A swing and a miss on explaining the RNC emails

It’s sometimes helpful to gauge the seriousness of a controversy by the incoherence of the White House response. If the Bush gang has a strong defense that can explain their behavior, they’re more likely to brush a scandal aside. If the Bush gang stammers and stumbles, the scandal is more likely to dog them for a while.

Consider, for example, yesterday’s explanation for missing RNC emails from dozens of White House staffers.

Q Waxman’s committee has put out an interim report on the issue of the RNC emails showing, they say, that there was more use of those emails than the White House suggested, indicating possibly widespread violation of the Presidential Records Act. It’s, like, 140,000 emails of Rove’s, so the White House Counsel’s Office is aware that official business was being conducted through this party (inaudible) system? Can you respond to all that and what —

MR. SNOW: Look, I can’t respond specifically to things that the committee may have put out. But those email accounts were set up, A, on a model based on the prior administration, which had done it the same way, in order to try to avoid Hatch Act violations. And we’ll just — we’ll leave it at that. I mean, these were designed precisely to avoid Hatch Act violations that prohibit the use of government assets for certain political activities.

Q What have you all found in looking at these emails and emails related to the U.S. attorneys —

MR. SNOW: I don’t have any comment.

Snow’s response is completely ridiculous. Let’s unpack it a bit.

First, the Bush gang’s model is not “based on the prior administration.” This is Clinton-did-it-too-ism to a comical extent. The Clinton White House created a separate email system for staffers to use for political business, which they insisted be kept separate from government business. For that matter, to avoid any possible conflicts, access to external email was shut off from White House (eop.gov) computers. Is this the Bush model? Not so much.

Second, Snow seems to be arguing that the Bush gang violated the Presidential Records Act in order to avoid violating the Hatch Act. But this, too, doesn’t make any sense. To violate the Hatch Act, WH staffers would have to do political work with government resources. Snow has it backwards — WH staffers did government work with political resources.

Snow said the Hatch Act “prohibit[s] the use of government assets for certain political activities.” That’s largely true, but it doesn’t apply here at all. This White House used private political email accounts to conduct practically all of its work. I know Rove & Co. blurred the political/official line out of existence, but to hear Snow tell it yesterday, the Bush gang made no distinction between the two at all. That’s not much of a defense; it’s actually more of an admission.

There wasn’t much follow-up on the point, but reporters really need to push back against this nonsense. Snow was intentionally deceiving to them — blatantly and shamelessly — with an argument that falls apart under even a little scrutiny.

I should also note that yesterday’s press briefing was filled with a variety of other Snow gems.

On Iraq and the Middle East:

Q Do you think that the war in Iraq has helped push the peace process forward in any way?

MR. SNOW: Don’t know. I mean, what I don’t think is — quite often people say, well, you can’t — you’re not focusing on the Middle East because you’re focusing on Iraq. These are all related. As the President has pointed out before, whenever pro-democracy movements seem to be making some progress — Lebanon, for instance — there are actions that are designed to derail it. This is part of — this is part of the larger war on terror, and we, in fact, remain fully engaged on all fronts.

Q But before the war, the President said that taking out Saddam Hussein would help stabilize the Middle East. Do you think that’s turned out to be true?

MR. SNOW: Hard to say.

Actually, it’s really not.

And then there was this:

“This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal Counsel’s Office takes it seriously.”

Snow managed to say this with a straight face. I’m not sure how.

Is Tony Snow thinking about a career in stand-up comedy? “Careful about obeying the law?” How did the assembled media not just bust out laughing? Or burst into tears at how low things have sunk?

I think that aside from the core issue of this e-mail traffic being in violation of both the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act, it is the content of the e-mails that is going to be the shocker for a lot of people, and it would not surprise me to see criminal indictments come out of this.

  • I wonder if they keep a Lie & Half-Truth decision-tree database at the White House to maintain this byzantine web of deceit that they perpetrate daily on the American public.

  • Anne, it would *astound* me to see criminal indictments come out of this. This administration seems totally immune to the consequences of their actions, and responsibility isn’t even in their vocabularies.

  • “…in order to try to avoid Hatch act violations”
    I think Snow White misspoke here. He meant to say, “…in order to try to avoid Hatch act prosecutions” Then again, it’s not a violation unless you’re prosecuted. No evidence, no prosecution. No prosecution, no violation.

  • The little thief just picks the lock on the trunk, but the big thief carries the locked trunk away on is back.
    When Bush stole the justice system, he stole everything within its domain.

  • Tony may be truthful about the administration carefully obeying the law. The question is whose law. Not ours. This administration does have a consistency about it so they must be following Rove’s law – the uberlaw – for securing power.

  • Do reporters use these briefings to write stories or just for some sort of background? Since Snow continually lies, there really isn’t a story there except that the Bushes lie to the people. Too bad we can’t put him under oath every briefing. He’d be in jail so fast it would make his head spin.

  • Georgette, I don’t think it’s going to be up to them – it’s gotten too big to gloss over, and it’s going to get bigger. In a way, I think the conviction and sentencing of Libby was a kind of tipping point – the beginning of turning back toward consequences for breaking the law. And I think it’s sent a little chill of fear up the spines of a lot of people in the administration, who have been thinking for a long time that they were beyond the reach of the law.

    I think it’s why it was so important for Libby’s trial to end with convictions on multiple counts; had he been acquitted, I think it would have killed some of the momentum that is underway in Congressional committees, and given some of those under scrutiny the belief that if they just hang tough, we’ll give up and go away. Instead, we see a slow drawing together of the net, people starting to turn on each other and things faliing apart.

    I’m willing to admit that this could also be wishful thinking on my part – I haven’t given up hope!

  • This is harsh, but please remind me again why it is wrong to think that sometimes in certain limited instances allowing cancer to cull the herd, so to speak, can be a good thing?

  • “This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal Counsel’s Office takes it seriously.”

    I laughed out loud at that one, and was stunned to hear no chuckles from the press corps — or corpse, I guess.

  • “This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal Counsel’s Office takes it seriously.”

    Bagdad Bob never lied so blatantly.

  • In a way Tony’s telling the truth. When was the last time any of us saw the Bush administration in the act of true governance? Everything, for them, is political so it comes as no surprise that they would use their political e-mail acounts for everything. These guys do not govern, they just politicize.

  • RacerX: I watched my Baghdad Bob DVD last week and it wasn’t nearly as funny as it was a few years ago. Unfortunately many of his most bombastic statements about what would happen to America in the sands of Iraq, while risible at the time, now appear prescient.

  • Comments are closed.