Banging on the table

As I’ve been told, there’s an old law-school joke that everyone learns fairly quickly: when you have the facts, argue the facts … when you have the law, argue the law … and when you have neither, bang on the table.

Yesterday, after the House Judiciary Committee approved contempt citations against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, the Bush gang banged on the table, starting with a surprisingly unhinged rant from Tony Snow.

“For our view, this is pathetic…. [W]e offered further that we would make available any persons of interest at the White House for full interviews by members of the committees — they’d be able to ask whatever questions they wanted to do. In each and every one of these cases, the efforts of the White House were rebuffed.

“And so now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that’s never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington.”

Snow doesn’t think very highly of his audience — he wouldn’t make these arguments unless he thought everyone listening was a moron.

On the Bush gang’s offer on testimony, Snow argues that the White House was “rebuffed.” Look, there have been three points of contention here — private vs public testimony, having aides swear under oath to tell the truth, and having a transcript of what was said. Congressional Democrats are willing to compromise on two out of the three points, the White House is willing to compromise on none of the three points.

For that matter, Snow’s argument becomes comical when one realizes that in one breath, he’s arguing for the sanctity of the executive privilege, but in the next breath, he’s implicitly arguing that Harriet Miers will answer lawmakers’ questions just so long as no one writes down what she says. (I’m curious: do even 28-percenters find this persuasive?)

As for Snow’s belief that “assailing” executive privilege has “never been done in American history,” I’m not an expert, but as I recall, Nixon made the same claim — and things didn’t work out too well for him.

On a related note, the New York Times editorial board added some helpful insights to the subject today, concluding that the White House “has been acting lawlessly.”

The committee really had no choice but to hold Ms. Miers in contempt. When she was subpoenaed to testify about the administration’s possibly illegal purge of nine United States attorneys, she simply refused to show up, citing executive privilege. Invoking privilege in response to particular questions might have been warranted — the courts could have decided that later. But simply flouting a Congressional subpoena is not an option.

Mr. Bolten has refused to provide Congress with documents it requested in the attorney purge investigation, also citing privilege, and he has been equally unforthcoming about why he thinks it applies. Together, Ms. Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s response to Congress has simply been: “Go away” — a position that finds no support in the Constitution.

If these privilege claims make it to court, it is likely that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten will lose. The Supreme Court has held that a president’s interest in keeping communications private must be balanced against an investigator’s need for them. In this case, the president’s privacy interest is minimal, since the White House has said he was not involved in purging the United States attorneys.

I find that last point particularly interesting, since the president is claiming executive privilege to cover conversations with aides that the White House said never happened. Accordingly, Miers is being asked by her former employers not to tell lawmakers about conversations she didn’t have with the president.

The NYT concludes, “It is not too late for President Bush to spare the country the trauma, and himself the disgrace, of this particular constitutional showdown. There is a simple way out. He should direct Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten to provide Congress with the information to which it is entitled.”

Somehow, I doubt that’s going to happen.

I love the smell of Republican desperation in the morning.

You forgot one of their other restrictions. I believe that they would only allow one interview, and no follow ups. That’s a biggie with these people, as Gonzales shows clearly.

Personally I wouldn’t offer them any of their ridiculous preconditions unless they could explain why they were necessary.

They are so busted, and I LOVE the way they’re flinging themselves about as the noose tightens around their necks.

  • I saw a clip of Snow’s tirade and my reaction was WTF? Every administration that’s made a claim of executive privilege has had it ‘assailed’. It’s been a point of contention between the 2 branches of government ever since I first heard the term.

    What’s obvious to most people is that in this regime’s view, executive privilege is blank check. It not only applies to conversations it claims never took place, but institutions unrelated to the WH – such as the RNC.

    Usually, these things work out in a compromise. When EP is defined as literally ‘everything,’ there’s no starting point for negotiation. It’s as futile as asking your cat where he was last night and hoping he responds in English.

  • I find Tony Snow’s use of the word “pathetic” to describe a branch of our constitutional government offensive. It belittles our democracy and all Americans who take seriously their civic duty to cast ballots for the representative that they send to Washington, DC. Snow ought to come up with a better word (“unjustified,” perhaps) to express his reaction, but an apology for “pathetic” should be forthcoming!

  • “Snow doesn’t think very highly of his audience — he wouldn’t make these arguments unless he thought everyone listening was a moron.”

    A former FNC host talking to a roomful of MSM reporters. Do the math.

    “As for Snow’s belief that “assailing” executive privilege has “never been done in American history,” I’m not an expert, but as I recall, Nixon made the same claim — and things didn’t work out too well for him.”

    Unfortunately, you have Nixon’s wet-dream-of-a-Supreme Court in power.

  • The only people more “beyooooond belief” than the scum in the White House making these claims are the fucking morons in Das Base who believe them. I finally had to come to the conclusion this week that if I want to continue to have the private joy of participating in a hobby I have had a lifelong interest in, I had to stop even reading the “off-topic” discussion groups in the hobby, or leave the hobby completely. Thank God for the non-Americans, without whom I would leave out of mortification that I shared anything in common with people who are not only this stupid but this celebratory of their stupidity.

    Das Base – all of whom must have slept through the “How A Bill Becomes A Law” class in high school – does believe Tony Snow’s bullshit. The real lack of true education among Americans (and I don’t mean they have to be educated to be Democrats, just educated enough to have an actual understanding of the way things are supposed to work) is stunning. The American education system should be called the American Mis-Education Establishment. But then, if people actually had a clue what is going on around them, that would make life difficult for the criminals political and corporate who “make their bones” picking the bones of The Public.

    I really really really really really never thought we would get to the point of reading the kind of news we are reading today. If there is a GOP victory next year, it’ll be time to call for a Second Civil War. Not that even a majority of our side would have a clue why it should be.

  • The reason we are still in Iraq, for God’s sake, is because Bush almost never backs down from a position; on the rare occasions when he does, he makes it seem like it was all his idea and may even have been his original plan all along. This is a man who does not admit mistakes, and who sees doing what someone else asks him to as an admission of error.

    You can’t argue with a three-year old, you know; they’re tyrants at heart, full of the headiness of discovering the magnitude of their own power and their ability to manipulate people into getting their own way. If we wanted to get anywhere with Bush, we should try treating him in an age-appropriate way; impeachment would be the equivalent of “time-out.

    Tony Snow – it’s the smugness that gets to me, and it comes from the knowledge that no one’s been able to touch Bush. The dismally low approval ratings mean nothing to people who are getting away with everything they do. What do they care if no one likes them? And as long as there are Republicans in Congress who are completely fogged in by their own partisanship, they can be smug indefinitely.

    I just hope the day is coming when “smug” is replaced by “humiliated” and “defeated.”

  • Snow is also claiming that the congressional hearings have produced nothing so far.

    Um, yeah. Because of all the obstruction by the Bush administration. Echoes of “Scooter isn’t guilty because nobody was prosecuted for the underlying crime (because Scooter protected them).”

    To me, this is analogous to “I can’t be overdrawn; I still have more checks!”

    BTW, when do we hear about Mitt Romney saying, in so many words, he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade?

  • As far as I understand it*, you CANNOT use Executive Privilege to obstruct justice or cover-up a crime. Which is why Miers, et al. need to show up to testify and at least invoke it. It would then go to the Court to determine validity. EP is NOT immunity, and that seems to be what the White House wants it to be.

    Also, the fact that they are supposedly “willing to share” the information in a non-oath, no-transcript, non-public setting would seem to nulify proper grounds for EP. If the info is privileged, assert privilege and keep it to yourself. Devising a forum in which you can lie and claim to “share the facts” is waiving the privilege as far as I am concerned*.

    * Not a lawyer, Senator, or District Court Judge. Hell, I’m not even that smart…

  • 2Manchu pointed out the reason why Tony Baloney is still smirking:

    “Nixon’s wet-dream-of-a-Supreme Court [is] in power”

    Jesus Christ I hope the Wimpocrats realize how they fucked over several generations of Americans by “keeping their powder dry” and letting Bush have his SCOTUS fixers.

  • As Ollie often said to Stan: “This is a fine mess you got us into.”
    Well, you pick, Cheney and Bush, which is which? -Kevo

  • Snow doesn’t think very highly of his audience — he wouldn’t make these arguments unless he thought everyone listening was a moron.

    Well, DUH! Look who he’s talking to! These are the same people who think John Edwards haircut or Hilary’s cleavage is more important than, oh, say, the transformation of the US into a banana republic.

  • Well, this is just a continuing symptom of a much larger problem, one of which we are all aware. The entire GOP criminal enterprise holds Dems in contempt simply for being Dems (and I am aware this can be said to be true of the GOP when it comes to almost anyone or any group that is not like them). Cheney, Rove and now Snow–as well as many other GOP ‘leaders’ over the past 13 years–have specifically and clearly stated that they feel it is OK to lie to and about, disrespect, treat with contempt, etc. any Dem just because of the fact that the person is a Dem. This is no secret. It doesn’t matter how just or unjust the Dem is in life and his/her life’s work. These folks think it is fair game to slander, libel, and go all out in underhanded ways and even against the law to shut Dems down, just because they are Dems. Now, I am bothered, but not overly so (for various reasons), when this happens to individual Dems in the political context, or when these asshats basically treat the Dems as if they don’t exist when the Dems are in the minority. However, the Dems are no longer in the minority on Congress and in fact they are the Congress. At this particular point in time the Dems are the institution of ‘Congress,’ and as such they are the representatives of the american people. And as such they deserve respect, respect that the institution itself deserves. It is sort of like the military saying, and I paraphrase: respect the uniform, not the man. Yet these jackasses, Cheney, Rove, Snow and especially Abu G, do not even care to provide respect to the institution of Congress, and the american people, due to their hatred of Dems. It is shameful. It is, for the most part, unprecedented. It is criminal. And I would say that it is borderline traitorious. And it needs to be smacked down, once and for all, right now. Through contempt charges, through perjury prosecutions, and through impeachment, for many, many reasons, but also for the Dems to show that they are going to standk up, once and for all, to this type of contemptuous and criminal conduct. Because if the Dems do not take this to the mattresses now, and under these circumstances, the Dems will set themselves up for this type of conduct to continue, and worsen, over the next couple decades at least. And this conduct will most definitely get worse and adversely affect any Dem administration that is lucky (??) enough to take over the White House in 2009.

  • When the White House uses words like “rebuffed,” I always think of the disgusting slob who drools all over ladies in the bar. He is always shocked, SHOCKED when yet another drink is flung in his face. He knows he’s doing everything right, and comforts himself with the thought that the women are all dkes or something.

    But perhaps a better analogy is a highwayman who is suprised when people don’t appreciate his generous offer of their money or their lives.

    Worst. Administration. EvA.

    If things continue downhill from here we’ll see summary executions in the streets and Roosevelt Island dug up to serve as a mass grave before 2009.

  • Ton’s act was preceded by David Leisure (as Joe Isuzu) and Jon Lovitz (as Tommy Flanagan), and Tony’s not nearly as amusing.

    But I somewhat agree with Tom above about Das Base, but in a different context. I don’t blame education, the problem is the base belief system. Das base are Authoritarians, and it is their belief that Dear Leader is correct. So many of them overlap with the group that believes that the (mostly) King James version of the Bible is God’s word. Not man’s word about God, but literally God’s word. In their world, the world is six to ten thousand years old. Scientific conclusions to the contrary are dismissed with something like the U.S. legal version of “reasonable doubt.”

    So, as long as an authority (like Tony) says it, they believe it. That smug idiocy that spews forth from his pie-hole is their gospel. Proven to be false, misleading, outright lies? No, they have reasonable doubt in their twisted brains, and that cancels out any inconvenient fact or set of facts. They don’t do nuance.

    C’mon, you must have seen this belief-based phenomenon at some point, dealing with someone so convinced that they are right that after several demonstrations that they are wrong, grudgingly concede but still mutter that they know that they are right, they’ve just missed something.
    So sad that people like this make up over 20% of the U.S. population.

  • I like Kevo’s analogy to Laurel and Hardy.

    As to which is which, I quote Oliver Hardy himself, “[T]here are plenty of Laurel and Hardys in the world. . . . the dumb, dumb guy who never has anything bad happen to him – and the smart, smart guy who’s dumber than the dumb guy, only he doesn’t know it.” [McCabe, p. 57]

    I hope that clears it up.

  • As Steve notes, Nixon’s claims of executive privilege were pretty well “assailed”. But more than that, we don’t even have to go back as far as Watergate, nor back to Democrats (who clearly don’t understand how our leaders are trying to protect open discourse within the administration) trying to bring down Republicans (protectors of the right to free speech in service of this great nation). No sir, assailing executive privilege was all the rage amongst the current “sanctity of internal administration debate” crowd.

    I have a more developed version of this available if you’re interested (as well as a discussion of executive privilege as invoked by George Washington; hint, that’s not a real good example for Tony Snow to use).

  • Banging on the table? Isn’t that what Newt Gingrich and his assistant did after a hard day of impeaching Clinton?

  • Comments are closed.