It's getting deep at the White House. Tony Snow, during today's daily briefing just said that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about the US attorney firings.
And that the White House has made a "generous offer" of having WH staffers and DoJ folks have a discussion or an interview with Congress without being under oath and without having a transcript. Because, as everyone knows, the folks at the White House are oh so trustworthy.
The briefing is still ongoing. Snow is whirling the spin out like a dervish. And it is getting awfully deep. Use this thread to document the rest of the briefing atrocities.
(And H/T to Nola Sue for this Tony Snow gem — karma really is a bitch, and she apparently subscribes to Lexis/Nexis. Well, actually Glenn appears to have the Lexis/Nexis [H/T woid].)
UPDATE: More from today's Snow Job briefing.
Q. Did Karl Rove have an e-mail through the RNC?
A. Oh, yeah. Next question.
Is it me or do there need to be a whole helluva lot more questions asked about this, including how many of these does Rove have? Has he turned over e-mails from there to Congress as well? And why in the hell are my taxes paying his salary if he's working for the RNC?
UPDATE #2: The word you are looking for to describe Snow's performance today: unctuous.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Woohoo!
Fitz!
And he is having his own words thrown back at him.
Oh, and he nearly puked when someone brought up his attacking executive privilege in 1998 — when a DEMOCRAT was in the White House.
madness! madness! madness!
give truth back! – under oath, in a public hearing and with a transcript.
thank you.
Perfect picture, Christy
Snow mentions left wing blogs ;-)
Snow is going to end this press conference soon – he is getting his ass handed to him about 5 seconds…
He just made a crack about the “left wing blogs”
According to Atrios, the reporter quoting Snow’s own editorial from the Clinton years is of course FRENCH!
reporter makes a funny:
“extraordinarily generous offer”, or E.G.O.
The press corps smells the desperation.
SNOW’s gonna melt!
Fun picture, did somebody pose for this?
Man, it’s early here but he’s making me need a belt or two. Fuck, this guy is an ASSHOLE.
Victoria asks, “does Karl Rove have a private email account at the RNC”…
no answer
Does Karl Rove have a private e-mail at the RNC???
Snow – Uhhhhhh…I’ll find out..
SNAP!! – He just had to admit that Turd-Blossom used a private, RNC email address
Didn’t people used to get impeached for snow jobs?
Guitar_Playing_Bastard @ 14
Maddening isnt he?
Remember, the Administrations offer is “reasonable” and “non-partisan” as well as being “generous”! And the number of documents released is unprecendented!
How dare we pick on such a faithful public servant for such proper actions? We must be mean or something!
/snark
I just wanted to post this quote from Bush-league’s press conference yesterday:
So, what about those missing 18 days? And what is it about the number 18 and corrupt Republicans, anyway?
ooh Victoria asks if Rover has a private email address at the RNC…
I missed his answer, though.
He just threw DOJ under the bus.
“Tony Snow, during today’s daily briefing just said that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about the US attorney firings.”
Isn’t that special….
Now say that again Mr Snow and President under oath and in public…..
someone’s been reading Josh Marshall! reporter asks “how come there isn’t any discussion about what poor performers the fired are?”
If it’s turning our stomachs, it’s also not persuading the rest of the country, including a chunk of his base. I get the feeling that most Americans have a better grasp of our basic sense of justice, what’s fair, and what’s fishy, than BushCo does.
The bubble has a downside.
Those left wing blogs need to be mocked especially since they’re doing the media’s job. Bad, bad blogs. Why don’t you like wienies and koolaid like the rest of these folks?
MSNBC seems unaware that the subpoenas are already on their way.
I sure hope the Dems don’t fold on this. There is something really rotten in the state of – uh – Denmark that they are dancing so hard to keep control of this.
The press are actually asking some good question.
Ed Henry (who knew!) asked why there is no smoking gun on the performance related issues.
I’m reminded of the line from “Apocalypse Now,” where Willard in the VO says “Man, the bullshit piled up so fast in ‘Nam, you needed wings to stay above it.”
That’s the description of Tony Snow, in a nutshell.
OldCoastie and LS, I thought he mumbled yes
Wil @ 30
it’s possible – I didn’t hear an answer, just on to the next question.
What was that about something going on in Pakistan?
I asked this at balkinization, but maybe this is a better place: if the president wasn’t asked or informed of the process, how can he exert executive privilege? Does this extend to advice he was never given?
Also, I don’t see how the date/time that POTUS was informed of the decision could be privileged, since we all know the content.
Leahy up on MSNBC…
Leahy on msnbc
In response to the question about the missing 18 days of e-mails, Tony replied “Ask the DOJ”
Well, let me be the first to think it out loud:
“There is a cancer on the Presidency.”
LS @ 27
That’s because they aren’t. The committee voted to “authorize” subpoenas. That does not mean they go in the mail with the afternoon post. It is now the committee chairman’s discretion to actually ISSUE those subpoenas. Right now, he simply has that option in his back pocket as negotiating leverage with the White House. If negotiations collapse, then they will be issued, but not likely before.
So far all the information that Snow is referring to consists of:
Testimony of an idiot and a liar Alberto Gonzales
Lies from liars not under oath
Emails missing 18 crucial days and no internal White House communications
Looks pretty complete to me, especially if I were running a coverup and wanted to stonewall like crazy.
Arca @ 36
so, I think someone should go ask the DOJ! let’s see what that holds…
Question for Republicans:
Is Obstruction of Justice a Crime?
Question for Republican Members of Congress:
Is Obstruction of Justice by the DoJ a Crime?
Question for Republican Senators:
Does White House orchestration of DoJ Obstruction of Justice constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
I know that none of this is as bad as a hummer in the Oval Office, but when 20 GOoPer Senators answer “yes” to the last question, it’s game over.
Here Fini:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01948.html
18 minutes
18 days
In Hebrew, the number 18 spells the word “chai” (”life”) and many people wear the two letter as jewelry.
Maybe we should all wear “chai” symbols…….
What’s the link to the live conference?
Thanks, sorry if I missed it.
LS @ 22
You know, it must be darn crowded under that bus by now, what with Colin Powell and Libby and assorted USAs and all.
Thanks for the live blogging. I can’t stand to watch people lie, so I cannot look at it for myself. I just saw the Bob Barr interview on CNN (via Think Progress) I thought he was making sense until he said that he would tell Junior that Daddy didn’t politicize Justice when he had the chance. Great. That means Junior will do the opposite of Daddy, no matter what.
Fini FiniTOOBZ! @
19
Uhh…I don’t think that covers it. More like worthless piece of sub-human filth.
But that’s just my opinion.
TomJ @ 33
Good point.
Another thing that’s been bugging me, OK, he didn’t know about the resigations, but didn’t he wonder why he was getting recommondations for new USA’s? Did he just think that they were new posiions>
Damn, he just got asked this question
On MSNBC, Leahy is not buying the “generous” White House offer.
angie @ 42
TYVM Angie, I’ve been behind the times for a few days.
Question: What do Tony Snow, George Bush, and Billy Packer have in common?
Answer: All are sufficient reasons for the invention of the Mute button.
Snippits:
Leahy: Why are they so desperate not to have people under oath, etc.,
Nora: Your’re going to get the truth from Karl Rove.
Leahy: Oh really, oh really…
Leahy: It’s not just Democrats asking the questions.
Leahy: Stuff on important pages has been erased..
TomJ @ 33
But they serve at the President’s pleasure.
Who said it?:
“Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.”
Guitar_Playing_Bastard @ 14
Whenever I see this ass, I’m always reminded of this scene from “Clerks”
(warning: adult humor!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BeB0cDr3R0
Just call him “snowball” from now on. It makes watching at least tolerable…at least for me…
how much you wanna bet that Snow goes back up to the WH and says, “we’re screwed!”
man! did he ever get roasted!
Tony Snow will argue that he didn’t say Yeah to the query about Rove’s email account at RNC and he’ll point to a transcript (over which he exercises redactive powers) to prove his point.
See why the Dems want a transcript, Tony? PS They won’t be able to edit it either.
Goodness, GPB, you seem more upset than usual today.
OldCoastie @ 57
The best briefing I’ve ever seen. He got PUNKED
Blogs blogs blogs
shining lights
where none have been
we can’t be spun
and when we’re done they
know the’re f@@ked
and a duck is still a duck
Hugh @ 26
Give them a break on this one, Hugh.
As this article from the neo-nut paper NY Sun says, this would have been impossible for the MSM. That’s why these document dumps happen, so they can say them been forthcoming and transparent when they haven’t been.
barbara @ 45
and when you consider the wheels are coming off the bus…
linda sanchez on cspan 3 Yippie
Right now, Bush is thinking this is a perfect moment to launch an attack on Iran, to distract everyone and get the base behind him again. Somewhere in the planning councils of the Pentagon, they are reviewing the attack scenario this very moment.
Does anyone tape Snow’s press conferences?
Don’t pressure him tooooo much – he’s liable to start forgetting things later :)
Interesting point from Leahy — if the interview is open you will see questions not just from Democrats but also Republicans. Implies that’s not the case when it’s closed, doesn’t it?
Boy, that press conference just zipped by, didn’t it?
;>)
TomJ @ 33
But this is a lie on its face, anyway. The president HAS to be consulted in USA firings. He is the ONLY person authorized to do it. Not the Attorney General. The AG may have delivered the message, but the decision-making authority to fire USA rests SOLELY with the President, though the AG can fire Deputy USAs and lower officers. Bush can’t get out of this one: Either his AG fired the USAs on his own authority (which makes them illegal, since it is authority he does not have) or the President consented to it. Thus, the WH simply HAS to be involved here in this decision. There is no getting around it, unless they want to argue that they have a rogue AG.
From the same article:
This is a good point. Reporters are like the blind men and the elephant. Commenters are like ants on carcass, cooperating to pick it clean.
I knew Fabiani slightly in high school. Debated for Redlands High School.
MSNBC – Nora: Animal activists want to kill a cute baby cub. WTF?
OldCoastie @ 40
Snow has numerous dodges:
Farm out to somebody else that will never get back to you
Answer a question with a question
Mischaracterize the question being asked
Attack the questioner
Say that someone who has a dismetrically opposed opinion actually agrees with the White House and Bush
Claim that something that is in contention is fact
This is my list. Froomkin had his own out a few weeks ago.
TomJ @ 33
wow. great question… i’m hoping that christy or lhp will be willing to tell us all about executive priviledge – including your question.
mc @ 37
Actually it is full system Metastatic Disease Process which requires a wide radical resection called Impeachment at all levels.
Official house statement, short and sweet. I think I’m falling in love with Linda Sanchez, and I don’t even like girls.
http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=789
They are replaying the committee meeting authorizing the use of subpoenas on C-span3 at this time – about 2 minutes is…
Gnome de Plume @
59
Surely you jest.
ATTAAAAAAACCCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and FOX is talking about Anna Nicole….
LS @ 72
KO mentioned this last night. Bright shiny stupid object – Some Brit doesn’t want orphan Polar Bear cub saved because it can never then be returned to the wild.
Hey, who snapped my photo when I wasn’t looking?
dreamcatcher @ 65
Please, Mme Speaker and Senator Reid, catch this brat when he tries to kick the cat to make a distraction… I want to hear, “And no you don’t young man.”
Arca @ 77
Anna Nicole…Anna Nicole, where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, didn’t her son die? Or something…
Re Christy’s question about the RNC email addresses–go read Shakespeare’s Sister today–good piece up about how W, Rice, Gonzales, Rummy, et al, have all said they “don’t use e-mail.” I think it adds another puzzle piece to this mess.
LS @ 72
It’s version 2.0 of dead/missing blonds.
To make this official….. this scandal needs a name….. a name that it used in the press over and over again….
It needs to be short, sharp, memorable and repeatable.
The repugs named everything they went after Clinton…. What is the name of this one???
Shorter Tony Snow: “I’m melting, melting, melting. Oh, what a world, what a world.”
@ 79..a German
darkblack @68 – another fine pic ;-)
mc @ 37
This presidency IS a cancer.
Jeremius @ 70
I think they weren’t expecting any pushback, that they would just slide by as ‘resignations’ and the subject wouldn’t come up. Although the resignation letter is addressed to the President. I doubt that anyone expects him to read every piece of mail addressed to The President though.
Waccamaw @ 84
In this case a platinum blonde.
Arca @
78
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…LOOK – SHINY! FIRE IN MIAMI! ON THE GRASS! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
OT From This Old Brit rickwrites at blogspot dot com: Iran Attack In April? Richard Reports. You Decide …
(me talking): I fear the whole AG-impeachment-House Hearings-Senate Hearings is but a bright shiny object to distract our attention from from what is really occupying the remaining minds in DoD and the WH. Those ships are in place ‘Dang, Mabel, look how close they are to Iran!’ Everything I see/hear on msm focuses on all the hoopla in DC. Critical hoopla it is, but it may be serving as a distraction. (If you go to the story originally cited, check the Comment by landsker about half-way down the list)
Waccamaw @ 83
that really is the cutest little polar bear ever, tho
Oh, thank God, they are finally back to discussing ANS on MSNBC. I was really getting worried.
Steve @ 87
Oh, that’s right. Now I remember KO doing his Ahnolt immitation.
now?mc @ 83
And Britney is going bankrupt!!!!!!
Has anyoe else noticed that even the repubs are saying “firings” now, I thought they all resigned, and that’s why jr didn’t know about it?
getting interestinger
The reason wht we want an open hearing with a transcript is because Presidentile Dementia calls for it.
Christy, this is completely OT, but I thought you and Jane might be interested in this:
http://www.thrasherswheat.org/…..ntest.html
Hugh -
Add “answer your own question” to your list. ;-)
“Mr. President, you claim that subpoenas will inhibit your staff from giving you candid advice. Given the mess you’ve made, why should the public want you to keep getting candid advice?”
I’d sell my soul to anyone who asks him this.
barbara @ 65
Check CSpan’s home page for rebroadcast schedules.
I got yer executive privy ledge right here, fella…
Has Tony Snow ever received an email from Rove on the RNC account?
Why can no reporter ask the obvious? If there are no transcripts and no oath, it will be just a “he said- he said” of republicans and democrats.
Every republican will just say-”well, that’s not what I heard.”
MSNBC: Conyers is going to hold off on issuing subpoenas to see if they can reach a compromise…
Yesterday dear leader said wh has been very helpful releasing direct emails. He did say direct which instantly caught my attention…direct as opposed to indirect emails? Or am I making too much of the semantics?
The Anna Nicole saga will finally be put to rest once they find who the father of her baby is. Well, there that question of inheritance. By the time that’s decided, let’s hope there’s a full-blown constitutional crisis in the land…
Another thing that’s been bugging me, OK, he didn’t know about the resigations, but didn’t he wonder why he was getting recommondations for new USA’s? Did he just think that they were new posiions>
If Shrub didn’t know about the resignations, then his staff isn’t making sure he’s properly informed, and he isn’t doing his supervisory job, and they all should be fired for incompetence.
If he knew about the resignations, then he’s lying and needs to be fired (read impeached and convicted) for lying or incompetence.
If he didn’t sign off on the replacement recommendations, Shrub should be fired for incompetence.
If he signed off on the replacement recommendations, and still hasn’t figured it out, he should be fired for incompetence.
If he signed off on the replacement recommendations, and knew what he was signing off on, he should be fired for malice aforethought.
Phoenix Woman @ 4
Yes!! What was his response? Enquiring minds want to know how a paid, consumate hypocrite handles such raging flip-floppery.
ReneND @ 105
The news people did ask this. Guess they’ve been reading too many lefty blogs *g*.
ironranger @ 107
Never make too much of their semantics. Every word is very carefully chosen.
darkblack, that’s a picture that I would like to see when I hear Snow begin to speak. He like his briefings are a total waste of oxygen. He is usually poorly informed on the issues he is briefing on. The only thing that saves him is that the media is usually even more unprepared and lazy then he is.
Jeremius, that’s the rub isn’t it. Bush is the great Deciderer yet no one seems to have bothered asking him. This was a decision that was his and no one else’s to make but he doesn’t seem to have made it. That’s the question the media should have been asking Snow, and another example how of the vacuum headed Snow ducks an important issue because the press isn’t doing its job.
Jeremius @ 70
Any press person reading this might note that a good question to ask tomorrow is whether the president signed the appointment papers for the new USAs.
OK, I might be mistaken, but I thought the USA’s could only be removed by the Pres – so how is it no one mentioned this to him?
Secondly, not only are they missing 18 days of DOJ email, we have not gotten ANY WH emails. Along this line, I thought Snow was going to have a stroke when asked about Karl’s RNC emails…didn’t really answer, more of an “arghghgh – next question”.
Do any of the blogs have reporters at these press conferences? Wouldn’t it be great? The current reporters seem to be a little behind on info and are not asking some really important follow-ups?
mayan @ 111
spin, spin, spin That the other situation wasn’t analogous
punaise @ 104
I’m just shocked by that frivolous incivility, I am …Say, how do you feel about Joe Lieberman?
;>)
ironranger @ 108
It might be a bright shiny but with this asshat it never hurts to look. On the other hand, any semantic analysis of GWB’s pronouncements is an exercise in futility. BTW, I wonder if his writers write it up in that goofy style, or do they write it straight and he Georgifies it in the delivery? Are the speeches as written archived aomewhere?
Also, just for kicks, I think it’d be fun to subpoena some Presidential urine and stool samples. I remember hearing that the Secret Service collected and whisked away same when he went travelling.
LS @ 106
“Nice Oval Office ya got here, Bushie. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it…”
Is this the type of testimony we should expect from Mr. Rove:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/…..940423.htm
“Besides his considerable security contingent, the chief executive was accompanied by Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Press Secretary Tony Snow.
A reporter approached Rove to ask him what he thought of rumors that former Missouri Sen. Jack Danforth could replace embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “How about you go over there and do your job,” Rove replied, pointed back to the media pool.”
katymine @ 86
I’m partial to the Gonzalez 8. But purgegate seems to be winning. Krugman refers to the Gonzalez 8.
eap @ 115
Jane, Christie – Let’s talk to Helen Thomas . . .
eap -
Do any of the blogs have reporters at these press conferences? Wouldn’t it be great? The current reporters seem to be a little behind on info and are not asking some really important follow-ups?
That’s laboring under the assumption the twit would even *let* them ask a question ;-(
Waccamaw @ 100
Done. That was also a favorite ploy of Rumsfeld. “Now if you’re asking me if my hair is on fire and I’m off my meds, then no.”
This one I can really believe
After all, didn’t the same thing happen to Jim Carrey’s character in the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? And is not Bush’s mind fairly empty anyway of ideas, if not entirely spotless? The same people who made the 18-day gap in the e-mails simultaneously erased Bush’s memories of the US attorneys being fired.
Tony Snow comments on Bush:
“George W. Bush, meanwhile, talks of a pillowy America, full of niceness and goodwill. Bush has inherited his mother’s attractive feistiness, but he also got his father’s syntax. At one point last week, he stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” [8/25/00]
– Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]
– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” [3/17/06]
– “President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and listless domestic policy.” [2/3/06]
– “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]
– Bush “has a habit of singing from the Political Correctness hymnal.” [10/7/05]
– “No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]
—more at the think progress link”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush/
LS @
27
Actually, I don’t think the subpoenas are on the way yet (i.e., not issued), they’ve just been approved.
OK, I might be mistaken, but I thought the USA’s could only be removed by the Pres – so how is it no one mentioned this to him?
That’s the wrong question. Officially the people resigned. The right question is whether he asked why he was signing appointment papers for new ones. Or rather, whether he signed them.
This is of a piece of the no paper trail for non-performance. He can’t claim not to know about something that he formally approved.
Gnome de Plume @ 123
YES!
Guitar_Playing_Bastard @
14
The compulsion to escape the “reality” rethugs have created is overwhelming, isn’t it?
JF-I’m amazed he can stay on script as much as he does. My favorite is the time he said you have to keep saying it over & over..catapulting the propaganda. Oopsie.
newspaperbrat @ 102
The White House has transcripts a few hours after the event:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/
Phoenix Woman @ 4
Whoa, did somebody ask him about that?? I just got through reading the E&P article and was thinking, “Will anybody in the press corp or the msm confront him on that? Nah!”
The statement “I serve at the pleasure of the president” really grinds my nerves. I’ve been trying to think of the origination of this phrase, since I really don’t recall it used often in the political arena. Did it actually originate in the TV show “The West Wing”?
I made a quick run through of the righty blogs this morning. Not much on this issue.
But, Powerline was trying a “new innovation”(their words). They were LIVEBLOGGING the Gore speech.
funny!
hotflash @118: pee & poop detail! No one could pay me enough for that job.
Here’s the deal. Subpoenas will not be issued until negotiations have been exhausted. After subpoenas are issued, the WH will refuse and things will go to an appellate court. Losing party at that point will appeal to SCOTUS. A full-blown constitutional crisis will drag on till Jan 2009.
But all this will probably not happen because both parties will try to reach a compromise.
I risk being skewered here, but here goes: Congress also has to watch it. It doesn’t want to be fully tied up in investigations instead of legislation.
I’d like some press person to ask if Cheney’s office has $140,000 worth of new furniture or not(since his office reportedly issued a check to purchase office furniture for that amount).
Jean2k @
51
Please add Dick Vitale to that list!!
newspaperbrat @ 102
Thanks. Thought I’d watch it to relieve constipation.
Waccamaw @ 123
dress the reporter up like a good looking military “escort” (male) and you might have a chance! ;)
IrishJim @ 121
“…While I do the Rove Bury Stretch…“
;>)
ironranger @ 131
I think he gets his talking points confused with other discussions. They must have talked about the repetition, but I highly doubt he was told to talk about it publicly.
Hugh -
Now that I know it’s the WH transcript, how the h*ll does anyone trust *that* to be accurate? If reporters assume it is, then they’re too dumb to leave home. Hope somebody carries a tape recorder so they can *remember* their own *recollection*.
Doodle Bean @ 20
I would say something about Mark Foley and pages’ ages, but, ahem . . .
Mauimom @ 139
Don’t mess with Dickie V!!!
How about asking Tony if he personally has an RNC e-mail account.
Great press gaggle – I’m so glad much of it was covered live on MSNBC.
The questions I would have loved to ask today were:
1. “The WH is arguing that the staffers are compelled by the law to tell the truth to Congress. So, why is it that you will not permit them to swear to an oath?”
2. “You have said that the President is believes strongly that his staffers should not have to testify under oath in front of Congress in public due to Executive Privilege, because the President’s private conversations with advisors should be protected. You have also said that the President has no recollection about having any conversations about the US Attorney purge. So, why are you blocking the staffers from testifying under oath before Congress? If what you have said is correct, they would not have any privileged conversations with the President that need to be protected, correct?”
I absolutely LOVED the question of why this Adminstration is so much more special than any other, that it cannot testify under oath before Congress because (unlike past admins) because it would create a super-special political circus. I cast an official vote for “best question in a news conference ever!”
White House: “What Do You Gain From A Transcript?”
These people are pure comedy gold.
I asked Congressman Conyers’ office assistant whether the Chairman will invite Brett Tolman to testify at the hearings regarding the US attorney firings and mentioned Tolman’s alleged role in inserting the US attorney provision in the Patriot Act. Spelled Tolman’s name at her request. Interesting times, indeed.
jayackroyd @ 114
Did anyone ask Snow, even rhetorically, why Harriet Miers (WH Counsel) would have been aware the purge was in the works last September and Bush wasn’t?
Is it just me, or is Snow just about the worst WH press secretary in modern history?
It surely appeared that he was offering his own opinions and a lot of assumptions, rather than the actual decisions and viewpoints of the President. He does this quite often – talks completely out of his ass, representing his personal opinions, but not necessarily telling us what the WH policies are, and then he backs away from his statemetns when pressed for confirmation. I was quite pleased when one reporter asked him to confirm that the statement that the WH would take their offer off the table if subpoenas are issued. He tried to dance around this question several times, and he really did a piss poor job of it. Heck, Tucker Carlson’s even a better dancer.
Seriously, if I were Rove, I would’ve canned his ass a long time ago. Snow comes off as very oily and slippery, and his arguments are completely specious.
Oh, and another semantics issue I noticed: at one point, Snow said something about how the public is provided all of the documents – and as he was almost finished saying the word “documents”, he caught himself and changed the word to “emails”. I thought that was a rather telling slip.
The phrase “serve at the pleasure of the President” has been around since Washington’s days as President. It did not start on West Wing.
Pretty soon Snow’s press conference answers will ALL be:
I can’t comment on that because of an ongoing investigation.
Anyone have a quick list of “Things that aren’t there” in this adminstration. Perhaps starting with Uranium…
Hugh @ 132
The White House has transcripts a few hours after the event:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/
Press Briefings and Press Gaggles? ‘Twas ever thus, or are those the loving descriptors of Mr. Snowjob?
jayackroyd @ 128
OK, but then what was with all the “They serve at my pleasure” defense…sounds like a justification for their “firing”…Sorry, I am just so confused by the continuous stream of BS coming out…
the urge, the urge
the urge to repurge
regurgitate, repurgitate
swallow back the s**t you state
yaaaaay, Tony!
(apologies for the unpleasantries)
Biodun @ 137
I fear you may be right. It is a balancing act. And these guys are definitely trying to run out the clock. My thinking is that they have done so many wrong and illegal things that one will jump out and bite them truly in the ass and impeachment will be so clear cut that resignations will quickly follow.
This is maybe slightly off topic but it paints a picture of the times and circumstances that I feel are like living in some double speak, very dark time of horror, and low comedy..check it it out at the Huff..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..43943.html
eap @
157
Good point. And what happened to the Decider?
C-Span replaying some of Snowjob’s presser right now
Gnome de Plume @ 159
They seem to be doing a fine job of both at present. And IMO your rationale for turning our heads at the lawlessness of this administration in a country supposedly governed by the rule of law is a bit breathless.
The bus has no wheels!
Does anyonw know the phyusical location today of the following:
Karl Rove
Dick Cheney
GWB
Robert Gates
Just wondering in case anyone was to declare any wars or anything.
Wil @
75
i especially loved the line “this is not a get out of jail free card”
707
Thanks, Nola Sue.
Jean2k @ 51
Just to complete the list . . . Lee Corso, Dick Vitale, Hannity and O’Reilly.
Normally, Bush and Snow would just respond to all questions on this matter as follows: “In the interest of national security, we cannot go there. It would give aid and comfort to the enemy” but THEY CAN’T SAY THAT HERE! Hee, hee, heeee!!
*does goofball dance*
politicalpollyanna @ 167
Stop messin’ with Dickie V!!! (the others can stay on the list)
> Is it just me, or is Snow just about the
> worst WH press secretary in modern history?
I would say he is pretty good, actually. From Bush’s standpoint that is: Snow successfully bought a year of “credibility” from his former collegues in the media. He can spin the worst dreck so that it sounds favorable to Bush, and his media friends will give him the benefit of the doubt when they file their stories. They also back off when Snow snarls at them, and never follow up tough lines of questioning.
I doubt very much that President Clinton/Obama/Edwards will be able to find anyone as good (from her/his perspective).
Cranky
Sally @ 150
Way to go! The Utah boys, Hatch, Tolman, Kyle Sampson are up to their eye-balls in this shit. Specter is a joke but I think Hatch planted Tolman on Specter’s staff so Orin’s finger prints weren’t on “the inserted language.” Specter is pathetic, Hatch is evil.
In the past few days, the WaPo published a very interesting article that mentioned the McKay firing in Wa state — and the fact that the Evergreen Freedom Foundation had ‘delivered’ ‘evidence’ of ‘voter fraud ‘ to John McKay. But McKay didn’t view it as credible enough to pursue. That angered the Evergreen Legal Foundation, which then contacted the state Rep party chair to complain. The complaint about McKay seems to have been sent along to Kyle Sampson.
Question – WHY is a ‘foundation’ ‘delivering evidence’ of voter fraud?! I’ve worked around 501c3’s, and they are precluded from partisan activities.
Calling a state Republican party chair to claim that your US Fed Atty is being ‘uncooperative’ with your claims abotu ‘voter fraud’ is a blatant LOBBYING activity, and one that takes on new meanings post-2000 Florida Nightmare Of the Hanging Chads.
Didn’t Abramoff and Reed abuse non-profit status as a way of funneling campaign $$$?? Did they use their ‘non-profit’ outfits to make bogus claims about voter fraud?
And isn’t Grover Norquist operating out of a ‘non-profit’??He’s in tight with K-K-Karl, who would have overseen ‘gwb43.com’. Did ‘gwb43.com’ claim tax-free IRS 501c3 status?
Is there a network of non-profits that are actually lobbying organizations and campaign money laundering outfits? Is this the ghost network upon which K-K-Karl is relying to deliver the votes that will generate HIS electoral math?
————–
Finally, Cujo’s comments on the previous thread about REDACTIONS is interesting. I’d sure want to search those documents for the terms ‘501c3′ and ‘non-profit’.
LS @ 52
PAT! TURN THEM OVER! There’s stuff on the back, too!
tbsa @ 164
Kennedy introduced mandatoy sick leave for companies with 15 employees this morning. I think they are doing just fine, fwiw
Gnome de Plume @ 159:
You’re absolutely right. Things have to be swift and sudden. BushCo needs electroshock really soon. I also think Bush is spoiling for this particular fight to distract from Iraq.
Steve @ 171
The Senators are never gonna turn on each other about this one.
newspaperbrat @ 102
Where the heck is that? I have combed their website and have never been able to find rebroadcast schedules. I would very much appreciate your help on that as it has been a major source of irritation for me for some time! Thanks!
Biodun @ 136
I would like to hear opinion on this excerpt from, Defiance, By Mark Klieman, http://www.samefacts.com/archi…..fiance.php
The New York Times refers to a “Constitutional confrontation,” as if the two sides had the same standing. That is an error. There’s a question of comity between the branches here, but there’s no actual Constitutional question. As a matter of settled law, if the Congress wants the testimony and the documents, it gets the testimony and the documents.
As long as the Congress is engaged in a legitimate legislative inquiry, its powers of subpoena are limited only by its own judgment of propriety (and, of course, political advantage). Not a syllable in the Constitution exempts the White House staff from Congressional subpoena. And the Congress need not proceed via the courts; either house has the power to order its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest recalcitrant witnesses. (Those witnesses can then challenge their detention by means of the writ of habeas corpus, since the Congress has no detention facilities at Guantanamo.)
Here’s Justice Brandeis, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in Jurney v. McCracken:
It is conceded that the Senate was engaged in an inquiry which it had the constitutional power to make; that the committee1 had authority to require the production of papers as a necessary incident of the power of legislation; and that the Senate had the power to coerce their production by means of arrest.
Jurney was about documents; the case it cites, McGrain v. Daugherty, was about a witness. In neither case was the underlying power of arrest disputed. As far as I know, the HUAC cases from the 1950s left those precedents undisturbed.
Obviously the inquiry into the Overblown Personnel Matter has a proper legislative purpose: indeed, two of them. There’s the matter of undoing the Patriot Act provision that gives the President authority to name replacement U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation. And there’s the question of impeaching the officials who have certainly been lying to Congress and perhaps have engaged in obstruction of justice in connection with the firing of the U.S. Attorneys.
Would the Secret Service resist by force the service of a lawful arrest warrant issued by the Senate or the House? I rather doubt it. But if it did, the political results would be fully acceptable. The more closely George W. Bush is made to appear in the role of Richard M. Nixon, the better.
Steve @ 171
You forgot the Karl Rove. He is from Utah.
Jeremius @ 69
This is an issue that has not been clarified: did the President delegate the authority to hire/fire USAs? Perhaps a FOIA request is in order?
Tony Snow, during today’s daily briefing just said that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about the US attorney firings.
44 jayt says:
March 21st, 2007 at 5:56 am
Perhaps GWB is running a reverse-executive-privilege thing?
Maybe he doesn’t want it coming out that nobody bothered to talk to him about this at all.
Perhaps I was right this morning. To GWB, it’s much more embarassing to have put into the public the extent of his irrelevancy than it is to have to explain the reasons behind the “resignations” of the USA’s.
CHS…
The E&P piece credits Glenn Greenwald with coming up with the older Snow job material, on his great Salon blog.
(The one up and to the left, on your blogroll…)
He’s the guy with the Lexis/Nexis.
Rule of thumb for any White House:
Whenever the press secretary says, “the President has no recollection…”, the President remembers very well whatever is in question.
LandOfTheFree @ 152
I’ve been going through Snow’s briefings for a while now and I would say that is a fair description. Scotty McClellan would drive a saint to homicide with his circular arguments but at least you got the idea he knew what he was doing. Again if the media did a little prep before showing up, they could slice and dice Snow because he is always shaky on his facts.
now for laugh break:
Newtie
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 173
Two thoughts:
1. They may not actually be a 501(c)3, just use the word Foundation to sound like one so they seem less evil.
2. 501(c)3’s can be partisan as they want to be, they just can’t back specific candidates.
Gnome et al. –
In US v Nixon, the case went very, very quickly. The US district court for DC ruled for the prosecutors that the subpeonas (issued in a criminal case, not by congress for their investigation) must be respected and threw out Nixon’s claims of executive privilege. Nixon filed for an appeal with the US Court of Appeals, and before that was held, the prosecution asked SCOTUS to take the case directly, which they agreed to do — a very rare occurence. It was argued on July 8, 1974 and a unanimous 8-0 ruling came down on July 24.
When circumstances warrant, the courts can and do move quickly. Allegations of tampering with the judicial system are exactly the kind of thing that the courts fear the most. Thus, if/when this heads to court, I think they will move very quickly indeed to deal with this.
If Gonzo goes back to Congress and perjures himself, he’ll definitely resign, just as Rumsfeld “resigned.” That will take considerable heat off BushCo.
FYI: Bush has never fired anyone. They’ve all “resigned.”
Boxer up and taking no guff from Kit Bond on cspan3 and Gore being welcomed now.
gore is now being introduced to senate committee environment and public works on c-span3
DOJ FOIA Contact:
Melanie Ann Pustay, Acting Director
Office of Information and Privacy
Suite 11,050
1425 New York Avenue, N.W.
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-FOIA
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 172
I haven’t noted any mention of that term in the documents so far. Check the Gonzopedia and the comments in this TPM Muckraker column, among other places. Someone’s trying to scan all these documents, but some of them aren’t going to scan very well, and some are clearly redacted. See:
http://www.docstrangelove.com/…..uments_1-3
for a good example. It just covers a few pages of that PDF, and there are many potentially significant redactions.
DOJ Office of Public Affairs:
Tasia Scolinos
Director
(202) 616-2777
Wil @ 116
Thanks, Wil. Dante has reserved a special ring of hell for uberhypocrites that betray the public trust for money/power. Bwahahaha…what a frickin’ asshole. I hope they keep flinging his owns words at ‘em.
[Mod Note; please limit re-quoting to spare your beloved mods, thanks]
Here’s Snow, re Ed Henry’s question about the 18-minute…er, -day gap in the recently released eMails: “I’ve been led to believe that there’s a good response for it.” LOL!!
Cranky Observer @
170
scott mcclellan comes to mind. it took a while but i finally remembered his name.
never the less, snowball probably should get the “bagdad bob and weave award”.
angie @ 188
angie, you are great company when watching c-span!
Wil @
186
The WA Secretary of State info on Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
Sorry mods.
Jeremius @ 69
Site or reference, please? Juicy…
MIMI @ 179
Rove was born in Colorado, then to Nevada..HighSchool and College in Salt Lake City Utah. I don’t think Karl is LDS.
If Bush didn’t know about the forced resignations, and he was the only one authorized to fire the USA’s, then it follows that forcing the resignations was an illegal act and should be retracted.
It may please all that Leahy delivered a good head slap to Noron on MSNBC about an hour ago. She was pushing why under oath/ transcript: He blapped her good. Made my day.
Peterr @ 187:
Thanks for that info. That was a different SCOTUS back in 1974. Will this SCOTUS move that quickly?
selise @ 197
ditto!
pretty exciting stuff these days…hope things continue to “heat” up in the halls of Congress and not on our planet.
Inhofe’s (not Bond as I earlier cited) questions should be good fodder for his next failed election.
Biodun @ 137
Congress doesn’t have to compromise. Those of us old enough to remember Watergate know that these things get ultra-fast tracked through the courts, within days as I recall. If Bushco gets it all the way to SCOTUS, I don’t think they can count on a decision in their favor. This is about them screwing with the judicial system and I don’t think Justice Kennedy (the swing vote) will stand for it. I think he’ll force the WH to play by the rules — and then it’s Fitzmas, folks.
woid @ 182
woid & Christy–
FWIW, I did H/T Glenn when I pointed this out downstairs. The E&P article just caught my eye when I was looking around. I definitely wasn’t trying to take credit for his good work.
Cheers–
At Sen Conyers office, the phone answer-er said they are getting many, many supportive calls and “the occasional Republican caller who curses and screams”. Those were her words.
Fitzgerald would be better attorney general than Gonzales
March 21, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
Gonzo, you’re doing a heck of a job! But, pardner, it’s time for you to leave your old Texas buddy, George W. Bush, pack up your office at the Justice Department, and hop out of town faster than a fried frog. Washington desperately needs a new sheriff in town.
I hereby nominate Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to replace the embattled Alberto Gonzales as attorney general of the United States. Here, in no particular order, are what I regard as the compelling reasons……….
http://www.suntimes.com/news/m…..21.article
Biodun @ 203
I think so . . .
dalloway @ 205
. . . and I also generally agree with dalloway’s take. Not a slam dunk, but I don’t think SCOTUS will take nicely to anyone messing with the system, or covering up a legitimate investigation into such allegations.
Steve @
200
Nonetheless, why is it all the Karl Mini-mes that look just like Karl?
I give you Sampson as Exhibit A.
kiotidada @ 201
What did he say to her?
I have to say, I think you’re misinterpreting “generous.” These guys are highly paid liars, and they’re offering to have them come over and lie for free! Isn’t that generous?
barbara @ 45
Maybe they should be using this bus!
Re. Update # 2 -
Oohhhhhh, that’s a *good* word!
http://www.answers.com/topic/unctuous
Elliott @ 176, Tolman’s explanation of who wanted his insertion in the Patriot Act would be a good beginning for what followed.
angie @ 189, during Gore’s impressive House testimony this morning, it was sad to think where we would be today if the Supreme Court had not aborted his election to the presidency.
There’s an article at the NYT on Al Gore’s House appearance earlier today by Felicity Barringer and Andrew Revkin. Revkin has done some good reporting on this but the article ends with two yahoos slamming Gore. One Bjorn Lomberg is a name that always shows up among the handful of global warming skeptics. He thinks that global warming is happening but that it’s no biggie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03…..re.html?hp
And that the White House has made a “generous offer” of having WH staffers and DoJ folks have a discussion or an interview with Congress without being under oath and without having a transcript.
And they can consider it ‘generous’ because the White House feels that it is under no obligation to answer to Congress due to their interpretation of executive priviledge. Hell; they don’t even have to release documentation that they don’t want to:
Nice. Dubya’s able to issue an order that allows him to ignore the law when it suits him…No, nothing wrong with that.
TiredFed @ 192
Thank you TiredFed.
I love this place.
Peterr @ Dalloway:
I really hope you’re both right.
Well, this committee has Bond and Inhofe on it — they are completely bereft of any scientific knowledge.
Agreed Sally @ 215.
Sally @ 215
I agree and I’d love to see the Tolman affair aired, but don’t hold your breath ’cause the Senators are not about to embarrass each other.
I would have chosen “oleaginous” to describe him, tied as he is to the rape and pillage of lands with OIL…
I hope everyone is pressuring MSM representatives/outlets to give their readers/viewers what is really going on and not just regurgitating Republican talking points! Not only does Congress need to know the wishes of the people but the media must be held accountable on how issues are framed.
angie @ 220
Inohofe is bereft of any knowledge
selise @ 73
I think you are right about Executive Privledge, however, I assume they will argue that it applies to conversations between high Executive Branch officials when they FORMULATE advice to give to the President.
looseheadprop @ 225
LHP – you have mail (h/t egregious)
Sure to be epu’ed but I’ll ask anyway. Re: the president is the only one authorized to fire US Attorneys. Logically, then, if he didn’t know (or doesn’t recollect), it was illegal.
Seems to me the WH (Fielding) may be hanging this one on the fact that the attorneys submitted letters of resignation…they weren’t fired.
How does this change, legally (or not), if the attorneys were coerced into resigning, which seems to be the case?
Can’t remember exact words, but the sense it: Nora- why isn’t the Bush offer good enough; Leahy-gives an incredulous look that was priceless -They want to do it behind closed doors that’s not good enough- The American people desrve the truth- that’s how it is supposed to be done. Sorry rough paraphrase.
Oh, he also said something about erasure in the emails. Did not mention the 18 magically missing days
looseheadprop @ 224
thank you lhp – do you think this argument is a good one (what will judges and legal experts such as yourself think?).
Celtic Music @ 228
A forced or coerced resignation is treated as an involuntary termination = firing.
kiotidada @ 227
thanks!
When the reporter asked whether Rove has an RNC email account, Snow went, “Aaaaaahhh……..”
Then the reporter said, “Can you find out?”
Then Snow said, “Yeah.” And went to the next question.
This is from my memory only, after watching it on TV.
newspaperbrat—
You’re welcome!
I think you are right about Executive Privledge, however, I assume they will argue that it applies to conversations between high Executive Branch officials when they FORMULATE advice to give to the President.
In other words, they’re just making this stuff up as they go.
politicalpollyanna @
166
Actually, I think all of those (and a whole lot more) combined make an outstanding case for the invention of the OFF button.
In deference to Christy’s depiction of Snow’s latest performance as “unctuous”, let’s all start calling Tony “Slick”….
Not sure if anyone linked to this earlier, If so, sorry.
Great op-ed by Iglesias
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03…..mp;emc=rss
Thanks, Hotflash. IANAL, but I feel like I’m taking a correspondence course.
OK. So, here’s the plan:
Congress accepts Bush’s conditions for questioning the Rove and the Mier. Then, some source “who shall not be identified because they were not auhtorized to speek about this issue” will leak the info that Rove confessed that everything was done exactly the way we figured it was and the Decider knew and Decided to go ahead with the lies, and that Rove thinks Bush is a knuckleheaded dummy, etc, etc, etc. Now, there is no proof that this is not the case and so the WH has to shut-up and sit down.
New thread — LA Charter School — Emmett Till Deserved to Die
Does Tony Snow remind anyone else of Willima Masey in Farge, when he was selling the “clear-coat”, and the press corps was the righteous old Dakota farmer who simply refused to let it slip without a fit?
also, below is a question I brought up from Christy’s first morning thread, I never got any opinion about this, but I think it might be one quick way to squeeze the truth out of them, SOMEONE PLEASE, tell me if Congress can subpoena these US-A’s without Bush invoking exewcutive privelege, I don’t know the codes, but it seems unlikely they could deny Congress access to each and every one of these US-A’s.
from the first thread of the day
“While they are waiting on the White House to come out of their “fortress” mentality, would it be reasonable to consider a subpoena for many of these still-active US-A’s?
One simple question would open up another big can of worms, “Were you ever involved in discussions where your superiors encouraged you in ANT way to concentrate on Democratic targets for investigations and avoid Republican targets?”
Just line em’ up, under oath, and pop that question 85 times.
Someone’s gonna crack, and tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth because they see the impending pendulum of Justice swinging closer, or, less likely, decide their moral values outweigh their political loyalties.
And, unless I am mistaken, Bush can not keep them from testifying because the are not on the WH staff.
Just the threat of such a wide-ranging investigation might loosen up Bush’s unprededented and, I believe, grossly immoral and illegal, executive privelege choke-hold.”
BlueUU @
83
Can you keep a secret?
W does use email. Check it out
[Disclaimer: Not real! It’s a parody ;-) ]
You know, one of the talking points is “three thousand pages”.
Well, I’ve read a lot of them – and a lot of it is duplicate stuff. There are multiple copies of resumes in there. There are e-mail streams with replies, and so if an e-mail is replied to 10 times, you see the original e-mail text 10 times. So sure, it’s 3000 pages for a couple reasons.
1) it’s a dump and takes longer to weed through.
2) They can say they sent 3000 pages.
But there certainly is NOT 3000 pages of original content in there.
’scuse me Bill, I meant the movie “FARGO.”
But 3000 is unpresidented!
TomJ @
33
If the president wasn’t informed and didn’t take part in the process, the whole process is unlawful, isn’t it?
Elliott @ 185
ROFL, yes indeed.
LindyH @ 245
Mary explains it here
Tony “the Slick” Snow said to ask DOJ about the missing 18 days.
DOJ Office of Public Affairs
Tasia Scolinos
Director
(202) 616-2777
Brian Roehrkasse
Deputy Director
(202) 616-2777
Gina Talamona
Deputy Director
(202) 616-2777
Bryan Sierra
Public Affairs Specialist
(202) 514-2007
Charles Miller
Public Affairs Specialist
(202) 514-2007
Cynthia Magnuson
Public Affairs Specialist
(202) 514-2007
Dean Boyd
Public Affairs Specialist
(202) 514-2007
to name a few.
Words emblazoned over the entrance to the Nixon Museum: “I have no recollection of that, Senator.”
Yes, indeed, one of Congress’ top priorities should be the RNC servers, investigating the use of non-secured, non-govt communications equipment for governmental purposes. And, conversely, using govt communications equipment for private purposes. Breaking the law.
I think it was Mr. Froomkin who said that blurring the line between what was government and party business was precisely the administration’s point. Let’s also get a handle on WH protocol and practice for use of private comms equipment – eg, the locust plague of PDA’s, cell phones, portables, etc.
smapdi @ 245
LOL…now there’s a versatile word for this administration’s entire tenure.
Matter of fact, our whole nation has been “unpresidented” since November 2000.
Dee @
134
Pleasuregate!
Wil 185,
Yesterday, I noticed a semi-redacted line at the bottom of page AOG…850 of this PDF:
House Judiciary PDF
You can clearly see “ROVE” in the line of the origin of the article. It is connected to voter fraud in Wisconsin.
LindyH @
246
Only Mr. Gingrich could advocate that with a straight face. Two divorces, right? Each because of his adulterous affairs. Didn’t he tell his first wife about wanting a divorce while she was recovering from cancer treatment?
Newt Gingrich: Poster Boy for “Blind” Ambition.
OK, so we all know what we’ve been told reagrding the subpoenas and how BushCo can drag this out regardless of what congress does. Thay may be true, but I can’t envision a 20 month game of chicken. I was thinking that something would have to happen during those 20 months to break the stalemate, but what?
The NYT wrote an editorial today, which I’m sure we all read, basically denouncing Bush’s presser yesterday afternoon. If you’ll notice the news today, John Bolton thinks its time for regime change in Iran, Turkey is going to invade Northern Iraq and Rice is insisting that we back Abbas. Timing is interesting.
I think the blogosphere has set a new precedent. FDL with all the live blogging from the Libby trial which was phenominal and Josh Marshall bascially deputizing its readers to investigate the DOJ document dumps. For those of us that participate in the blogosphere, this is our way of taking it to the streets.
The only way we can stop Bush from invading Iran and the rest of the nonsense that we put up with, is to get newspapers to start calling for Bush and Cheneys resignation. (This isn’t a partisan issue any longer. The occupiers of the White House are criminals and they think and act like criminals (esp Rove). I think the way we all pulled together yesterday on this blog comparing notes, phone numbers, who we called, who said what, really demonstrated that many of us are determined to have our country back. There has got to something that we can organize, plan, calling editors, something that will stop all of this. Any thoughts?
looseheadprop @
225
This was probably the president’s point: the chilling effect on all advice given. This isn’t a legal argument as much as a pushback of the talking points.
So maybe a rephrase why ask Rove to testify:
Sure the president has full authority to hire/fire who he wants. But, the constitution gives a shared responsibility with Congress in this respect. If the president delegates some or all of this process to known/unknown actors who are not elected or appointed, he is unilaterally changing the process.
We don’t need oversite if the president gets pissed off and fires someone. But if other non-constitutional actors become involved, it seems like lots of oversite is required.
At the very least Congress should be able to find out how and why previous USAs were fired as they consider their replacements. This replacement process is not without cost, and Congress has a responsibility to understand why they are being asked to do extra work.
In fact, Sampson talked about the potential difficulty in handling the workload of replacing the USAs via AG appointment and several Senators (Kyle, Sessions) tried to introduce changes to the Patriot Act rollback legislation, because of the potential problem of appointing a replacement without security background checks, etc. There is also the obvious impact on operations in the district.
If poor management is an issue, no management must be worse. If these decisions are not made directly by the president, Congress, needing to ensure the faithful exection of the laws, should provide oversite.
Pat_AlexVA @ 242
True, plus there is no organizing principle in how these things were duplicated, in my opinion. The PDFs are only sequential internally. You don’t necessarily go forward in time by reading later documents. It’s all a mish-mash, IOW.
Plus, as you’ve noted, much of this was e-mail. Why not send electronic copies instead of printouts? It’s pretty clear they want to keep people busy at this far longer than necessary.
BTW, I’ll put in a plug for the Gonzopedia here. We’re looking for volunteers to help make sense of all this stuff. If you have the desire to look at these things and summarize them, then please drop by, create a login (no personal info necessary) and dig in. There are some tips in the Help section so you can get started.
LS @ 253
LS, did you add this to the list over at TPM? maybe they already caught that, but don’t takeit for granted… quite a reference trail in that one long line, wonder why it got snipped, was it an incomplete job of editing or just a scanner gone awry.
you have a very good eye…
OT:
Crazy anti-gay holocaust denier caught claiming to be a “US Envoy” From Froomkin.
Jep 257 – Done.
Chicago Tribune editorial today.
Chicago Tribune link
JEP @ 257
the naming convention indicates the document was an email attachment that was temporarily stored on Karl Roves hard drive (on his own PC, not a network drive). date looks like 2/2 or 3/3 2005.
LS @ 259
where would that list be?
Waccamaw @ 214
See the second definition. OILY.
TiredFed @ 262
never mind. I found it.
don’t know if this is mentioned yet, just came in from a long drive
so, a cnn reporter,(I don’t know who)made the point to rove;
if the president wasn’t involved and had no communication cocenring the attorney firing how can he claim executive priviledge?”
that’s paraphrased I need to say
anyway, tony said something to the affect of “that’s a good question and I don’t know the answer to that”
was this exchange mentioned here yet?
perris @ 265
I see in comments this was brought up already
cool
Nola Sue @
205
Nola Sue… Just wanted to give props to Greenwald. Props to you too, for bringing it to CHS’s attention.
john in sacramento @
247
Thanks for the link, very helpful. I’m not an expert on presidential power, but delegation of those powers is usually not done with a wink and a nod. If it is, Congress has a duty to put a stop to it. And the only way to find out is to get to the bottom of how the decision was made.
woid at 268 — I meant to put a link into Glenn, but missed it somehow. (I even had a funny line for it, too, but missed it typing the post in so quickly somehow.) Thanks for reminding me — I linked the Glenn post up in an earlier article this morning. That’s what I get for typing something up on the fly as I’m leaving to pick up The Peanut from preschool. Will fix it above to put a Glenn link in.
The question of the history of missing e-mails:
Michael Brown:
“I exchanged e-mails and phone calls with Joe Hagin, Andy Card and the President.”
Link CNN PDF
In search of the Holy Grail?
Defining George Bush: Head…meet board.
See a tongue-in-cheek visual of George Bush once again beating his head with a board…as he searches for the Holy Grail…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
perris @ 265
think progress has the exchange up now;
Conyers ought to subpoena the damn WH server. The bastards are like rats in a sewer. They know every secret passageway and evasion. If the Congress had any respect for the Office of the President they would have impeached this malignant crew.
katymine @
84
How ’bout – Gonzogate?
In regard to the picture, I’m almost positive I know who that is. Can you direct me to where you found it? Alternatively, do you know if it was taken on 79th Street between Columbus and Amsterdam in Manhattan?
They need to subpoena the WH phone records also. Get all the servers, all the e-mails, all the phone calls, all the ‘documents’. Even if the e-mail was sent from a non-WH domain, it’s going through the WH servers. There should be a record of it.
OT-sort of. Crooks & Liars has a banner headline that Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for ‘turdblossom’. Anyone?
*ilbo @ 277
I don’t see this headline or any story about it at C&L. Do you have a link?
*ilbo @
277
Corrected.
*ilbo @ 279
But, be advised. it’s CLOAK & DAGGER.
Arca @
235
I think the word for snow is “oily”.
Okie dokie, thanks.
Thought that the WH pressers really had Snow in this exchange:
Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.
MR. SNOW: Correct.
Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn’t looped in, you’re saying, on this decision? So it was other people —
MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category.
Q But, I mean —
MR. SNOW: No, you’re asking — you’re asking me to — look, Ed, there are a number of complex legal considerations in here, and I’m not going to try to play junior lawyer. These are the sort of things that people are going to have an opportunity to talk about.
Q But aren’t you having it both ways? If you’re saying the President wasn’t in the loop, but we need to cite executive privilege for the President’s communications –
jayackroyd @ 120
Gonzo-gate
waynemadsenreport.com has the story up about Rove and Interpol.No arrest warrant – just being investigated.
Finally , someone is asking the right question ! Hell yes , Rove and buddies are using another mail server (other than the official W.H. server ). If congress wants the real emails , they should be looking elsewhere ! Check out “bloggerjohn’s posting in The Daily Kos “Roves Dirty Tricks ” . The smoking gun will be there .
Or Gonzo-Gate 8
as far as “gonzo gate”
this administration’s crimes have been FAR worse then the “watergate” sandal, we need a NEW tag, forget that “gate” stuff
from this time in history crimes have to be referred to the BUSH administration
we need something that brings forth Bush, NOT nixon
let’s work on something new please so we can ALWAYS bring it up and referance this depraved administration
Elliott @ 184
Oh…so he wants to continue to be an adulterer when he gets elected? Seems that he was all for using that as an impeachable offense (or at least insisting that questions about these activities were legitimate so that if someone refused or lied about it it was impeachable).
Another person who is unctious!
I haven’t read all of the comments, but one issue I haven’t seen addressed much is the constant White House assertion that all correspondence within the White House needs to be privileged, so the President’s advisors will “feel free to speak their minds.” OK, besides the fact that the Bush White House seems like the last place anyone feels free to speak his mind, what is the logic behind this? Sure, if someone’s just thinking out loud things like “Maybe we should arrest all the Democrats” then they may not want to share that. But when actual policy proposals are being made to the President, why should that be kept secret, especially when we’re talking about the historical record, not current initiatives?
I sk this question with no knowledge of the answer, but are all Congressional aides similarly protected? If the top aide for a Senator sends an e-mail to an aide to another Senator, is that privileged and out of bounds for investigtors? My instinct says it’s not. If not, what’s the difference between that and correspondence between White House aides?
I can understand the need for confidentiality in some cases, but I’ve just never bought the idea that correspondence should be protected just because the author didn’t want people to know what he was recommending.
I had a public relations client who had to produce every e-mail between my agency and the client as part of a lawsuit. Fortunately, I have always had a rule with my employees that nothing is committed to e-mail that you would be embarrassed to have made public. There was confidential business info in the e-mails, but no “this client is an asshole” comments. It’s not a hard rule to follow.
katymine @
84
So, it’s about time that we started talking about the Wenis. :)
Steve @ 200
IIRC, MSM mentioned the Wilson’s attend the same DC area church (Episcopalian?) as ROver’s family attends (different services).
Visualizing chilly ice cream socials…
Mod(s)/FDL tech geeks – FYI:
Haven’t read the thread above (so this m/h/b addressed), but…
You guys were /. & intermittent/hung from (at least) about 5:40 PM EDT (when I started to try to get on) to just a few moments ago. DOS’ed, server hiccups?
WaPo covers the “You can’t fire me, I quit” Department:
oops -
just saw my zig at 2:53
apologies to our long suffering-mods
From the Oxford Thesauraus, what could be a summation of the last six years:
UNCTUOUS, adjective,
“she sees through his unctuous manners”
sycophantic, ingratiating, obsequious, fawning, servile, groveling, subservient, cringing, humble, hypocritical, insincere, gushing, effusive; glib, smooth, slick, slippery, oily, greasy; smarmy, slimy.
Now that’s a banana peel! Nice one Christy.
Jeremius @
68
Unless he *delegated* the power to Gonzo. Secretly and after the fact, but nonetheless. The constitution gives the executive godlike powers over time and space, after all…
katymine @
84
“Stupidgate.”
A question I’d ask Tony Snowjob:
“Was the firing of the U.S. Attorneys in November in anyway connected to the Mark Foley sex scandal exploding into the news in October, just before the election?”
Think about it.
The Republicans in October were desperate to supplant Foleygate coverage with something else, anything else, but preferably with news about Democratic scandals, even if the Republicans had to fabricate them. (Voter fraud, anyone?)
And how would Republicans manufacture news about Democratic scandals? One way would have been to have Republican-appointed, “loyal Bushie?” U.S. Attorneys file indictments or announce investigations of Democrats in their districts. Take New Mexico and David Iglesias for example. Oh.
In other words, I don’t believe we are seeing the full picture here.
Could the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys have been because they didn’t “play hardball” before last year’s election (especially IRT the Republican counter-attack against the pervasive Foleygate news coverage), and Rove and Gonzales decided that their partisan “inaction” cost the Republicans the election…so these eight U.S. Attorneys had to be punished…as well as being “swift-boated” over their performance…as a signal to the other U.S. Attorneys…to be “loyal Bushies” or else.
This is what I’d ask Tony Snowjob.
This is why few, if any, emails in the White House document dump will mention anything about the Mark Foley sex scandal, even though I contend this was the primary reason for the removal of many of the eight U.S. attorneys in November.
Republican political strategists always play to the base, whether racists, religious fanatics, homophobes, or whatever.
Thus, one email released in the 18 day gap is about one U.S. Attorney not prosecuting enough anti-pornography cases, so he was fired.
On the other hand, all the emails that must have been circulating in Republican circles in October involving damage-control over news of a homosexual Republican representative stalking young, male House pages, apparently known to the top echelons of the Republican Party for years, these emails are suspiciously absent from the document dump.
The Republicans will claim these are two unrelated issues. I beg to differ.
And if we could get our hands on all the emails in the 18 day gap, I’d bet a fair number of them would refer to the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys being related to their “nonperformance” during the critical month before the election over the Mark Foley sex scandal, in which some of the fired prosecutors continued pursuing cases against Republicans (Carol Lam), or didn’t release grand jury indictments against Democrats before the election (David Iglesias), which in both cases allowed the Foleygate news coverage to go unchallenged before the election. You just know the neo-con White House Republican leadership would have been pissed.
While the subject of nepotism hasn’t come up in the resignations/firings of the USAs, that thought has kept coming back to me for the following reasons:
1. “Parties of interest” Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson and Timothy Griffin share a disconcerting familial resemblance.
2. Each, or at least two, share a past (and current?) family presence in Utah.
Okay, with that said, I’m willing to concede it may just be my imagination but does it appear that way to anyone else? A group photo, preferably at a congressional hearing with all three present might be helpful in satisfying my curiosity.
Heartfelt thanks to the FDL crew for so ably and painstakingly keeping us up to date in a timely manner on so many issues.