White House Rediscovers Constitution, Acknowledges Congress Has Oversight Role
White House Rediscovers Constitution, Acknowledges Congress Has Oversight Role
Last month, the White House adopted talking points that reflected a truly radical interpretation of the Constitution: that Congress has no oversight responsibility over the White House. Some sample quotes:
SNOW: Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House. [Fox, 3/22/07]
PERINO: The Congress does not have oversight over the White House. [Press briefing, 3/26/07]
SNOW: First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight. [MSNBC, 3/22/07]
Today, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reversed that position:
We understand that the Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch. I believe that this administration has been responsive to Congress, as we’ve worked with the new majorities as well, that we’ve been responsive.
Watch her clips back to back:
The claim that Congress has no oversight responsibilities is of course plainly false. As the Congressional Research Service states in its Congressional Oversight Manual, “The Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to oversee and investigate executive branch activities.”
As for the White House’s reversal today, it may well be a coordinated political decision. But it seems just as likely that Congress’ oversight responsibilities are so astoundingly obvious that Perino simply forgot her month-old talking points and said what she actually believes to be true.
Transcript:
PERINO: We said, there’s no need to authorize subpoenas, because we have — even though we don’t have any responsibility to you, and you don’t have any specific oversight over the White House, we are willing to have our four officials that you’ve asked for to go up and have an interview with members of Congress — all those details to be worked out — and that we would release documents from here, from the White House, to outside entities. [3/26/07]
***
PERINO: I do think that there is a difference between oversight and overreaching. And we understand that the Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch. I believe that this administration has been responsive to Congress, as we’ve worked with the new majorities as well, that we’ve been responsive. But there does come a point where it does start to look like over-reaching. [4/25/07]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bye Dana. Hope you enjoyed your brief stint as Tony Snow’s stand in…
April 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pmI think there’s a difference between Congressional oversight of the Executive Office of the President (what Tony Snow was referring to as the “White House”) and the rest of the Executive branch.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pmShe is terrible at her job. But then, maybe being a good liar isn’t such a great quality to have.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm“We understand that the Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch. But just try it.” – Dana Perino
April 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pmDana, if it’s all right with you could we keep the checks and balances thing going now. After all 6 years without it didn’t work out so well for the people.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm“Heckuva Job”
April 25th, 2007 at 6:52 pmAnd, in the full context of Congress forcing the testimony of White House aides like Karl Rove, Perino was responding to “the broad issue of executive privilege”
Q Is that something you anticipate the White House will cite here?
MS. PERINO: We have not cited any particular privilege. There are long-standing constitutional separation of powers issues that go all the way back to the framers, who thought about this long and hard and could maybe anticipate things that we were going to be going through as a nation as three branches have natural tensions amongst each other. So, no, we have not asserted any type of privilege.
What we have done is, if you step back, the Congress said that they were going to authorize subpoenas to the Justice Department, and Justice Department said, you don’t need to; we’ll be willing to come up, we’ll be willing to turn over documents. That said, they went ahead and issued subpoenas. The White House — they said they were going to issue subpoenas. We said, there’s no need to authorize subpoenas, because we have — even though we don’t have any responsibility to you, and you don’t have any specific oversight over the White House, we are willing to have our four officials that you’ve asked for to go up and have an interview with members of Congress — all those details to be worked out — and that we would release documents from here, from the White House, to outside entities.
That was an extraordinary compromise on our part from the beginning, and so we do feel like we have compromised. We have made a very reasonable offer. I do know of no ongoing negotiations with the Hill in regard to the offer that we have. If the Congress wants to choose confrontation over resolution, that is their choice. But we remain hopeful that they would see the wisdom in working this out with us, with this offer.
Q When you say that the Congress has no oversight over the White House — Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is saying in Esquire Magazine this month that the President —
MS. PERINO: Quoting Esquire Magazine.
Q Well, a Republican Senator is quoted in there saying that, in fact, the President does not believe that — Chuck Hagel believes the President doesn’t think he needs to be held accountable, and that he drops the word “impeachment,” that perhaps others — he’s not saying himself — but Hagel says, others may want to bring up the word, impeachment, but —
MS. PERINO: I’m not going to comment on something as ridiculous as that.
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.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:52 pmI think there’s a difference between Congressional oversight of the Executive Office of the President (what Tony Snow was referring to as the “White Houseâ€) and the rest of the Executive branch.
Comment by Judy
No. There isn’t.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:52 pmJudy you are parsing words. The spirit of the law is checks and balances. No one goes unchecked. That’s the whole idea.
Perino is backpeddling because the writing is all over the wall. No more free passes and rubber stamps from Congress.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pmI believe it is an objective assessment that she is terrible as a spokesperson. Either in over her head or handicapped with an ethical fiber but she is a poor communicator.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pmDana’s hot. Too bad she’s a BushCo tool.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:56 pmZooey and ForTruth:
The “check and balance” Congress has over the President of the United States does not include forcing him to testify, would you agree with that?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm#7 –
JakeJudyWe know how to find the transcript if we need to look at it.
Do you have a point?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pmF*ck whatever else Judy says.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pmJeez, Dana Perino looks like a drag queen in that photo.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pmDana needs electrolysis.
Hey Dana, your moustache is showing!
LOL!!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pmJudy, your argument is undermined by the fact that Perino’s answer today came in response to a question regarding subpoenas that target the White House specifically — for example, subpoenas for White House emails and for testimony from an aide to Karl Rove.
- Nico
April 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pm#12 –
JakeJudySee #14. Thanks.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pmThe incompetence of this administration everyday becomes more and more astounding. Where did they find this person?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pmThis is just a new Rovian tactic.
They’re going to play along and let the clock run out.
Rove is being investigated by a crony.
Chimpy has no intention of obeying Congress.
Nothing has really changed, just the tactics.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pmDana looks like a drugged-out, brainwashed, Stepford republican. Oh, wait…
April 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pmI’ll be willing to listen to Judy, as long as my d!ck is in her mouth.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pmThey changing their tune with subpoenas being issued. Rubber-stampin days are over and the hangin one’s just beginning.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pmCongress can force Chimpy to testify…at his Chimpeachment.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:04 pmEven the President might have to comply with things he doesn’t want to do, like answer questions about the law being broken.
Clinton did it too!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:04 pmLast I checked Nico / Admin, Secretary of State Rice works in an entirely different building than the White House.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pmDidn’t the republican congress force clinton to testify in regards to the his affair with Monica Lewinsky?
Perhaps I am wrong on that, but saying that congress cannot make a president testify, after they forced Clinton to Testify, it doesn’t work that way.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pmForTruth:
Real classy.
Tom3:
Do you think Congress forced Clinton to testify at HIS impeachment trial?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:06 pmJudy is parsing and splitting like a good Jake-off.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm“What was that Judy, I can’t hear you, there’s something in your mouth”
April 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pmNo, what it means is that the White House has had ample time to destroy any evidence that would give cause and proof of their many, many crimes.
So they are saying, “Yeah, you got the right. Go ahead and investigate now, hehehe, nothing there, all destroyed.”
Man, I just hate these Repuke Scum, oh and all you Bush Trolls you are criminals to for supporting this 21st Century Mafia.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily
April 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pmCunti Rice.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pmJudy, I’m not here to show my class off.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pmthe absolute truth about the war in Iraq.
http://www.oldhacks.blogspot.com
my last post for awhile
April 25th, 2007 at 7:09 pmTypical Repuke troll.
They always bring up Clinton.
It doesn’t matter if “Clinton did it too”.
That’s never been an excuse to break the law.
Stupid troll, go back under your bridge.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:10 pmJudy is parsing and splitting like a good Jake-off.
Comment by ForTruth — April 25, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Judy is Jake*ss. There’s no mistaking his lunatic screed.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:10 pmNo, Krazny, the Republican Congress did not force Cinton to testify in regards to the his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Next question?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pmThe Repukes forced Clinton to get sued while in office.
Repukes got the Supremes to rule that Presidents could get sued in office.
Maybe somebody should sue Chimpy.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm#
Last I checked Nico / Admin, Secretary of State Rice works in an entirely different building than the White House.
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Which is it Judy? Can Rice and Bush claim executive privilege, because of her position in the White House, or does she not work for the executive branch?? because she works in a seperate building. If she doesn’t work for the executive branch, then she can be subpeoned no problem. If she does then it is oversight of the executive branch again no problem. Claiming rice is immune due to some sort of demarc of congressional oversight, is pretty goofy.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:12 pmIt DOES matter, Tom3, if Clinton did it and it was legal back then.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:12 pmSo OVERREACHING is the new talking point?
YAWN.
The end is nearing for these FREAKS of nature.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:12 pmDana’s hot. Too bad she’s a BushCo tool.
Comment by Martin — April 25, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
To paraphrase Cher in Moonstruck: “Snapt out of it!”
April 25th, 2007 at 7:14 pm#
No, Krazny, the Republican Congress did not force Cinton to testify in regards to the his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Next question?
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
There was something though, I think Clinton had tried or maybe succeeded in pushing off the civil trial that was brought against him by one of the women accusing him of harassment. That might be what I was thinking off. I will have to check and see how the whitewater investigation happened. I think you are wrong though.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThe “check and balance†Congress has over the President of the United States does not include forcing him to testify, would you agree with that?
Comment by Judy
So Judy, as a loyal American, I would presume you would want your president to tell his country the truth and not let his own arrogance determine to whom he speaks and when. As a loyal American, I would presume you would want the country to benefit from this process – not simply the republican party. As a loyal American, i would presume you would want the facts so you – as a loyal american – can make up your own mind about the going on within the beltway. As a loyal american, I would presume you don’t want the present ‘culture of corruption’ to continue. You are a loyal American, aren’t you?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pmStupid troll is just trying to steer us off topic.
The topic is Dana Perino, flip-flopping drag queen.
Another cheap-ass Repuke troll tactic, distract from the facts.
Trolls can’t HANDLE the TRUTH!!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThe “check and balance†Congress has over the President of the United States does not include forcing him to testify, would you agree with that?
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Well I wish somebody had told Bill Clinton that. Because frankly I wouldn’t have cared if he got a blow job every day. How much money was wasted on that little bit of testimoney, not to mention issues that as an extremely competent man Clinton could have addressed.
Bush on the other hand does nothing contructive anyway so he might as well spend the remainder of his term testifying.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pmDana Perino, the Flip-Flop Queen:
“Congress does not have oversight over the White House” [3/26/07]
” Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch” [4-25-07]
Complete flip-flop in less than a month.
Dana Perino now has ZERO credibility as White House spokesho.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pmDana needs electrolysis.
Hey Dana, your moustache is showing!
LOL!!
Comment by Tom3 — April 25, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Sure, SHE’S the one member of the administration with testosterone.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pmThe difference between Bill Clinton and George Chimpy Bush…
Clinton GETS blow jobs.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pmDana’s hot. Too bad she’s a BushCo tool.
Comment by Martin
I still think Dana looks like some Nazi’s girlfriend (Eva Braun, anyone?)
April 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pmThe only reason the republicans are rediscovering the constitution, is that they’re running out of toilet paper, and hope to use it to wipe their *sses, so they can pretend to be “green”.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:20 pmDana Perino now has ZERO credibility as White House spokesho.
Comment by Tom3
She had credibility…?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:20 pmLast I checked Nico / Admin, Secretary of State Rice works in an entirely different building than the White House.
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
yap, yap, yap, yap, yap … arf, arf, arf … growl yap
Somebody tell that dog to shut up!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:21 pmJust thought it would be a good read on this thread:
The Constitution – click here
April 25th, 2007 at 7:22 pmNext question?
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Judy, get that man out of your mouth if you want to say something. Oh, you never say anything important. Never mind.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:23 pmLOL Zooey!
The Repukes are just faking this. They don’t recognize Congressional oversight…Chimpy has 700 signing statements to prove that.
Chimpy might actually sign the supplemental…and put a signing statement on it saying he doesn’t have to honor any timetable.
Someday the Supreme Court is going to rule on signing statements and I hope they rule they are unconstitutional if they veto any part of a bill.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:24 pmJudy, I’m not here to show my class off.
Comment by ForTruth — April 25, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Judy wouldn’t know class if it hit her in the nuts.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:24 pmLast I checked Nico / Admin, Secretary of State Rice works in an entirely different building than the White House.
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
All Cabinet Secretaries have office space in the White House. The Secretaries of Homeland Security and Labor may only rate a phone booth.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:25 pmThe “check and balance†Congress has over the President of the United States does not include forcing him to testify, would you agree with that?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:25 pmLast I checked, Cunti Rice was about to get subpoenaed.
I hope Nancy Pelosi bitch-slaps that skanky RepubliHO.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:26 pmClinton GETS blow jobs.
Comment by Tom3 — April 25, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
And George GIVES them.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pmI am watching Judy post with the same word patterns, split posts to answer others, not to mention the same lack of critical thinking as………
You guessed it, Jake
Guess he has a hard time changing his writing style.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:32 pmGuess he has a hard time changing his writing style.
Comment by Wayne — April 25, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Jake’s all lack of style over substance.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:35 pmDana Perino has absolutely no class and zippo credibility. She’s a novice who learned to bullshit her way through things and it’s simply not going to fly with the american people. She’s nothing more than an air-headed bleach blonde with a very big mouth and limited brain power. She’s made a blathering fool of herself more than once in the past couple of weeks – saying one thing and then being hoist on her pitard when pressed about it. She’s a major flip flopper who doesn’t know what she is doing – at all! She’s a sham and another Bushie “Disgrace”!
Dana Perino makes Snowjob Tony look like Albert Einstein, for cripe’s sakes!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm“Judy In Disguise”
April 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm(one of the absolutely sapiest songs of the seventies)
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I am not Jake
Tom3:
Good luck suing Bush then.
Krazny:
I never said that Rice can claim Executive Privilege.
(Another) Tom:
Of course I want our president to tell his country the truth and not let his own arrogance determine to whom he speaks and when. As a loyal American, I can support the separation of powers too.
Shane:
I think $71 million was “wasted” on Clinton. You just met me and you can already say I never have anything important to say? It usually takes people a lot longer than that to realize I never have anything important to say.
WaltTheMan:
I didn’t know Rice had a White House office, but my point to Nico / Admin was that Congress has a legitimate oversight role (as Dana was pointing out) over Cabinet Departments. That’s not the same as Congress claiming oversight of Harriet Miers, wouldn’t you agree?
Wayne:
If you had this many people to respond to, how would YOU format it?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pmOMG, now we have the Jake Drag Queen on the threads! How many monikers does that make now? He has very serious psychopathology and needs to be ignored…his posting style is inimitably ignorant and inane so we can spot him/her/it from a mile away. Nice try….drag queen Judy, Patrick1, Firehead, Jake, Frank Matthews et al! hahahahaha! What a total dweeb!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:39 pmMust be an absolute bitch, being so popular…
April 25th, 2007 at 7:39 pmI guess Laura’s thrilled that her Shrub’s Condi Candi is being subpoenaed. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, Laura says, triumphantly before proceeding with the divorce papers.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pmIf you had this many people to respond to, how would YOU format it?
Comment by Judy
Just like Jake, apparently.
**eyes rolling**
April 25th, 2007 at 7:44 pmJudy is a drag queen? LOL!!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:49 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I am not Jake
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Neither was “Jake”, so that means nothing…
Same troll, new handle, same old jake*ss posts…
April 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pmNo more games:
INVESTIGATE
IMPEACH
INCARCERATE
IMPOVERISH
…BEFORE L’il Dick and the Halliburtonites move to Dubai- (DON’T LET ‘EM)…
…and the Bush clan relocate to Paraguay…
…confiscate ALL of their personal assets…
…I want my fu*kin’ MONEY!
April 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pmWow!!!!!
Nico decided to play Whack-a-Troll today.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pmOf course I want our president to tell his country the truth and not let his own arrogance determine to whom he speaks and when. As a loyal American, I can support the separation of powers too.
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
That’s a lie. You don’t support separation of powers, because you advocate Congress giving up theirs, in regards to presidential powers. So either you lie, or you don’t comprehend what “separation of powers” means.
You seem to be under the false impression that Congress doesn’t have a role to play with the executive. Seems like the Nixon affair would have taught you cons the error of that belief. Some of you that are particularly *impaired*, such as yourself are *slow-luhrners*. Congress not only has oversight, but the power to REMOVE a president. How much more separate do you need – Jake*ss?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:53 pmSo what. The company I work for has 92 offices world wide, but every employee still works for the same company.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:54 pmI didn’t know Rice had a White House office, but my point to Nico / Admin was that Congress has a legitimate oversight role (as Dana was pointing out) over Cabinet Departments. That’s not the same as Congress claiming oversight of Harriet Miers, wouldn’t you agree? Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Congress has an oversight role over the entire executive, so no I wouldn’t agree. Congress can investigate, and even impeach the president even. That’s pretty much the pinnacle of oversight, don’t you think son?
If you had this many people to respond to, how would YOU format it? Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Whatever Jake*ss.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pmSo what. The company I work for has 92 offices world wide, but every employee still works for the same company. Comment by Spudge_Boy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Yeah, concepts like executive branch confuses Jake*sses like this. No wonder they’re so confused by the “evolutionary tree” – poor st*pid little idi*ts.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:57 pmJudy? Judy Miller? Is that you?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:57 pmHeard you were having a hard time finding work. Karl must have finally come through for you.
Again.
Even though Dana is a republican I would still love to bury my face in her tits.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:01 pm“White House Rediscovers Constitution, Acknowledges Congress Has Oversight Role…Would NEVER Have Occurred Without Think Progress”
There….that looks more accurate…..
April 25th, 2007 at 8:04 pmGuys and gals, Jake = Judy = Frank and so on, it really thinks it. I may have only take a bit of Psych..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder
I would say give them a break as they are mentally ill.
Judy do you enjoy K9 like Valiunt?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:04 pmFunny. Jake also has a problem understanding separation of powers, as eveidenced in a previous post.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:07 pmJudy in disguise with diamonds.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pmRaven; “Judy in Disguise” was not 70s, it was 1967 by John Fred and His Playboy Band.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pmI was so sure that Frank was Patrick1. Same mindless rants and always trying to post first.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:19 pmShane:
I think $71 million was “wasted†on Clinton. You just met me and you can already say I never have anything important to say? It usually takes people a lot longer than that to realize I never have anything important to say
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Either I’m a really quick study or you’re very predictable. Say you are a NEW troll, every day you people all morph into the troll du jour. Today it’s long drawn out explanations of things we already know, you, Rogerx2, different trolls sharing Bush’s Brain. Good movie by the way, you should see it.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:19 pmZooey; Jake is now Judy after sex-change surgury.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:19 pmValient likes K9? Sex with a German Shepherd. EEEEWWWWW! Poor doggie.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:21 pmOff topic – Nico – I think you would go a long way (and set a fine example) to demonstrate your love of country over ideology if you investigated which Bush administration policies (not involving Syria) Nancy Pelosi bashed in front of Congressman David Hobson on their joint trip to Syria. I have widely criticizing Repubs who went to Syria – those Repubs should be ashamed of themselves!
April 25th, 2007 at 8:21 pmJudy in Disguise
Lucy In The Skies
Both the same year iirc.
But that was 40 years ago.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:21 pmthanks Uncle Ho, it was still on the radio when I was a teeneager inthe late 60’s and early 70’s.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pmIt’s all kinda blurry now, still it’s amazing the junk I retain…………
Looks like Shakey’s got a brand new alias…
…and this one managed to last a whole nine minutes before getting outed.
You’re running up against the law of diminishing returns here, Shakey. Short of a personality transplant, there’s no way you can hide, no matter how many aliases you invent.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pmZooey; Jake is now Judy after sex-change surgury.
Comment by Uncle Ho
…the unkindest cut of all. 8^)
April 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pmCan – Go back to the Cartoon Network – better yet – your little friends are waiting for you come outside and shoot hoops…
April 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pmJudy in disguise…with glasses!!
April 25th, 2007 at 8:25 pmI would say give them a break as they are mentally ill.
Judy do you enjoy K9 like Valiunt?
Comment by Can-O-Whoop-Ass — April 25, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Republicans don’t believe in mentally ill just under armed. Like the victims at Viginia Tech got shot because of the gun-free zone not because of the nut job Cho.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:26 pm#83 Not diamonds. Judy In Disguise…with glasses. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. I guess that the 60s were before their time.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:28 pm…i just might take off…those glasses.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:28 pmZooey; Jake is now Judy after sex-change surgury.
Comment by Uncle Ho
I know. :)
At least Jake is comfortable with his
April 25th, 2007 at 8:28 pmsexualityinsanity.Raven; that’s ok.. If I ever get tired of working in the health field, I always thought about becoming the next Wolfman Jack.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pmZooey; Jake is now Judy after sex-change surgury.
Comment by Uncle Ho — April 25, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Zooey, Uncle Ho, either way we can all agree, Jake is still a pr*ck.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pmJudy do you enjoy K9 like Valiunt?
Comment by Can-O-Whoop-Ass #81
Did you by any chance mean…
…KY (jelly) COWA?
…vapid vagina can’t use it…
…its orifices are ALL…
…unusually vacuous…
April 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pm” cross your heart, with your living bra…”
April 25th, 2007 at 8:33 pm“…vapid vagina…”??
Oh, you’re talking about Cunti Rice.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pmOff topic – Nico – I think you would go a long way (and set a fine example) to demonstrate your love Comment by valiant venus — April 25, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
VagrantVermine, first Nico doesn’t work for you and if he worked to make you happy he’d be losing all the progressives that are here for a reason.
Second, he’s seen you’re picture on MySpace and like every other man who has, he’s not interested. Please stop flirting, every couple of days you have a suggestion for him, he obviously finds you as distasteful as the rest of us do.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pmCan – Go back to the Cartoon Network – better yet – your little friends are waiting for you come outside and shoot hoops…
Comment by valiant venus — April 25, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
We all love him. You can feel free to leave at any time though byatch.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pmPerino: “I think there’s a difference between oversight and overreaching.”
Ouch. How long did you work on that one? /smurk
April 25th, 2007 at 8:42 pmShane; want to start a pool on how big Jake/Judy’s dildo is?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:42 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
It’s not a lie, and I never said Congress cannot REMOVE a President. I said that Congress cannot force a President to testify. How much more clear do you need?
Raven:
My last name is not Miller.
TripMaster Monkey:
I’m not “Shakey” either, and I’ve been posting for several days now, not just nine minutes.
Some Guy:
Do YOU think the Congress can force the President to testify?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:46 pmIs it Budweiser, then?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pmJake“Judy” sez:Oh Shakey…don’t you ever get tired of making a fool out of yourself?
April 25th, 2007 at 9:00 pmRepublicans don’t believe in mentally ill just under armed. Like the victims at Viginia Tech got shot because of the gun-free zone not because of the nut job Cho.
Comment by Shane — April 25, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Okay, I don’t know what got over me, I was feeling weak at the moment. :)
So from here on out we treat them like Dick Cheney does the human fed , tame, caged,and clipped pheasants.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/2693558/detail.html
April 25th, 2007 at 9:12 pmI said that Congress cannot force a President to testify.
Yes, we know you’ve said it, but setting aside the tired invocation of Clinton, you haven’t provided any hard and fast evidence as to WHY they cannot.
If you supplied us with a source that clearly spells out this proscription, then perhaps you’d be taken more seriously.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:16 pmoff topic….speaking of fakes, what became of RACHEL who claimed to have died (wife of some crackhead)? What is her new identity? And I agree that Jake the troll has morphed into Judy after his Tijuana sex change surgery…he must have assumed a new ID as Jake is incapable of quitting his disinformation and distraction lifestyle…how much does the RNC pay these retards to crash our discussions with their bullshit/republithug talking points…??
April 25th, 2007 at 9:34 pmShane; want to start a pool on how big Jake/Judy’s dildo is?
Comment by Uncle Ho — April 25, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
I don’t think we’ll be able to pry it loose to measure it though.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pmAnd foir all this time, I thought I lived in Germany ca. 1933.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:52 pm#2 You claim to be a lawyer?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:09 pmYep. I had a hell of a time convincing Zooey and Wayne that Bush could be impeached AFTER January 20, 2009 though. Now, bob’s your uncle thinks that Congress can call the President of the United States to testify.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:25 pm#116 No, Judy. The only time the president, the vice president and the cabinet can claim executive priviledge is if the oversight of the Executive Branch would harm national security. Bob is right. You wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:36 pm#116 By the way Elizabeth, glad to know I educated you on the post-term impeachment.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:36 pmI’m not even talking Executive Privilege here. You honestly think one or both Houses can FORCE the President to testify under oath?? Are YOU a lawyer?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:39 pm#116 This is what the SCOTUS said in reference to the subpeona of Richard Nixon.
“To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III.”
So, yes, you are either wrong or a troll.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:39 pmI’m not Elizabeth.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:40 pm#119 Yes, Judy, read US vs. Nixon.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:42 pm#121 Reminds me of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” or “We know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction”
April 25th, 2007 at 10:43 pmI’ve read the case, thanks. Are you a lawyer?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:45 pm#124 No, does it matter? Do you, as a supposed lawyer simply overlook cases you don’t like?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:48 pm#124 US v Nixon destroys your argument that presidents can’t be subpeonad. Do you disagree with this assessment?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:51 pmIt matters to me, because my next question would be whether you graduated from an accredited law school (and saying I’ve read the case is hardly “overlooking” it). Have you got some new link to another wacko law professor who thinks Congress can force a President to testify why he made “false” statements to take us to war?
April 25th, 2007 at 10:53 pm#127 What? It wasn’t a wacko professor. It was the fricking Supreme Court.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:57 pm#127 Remind me never to hire you if I need a lawyer. I want my lawyer to actually know the law.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:58 pmJudy,
April 25th, 2007 at 11:03 pmNo person can be impeached after he or she leaves office as impeachment implies a removal from office according to the United States Constitution. He or she can be accused of illegal or traitorous actions and tried in a court independent of the impeachment process which of itself requires an accusation by the House of Representatives and a conviction by the Senate under the direction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of a person currently holding office.
And, Judy, I doubt that your brains would fill a Petri dish.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:07 pmLOL, JPark. I don’t accept crazy people as clients. You are missing a vital distinction relevant to the separation of power issue. U.S. v. Nixon was not CONGRESS issuing that subpoena. With the Watergate tapes, a FEDERAL GRAND JURY had indicted associates of President Nixon, and the President himself was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. The FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT — again, NOT CONGRESS — issued a subpoena to the President requiring him to produce certain tapes and documents relating. Nixon lost that fight because there was a criminal proceeding and the tapes in question had nothing to do with national security or diplomatic secrets.
While one could use that case to argue the same result holds for a CONGRESSIONAL subpoena, I’m not aware of any other case on that very point. Neither JudicialWatch (via a FOIA request) nor the GSA (as an arm of Congress) were allowed access to Cheney’s Energy Task Force info, so I would use that more recent law to argue just the opposite.
That one’s for free. You’re welcome.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:10 pmNo need to trust me, WaltTheMan. Just ask JPark.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:11 pm#130 No, that isn’t true. There is a jurisdictional issue to overcome but it in not unprecedented. Secretary of War William Belknap had an impeachment trial after he resigned (he was acquitted). The penalty for being impeached and convicted is that you may never hold any governmental office again. It is not settled law right now. The SCOTUS would have a tough time with that one.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:14 pm#132 So, since one could use the argument for Congressional subpeona power there is a legal basis for a president being subject to that very subpeona power. You statement that a president is not subject is wrong then. It would have to go to the SCOTUS.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:25 pmJPark,
April 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pmI see no provision for impeachment of an ex-president, ex-vice president, or ex-federal office holder in the Constitution. Think of the consequences if George Washington could be impeached for failing to issue signing statements. Nixon skipped because he wanted to avoid impeachment. Think about it!
#136 There is also no provision saying those out of office cannot be impeached. After Nixon resigned there really was no point to impeaching him. The message had been sent and he was a non-entity in the governmental sector.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:30 pmYep. I had a hell of a time convincing Zooey and Wayne that Bush could be impeached AFTER January 20, 2009 though. Now, bob’s your uncle thinks that Congress can call the President of the United States to testify.
Comment by Judy
No Jake, you didn’t convince either of us of anything. You alleged that Clinton could be impeached again, and both of us reminded you that you are full of shit.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:32 pmTell that to JPark, Zooey. I’m off the clock.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:36 pm#138 Wow, he/she claimed that? Double jeopardy has attached. He claims to be a lawyer?
April 25th, 2007 at 11:36 pm#139 I did. But I had no idea you claimed Clinton could be impeached for a second time. That is just ridiculous.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm#137 – JPark,
April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 pmYou bent the nail with your hammer! Hammer straight and heft from the base! Nixon was home free because Ford exonerated him of all crimes. This single action took impeachment off of the table.
#142 Yeah, you are probably right about that. The pardon changed everything.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pmSorry, WaltTheMan, I gotta give JPark an assist: Art. II, Sec. 2 clearly states that the President has “the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.” JPark is wrong about Double Jeopardy applying to Impeachment though. If that were true, then the GOP should have Impeached and Acquitted Bush already in order to make him “Impeachment-proof” — there’s no way the 5th Amendment would extend that far — as I pointed out, even the President cannot pardon Impeachments.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm#142 It would have been nice if they could have settled that law back in the 70’s though. They were less permissive of presidential overreach back then. If this were the 70’s Bush would have been out years ago. Apparantly we don’t mind our leaders being lying, criminal a$$holes now.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm#144 Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by Senate. You cannot try him again. Simple fact.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:53 pmLOL again JPark: the very article you quoted was about impeaching Clinton once he left office. What are you smoking now?? Either you agree with the wacko law professor or not. Pick one at least.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:57 pmTell that to JPark, Zooey. I’m off the clock.
Comment by Judy
Tell him yourself, bossy-assed Jake, I have no clock.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:59 pm#144 – Judy,
April 26th, 2007 at 12:01 amThe President can pardon high crimes and misdemeanors prior to the impeachment process. Petri dish, please.
Now, bob’s your uncle thinks that Congress can call the President of the United States to testify.
Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
Please do not misquote me, because I said no such thing. I simply asked for you to provide solid evidence that states clearly and without any equivocation that Congress cannot call the President to testify. If that’s your assertion, don’t you think you should be prepared to back it up?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:49 amWaltTheMan:
I wasn’t talking about “prior to the impeachment process.” Are you really prepared to concede that President Bush could have issued a pardon yesterday, as to the grounds for impeachment cited by Kucinich today, and that somehow would have prevented Cheney from ever being removed from office?! That, and JPark’s convoluted concept of Double Jeopardy, would really take the Constitutional cake.
What good would the power of impeachment be if the President could simply pardon anyone (including himself) right up to the very last vote to convict being cast in the Senate? Sorry, but Presidential Pardons do not apply in those cases at all. Or, I guess as JPark would point out, it would have to go to the Supreme Court of Fantasyland.
Also, I just noticed you never answered my question on the actual topic above: “. . . my point to Nico / Admin was that Congress has a legitimate oversight role (as Dana was pointing out) over CABINET DEPARTMENTS. That’s not the same as Congress claiming oversight of Harriet Miers, wouldn’t you agree?” (Emphasis Added).
Before you answer that one, here’s the full question and answer again (as you can see, Nico falsely claimed that Perino’s answer today came in response to a question regarding subpoenas that target the White House specifically — for example, subpoenas for White House emails and for testimony from an aide to Karl Rove):
Q On the Hill, House Republicans are beginning today to basically push back against Chairman Waxman’s investigations and oversight. And he, I believe, is going to have them vote on authorizing subpoenas for Secretary of State Rice. Has the White House said, or are you prepared to say what Waxman is doing is over-reaching?
MS. PERINO: Well, I do think that there is a difference between oversight and over-reaching. And we understand that the Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch. I believe that this administration has been responsive to Congress, as we’ve worked with the new majorities, as well, that we’ve been responsive. But there does come a point where it does start to look like over-reaching.
bob’s your uncle:
I pointed out to JPark above why Congress cannot force the President to testify. I’m not going to repeat myself.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:19 amWow, I guess the Bushies finally learned how to read. Amazing.
And these people are running the country? God help us.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:37 amHey Dana, shut the F*CK UP.
All you do is lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Just like all the other Republicans around you.
Enough already. Go home and get a real job.
What’s the deal with all these lying sacks of dung in the Bush Administration? They’re such pussies to think Americans can’t handle the truth. We’ll we know the truth, that EVERYTHING they say is a lie. EVERYTHING.
Question authority. Always. If you don’t we end up with idiots such as those in the White House.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:48 amDana Perino must have a lifetime supply of Pepto Bismol, or Tums to get through this hack job. It takes Abu Ghirab style tactics, though illegal, to twist the truth from her lips. Chronic mendacity by this Bush crowd leads to a tin ear by the smart public. There outta be a law……
April 26th, 2007 at 9:30 amThose two arrogant lying statements of Perino’s make me so angry. We have to take back our country from these nazis – they must be removed now. Write Congress and the media supporting Kucinich’s bill to IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST!
April 26th, 2007 at 5:51 pm#151 And you are still peddling your right wing talking points?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pm