Note to White House: Snow isn’t helping

March 22, 2007

The White House appears to be trying to seize the offensive today, hitting the airwaves to push back against the prosecutor purge scandal. There’s just one minor problem: the Bush gang can’t answer the basic questions they’ve had eight weeks to prepare for.

This morning, for example, Tony Snow appeared on ABC. Asked whether White House officials would honor congressional subpoenas, Snow said, “The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability.”

But the real entertainment came shortly thereafter, when Snow appeared on CBS’s Early Show for an interview with Harry Smith. As Dan Froomkin explained, Snow has developed a reputation of balancing his “friendly glibness with disputatiousness, snappishness, and personal attacks on reporters.” This morning, Snow’s frustration turned into sheer contempt, as the White House press secretary rolled his eyes and dodged every substantive question Smith asked. (If you have a few minutes, watch the video.)

Smith, who made no effort to endear himself to Snow, gave the White House offer to congressional Democrats the deference it deserves.

SMITH: I think the people in the House and the Senate are pretty well aware of what the deal is, and that is basically you’ve offered a chat. These guys can go — Karl Rove, Harriet Miers —

SNOW: No … wait, Harry. Harry, first, what you’ve done is you’ve framed the issue falsely. So let me help you out a little bit and then you can —

SMITH: Okay, let’s find out —

SNOW: — because the American public needs to understand what the offer is.

SMITH: Well, okay, let’s cut to the chase. Why not go down there and let these people testify under oath?

Snow said this is all the Justice Department’s fault, so White House aides shouldn’t have to. Smith saw through this, too.

SMITH: But Tony, even from a cursory look at these e-mails, it looks like it reaches much farther than the Justice Department.

SNOW: No, it doesn’t. What it means — if you take a look at the e-mails, Harry, it appears that there were some communications like, “Well, we’re thinking about” —

SMITH: Karl Rove wasn’t involved? Harriet Miers wasn’t involved? C’mon.

SNOW: Well, no, this is where I think what you’re trying to do is to create a narrative that I’m not so sure the facts are going to justify. This is why what we’re trying to do is to get everybody to figure out what’s the deal…. And what we’re trying to do is something pretty extraordinary. The legislative branch has no oversight responsibility over the White House.

Does the president’s chief spokesperson seriously believe Congress has no administrative oversight? Has he ever even looked at the Constitution?

On and on it went. Smith noted that the federal prosecutor from the tobacco case said, “When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general’s office, politics is the primary consideration. The rule of law goes out the window.” Snow refused to respond and said Smith was “sounding like a partisan rather than a reporter.” (Yes, for reading a quote from a federal prosecutor.) Smith brought up Snow’s own words from 1998, and Snow wanted to change the subject. Smith asked why there should be no transcript of White House aides talking to lawmakers, and Snow tried to change the subject again.

Once again, Snow has had plenty of time to come up with basic responses to easy questions, but he’s got nothing. It’s as if Rove, Mehlman, & Co. distributed a blank sheet of talking points.

Why even agree to the interview?

the topper of the interview with harry smith was at the end, when harry made absolutely no attempt to hide his total and utter disgust with snowjob. i laughed for a long time after watching that. it’s nice to see some of the msm come over to the right side again.

  • Perhaps soon Snow will be joining his predecessors by spending more time with his family. He has an impossible job. He has to defend the indefensible. If he wasn’t so arrogant I would feel sorry for him.

  • Well, the Smith was “sounding like a partisan rather than a reporter” line fits in well with the marching orders that Rove began last week; that all of this is a witch hunt fueled by Democrats. NPR (which seems to be trying a CNN rightward tilt) failed to challenge this nonsense yesterdays as did other outlets. Smith at least shows the gumption to piss ’em off.

  • The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability.

    Pardon my language here, but …

    ARE YOU GOD DAMN FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?

    Jesus H. Riverdancing Christ … has this fucktard ever read the Constitution of the United States of America?!

    You know, that comment by Snow perfectly sums up this entire past six years: The completely and utterly ignore centuries of precedent, law, and common sense any time it interferes with their lust for power, money and control.

    I swear to all that is fucking holy … if the Democratics currently serving in Congress had any love for their country, they’d start impeachment TODAY. Instead, they’ll pussyfoot (no offense intended to the females reading) around the issue, hem and haw, have a few hearings, and those who have continually wiped their ass with the greatest governmental document ever created will just sit and laugh, knowing damn well they’ll never receive the retribution they so rightly deserve.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to have a smoke. And hopefully I can find the energy to not kick the first Republican I see square in the fucking nuts …

    /rant

  • “Has he ever even looked at the Constitution?”

    Actually, I just did. Where does it say anything about oversight, particularly the power to compel members of the executive branch to testify?

    (Just askin’. I’m on your side here.)

  • Like all the other brain-dead Ken-dolls who sit in front of TV cameras and recite what is written for them by their intellectual betters (being merely literate making one intellectually superior to any of them), Tony Snowjob has never been called in public on the fact he is a moron, and he has no experience defending himself, so with every word he makes things worse.

    The halfwit obviously slept through that high school class on government.

  • Did I read right that, according to Tony Snow, official White House Press Secretary, Congress does *not* have oversight ability? If so, I believe Tony Snow has been living in a fantasy world and all too beholden to his boss than in the reality in which the American Constitution specifically mandates the Congress’s checks and balances and oversight ability over the Executive branch.

    The George W. Bush administration, it seems, has truly undermined America’s security and constitutional authority to the detriment of the country and its citizens who this administration, like others before and after it, were–and will be, respectively–given the authority to serve.

  • Re #5: from wikipedia

    Oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Constitution. The government’s charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive.

    There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in the Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law.

    Looks to me like the C student and his lawyers are now going to try to demonstrate that there never was any power of Congressional oversight.

    Somehow I doubt if Leahy and even the Republicans in congress will be amused.

  • Also read Article II, Section 2, enumerating the powers of the Pres.:

    and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law

  • Mcgrain v. Daugherty

    That 1927 Supreme Court ruling will come back to haunt Team Bush.

  • “Where does it say anything about oversight, particularly the power to compel members of the executive branch to testify?” – Steve H.

    Try looking here:

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-936.pdf

    Although the Constitution grants no formal, express authority to oversee or investigate the executive or program administration, oversight is implied in Congress’s impressive array of enumerated powers. The legislature is authorized to appropriate funds; raise and support armies; provide for and maintain a navy; declare war; provide for organizing and calling forth the national guard; regulate interstate and foreign commerce; establish post offices and post roads; advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations (Senate); and impeach (House) and try (Senate) the President, Vice President, and civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Reinforcing these powers is Congress’s broad authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer therof.”

    The authority to oversee derives from these constitutional powers. Congress could not carry them out reasonably or responsibly without knowing what the executive is doing; how programs are being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials are obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court has legitimated Congress’s investigate power, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. In 1927, the Court found that, in investigating the administration of the Department of Justice, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.”

    and so on, and so on. . . .

  • I would suspect that there would be some information pertaining to Congress’ oversight rights from wayyyy back around 1996. Probably a few Republicans involved who would be asserting that right.

    Just a hunch.

  • “Looks to me like the C student and his lawyers are now going to try to demonstrate that there never was any power of Congressional oversight.”

    — Racerx # 9

    They won’t stop there. They’ll soon try to convince us that the United States doesn’t even HAVE a constitution.

    Still …

    Drip. Drip. Drip. Sizzle!

  • Hello? The Republicans spent the ’90s hauling Clintonites in front of Congress.

  • THE SUPREME COURT ON CONGRESS’S POWER TO OVERSEE AND INVESTIGATE

    McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177, and 181-182 (1927):
    Congress, investigating the administration of the Department of Justice during the Teapot Dome scandal, was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.” The “potential” for legislation was sufficient. The majority added, “We are of [the] opinion that the power of inquiry — with the process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.”

    Those damn activist judges …

    In other words, just because the exact words “Congress shall perform oversight functions upon the Executive Branch” aren’t in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    Also, I found this tasty nugget from the National Review and Paul Roberts in 1994. Some good stuff, including:

    Americans see government as out of control because law is routinely made by activist Executive Branch officials, agency bureaucrats, and federal judges who are unaccountable to the people. This is a usurpation of the people’s right to make the law through their elected representatives in Congress.

    [snip]

    Republicans need to understand that angry Americans overthrew the Democratic Congress because it systematically failed to stand up for their light to live under an accountable government. To reclaim the law for the people, this Republican Congress needs to do two things. It needs to devote less energy to passing new laws and more to reining in the bureaucratic and judicial perversions of the laws already on the books. This is a big job of house cleaning. Because of Congress’s oversight powers, it makes sense to begin with Executive Branch appointees.

    Simply flip the parties, and that call to action is perfectly applicable today. Of course, if that argument was made today, the right — who cheered such an article back in 1994 — would be apoplectic.

    William Blackstone, England’s greatest legal scholar, wrote that when “executive power distorts the established law,” it is incumbent upon the legislature to impeach and punish the conduct of the government’s “evil and pernicious counselors.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

  • Thanks for the links/explanations, folks.

    So basically, just as I feared, the “has he ever read the Constitution” point is not really valid, since reading the Constitution doesn’t tell you about oversight.

    Unfortunately, “has he ever read McGrain v. Daugherty” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

  • so, steve, you can ask, “doesn’t he understand the constitution?” that has a better ring to it.

  • ” This morning, Snow’s frustration turned into sheer contempt, as the White House press secretary rolled his eyes and dodged every substantive question Smith asked. ”

    Actually I thought he did a good job of dodging. His tone and demeanour kept intact, and he managed to signal again and again that Howard Smith was being some sort of contentious ass for not taking the administration’s word about handing over “documentation and information” (very crisp and official-sounding). What came across was someone who knows how to be hard-nosed about airtime when faced with an aggressive interviewer. The administration is lucky to have the jerk.

    One beautiful grace note: “get the facts, that’s what we’re asking Congress to do.” For a moment it’s like Bush thought up the investigation.

    Loved Howard Smith’s bleak “You bet” at the end, when Snow asks him doesn’t he want the truth.

    For some reason MSM types can’t just say the issue is 1) that the administration doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt, and 2) historically, Congress doesn’t have to use the honor system when getting information out of the executive branch.

  • Holy Cow, Mark D. Your response at #4 was EXACTLY what I have been thinking lately. (And I am of the female persuasion, and I wasn’t in the least offended by the phrase “pussyfooting around”, which refers to the way a cat sometimes walks gingerly, and is a venerable and time-honored expression which cannot easily be replaced by any other phrase.)

  • What Tony Snow doesn’t understand…or thinks other people don’t know about…is the Congressional Oversight Manual.

    http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:3kp-wWJfuKgJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf+congressional+oversight+manual&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

    Not that it’s going to make any difference to an administration which simply ignores any part of the Constitution it doesn’t like and disposes of inconvenient laws by executive signing statements.

  • Congressional “to harm” Overlooked?

    The U.S. Supreme Court Did Not Know?

    In 2008 the U.S. Congress still treats as an “incident to service” [1] the order ignored [2] “experiments…designed to harm” [6]! Despite the efforts of some, these victims have not been given the “to harm” recovery of, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”; 1994 U.S. Senate Report “IV. Recommendations. G.” [6] The seven (7) years earlier 1987 U.S. Supreme Court Stanley decision [3] extended the coverage of their 1950 Feres Doctrine that a death by a military barracks fire was an “incident to service” [1]. Stanley treats a 1958 Department of Defense (DOD) “designed to harm” experiment, conducted in direct disobedience of a 1953 order [2], as also an “incident to service”! Thereby, because of honorable service afterwards lost are those prior to rights that convicted rapists and murderers keep! [4]

    In 2008 continued on the general public is a version of the DOD Project 112 biological lessons learned.[7] This is by the 19 December 2006 established civilian “Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)”.[9] Under the cover of its “national security missions” withheld from the civilian subjects are the cause and effects of its “Biomedical…Research and Development” (R&D) Projects. As it is U.S. Senate documented for military personnel.[6]

    May Not Review.

    A few in Congress made certain that the revealing cause and effects needed for treatment evidence will not be addressed. The year following STANLEY was the 1988 Veterans’ Judicial Review Act. Established was the Veteran’s Legislative severely restricted, Article I Court. “The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule.”, i.e., the order ignored “to harm” R&D experimental effects and their causes! The Veterans Court Chief Judge’s no teeth statement with his VA ignoring of the Court’s decisions! [5] The Secretary of the VA was given Final Decision authority on these issues. [8] Included is the power of NO APPEAL to this LEGISLATIVE Veterans Court or to the independent U.S. Judicial Branch Courts. If allowed an APPEAL, it is not part of the record at the Article I Veterans Court. The evidence is also missing at the next level U.S. Judicial Branch Article III, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

    Why “may not review”?

    The may not be reviewed needed for treatment records and underlying policies restrictions are to prevent alerting medical, administrative and judicial “activities”! This is due to the still in 2008 reasoning of “it was necessary to conceal these activities from the american public in general, because public knowledge of the unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission.” U.S. Supreme Court 1987 Stanley Case; Footnote 4, Page 688 on its proven 1958 CIA experiment on U.S. Army personnel. [3]

    Hold Responsible.

    Now BARDA Experiments Conducted on You! Please, Hold Your Members in the U.S. Congress Accountable! These U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Senate Documented Facts Are Internet Censored.[10] Passing this on to Others So That They May Do the Same Would Be Appreciated. Thank You.

    David H. Marshall

    REFERENCES:

    [1] U.S. Supreme Court, Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).

    [2] DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). In Reference [8] as NOTES 72, 168 & 169.

    [3] U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 1987, U.S. V. Stanley, 107 S. Ct. 3054 (Volume 483 U.S., Section 669, Pages 699 to 710). In Reference [8] Cited in Note 169.

    [4] U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Art. 7”.

    [5] Chief Judge Frank Q. Nebeker, State of the Court for Presentation to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals Third Judicial Conference October 17-18, 1994. In the Veterans Appeals Reporter. http://www.firebase. net/state_of_court_brief.htm Annual Judicial Conference Transcript. www. goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker

    [6] U.S. Senate December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session. With NOTES 1 to 170. Committee Print – S. Print. 103-97.

    [7] “Project 112 (Including Project SHAD) Home” chemical and biological experiments; www. 1.va.gov/shad/

    [8] United States Code (USC) Title 38, 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality. http://www. law.cornell.edu/

    [9] “Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)” S-3678.

    [10] From: MAILER-DAEMON@n7.bullet.ukl.yahoo.com Subject: failure notice. Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:43:22 -0000 Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message…. Remote host said: 550 SC-001 Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. Reasons for rejection may be related to content with spam-like characteristics or IP/domain reputation problems. And From: MAILER-DAEMON@n5.bullet.ukl.yahoo.com Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:52:58 -0000 Subject: failure notice Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. XXXX Remote host said: 554 The message was rejected because it contains prohibited virus or spam content [BODY].

    • Comments are closed.