‘I’ve been led to believe there’s a good response for it’

Following up on an earlier item, TPM and The Politico reported on an intriguing [tag]18-day[/tag] [tag]gap[/tag] in the latest [tag]purge[/tag]-related [tag]document dump[/tag]. According to the available materials, the Justice Department originally planned to start the [tag]U.S. Attorney[/tag] firings in mid-November, but ended up making the calls on December 7. In between, when one assumes there’d be a flurry of substantive and strategic emails and memos, there were no documents at all … at least according to the latest document production from the DoJ.

The [tag]White House[/tag] press corps has apparently noticed the gap and brought it up during today’s briefing. You’ll have to watch the video clip to fully appreciate how uncomfortable [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] was in responding to these questions, but even his rhetorical responses were rather startling.

During today’s press briefing, CNN’s Ed Henry noted that one of the last emails before the gap is from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ ex-chief of staff Kyle Sampson to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, asking, “Who will determine whether this requires the president’s attention?”

White House spokesman Tony Snow refused to explain the gap, telling reporters, “I’ve been led to believe that there’s a good response for it.” He said President Bush “has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.”

“I’ve been led to believe that there’s a good response for it.” That’s one of my new favorite Snow quotes. It’s a clever way of telling reporters, “That’s a good question, there’s a good answer, but I don’t know what it is.”

Just as importantly, Snow, perhaps inadvertently, undermined the White House’s [tag]executive privilege[/tag] claim.

CNN’s Ed Henry confronted snow. “Now, here’s one email from November 15 that says, from Mr. Simpson to Harriet Miers, ‘Who will determine whether this requires the president’s attention?’ And then there is a gap in emails. Was there any, you think, perhaps any email about the president in there? And did the president have to sign off on this, because the question was raised…”

Snow interrupted. “The president has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.”

Now, there are a couple of reasons why this is important. First, “no recollection” is pretty weak. Snow isn’t usually afraid of making categorical statements, even when they’re false. Given this, Snow seems to be hedging, intentionally, on the extent to which the president was directly involved in the purge. Let’s not forget, when Snow was asked on Friday if Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, “Anything’s possible…. But I don’t think so.”

As Dan Froomkin said today, “Among the many lessons of the Scooter Libby trial is this one: That when the White House issues squirrelly statements under fire, the most cynical interpretations may well be the closest to the truth.” Something to keep in mind.

Second, if Snow’s fairly ambiguous suggestion is right, and the firings weren’t raised with the president directly, then what’s the basis for the executive privilege claim?

[I]f no conversations occurred with the president, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield presidential advice?

Tony Snow’s response: “That’s an intriguing question.”

Darn straight it’s an intriguing question! What the heck are they protecting if there exists no presidential advice on the issue?

If you’re getting the sense that the Bush gang’s defense is quickly unraveling, then we’re on the same page.

“…when the White House issues squirrelly statements under fire, the most cynical interpretations may well be the closest to the truth.”

Call it the “Rove’s Razor” principle.

  • What strikes me the most is that suddenly Snow is being asked tough questions. Did the MSM finally notice the big fat ducks slowly passing by at the end of the shooting gallery?

  • And note that their “compromise” offer undermines their executive privilege claim as well. If the basis for the privilege is so the President can receive confidential advice (i.e., so the people giving the advice can speak freely with confidence that it won’t be revealed later), how is sending Rove/Miers to testify behind closed doors w/o a transcript and not under oath any different (in terms of revealing the confidential advice to others) from open, sworn hearings? It isn’t, it just makes it easier (a) for them to lie; (b) to dispute the lies later; and (c) not be prosecuted.

  • I don’t think they can claim executive privilege if there is criminality involved. Nixon tried and it didn’t work, so I guess we have to wait. Bush is sure acting like he has something to hide, and he is unmasked these days. It is no longer considered unpatriotic for reporters or congresspeople to ask questions. Thank God for that.

  • “I’ve been led to believe that there’s a good response for it.”

    That reminds me of one of my favorite lines from Strange Brew:

    “Well, uh, just because I don’t know what it is, it doesn’t mean I’m lying.”

  • I was led to believe a lot of things, Tony, but after awhile I figured out that there wasn’t an Easter Bunny.

  • Uh oh… the dreaded “R” word…. the Preznit has “no recollection.”

    Remember Nixon’s Nostrum: “Perjury’s an awfully hard rap to prove. You can say I don’t remember. You can say I don’t recall.”

    To me, this is a dead giveaway that the President WAS briefed about it… maybe even was involved in the decision (he THE DECIDER, isn’t he). And a bunch of documents are missing right about the time someone asks if the Prez weigh in?”

    Yes, let’s pass the popcorn! This is getting more bizarre by the hour.

  • White House spokesman Tony Snow refused to explain the gap, telling reporters, “I’ve been led to believe that there’s a good response for it.”

    Define “good” 🙂 There may be a truthful response (probably not good at all from the POV of the Chimpy-cage) and there may be a hopefully-convincing response (which they’d think was good but the public might not accept). And they’re probably working on deciding what to do.

    As for the gap. I suspect that, during that time, they switched into the “other e-address” mode (RNC, was it?). Because I could (almost) swear that there had been some discussion of the firings, about a week before the firings took place, in that *first* dump of the documents. I think e-mails to and from *all*
    relevant e-addresses should be impounded and studied. I think the missing bits of the jigsaw are likely to be found there.

  • You’ve scored a direct hit – when they’re using vague mumblings such as, “as far as I know” and “no recollection of that”, it’s merely laying he groundwork for a later “I didn’t say that”. The Democrats absolutely must not back off from this one: it’s high noon at the OK Corral.

    I used to enjoy watching Scotty “Punching Bag” McCellan try to defend the indefensible, but he wasn’t a very good liar and was plainly uncomfortable with it (which is not to say he was honest). Ari Fleischer before him was much slipperier, but tended to cross the line into threatening – of course, Bush was still dangerous then, instead of the uncoordinated, flailing joke he is now. But if you boiled down every word Tony Snow ever said as the White House spokesman, what would bubble to the surface would be, “I’m a great big whore, and I do it for the money. I don’t believe in anything”.

  • People who have bothered to read my comments over the past few months have noticed that I have been adamant in my arguments against impeaching Bush. But I have always hedged with ‘at the present time,’ or ‘unless something else comes out.’ I’m still not in favor of it, but I now think it might be a good idea if there is any more of a trail directly involving Bush, since this time there MAY be enough Republicans on board to make it feasible.

    Whatever, this IS Bush’s Watergate, and like the original, the closer people look, the more things, related and unrelated, will come out from under rocks.

  • Tony “Laugh?-I -thought-my-pants-would-never-dry” Snow is becoming quite the comedian.
    Does he write his own stuff? This guy makes J.C. General seem somber… And Jon, don’t get too comfortable.

  • Eeyore’s right – the “Umm, I dunno” defense is a dangerous but dodgy one.

    The best way to react is to ask, “Given how tight a ship the Bush-Cheney Administration reputedly runs, exactly how often do you think anyone does something that Bush and/or Cheney *don’t* *WANT* *DONE*?”

  • Comments are closed.