We're not on a fishing expedition. fishing expedition, fishing expedition

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Earlier this month, Scottie promised he'd have a "thorough report" on the matter very soon -- a vow the beleaguered press secretary seems to have forgotten. Unfortunately for him, the press hasn't, and last week began hammering him on the subject. See if you can spot the recurring leitmotif in Scottie's responses:

Q Scott, just quickly back to Abramoff. Can you give any more specificity on those meetings, when they were, years, times?
McCLELLAN: No, this is sticking with our past policy. We're not going to engage in a fishing expedition. *** Q Okay, you talked about the Hanukkah receptions. Can you talk about the staff-level meetings and what years those were, or --

McCLELLAN: No --

Q And why would you tell us the Hanukkah --

McCLELLAN: I did a check for you all, to provide you that information. But we're not going to engage in a fishing expedition...

It was more of the same the following day:
Q And going back to the Abramoff investigation, do you have an update for us on any records of phone calls or emails between staff members and Mr. Abramoff, or photos of the President with him?
McCLELLAN: No, as I indicated yesterday, we're not going to engage in some sort of fishing expedition...

And again yesterday:
Q On the Abramoff pictures. You had said last week that if we had something specific, that you would then explain further about the connections between the President and the White House and Mr. Abramoff. Can you talk about the specific circumstances surrounding these pictures, and exactly the range of contacts that Mr. Abramoff had?
McCLELLAN: ...Now in terms of the reports about some of these pictures, as we have previously indicated, the President did not have a personal relationship with Mr. Abramoff. But we also indicated that it should not be surprising that he might have taken some pictures with him at some of the widely attended events that we know both attended. What I indicated previously was, if you've got some specific issue that you need to bring to my attention, fine. But what we're not going to do is engage in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation.

And today:
Q But if there was nothing improper about contacts with him, why not open up records about any visits or meetings Mr. Abramoff might have had?
McCLELLAN: Well, I've already talked to you about that information and responded to questions that you have. There's a difference between responding to questions like that and engaging in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation.

Alright, Scottie -- we get it. You don't want to go fishing. At least not for explanations. Or maybe your perseverations actually belie an overwhelming unconscious desire to toss the "Bush doesn't know Abramoff" fish story back and head off for a little R&R on a slow boat to nowhere. That's one way out. Or maybe Scottie can score some of the drugs his brother's program is currently keeping out of the hands of the elderly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/scottie-watch-gone-mcfis_b_14387.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Sometimes when you go on a fishing expedition you catch a fish

nt

[Jacobin]

2. Odd that this is couched in legalese

Lawyers often object to responding to discovery in a lawsuit by accusing the opposition of going on a 'fishing expedition' which is supposed to mean that there is too much information being asked for that has nothing to do with the case.

If they don't have anything to hide, why won't they show pictures of the president of the united states?

Was he in a compromising position?

We can only assume that these pictures are embarassing for DingBat, or could lead one to suspect they had a close relationship which proves DingBat was lying...again