White House Forced To Admit ‘Inconsistency’ Over Transcripts
White House Forced To Admit ‘Inconsistency’ Over Transcripts
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was forced to admit the “inconsistency” of the White House position on transcripts during today’s press briefing. CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux said, “No one has really missed the irony of what is happening here at the White House.”
During the briefing, Perino again defended the notion that Karl Rove and other top aides should be able to talk to Congress without a written transcript, calling the White House offer “quite generous and extraordinarily open.” But moments later, when asked about new documents showing Alberto Gonzales approved the U.S. Attorney firings, Perino pointed to transcripts of Gonzales’ remarks on CNN that she claimed exonerated Gonzales.
A reporter pointed out that Perino’s defense of Gonzales “illustrate[s] perfectly why a transcript is necessary.” Perino responded, “I see your point,” sparking laughter from reporters. “I understand that some people would think that that is not a good idea, and I understand the inconsistency of my own statement of referring back to a transcript.” Watch it:
UPDATE: Here’s the full exchange from the briefing:
Transcript:
MALVEAUX: I have to say it’s very interesting here because the White House is essentially saying Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, is telling the truth, and that his statements are not inconsistent. But what they are saying today is just look at the transcripts. Yeah, we’re talking about transcripts here.
We heard from Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, who said look, even if there was a meeting that took place with Gonzales’s aides over the firings of these U.S. Attorneys, she says the statements are consistent that he made at a press conference on March 13 and public statements he made to CNN the following day. And she points to the transcripts here.
Now all of this quite ironic as you know, Wolf. Because while the Justice Department is allowing Alberto Gonzales to go before cameras, will provide a transcript of his testimony, the White House has refused to allow top officials to have these interviews on the record with these transcripts, something that Democrats and Republicans say is key to proving that these are not inconsistent statements that are being made. And no one has really missed the irony of what is happening here at the White House, including Dana Perino.
[PERINO VIDEO]: I understand the inconsistency of my own statement of referring back to a transcript of March 14. However, these meetings are not hearings. They are not interrogations.
White House press briefing transcript:
Q A couple things. Just for the record, are the people who are not negotiating with Congress aware that it is unprecedented for somebody like Karl Rove, or somebody who’s giving even an interview, to have no transcript kept of their closed-door interview, except in national security instances?
MS. PERINO: I don’t know all the issues of precedent that go all the way back. I do know that people have meetings all the time and they have discussions all the time, and there aren’t transcripts produced all the time. But this isn’t –
Q Not according to the committee –
MS. PERINO: Let me finish, Jessica, which is that the White House — the Congress does not have oversight over the White House. We are not — this is not a hearing, this is not an interrogation –
Q What do you mean, don’t have oversight?
Q But there is checks and balances, and that’s the way the system has worked –
MS. PERINO: There are checks and balances, but we could have said, we’re not going to talk to you at all. But that’s not what we did.
Q But that’s a form of — you don’t see this as a form of confrontation, refusing to follow practice?
MS. PERINO: No, the way I see it is that it is a form of accommodation.
Q And so the White House is being accommodating by saying, we won’t negotiate, take our offer or leave it?
MS. PERINO: We are being accommodating because we could have said, we’re not going to talk to you at all, and instead we’ve been quite generous and extraordinarily open about what we’re willing to provide. […]
Q Dana, can I just follow one more time on this notion of transcript? Doesn’t the events of last Friday illustrate perfectly why a transcript is necessary? In other words, you have more documents that come out Friday. You have the Attorney General saying something that appears inconsistent. And then you say, ah, but look at the transcript of CNN on the –
MS. PERINO: I see your point. (Laughter.) I see your point, Jim, and I understand that people would think –
Q — it’s a serious question, that you’re referring to something that there’s no dispute about what was said, because there’s a transcript.
MS. PERINO: Jim, I see your point, but — however, the decision that we have made is to allow for interviews that would be on the record, where people could take notes. And I understand that some people would think that that is not a good idea, and I understand the inconsistency of my own statement of referring back to a transcript of March 14th. However, these meetings are not hearings, they are not interrogations, they are not under the Kleig lights. They are meetings in which members say they want to get to the bottom of the facts. And if they really want to, they have that opportunity available to them –
Q But if Harriet Miers –
MS. PERINO: — and there are other opportunities for members of Congress to get different data points of information in order to pull the full story together.
Q But if Harriet Miers and Karl Rove have recollections of answers to questions that don’t exactly match, and we’re trying to “get to the truth” –
MS. PERINO: Nothing would prevent them from following up.
Q But follow up how? With notes, or with what each one actually said?
MS. PERINO: With follow-up questions.
Q Yes, based on what? What each one actually told investigators, or what the best notes reflect of what they told them?
MS. PERINO: Jim, we’re not going to have a transcript.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
92 Responses to “White House Forced To Admit ‘Inconsistency’ Over Transcripts”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Hi, Tony? It’s Dana. WHEN ARE YOU COMING BACK TO WORK??? YOU BASTARD!!!”
March 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pmDo these people not grasp the concept of recording media devices of audio and video for playback and archiving? Sheesh.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:27 pmDana Perino just had her Josh Lyman press gaggle moment.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pmpwned
March 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pmEnormously idiotic.
Common sense has once again been flushed down the toilet.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pmI want to know why did the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?
It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pmMy god, she is the WH spokesperson!
March 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pmNormal people get fired for stuff like this.
They seem to send out Dana for the most difficult stuff.
They want the woman to look the worst. The WH is sexist. OR they know only a woman can handle it.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:32 pmShe’s fired. Guarenteed. Nobody cops to that stuff in this Admin.
Canned.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pmDana Perino is doing a heckuva a job!
March 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pmThe White House offer IS generous. Here’s the full question and answer on the transcript:
Q Dana, can I just follow one more time on this notion of transcript? Doesn’t the events of last Friday illustrate perfectly why a transcript is necessary? In other words, you have more documents that come out Friday. You have the Attorney General saying something that appears inconsistent. And then you say, ah, but look at the transcript of CNN on the —
MS. PERINO: I see your point. (Laughter.) I see your point, Jim, and I understand that people would think —
Q — it’s a serious question, that you’re referring to something that there’s no dispute about what was said, because there’s a transcript.
MS. PERINO: Jim, I see your point, but — however, the decision that we have made is to allow for interviews that would be on the record, where people could take notes. And I understand that some people would think that that is not a good idea, and I understand the inconsistency of my own statement of referring back to a transcript of March 14th. However, these meetings are not hearings, they are not interrogations, they are not under the Kleig lights. They are meetings in which members say they want to get to the bottom of the facts. And if they really want to, they have that opportunity available to them —
Q But if Harriet Miers —
MS. PERINO: — and there are other opportunities for members of Congress to get different data points of information in order to pull the full story together.
Q But if Harriet Miers and Karl Rove have recollections of answers to questions that don’t exactly match, and we’re trying to “get to the truth” —
MS. PERINO: Nothing would prevent them from following up.
Q But follow up how? With notes, or with what each one actually said?
MS. PERINO: With follow-up questions.
Q Yes, based on what? What each one actually told investigators, or what the best notes reflect of what they told them?
MS. PERINO: Jim, we’re not going to have a transcript.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:42 pmIs anyone else hearing the lound “clang” of cell block doors resonating through the minds of White House gofers? Or is it just me?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pmI wonder if Dana swallows
March 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pmOaths, Open Forums, Transcripts…anything else will be un-American
March 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pmAre all republicans idiots or just the ones in power?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:45 pmFake Jake is back.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:47 pmWhat’s wrong? Snowjob’s too tuckered out from lying to handle this one? Or is it, “Ah, screw it, this one can’t be spun. SEND IN AN UNDERLING!”
March 26th, 2007 at 5:47 pmJake you totally wish. Been a while ay?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:47 pmHere’s more on the transcript issue:
MS. PERINO: Kevin.
Q How concerned are you that the appearances, when you don’t have testimony that’s on a transcript, and when you don’t have people that are willing to be under oath, that the American people look at that and say, what are they up to, maybe they’re trying to hide something — how concerned are you about that appearance?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think that it’s incumbent upon us to continue to explain what our position is and why it is. I think the people understand that it is good, not just for this President, but for the presidency as a whole, to have White House internal deliberations continue to be held within the confidence of the President. And that is good, not just for this President, but for future presidents, what he or she may do in the future. So it’s incumbent upon us to explain that.
Also, the other thing that we need to remind people is that the President expects every member of his administration to be truthful when they’re talking to anybody; that includes members of Congress. In fact, it’s a crime if you don’t tell the truth to a member of Congress.
And so we could have said, we’re not going to talk to you at all, and then what sort of a PR position would we be in? But the President decided that he would allow his aides to go up and testify, that we would turn over an unprecedented amount of documents from — unprecedented from our standpoint, from our administration. And so in terms of concern, I understand where you’re coming from, but I think that we have continued to explain what our position is, and that’s what we have — that’s just what we have to do.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:48 pmI wouldn’t have her job for anything. Lie, lie, dodge, facilate, lie, lie . . . I thought she did it very well, with a certain disarming quality. Of course, I’m also a real sucker for pretty blonde ladies, so my objectivity is questionable.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pmShe’s filling in because Tony’s getting a cyst removed from his colon. She’s obviously too honest for this job and will never be seen again at that podium!
March 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm(cont.)
Sheryl.
Q Dana, you have Republican senators now saying that they need a transcript for this meeting, interview, as you call it. It seems to be an area where if the White House would give a little bit, you might find some give at least in your own party on Capitol Hill. Is this the White House’s position that the offer for these interviews without a transcript is final and that there will be no negotiation over the issue of a transcript?
MS. PERINO: I know of no negotiations that are ongoing. I do know that in regards to the transcript, we — this is not a hearing or an interrogation, and in order to avoid the appearance of that, we offered the interview. I do understand that there are some people who would disagree with our position.
Q But I’m asking you —
MS. PERINO: I understand that there are some Republicans who think that we should offer a transcript, as well. That is just not where we are right now.
Q You’re saying that you know of no negotiations that are ongoing, but is it your position that there will be no negotiations, that this is a non-negotiable issue?
MS. PERINO: At this point, I believe that is true. From all that I know, I believe that is true. I do think that anyone looking at it objectively could say that because we could have said that we are not going to talk to you at all, and we offered this olive branch of sorts, that they don’t want to take us up on it.
Q So your position is firm, no transcript?
MS. PERINO: Correct.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pmDana Perino… Hoisted on her own petard! This show is getting better by the day.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pmQ And do you see how, to the American people, the notes which are going to be taken by several different people and invariably going to vary, and don’t have the solidity of a transcript, could be seen as just you being not quite straight?
MS. PERINO: No, I don’t think that that’s how people would see it. I understand some people would disagree with our decision about not having a transcript. However, these are not hearings, this is a meeting. And you have meetings all the time where transcripts aren’t produced.
(of course, all of this was courtesy of . . . a transcript itself http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2007/ 03/ 20070326-1.html ; )
March 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pmThanks Cosmo for the insight. Well not literally.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pmWhy is posting a long pointless cut and paste a resonable substitute for making an actual point? jake? either jake can answer, fakejake or pornojake?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm“Congress does not have oversight over the White House.” Hello? Are the founding fathers turning in their grave?
March 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pmre #20
you think they send out the pretty blonde to make the mean liburls back off? I’m betting the next press stooge will be a wounded vet, or a puppy.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:55 pmRandi Rhodes says it best: “if it doesn’t happen on the TV, it didn’t happen.” Of course, then you can transcribe to your heart’s content. I would hope those transcribers are loading up autocompletes that spit out something along the lines of “I invoke my constitutional right not to testify under the fifth amendment,” which is where we are headed now, I guess.
BTW, once they do issue subpoenas, do Karl and Harriet have to hide behind their doors, pretending not to be home? Or so I’ve heard.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:56 pmDana, there will be a transcript.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI agree with whatever real Jake #1 sez…or whatever fake Jake #1 sez…or…
March 26th, 2007 at 5:59 pmIs it really certain that Tony Snow has a health problem preventing him from lying at the podium? Has anyone suggested that Snow might have legal reasons to avoid giving press conferences at this critical juncture? Perhaps his criminal lawyers have advised him that he is at risk of saying things that seem innocuous now, but that prove incriminating as the big picture unfolds further. This is all very speculative, of course, but I am a little bit curious about the possibilities.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:59 pmIs Randi still on the air?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pmMS. PERINO: Let me finish, Jessica, which is that the White House — the Congress does not have oversight over the White House. We are not — this is not a hearing, this is not an interrogation –
The absolutely most important thing in this interview is that, once again, the WH is telling the American people and the Congress that Congress DOES NOT HAVE oversight of the WH. This is their “constitutional issue” that they will use to fight the supoenas. Everything else they say is filler. This IS the fight they will engage in.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pmQ So your position is firm, no transcript?
MS. PERINO: Correct.
Q And do you understand that the longer the White House holds out insisting that there be no transcript, no oath, and no public testimony, the percentage of Americans who DON’T think that the entire administration is a pack of liars that should be swept out of office as soon as possible will continue to dwindle?
MS. PERINO: That is correct.
Q Can you think of any reason why a member of this administration should be believed with or without sworn testimony?
MS. PERINO: I’m not aware of any.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:03 pmYou know, I think the really significant factor here is that Tony Snow is suddenly just not doing these briefings.
Anyone with half a brain knows why.
Its clear Tony sees the truth now, and sees this is one ship thats going down by the stern, and he doesn’t want to get dragged down with it.
He’s swimming free.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:03 pmJeez - she can’t even keep a straight face.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:07 pmThese people are demented criminal sociopaths. May they all go to hell.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:11 pmRegarding the “no power of oversight issue” that this administration is going to try to use, they should study up on Sections 2 and 3 of Article One. This is really a big gun they are dragging out here for this situation. One would wonder WHY this particular situation warrants this response. Or is it simply because they are aware that, with the Dems in the majority, oversight will be the normal course of events. My bet is on the latter rationale.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:11 pmimpeachcheneythenbush:
Maybe we have a definitional problem then — can Congress issue “Presidential” pardons using your definition of “oversight”?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:15 pm#36 The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS
Actually, Snow is in the hospital right now.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:16 pmEwwwwwwww…. Klieg lights! Klieg lights! They burn! They burn! Turn off the klieg lights! Turn off the klieg lights! WTF’s a klieg light. Oh, a hoity toity talking point. I get it? WTF! Has our government been overtaken by gremlins? Bright lights, bright lights! Please, don’t poor water on this administration. I afraid, very afraid!
Peace!
March 26th, 2007 at 6:22 pmPeeJ
Like “Executive Privilege” there is no direct mention of “oversight” in the Constitution — even in sections 2 & 3 of article I — the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform defines it’s mission to “. . . review and study on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency.” The Executive branch has always taken the position that oversight does not apply to the Office of President of the United States, and I’m just wondering if it’s ever been tested as to the Office of Vice President — Cheney has taken the position that his staff / salaries need not be listed in the Plum Book, for instance:
“The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).
The annual legislative branch appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–83) and the annual transportation-treasury appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–199) provide funds for the Vice President to hire employees to assist him in carrying out his legislative and executive
functions. Executive branch employees also may be assigned or detailed to the Vice President (see 3 U.S.C. 112) and the Vice President may employ consultants (see 3 U.S.C. 106(a)). The Office of the Vice President (OVP) consists of the aggregation of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is
disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the Vice President’s legislative appropriation, Vice Presidential employees employed with the Vice President’s executive appropriation, employees assigned or
detailed to the Vice President, and consultants engaged by the Vice President.
The numbers, titles and salaries of OVP personnel change with some frequency. The salaries of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the Vice President’s legislative appropriation cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 2 U.S.C. 60a–1). The salaries of Vice Presidential employees whose salary comes from the Vice President’s executive appropriation also cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 3 U.S.C. 106). The authority
to appoint, administratively determine the pay of, and discharge Vice Presidential employees rests with the Vice President.”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ plumbook/ 2004/ p226_appendix5.pdf
March 26th, 2007 at 6:23 pmDana Perino — isn’t she just adorable? What a cute little lying sack of crap.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:25 pmWell Jake has mastered the Ctrl-C Ctrl-V function…
March 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pmI guess that exhibits basic motor skills.
Of course, it’s not altogether her fault that they’ve given her a hash of incoherent stories to sell.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) wants to discuss the FULL transcript on this issue, or Congressional oversight in particular, let me know.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:29 pmJake what f**k is with your obserssion about Congress issuing “Presidential pardons”?? You’ve used that particular liner on several threads, and it has never made a lick of sense in any of them. Give it up.
You know that old saying, “better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”? Well, you’re a little bit beyond that now; there is no doubt left. But at least you could stop reminding us every five minutes!
March 26th, 2007 at 6:32 pmJake, follow the dots if you can: Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. There is, implicitly, an oversight function by Congress over the Executive Branch. Interesting post you just did above from the GPOaccess.gov website. Just outed yourself as an operative, as far as I’m concerned.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:34 pmF-U, Dana! You’re not cute, you’re just another lying shill.
We are not interested “meetings.” We, the people, demand hearings under oath and even under “kleig lights” if that’s what it takes to get the truth out of you people!
March 26th, 2007 at 6:35 pmJake is a lawyer now?
Give it up, fella. Life is waaaaay too short to live it with your head planted up your *ss.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:36 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) wants to discuss the FULL transcript on this issue, or Congressional oversight in particular, let me know.
Comment by Jake
Who would want to ask you a question, when they know, from all the idiotic posts you keep sticking in the threads, that they will get the wrong answer?
What an idiot you are.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:38 pmAnd stick your Ignore List where the sun don’t shine. Moron.
51.
Jake is a lawyer now?
Give it up, fella. Life is waaaaay too short to live it with your head planted up your *ss.
Comment by fuzzwald — March 26, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
RSS
No, he’s a GOP operative.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pmp.s. It’s not that we don’t think it’s a “good idea,” it’s that we think you and your masters are LYING,Dana.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:42 pmI know a good way to get Alberto and his aides to tell the truth. Let’s strap them to a waterboard!
WWCD (What Would Cheney Do?)
March 26th, 2007 at 6:44 pmKRank:
I’m trying to see if there’s ANY power your side will concede is SOLELY vested in the Chief Executive — you have a different example you want me to use?
impeachcheneythenbush:
So, you’ve conceded there’s nothing in article I? Of course the Congress can impeach Bush (or Cheney first if you wish). Congress cannot force him to testify though. Stating the facts does not make me some nefarious “operative” and note I also cited the White House press briefing website even though I don’t work in the West Wing either.
fuzzwald:
I never said I was a lawyer or that I live my life with my head planted up my *ss. Next question?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pmP.S. I am registered Independent, but I guess that’s what I would be registered if I was some super-double secret GOP operative — not sure how I can prove otherwise to you.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:47 pm“Jake is a lawyer now?”
that’s strange. he was preaching the Word on the other thread.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:52 pmKRank, impeachcheneythenbush, or fuzzwald:
I have, to the best of my ability, attempted to answer all of your questions — if you think I’ve given a “wrong” answer, please let me know.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:53 pmIs Randi still on the air?
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Yes Air American has a new owner. It has been on XM Radio, that’s satellite old fart, and now that Sirius is merging with XM they will be on both. It’s also on regular radio but satellite is garnering a big share of listeners.You know right along with Howard Stern.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pmThe rumors of Air America’s demise that you heard on Fox were lies. Just another bunch of crap neocons believe.
I wonder if Jake will ever start to feel betrayed.
“Maybe we have a definitional problem then — can Congress issue “Presidential†pardons using your definition of “oversightâ€?
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 6:15 pm”
What an idiotic arguement…..
Oversight is Congresses job, just like UPHOLDING the LAW is the Presidents job.
By YOUR logic……. The presidents office, i.e. the justice department, could not investigate Congressmen……
Obviously, that is not the case as there have been MANY Republicans sentenced to prison for FEDERAL crimes…..
Now slink back under that rock and learn the law you say you know!
March 26th, 2007 at 7:04 pmI have, to the best of my ability, attempted to answer all of your questions — if you think I’ve given a “wrong†answer, please let me know.
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Speaking for myself, i can’t say that you’ve given me a “wrong” answer. You’d have to move a whole lot closer to “intelligent” than your answers are now just to approach “wrong”.
You did, admittedly answer my question, which was what the f**k is with your obsession about Congress issuing “Presidential” pardons? but the answer that you gave is so bizarre that it doesn’t explain why you keep flogging that dead mule when it obviously has no life in it. It’s just a weird thing to say, and it’s even weirder to keep using it when it never accomplishes what you say you intend.
Of course, if your true intent is only to see your own words published in a blog comment thread, then I guess it accomplishes your intent. If that is the case, I stand corrected.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pmAG is giving an interview on MSNBC at this moment. There must be a particular strain of bullshit that develops in people who come from Texas.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pmHe did a nice little tap dance — turn on the applause lights please — for the little boy who made friends with George Bush and rose, like W himself, to his very own Peter Principle. The little boy who would never have made it beyond the corner laywer’s office has made it to the big time. GWB showed him well, how to bullshit people, how to talk in circles, how to make friends in high places and how to keep them handy for a “rainy day.”
AG is a mediocre lawyer who has made it to the big time — his lies have gotten him in far over his head.
Well, either I answered your questions, or not? I resemble the “intelligent” remark ; )
My intent has always been to reach the lurkers here — no one on my “Ignore List” is going to be convinced — I know that. I did at least ask if you had a different example you wanted me to use — but it’s not really an argument, though (at least not until I can get someone to admit there ARE sole Executive powers — too bad Clinton was not still President because then plenty of people here would be admitting that AND defending his decision to take out Saddam too ; )
March 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmmore evidence of bush, cheney, and rumsfelds lies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1TugPlEoho
March 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1TugPlEoho
March 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pmmpeachcheneythenbush:
So, you’ve conceded there’s nothing in article I? Of course the Congress can impeach Bush (or Cheney first if you wish). Congress cannot force him to testify though. Stating the facts does not make me some nefarious “operative†and note I also cited the White House press briefing website even though I don’t work in the West Wing either.
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
I conceded no such thing. From Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
From Article 1, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
The ability to impeach implies previous “oversight.” Or if you wish, “investigation.” So if you want to keep tap dancing on this issue, suit yourself. All I know is that the administration is going to use the issue of whether or not the Congress has a Constitutional responsiblity for oversight over the WH, and they will LOSE that battle, but they will certainly spark the “Constitutional crisis” they are accusing the Dems of trying to ignite.
Operative or foil, I would strongly suggest you get your head out of your ass.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmdiggydoo:
Sorry, but my prior employment for Viacom / CBS prevents me from viewing youtube videos at this time. Care to post what you believe is the most blatent “lie”?
March 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmimpeachcheneythenbush:
FYI — “impeachment” is a different word than “oversight”.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pm“Sorry, but my prior employment for Viacom / CBS prevents me from viewing youtube videos at this time. Care to post what you believe is the most blatent “lieâ€?
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:25 pm”
What a CROCK!!!
Working in the INDUSTRY for over 10 years of BROADCASTING, what you just stated is total Bull $hit!!!!!
Keep telling the lies, and I will keep showing people just how assinine you are!!!!!
March 26th, 2007 at 7:30 pmFYI — “impeachment†is a different word than “oversightâ€.
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
But one can lead to the other - when criminals, and frauds like you are left in charge. Dum bass!
March 26th, 2007 at 7:30 pm“FYI — “impeachment†is a different word than “oversightâ€.
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm”
Hey NIMROD….. WIthout OVERSIGHT, you cannot have IMPEACHMENT!!!
March 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pmSorry, but my prior employment for Viacom / CBS prevents me from viewing youtube videos at this time. Care to post what you believe is the most blatent “lie� Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
An excuse a minute. Do us a favor, *fake* old timer, get a dictionary. It’s “blatant”, not “blatent”. It’s hard to imagine anyone every employed you for anything other than handing out towels in the John, or the occasional “hand” job. That would explain your habit of “Jake’ing” off on everyone here with your st*pidity.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pmdiggydoo or impeachcheneythenbush?
March 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pmKRank:
Honestly, I did not even know about this from Judiciary Subcommittee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) who today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats’ Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.
“Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office,” stated Ranking Member Smith. “I can think of no better person to address this issue.”
At Thursday’s hearing of the Judiciary’s Crime Subcommittee entitled, “The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power,” Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president’s plenary power to issue pardons.
President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.
The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.
“Mr. Clinton’s exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee,” concluded Smith. “I hope he will lend his expertise . . .”
March 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pm#
(at least not until I can get someone to admit there ARE sole Executive powers — too bad Clinton was not still President because then plenty of people here would be admitting that AND defending his decision to take out Saddam too ; )
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
#
There are, indeed, sole Executive Powers. As per Article I, Sections 2 & 3:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Regarding the powers of Congress which balance out the Commander in Chief Powers outlined in Article II: Article I, Section 8: to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; (Bush, by Executive Order, changed this right after 911 with his “illegal combatants” and how they were to be treated…unconstitutional by the way).
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; (This does not allow Congress to interfere with tactical plans, but it absolutely impacts Congress’s right to impact strategic plans.)
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (That is, the President cannot federalize the National Guard without explicit Congressional approval).
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
As far as your “Clinton” B.S., I personally would NOT be defending Clinton had he done any of the things I am critical of the Bush administration for. I personally (and sincerely) don’t care what party label someone wears if they commit illegal, unethical or immoral acts. Wrong is wrong. Period.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:48 pmYet Jake, you don’t show a single case where Clinton pardoned anyone in his administration for gross abuse of power, and authority.
So while pardons are an old presidential privilege, care to explain why pretty much only GOP presidential terms require pardoning of government officials?
Or is that what you believe the Pardon is for? To protect your cronies, while you raid the American treasury for your friends at Halliburton?
Jake, you’re such a miserable little piece of sh*t.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pmIf anyone (NOT on my “Ignore List”) wants to discuss the President’s sole power to pardon — I have never argued otherwise — please let me know.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:54 pmWhy aren’t loyal Bush-mouths Snow & Perino equal in integrity and truthfulness to Tariz Aziz, Cent-com’s Eight of Spades & Saddam Hussein’s Prime Minister who also functioned as a once ridiculous seeming mouth for Saddam?
Tariq Aziz told the world March 19 2003: “We are ready to fight the aggressors,” “American soldiers are nothing but mercenaries, and they will be defeated.” (CBS
After being captured and a guest of Gonzales & the Pentagon…
News-Max, 6/13/03: “President Bush recently remarked that Aziz “has not learned to tell the truth yet.” That’s an apparent reference to reports that the Pentagon has not gotten much out of Aziz on Iraq’s weapons and Hussein’s status.”
March 26th, 2007 at 7:56 pmIf anyone (NOT on my “Ignore Listâ€) wants to discuss the President’s sole power to pardon — I have never argued otherwise — please let me know. Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Why, you don’t *discuss*, you *weasel*, and argue that subverting the law is a good thing. You’re a useless old piece of sh*t - that actually thinks your *opinion* is relevant or even informed. You’re as delusional about that, as you are about your own *morality*. You lying, piece of filth.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pmOh Dana you ignorant slut!
Your smiles can’t hide your LIES. I say you last less than 10% of the time Scotty McLiar and Snow Job did in this LYING role.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:30 pmSee the Perino, standing there with her straggly blond hair
Seeth the Perino, standing there, with her EMPTY HEAD under her hair
Seed the Perino, standing there with her EMPTY Tony air
Seen the Perino standing there covering for Tony Colostomy-Bag Snow WHOSE SHIT-BAG GOT TOO FULL OF PSYCHOBABBLE GOBBLEDYGOOK SO HE HAD TO GIVE IT CARE(Snow’s COLON CANCER IS BACK!!!!)
—–NOTHING LESS THAN UNDER OATH AND WITH WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS IS ACCEPTABLE OR ALLOWABLE(REMEMBER, CHIMPya and Co., WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YA LIE UNDER OATH, AS Bill Clinton FOUND OUT MUCH TO HIS DISMAY)—–
March 26th, 2007 at 8:43 pmSorry, but my prior employment for Viacom / CBS prevents me from viewing youtube videos at this time. Care to post what you believe is the most blatent “lie�
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Another BALD FACE LIE!
March 26th, 2007 at 9:47 pmJake, at the risk of feeding you the food you most crave — attention — nothing you have posted makes your obesession with “congressional power to issue Presidential pardons” any less weird, or makes anything you have posted make any more sense.
“The lurkers” recognize your inanity, the posters who cut you down to size regularly recognize your inanity and if you think you contribute to the discourse, you’re in a decided minority.
Maybe you should give it up as “Jake”, try a new screen name and a new approach. Maybe then you’ll be able to reach the “lurkers”.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pmKRank:
Did you notice that a Judiciary Subcommittee IS looking into Presidential pardon power? I don’t think the Terms of Use agreement allows me to impersonate anyone though.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pmJake is now on my Ignore List…anyone want to join me in blocking him out, now that we know he is a paid op?
March 26th, 2007 at 11:47 pmWhat a tool.
[…] I shall direct you to our friends at Think Progress who have some videos that should be viewed along with the transcript: White House Forced To Admit ‘Inconsistency’ Over Transcripts […]
March 27th, 2007 at 12:24 amFor the record, I do not get paid to post here. If KRank or anyone else (NOT on the one and only, original “Ignore List”) have a question about me being a “paid op” please let me know.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:55 amWell, we know that this adminstration has been playing dirty from the beginning, why doesn’t the Justice Committee secretly record any meetings they have with these crooks?
March 27th, 2007 at 11:41 amHaha… well said war4sale (re: waterboard comment)
March 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amKRank:
More recent thread on the pardon topic:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 03/ 27/ lamar-clinton/ #comments
March 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pmOh my god, the chick from Moonlighting is working for the Bush administration!
March 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm