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

[babylonsister]

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.

[Dr Fate]

1. They are subverting the Constitution to our faces. Sounds like a "misdemeanor" to me.

n/t

[neuvocat]

2. This guy's dumber than a bag of hammers.

[HereSince1628]

11. He couldn't empty water from a boot even if the instructions were written on the heel.

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.

[soothsayer]

23. lol! never heard that one

[mopinko]

28. my dad used to use that one, but

he didn't say water.

[LittleClarkie]

3. The idea of checks and balances is lost on these people isn't it.

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

[Morgana LaFey]

26. Not at all. They know exactly what they're doing --

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.

[Hekate]

4. The Mouth of Sauron has spoken, you fools. The Constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper.

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

[mahina]

5. Well, he certainly is the right man for the job,

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

[goclark]

16. Snowjob was trained at Faux News ~ speaks volumes nt

[Fridays Child]

6. Oversight is inherent in the power to impeach and remove. Duh.

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

[babylonsister]

7. Unless they do.

x( We shall see.

[Cha]

10. With words like these the

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.

[Pierogi_Pincher]

12. First off, could someone please remind me

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

[woodsprite]

8. Sounds like Snow needs to take an elementary Civics and History class. n/t

[texpatriot2004]

29. I agree, check out my post on the subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=478652&mesg_id=478652

[jody]

9. What Snow says doesn't matter. The case is headed to SCOTUS and I predict a narrow victory for

Leahy and Conyers.

[Fresh_Start]

13. Hey Snow, look up impeachment in the Constitution

its the ultimate OVERSIGHT.

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

[kestrel91316]

15. He's The Decider (TM). So he gets to decide if he wants to obey

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

Laws are for the Little People, silly.

[tridim]

24. No, he's a full on dictatator.

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

[jljamison]

14. ahem

TravelGate?

Christmas card list?

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

-JJ

[Marnieworld]

17. Literally Laughed out loud

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

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

21. They are begging to be hit updisde the head with an impeachment bat

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.

[TaleWgnDg]

18. Well? Snow makes a cogent argument . . . I would probably

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.

.

[Morgana LaFey]

27. You're a little behind the times - there's plenty of precedent already

Clinton, Nixon. Others:

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

[Virginia Dare]

19. I'll take the words of Jefferson and Madison over...

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

[pacalo]

20. Oh, it just keeps getting better! Simply unbelievable.

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.

[xxqqqzme]

22. that's a bunch of words that actually say nothing!

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. Snow has to go. He's certainly not an American, if he doesn't understand

our checks and balances.

[Toots]

30. I guess 9-11 has changed everything.....

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