Snow: Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House"

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002849.php

Snow: Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House"
By Paul Kiel - March 22, 2007, 2:59 PM

It's official, this is a talking point. Just to show that this morning was no slip-up, here's Tony Snow during today's briefing:

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem?

MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out. I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're offering all their documentation, as well.

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

n/t

This is all the same Yoo-shit, that Gonzales and Meir have been bathed in since Bush came into office. The tradition of checks and balances mean nothing in the minds of the WH.

I say Fuck-Yoo! It's time to lance this administrative boil and hope that the carbuncle on the Constitutional hasn't been systemic long enough to kill the Republic.

he didn't say water.

And it SHOULD have a chilling effect on CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, Mr. Snow.

trying STRENUOUSLY to sidestep those checks and balances. Hell, Rove probably knows more about those checks and balances than most people in Congress -- just SO he can sidestep them.

I have a feeling that for once in his career Snowjob is speaking the truth as he and his masters see it. That fact that he/they are 100% wrong under the Constitution is a detail that escapes them.

Hekate

if he can stand there and say that with a straight face. Just Wow.

Sorry, Tony. Your side doesn't get to have it both ways.

x( We shall see.

Dems and every repub who cares about the Constitution and the future of the USA will have no choice but to Impeach(Impeach the sob bunch of 'em..don't stop at the Firstasshole) whether they think they have "time" or not.

of what planet I'm on? Every new day brings more unfolding of 'bizarro world'.

I'm not sure of impeachment proceedings (Congress had better be 'playing it right'), but somethin's gotta get going to correct the unexceptable mockery of our country's laws.

A prophesy:"They've' written their own tickets, and it's just a matter of time."

P_P

Leahy and Conyers.

its the ultimate OVERSIGHT.

Whereas I dare you to find anything in the Constitution which says the President can ignore legislation.

any particular laws. And with those signing statements, that seals the deal.

Laws are for the Little People, silly.

Or at least he believes he is. I don't want to hear any more of this kinder-gentler "decider" crap.

"It'd be so much easier if this we're a dictatorship, so long as I'm the dictator". -Monkeyboy 1999

TravelGate?

Christmas card list?

Didn't the republican congress subpoena Socks and Buddy at one point?

-JJ

Which Constitution are they talking about? No oversight over the White House? I think that they are in for a rude awakening. Wow.

That'll bring the oversight responsibilities into sharp focus.

If the polling is 90% that the oversight is legitimate and 10% that it's not, the pug senators might have to reconsider being "Good Bushies" and act like good Americans instead.

say likewise were I in his shoes. Indeed. Who the hell wants to "set precedent" with the ability of congress to subpoena and be under oath to whatever the hell went on (behaviorally and verbally) in the White House? If the shoe were on the other foot, would the Democrats (if in the White House) want its people not be able to give and receive confidential info? Be subject to a precedent of revealing all via a congressional subpoena? Hmmmmm.

All that being said, there's a also a cogent argument for the other side. That is, why the hell can't congress subpoena White House employees? If government paid attorneys-at-law in the White House can be subpoenaed to reveal then why not other government employees in the White House and surrounds? Hmmmm.

Strap on your seatbelts, kiddies, this is gonna be a great ride to witness.

I say that the federal courts will decide for the Democrats. But then again I still ponder why set such a precedence? And, no, this isn't about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," i.e., if the rightwingnuts in power can impeach Clinton for a blow job in attempts to shut down his government and making Clinton look like a fool, then the Dems can subpoena White House staff. Uh-uh. Nada. Because I do not believe history will fall on the side a setting a low bar precedent for impeachment as was demonstrated in the Clinton impeachment. Instead, and as I said above, this is all above setting a precedent. And it's a bad precedent.

.

Clinton, Nixon. Others:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=459163&mesg_id=459163

Tony Snow's thank you very much. Time for Robert Byrd to take Tony behind the woodshed.

When the election stealer took his oath of office to "faithfully execute the Constitution", I had no idea he would literally try to "execute" its relevance.

our checks and balances.

Congress has no oversight authority over the Whitehouse..:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: