Snow: Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White Ho

[ranasrule]

Snow: Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House"

By Paul Kiel - March 22, 2007, 2:59 PM It's official, this is a talking point. Just to show that this morning was no slip-up, here's Tony Snow during today's briefing:

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem? MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out. I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're offering all their documentation, as well.

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice.

It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

Update: Steve Benen provides a counterpoint: "...based on Snow's comments today, this isn't the executive privilege argument, this is the executive privilege argument on crack."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002849.php

[digipoi]

Snow: Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House"

By Paul Kiel - March 22, 2007, 2:59 PM It's official, this is a talking point. Just to show that this morning was no slip-up, here's Tony Snow during today's briefing:

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem? MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out. I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're offering all their documentation, as well.

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice.

It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

Update: Steve Benen provides a counterpoint: "...based on Snow's comments today, this isn't the executive privilege argument, this is the executive privilege argument on crack."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002849.php

Who's Politicizing Justice?

One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzales, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

Democrats know that presidents have broad discretion to terminate U.S. attorneys so long as they aren't trying to interfere with investigations or the like. But where were Democrats when Janet Reno, almost immediately after becoming attorney general, took the unprecedented action of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys even before they had successors lined up to take their places? Yet Democrats insist on jumping to the worst possible conclusions concerning the Gonzales Justice Department's much less extreme action of firing only eight.

Scandalmongerer in chief, Sen. Chuck Schumer, exploited reports of these firings with his customary even-handedness. He didn't suggest that we need to examine the facts to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred. He immediately accused Gonzales of gross improprieties and demanded he resign because he is putting politics above the law. What? Talk about calling the kettle black!

It is Schumer and his fellow Bush-haters who are putting politics above the law, like they put partisan politics above almost everything else, including America's national security interests. How better to describe Schumer's demands that Gonzales resign for engaging in the completely lawful and ethical act of firing attorneys serving at the president's discretion, likely because of policy differences or performance?

Even the reliably liberal Washington Post has conceded that so far, "little evidence" has emerged that the firings were calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. What, then, do Schumer and his colleagues know that we don't? Nothing, of course, except the important lesson that allegations of wrongdoing repeated over and over damage their target, even when they are baseless.

Schumer's Democrats are demanding that the evil Rove and others shackle themselves in leg braces and shuffle over to Congress to volunteer themselves as witch-trial, perjury trap martyrs in the spirit of the fallen Scooter Libby. When at first you don't succeed at taking down Cheney and Rove, try, try again.

President Bush, though admirably standing his ground so far and properly upholding the integrity of the executive branch against this Democratic legislative power grab, has been very accommodating and forthcoming with the evidence. If Democrats were interested in the facts, instead of rushing to injustice, they would be jumping at this opportunity to examine the evidence before jumping to conclusions of criminality.

Bush has offered that Rove and others meet informally with the witchhunters, and is providing mountains of e-mails and other documentary evidence for them to peruse in their quest for just a sliver of a morsel to suggest the faintest hint of a shred of barely discernible ambiguity that could be stretched, contorted and distorted enough to fool some into believing wrongdoing occurred.

We must encourage the president to hold his ground here and, the next time Sen. Schumer expectorates false charges against him, to reverse the charges. He should say to Mr. Schumer, "Senator, you are the one subordinating the law to politics. You are the one acting unethically and abusing your power, by wrongfully accusing public officials of wrongdoing and demanding their resignation without any evidence wrongdoing occurred. If you have a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing, produce it, or hold your slanderous tongue. Before lecturing us again on politics and justice, explain to us why you routinely savage my highly qualified and ethical judicial nominees for crass political purposes."

By the way, where was Sen. Schumer when President Clinton and Attorney General Reno were giving a nearly eight-year seminar on how to politicize and corrupt the Justice Department? I devoted an entire book to that subject and would be glad to send an uninscribed copy to the senator, reminding him that he was conspicuously silent during that period.

David Limbaugh Says...

What rana says?

[aubaine]

David Limbaugh Says...

What rana says?

So according to the article you posted, Bush didn't do anything wrong because he says he didn't do anything wrong. Gonzales didn't do anything wrong because he said he didn't do anything wrong.

Seriously - why are they so secretive?

[digipoi]

So according to the article you posted, Bush didn't do anything wrong because he says he didn't do anything wrong. Gonzales didn't do anything wrong because he said he didn't do anything wrong.

Seriously - why are they so secretive?

The article points out the Democrats did much worse yet it was within their power to do so as well, without giving an explanation. Same case here, the only difference, Republicans.

[aubaine]

The article points out the Democrats did much worse yet it was within their power to do so as well, without giving an explanation. Same case here, the only difference, Republicans.

No, it's not the same. Firing ALL US attourneys when you are trying to "start anew" is one thing.

Firing specific US attounreys because they pose a threat to you politically is another thing altogether.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

The article points out the Democrats did much worse yet it was within their power to do so as well, without giving an explanation. Same case here, the only difference, Republicans.

Its funny that you constantly bash teh Dems as losers, but you find it completely acceptable to compare your party to them in situations such as this.

[digipoi]

Its funny that you constantly bash teh Dems as losers, but you find it completely acceptable to compare your party to them in situations such as this.

I'm not bashing them. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and why is it wrong only now. Lead by example no?

Stop trying to divert attention on me. I'm shy.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

I'm not bashing them. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and why is it wrong only now. Lead by example no?

Stop trying to divert attention on me. I'm shy.

It would be nice to see the Republicans lead by example.

[digipoi]

It would be nice to see the Republicans lead by example.

You're still diverting from the topic. And since when are such a touchy US Democrat?

[John S. Veteran]

No, it's not the same. Firing ALL US attourneys when you are trying to "start anew" is one thing.

Firing specific US attounreys because they pose a threat to you politically is another thing altogether.

Who stated they posed any sort of threat? What's your source for this assumption? They could be fired if W didn't like the color of their eyes and still be within the letter of the law.

[ranasrule]

They could be fired if W didn't like the color of their eyes and still be within the letter of the law.

because Dudya is the "decider"

[John S. Veteran]

because Dudya is the "decider"

As was Clinton before him when he had Janet El-Nino fire all 93 Attorney's General, did you have a point or is today trolling day?

[ranasrule]

As was Clinton before him when he had Janet El-Nino fire all 93 Attorney's General, did you have a point or is today trolling day?

Clinton fired them all....so he was lookin to start fresh....did Bush and Co fire them all too ?

[Clirion]

Clinton fired them all....so he was lookin to start fresh....did Bush and Co fire them all too ?

You do realize he fired them all 2 years after he assumed office? That hardly counts as a "fresh start"

[John S. Veteran]

Clinton fired them all....so he was lookin to start fresh....did Bush and Co fire them all too ?

So by your logic, if a company fires it's entire workforce it's ok...but if they fire a handful it's time to call up the EEOC? (Equal Employment Opportunites Commision).

If anyone was being partisan about it, it was Clinton. Did Bush do that? No, he left Clintons picks in office, save the recent 8, for 7 years. Firing any amount, at any time is within the law for any President, why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

You do realize he fired them all 2 years after he assumed office? That hardly counts as a "fresh start"

While I agree with your sentiment, it was in March of '93--his first year in office.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

[Clirion]

While I agree with your sentiment, it was in March of '93--his first year in office.

I did the wrong math again..... Carry the 1 carry the 1 :) Yep 1st year in office.

[aubaine]

So by your logic, if a company fires it's entire workforce it's ok...but if they fire a handful it's time to call up the EEOC? (Equal Employment Opportunites Commision).

If anyone was being partisan about it, it was Clinton. Did Bush do that? No, he left Clintons picks in office, save the recent 8, for 7 years. Firing any amount, at any time is within the law for any President, why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

While I agree with your sentiment, it was in March of '93--his first year in office.

I don't there's anyone out there saying that what Bush did was against the law. In fact, this centers around Alberto Gonzales, who specifically stated in his confirmation hearing that he would not fire anyone for purely political reasons. It appears that he did just that.

And why do "righties" always assume that just because we call something out as wrong we want legal action? I thought you guys wanted less government, not more? For example, anti-PC'ers often use the "free-speech" argument to say "liberals love free speech - unless it's against a minority". Free speech protects people from being arrested for what they say. I don't think there are many liberals out there who want bigots rounded up and arrested for their ignorance. We're just pointing it out as wrong.

[digipoi]

I don't there's anyone out there saying that what Bush did was against the law. In fact, this centers around Alberto Gonzales, who specifically stated in his confirmation hearing that he would not fire anyone for purely political reasons. It appears that he did just that.

And why do "righties" always assume that just because we call something out as wrong we want legal action? I thought you guys wanted less government, not more? For example, anti-PC'ers often use the "free-speech" argument to say "liberals love free speech - unless it's against a minority". Free speech protects people from being arrested for what they say. I don't think there are many liberals out there who want bigots rounded up and arrested for their ignorance. We're just pointing it out as wrong.

I guess by calling out these phony accusations and going on these witch hunts, they waste a lot of US taxpayers money to boost their egos for 08 elections. Sleazy politics.

[Clirion]

I don't there's anyone out there saying that what Bush did was against the law. In fact, this centers around Alberto Gonzales, who specifically stated in his confirmation hearing that he would not fire anyone for purely political reasons. It appears that he did just that.

And why do "righties" always assume that just because we call something out as wrong we want legal action? I thought you guys wanted less government, not more? For example, anti-PC'ers often use the "free-speech" argument to say "liberals love free speech - unless it's against a minority". Free speech protects people from being arrested for what they say. I don't think there are many liberals out there who want bigots rounded up and arrested for their ignorance. We're just pointing it out as wrong.

The problem becomes, it is not just pointed out as wrong right now. Subpoena's are flying around. Congress is going to compel, or force a constitutional show down about this. You do not do that because something is wrong. You do this because either its Illegal or you want it to appear that way.

[aubaine]

The problem becomes, it is not just pointed out as wrong right now. Subpoena's are flying around. Congress is going to compel, or force a constitutional show down about this. You do not do that because something is wrong. You do this because either its Illegal or you want it to appear that way.

As I said, in this case, it appears as though Gonzales either lied or misled Congress in his confrimation hearing. You don't do that without ****ing off Congress.

It also looks like he lied to Congress flat-out when he said that he "wasn't involved" with the firings, when he clearly was.

It also looks like they are trying to cover something up now since they don't want to testify about something that, as you say, is completely within the Executive branch's power to do.

If I were in Congress, I'd say that those things warrant more investigation. Since the Executive branch appears to want to block that investigation, they may have to issues subpoeonas in order to get to the bottom of it.

Besides, it's important to clarify, no matter what the circumstances, the limits of executive priveledge. Now that's going to happen.

No matter where you stand on this issue, I think you have to agree that Congress is doing its job on this and that the government will be better in the end for it.

[digipoi]

It also looks like they are trying to cover something up now since they don't want to testify about something that, as you say, is completely within the Executive branch's power to do.

How do you cover something up when the Bush administration has handed over all documentation and given full cooperation?

[aubaine]

How do you cover something up when the Bush administration has handed over all documentation and given full cooperation?

Full cooperation? You're joking right? You mean, besides cooperating at all?

They have refused to allow their staff to testify under oath. How is that coorperating?

[Clirion]

As I said, in this case, it appears as though Gonzales either lied or misled Congress in his confrimation hearing. You don't do that without ****ing off Congress.

It also looks like he lied to Congress flat-out when he said that he "wasn't involved" with the firings, when he clearly was.

It also looks like they are trying to cover something up now since they don't want to testify about something that, as you say, is completely within the Executive branch's power to do.

If I were in Congress, I'd say that those things warrant more investigation. Since the Executive branch appears to want to block that investigation, they may have to issues subpoeonas in order to get to the bottom of it.

Besides, it's important to clarify, no matter what the circumstances, the limits of executive priveledge. Now that's going to happen.

No matter where you stand on this issue, I think you have to agree that Congress is doing its job on this and that the government will be better in the end for it.

The funny thing here, there is nothing to limit. He is in his rights to do what he did, for whatever reason. If now, change the law.

Investigate all you want, but because you are holding an investigation, does not mean anything illegal was done. But it does give the impression that something was done illegally. This is what this investigation is for, to stage 2008 elections, nothing more.

]

[digipoi]

Full cooperation? You're joking right? You mean, besides cooperating at all?

They have refused to allow their staff to testify under oath. How is that coorperating?

They've made all documentation available for Congress but Congress wanted to go make an issue before actually researching if an issue existed first.

The funny thing here, there is nothing to limit. He is in his rights to do what he did, for whatever reason. If now, change the law.

Investigate all you want, but because you are holding an investigation, does not mean anything illegal was done. But it does give the impression that something was done illegally. This is what this investigation is for, to stage 2008 elections, nothing more.

]

Thank you. I thought it was pretty clear myself.