Shielding the President
Doesn't the last answer sound like a prepared response? A prepared response often means sticky ground, and Snow didn't even let the questioner finish the assertion
Next Question, eh?
Q There is one email from November 15th from Mr. Sampson to Harriet Miers, I believe, "Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"
MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.
Is that why the DOJ can testify under oath and the White House can't? Bush discussed it with his White House staff, but not with DOJ? Is that the reason for the firewall?
(And, notice while they're trying the Nixonian Watergate "executive privilege" defense, they're also laying the groundwork for the Reagan Iran-Contra "I don't recall" defense.)
Ed Henry of all people gets to the nub of it.Q But aren't you having it both ways? If you're saying the President wasn't in the loop, but we need to cite executive privilege for the President's communications --
Next Question, eh?
posted by mikevotes at
6:07 PM
7 Comments:
Good one there.
By
sumo, at 6:53 PM
You know, I hate to, but I have to give them some credit. Snow's answer probably confuses half the population enough to make them just stop trying to understand the story.
By
Anonymous, at 6:55 PM
The WH is spinning so hard they are tripping over their own excuses.
It's their typical tactic of distorting the issue enough to make anyone that pushes for clarity just seem annoying and desperate.
By
zen, at 8:52 PM
Also, it seems one of the more interesting stories to come out, is the potential investigation that Carol Lam was to conduct into the $140,000 that came from Cheney's office and ended up buying Duke Cunningham's yacht.
By
zen, at 8:55 PM
Bill, definitely. I've already seen two clips of this on news shows, it's edited so it doesn't make as much sense, and they don't frame it clearly.
This line is viewed as a throwaway.
Zen, I caught that $140,000 story a couple days ago. Even if more than a remarkable coincidence, that's going to be near impossible to prove without Wilkes informing.
And with Lam gone and a new prosecutor with new priorities.....
They might be willing to take a hit on the attorneys if they can hide that.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:19 PM
It seems to me the WH position appears more and more like one of circling the wagons. The more that comes out the more it looks like the DOJ was used as a wing of the RNC via the WH... confusing presidential nominations/appointment with presidential political axe-men.
The no cameras, no oath, no transcripts just patently smells like a cover up. It builds on the GOP-as-corrupt theme of 2006. I wonder how the general public precieves these WH antics? Is all the "tough" talk and circular logic form the WH really doing nothing but hurting Repub 08 chances (all races)?
Except among the true believers, I don't see how refusing the promise to tell the truth is seen as a good thing. I think the days of public tolerance of super-secrecy in Washington are fast becoming a thing of the past. Even then it was only palatable when couched in fear-and-terror language of keeping us safe from dirty Muslims... This DOJ thing is just so far afield from national security....
By
-epm, at 9:44 PM
Their "circling the wagons" stance definitely makes them look guilty and will have a huge cost which makes me wonder,
What is worse than the costs they're taking now?
They don't take this stance if the truth is better than where they are.
Also, the Dems are making political hay, but only because they think there's even more there.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home