整个事情对我来说都很困扰，我认为协调两个职位很难，这是一天他对国家安全的风险很大，第二天正在为进攻进行辩护协议。谦虚而不是所谓的。
现在，我希望，作为该请求的一部分，他将帮助他们重建遗失的文件，因为这对我们的国家安全确切重要，最终会发现什么，如果有的话，如果有的话由他或其他人抓住他们的人。
但我认为应该对美国人民扰乱什么 - 我们不应该让人们在没有保释的情况下留在监狱里，除非有一些真正的深刻原因。为了让某人在没有保释的情况下留在监狱里，争辩于第11个小时，他们是一个可怕的风险，然后转身并制作这种请求协议 - 可能是恳求协议是正确的和刚刚的事情，我绝对毫无疑问，正在调查和追求这种情况的人认为他们正在为国家的安全做正确的事情 - 但我认为您并不是在回顾下证明一个人在没有当你准备做那种协议时，保释。它无法理解，我不相信它可以，所以我也是，我也很困扰。
q - 这里宽度吗？您是否在思考他的诡异方面，为温浩·李来说？
总统:嗯，我得看看。这取决于,事实上如果他——他曾表示,他将承认负有不可推卸的进攻,但它肯定是一个可保释的进攻,这意味着他在监狱里花了很多时间,任何普通美国不会困扰我。
[...]
白宫 q joe，告诉我关于 - 总统，只是谈论，关于温豪李。他是否已经向律师将这些感受注册或只是向部门律师？
新闻秘书办公室2000年9月14日
新闻发布会上
经过
乔·洛克哈特詹姆斯S. Brady简报室
下午1:35美东时间
先生。洛克哈特：我认为你可以通过他在那里说的是他所说的是，他的一部分令人困惑，所以我希望他能够从他们那里寻找更全面的解释，让他们看看他提出的这个特殊问题报告。
q但是，乔，他说他一直在困扰，从一开始就暗示。然而，他并没有表达对司法的保留 - 以为这将是不当或 -
洛克哈特:没有。我认为他说——我不会试图破译他的话,我认为他是非常清楚的,我认为没有人能否认,有问题,有一个理由控股人不得保释,似乎在数天内消失。我认为他表达的麻烦是在任何情况下，人们被关押而不能保释。这是我们司法系统的基本原则，我认为，就像他在那里说的，他对这个似乎很快就消失的事实感到不安。
q joe，只是为了跟进，如果他从一开始就陷入了困扰，而且他觉得这名男子们已经做了不公正，为什么他不迟早搬家？
先生。洛克哈特：我会看看他所说的 -
q他说，我总是有这个问题。
洛克哈特:乔希，就在几分钟前，他在那里和你谈话时说，我们对原因做了很多保证。他现在担心的是这些似乎在几天前的听证会和昨天宣布的认罪协议之间消失了。
问乔，他用了“他们”这个词，意思是他不属于联邦执法部门。他为什么要这么做?
洛克哈特:很明显，这个案子是由联邦检察官和那些被指控的人起诉的。总统没有被指控。
问：任何人都可以持有责任总统令人痛苦的行为吗？
先生。洛克哈特：我认为正如我在这里开始的那样，他会在这里寻找一些答案的答案。
Q嗯，我理解寻找答案，但我的问题是任何人都会负责吗？
先生。洛克哈特：嗯，我认为我们倾向于 - 在我们判断之前，这可能与你倾向于做的相反 - 在我们做出判断之前。在您有答案之前，您可能希望作出判断。
问:这些批评是针对包括珍妮特·雷诺在内的整个司法部，还是仅仅针对检察官?
先生。洛克哈特：不，我想我们会看看有关这一点的更多信息，但我不会将其视为对任何人的毯子批评。
[...]
Q乔，你说你认为总统关于温豪李的言论不应该被视为对任何人的毯子批评。总统仍然认为珍妮特里诺和比尔理查森做得很好，并留住了他的信心吗？
先生。锁定：是的。苏珊？
[,,,]
Q Joe，总统有时会出现在官方政治事件中，遇到亚裔美国人的亚洲美国活动家。他们是否与他一起提出了文豪案件？他是否对他们提出了任何陈述，类似于你刚刚给我们的东西 -
先生。洛克哈特：我不知道该主题的任何交流。
[...]
q joe，只是回到温浩李。如果我正确地了解你，你会说我们应该阅读总统的意见，以指在过去几周内发生的事情，如这种情况，如果您愿意。假设在一年以前，李先生在拘留期间，总统没有表达任何对司法的保留？
先生。洛克哈特：让我在这旁边接受另一个破解。总统对没有保释人的概念表示不安。但是，经过一系列保证，这是由于风险必须完成的一系列保证，他认为在保释听证会上制作该论点的时间，然后只是几天允许他允许他的协议免费提出一些令人不安的问题。在我看来，这太直截了当。
问:当你说总统表达了一种不安时，你的意思是他是在这里的玫瑰园做的，还是他以前做过，如果是，在哪里或什么时候做的?
洛克哈特:没有。I think what he expressed here is that he has -- as a student of the law, that all Americans should have -- we should have a high threshold for the concept of holding someone without bail. But in this case, there were explicit assurances and reasons given, in this case.
令人痛苦的是，那些似乎觉得的速度是多么幸福。这就是他所做的一点。它仅限于对此非常窄的作品，我认为它并不能消除绅士恳求有罪的罪行和对此的重要工作。但是这个问题有一个令人不安的方面，他阐述了它的内容。
Q与您的知识有关，在今天之前表达了这种不安吗？而且，如果是这样，何时何地？
先生。洛克哈特：不给我。
总统是否认为他被欺骗或误导了，或者可能只是没有完全了解——
洛克哈特:没有。I think he said that the sequence of events raised some troubling questions. I think he certainly hopes that some answers are provided to ease that concern.
问总统认为李值得道歉吗？
先生。洛克哈特：我没有问他这个问题，我不知道答案。
[...]
问:乔，总统是否认为亚裔美国人会对李博士的起诉表示担忧?在这个案件中，种族的作用是否存在一些问题
先生。洛克哈特：我实际上从未讨论过这个特定的情况。但我认为总统在1997年的后果和一些竞选金融调查中发表了清楚，有些竞选财务调查，在这个国家的亚洲美国人在这个国家的亚洲美国人被挑选出来。但在这种特殊情况下，他从来没有对我表示。
[...]
结束2:00美东时间
FW：2000-9 / 15 Potus和PM Vajpayee在照片OP中
2000年9月15日
[...]
问总统先生，如果你总是怀疑温浩·李是否应该在监狱里，你为什么不与我们分享那些人，直到昨天？你对亚裔美国人说什么，担心他的种族可能在他被拘留的事实中发挥了一些作用？
主席（以英语发言）首先，我不相信。我不认为有任何证据。让我们来看看这里的事实。
他已经承认了一个非常严重的国家安全违规行为。而现在最重要的是，他致力于政府努力弄清楚这些胶布发生的事情，在录像带上是什么，重组所有信息。这非常重要。
在美国，我们有一个非常高的标准，我们应该根据我们的宪法反对预审预防。你必须遇到一个非常高的酒吧。我没有理由相信那个酒吧尚未见过面。我认为，在如此短的时间框架中，有一个论据，他需要在没有保释的情况下留在监狱，然后突然存在辩护协议，这是一个辩诉协议，这与所做的索赔不一致，我想 - 这是提出一个不仅仅是中国美国人的问题，而且对所有美国人来说，无论我们是否要小心，因为我们应该是关于预审预防拘留。
在像我们这样的政府里，这基本上是出于对滥用行政权力的担忧，我们有时会犯错误，但我们通常会犯另一种错误，我们在向后弯腰。这就是我的问题。我们的工作人员已经和司法部谈过了。我肯定会有机会和司法部长谈谈的。如果我插手的话，那就太不合适了。我不认为她干预了。这是以适当的、正常的方式处理的。
但我希望你明白，这里有严重的违规行为。他承认了这一点。我们必须到达所有磁带的底部。但是，我想在这里说明的狭隘事情是，当我们在监狱中抱着无法获得保释的人或长时间被判处并被定罪并被判刑时，我们需要击中一个非常高的门槛。这是我想要专注的具体事情。我认为，根据普雷亚议题，是否应该分析是否越过该阈值。
但美国人民不应该对此感到困惑。这是一次非常严重的违法行为，我们必须试图重新记录磁带上的内容。这是我们现在要为国家安全做的第一件事。
[结尾]
新闻秘书白宫办公室________________________________________________________________________即时发布2000年9月15日新闻发布会BY洛克哈特詹姆斯S.布雷迪简报室下午1:00EDT [...]问乔，不适合入主白宫的问题与对李文和案司法部长的训斥，司法部，联邦调查人员的表征总统讲话的昨天？先生。LOCKHART：我觉得我说的是昨天没有任何特定的人的斥责。我认为总统今天明确表示，这不是做 - 他作为向总检察长指示并不认为他的话。总统认为，在她的强烈，作业她做了和她的能力。有很多问题，不过，他说，应该回答的，我们希望他们能。[...]问乔，对李文，什么样的跟进检讨的是白宫考虑？先生。LOCKHART：嗯，有白宫职员和司法部之间的一些讨论昨天。 I think as the President -- get it today, he will take an opportunity at some point to talk to the Attorney General. I don't know what form it will take, but I think we're looking for some sort of process that can look at the narrow question that the President posed about holding someone pretrial, you know, without the possibility of bail. I think he put into perspective today many of the important issues about what is crucial here is finding out what happened to the tapes, looking at a very serious national security violation by the gentleman in question. But there are questions about the legal issues surrounding the pretrial bail, and the timing of the bail hearing versus the arguments made in the bail hearing and the arguments made subsequently in the plea bargain. That needs some examination. I think he was fairly clear on that. Q Is he considering, though, appointing some sort of outside person? MR. LOCKHART: The conversations haven't gone that far. I know that there was some very helpful advice provided on editorial pages about how we should do this -- the very same pages that provided exactly the opposite advice some months ago. But I think we'll ignore the editorials and rely on our own counsel. Q Joe, do you think -- the President said he doesn't think racial bias was a factor here. Do you think that just an atmosphere of hysteria may have been a factor in -- MR. LOCKHART: I'll tell you, we take these kinds of issues very seriously. And I think when there are troubling questions, we think there should be answers. And I think the President was very clear on what the American people deserve. And it's certainly our hope, although it is not a hope that we genuinely believe anything will be done about, that others will take some time and do some examination. I think there was a climate of -- a very difficult climate that was generated in this town when this story came out, a climate generated by some very explosive and near-hysterical investigative reporting, a climate that was fueled by explosive comments from political leaders, including members of Congress. And I hope everybody takes a moment, looks at how they handled this situation, and looks to see if in the future they can do better -- just as I think the executive branch will do. Q Joe, do you believe that the media reporting and the explosive atmosphere that you've described affected the prosector's decisions on which charges to bring and how this case was -- MR. LOCKHART: That would be a question you would have to put to the prosecutors, and they will stand up, I'm certain, and answer their questions. It's certainly my hope that those who wrote the stories will also be willing to stand up and talk about their motivations and whether there is anything they can learn in the aftermath of their reporting. Q What about the question of an apology? The judge raised the fact that he could not apologize for the executive branch, but he could apologize for what he thought had happened in his courtroom. Is there any thought being given to contacting Mr. Lee and making any kind of formal apology? MR. LOCKHART: I think given the limited and the proper role, and hands-off role that was played here by the White House, there is no discussion of that. I think the President's obligation, as he addressed directly yesterday and then again this morning, was when questions are raised, when they are legitimate questions, when people are troubled by things -- and he, indeed, is troubled, himself, by some of these questions -- we should look at it. We should look at it and see what it is we can learn from this experience and see if anything needs to be done to improve in the future. Q So who should apologize in this case here? Is Mr. Lee due an apology? MR. LOCKHART: I'm in no position to make a judgment on that. Q Joe, can you clarify something I think you said this morning? The President, when he had the opportunity, I guess, to talk about this earlier but chose not to talk about it until yesterday, you suggested that the press would have jumped on him if he had made a statement earlier -- MR. LOCKHART: No. I think, quite rightly, the President -- again, we're looking at a very narrow band of issues here in this case, and we shouldn't loose sight of that. But there were -- he had an understanding of the reasons for holding this gentleman without bail, and within the last week or so -- and I think, as he said this morning, it is a very high standard in this country, as it should be. I think he said that we often lean in the other direction on this, for good reason. The questions are generated, the specific questions are generated from the fact that between a bail hearing on one day and three or four days later, those reasons seem to have dissipated in a plea agreement, as far as the risk of -- posed by allowing the gentleman before a trial out of prison. So I think he has a general, as I think most Americans do, high standard, and always a sense of unease when someone is being held without the possibility for bail. And in this question -- the questions are generated and derived from, just in the last week, you know, the difference between where they were from the bail hearing and where they were in the trial, or the plea agreement. Q But it wasn't a fear of an adverse press reaction that kept him from speaking out earlier? MR. LOCKHART: No, I think the -- I think what I was referring to yesterday, and I think he touched on a little bit this morning is, that there were certainly -- and the little that he knew about this -- there was a case made for why they had to go in this direction. And I think that you would all understand, and would have, I think, had a field day reporting, if somehow he tried to intervene in this case, as somehow being politically motivated. Q Could the President -- does the President think he could have done anything to sort of calm the hysteria you described earlier? MR. LOCKHART: Well, let me tell you something, because I happened to be around here during that period, and I think most of you who talked to me on a variety of bases, heard a pretty clear and consistent message, which is -- and particularly with some news organizations -- that we believe that you were out ahead of yourself. There were a lot of people jumping to a lot of conclusions, and we ought to sit back and make suer that we know all the facts. So I don't think that in this particular case that, at least from this particular podium in this particular building, we'll take the blame for creating whatever sort of environment we were in, in this case. And I would suggest that those of you who didn't talk to me during that period talk to your colleagues who did. [...] END 1:25 P.M. EDT