CNN's Bash: Dems "defy the president point blank" in approving subpoenas
On the March 21 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash asserted that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law was going to "pretty much defy the president point blank" by voting to authorize (which the subcommittee subsequently did) subpoenas for White House senior adviser Karl Rove and other current and former administration officials in the ongoing investigation into the fired U.S. attorneys. Bash did not explain how the Democrats' insistence that current and former White House staff testify in public and under oath constituted defiance of the president, rather than President Bush's insistence that interviews be conducted in private, not under oath, and with no written record being a defiance of Congress and its oversight responsibilities.
On the March 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Bash's colleague, CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, asserted as fact that the White House's conditions for allowing staff to speak to members of Congress stemmed from a "belie[f], on principle alone here, that they have got to fight," indicating that she has apparently dismissed other possible reasons why the White House might not want staff to testify under oath.
Similarly, on the March 21 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell asserted that the "the idea behind the White House opposition" to having Rove and others testify under oath is "that the president believes any president should be able to get candid advice from senior advisers without worry about being brought before Congress and questioned." O'Donnell, too, offered no other possible reasons why Bush might not want staff to testify.
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the March 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): We're watching every angle of this showdown and potential constitutional crisis. Our congressional correspondent Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill, but let's go to the White House where correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is standing by. Suzanne, how far is the president willing to take this fight?
MALVEAUX: Wolf, the president is going to take this all the way. This is their final offer, senior administration officials tell me. And they say they believe this is a very generous offer. This president is going to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, really to -- to respond with a sledgehammer, a political sledgehammer to this potential threat to the White House and to this challenge to the White House over executive privilege and executive power.
BLITZER: Why is he so fired up on this?
MALVEAUX: Well, you know, ever since I covered this president, that the president, as well as the vice president, have felt that the executive branch has been severely weakened since Watergate, that it got worse during the Clinton era, and this is really considered a test case here, Wolf.
The Democratic Congress that has this subpoena power, they want to flex their muscles with that. They're very eager to do so. And the White House, which feels like this is just the beginning of a slippery slope, that if they allow Rove and Miers to go under oath that it's going to open the flood gates for everybody else. So, they believe, on principle alone here, that they have got to fight this, and they've got to respond using a political sledgehammer, Wolf.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the March 21 edition of CNN Newsroom:
TONY HARRIS (anchor): Dana, good morning to you. So, Dana, what now? Where are we?
BASH: Well, here's where we are. In about an hour, Tony, the House Judiciary Committee is going to meet and pretty much defy the president point blank. They are going to vote to authorize the chairman of that committee to issue subpoenas if he thinks that's necessary, essentially giving him what we've been talking about for the past couple of days, an insurance policy of sorts if these negotiations completely collapse. That's going to happen in about an hour in the House. The Senate's going to do the same exact thing tomorrow, Tony.
HARRIS: OK, Dana, publicly, Democrats are saying, "No deal; public testimony; on the record with a transcript; under klieg lights on CNN live." But in the backroom there somewhere, is there some wiggle room?
From the March 21 edition of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: The White House is making an offer, one the president labels "unprecedented." Three thousand pages of emails and documents already turned over, and Congress can privately interview top officials, but with a catch: no oath, no transcript, no public hearing. Democrats say: "No way."
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY) (video clip): What is the objection to an oath? There's nothing to hide. And everyone's telling the truth. There should be no objection to oath.
O'DONNELL: And the idea behind the White House opposition is that the president believes any president should be able to get candid advice from senior advisers without worry about being brought before Congress and questioned. Congress sees it differently, and those subpoenas could be authorized as early as today.
"So, they believe, on principle alone here, that they have got to fight this,"
Oh, please. Principle? They're scared sh*tless! They know that once these Troglodytes are put under oath, the whole putrid criminal enterprise known as the Bush Administration will unravel.
Bush is defying Congress, not the other way around.
In the Courts, any refusal to co-operate with the legal proceedings is generally called Contempt... a Contempt of those proceedings, on the part of the one whose co-operation is sought.
There is no such thing as I know of, called contempt (or any other word like contempt, such as defiance) of those whose co-operation is being sought, on the part of those who are conducting a legal proceeding (as the Courts do)...
...you see the distinction?
The Congress is conducting a legal proceeding here (as is their Constitutional obligation), not the president or anyone in his administration... therefore any Contempt or refusal or defiance is theirs, and not the Congress's...
Only a weasle, standing accused, would resort to assuming they had the power to Contemn the very legal proceedings that seek their co-operation...
Either a weasle, or someone who thinks themselves above the Law...
Or thinks they can confuse you on this matter, as one one who would beguile you, as to which shoe goes on what foot.
The Congress is defying, or resisting, or challenging the President point blank on his offer. Straightforward reporting. Nothing misinformative here. (and I get accused of whining?, whew!)
There is a subtle implication in her choice of phrasing that she buys into the concept of an imperial presidency. Congress is insisting that these people testify, Bush is defying them. Bush's "offer" has the same result as not letting them testify at all.
There is a subtle implication in her choice of phrasing that she buys into the concept of an imperial presidency.
Nerzog, I think you're doing a little mind-reading here.
As Tommy wrote this is basically the Congress defying/challenging Bush's offer.
This is simply honest reporting of the situation.
Maybe we're arguing semantics, but would it not be equally valid, perhaps more so, to say that Bush's offer is in defiance of Congress' request? The authority being exerted here is the subpoena power of Congress. Bush is defying that power.
Yes it would be equally valid. Thats the point either one is valid so while it might show her specific bias, its not unfair nor misinformation, it is a valid way to phrase it.
Maybe we're arguing semantics, but would it not be equally valid, perhaps more so, to say that Bush's offer is in defiance of Congress' request?
Absolutely Nerzog. It's a tug of war between the White House & the Congress--they are "defying" each other....However in this particular part of her report she is ONLY commenting on Bush's offer and the reaction to it when she's using the term "defying". I believe it's accurate.
I beg to differ...
"So, they believe, on principle alone here, that they have got to fight this"
This statement attributes noble intentions to this administration which are probably not there.
But I have to agree with Tommy and Jeter, though not said yet, it did sound like the Dems grew a set...
Okay...I guess it's just me. In my mind, it makes it sound like Congress is the petulant child defying the Daddy President. He's telling them to go to their room and they're stomping their foot and saying NO!
For me, the bottom line is, who has the authority here? Bush is not exercising a legitimate power...he is refusing to comply with Congressional requests for testimony.
Here's another way to look at it...who's in trouble here? Congress is not the one on the defensive...Bush is. Congress is trying to hold Bush accountable...he's refusing to cooperate. He is defying them.
I do agree with that, Bush is being defiant. I'm just happy that it sounds like someone is saying the Dems aren't being timid and backing down (I don't believe I am reading it wrong!). She does still seem to support the belief that presidential priveledge is under attack, fine, but there are bigger fox hunts to run.
I would agree with that. And we all know what happens to the fox at the end of the hunt...
Whoa Nerzog!
We were discussing Bash, and now you're throwing in a Malveaux quote???
My point, which I believe correct is that Bash was discussing a specific situation which was: Bush sent an offer and Congress was rejecting it, essentially defying the President.
We can discuss Malveaux after you've responded to my observation of Bash's reporting...fair?
I have to agree. Defying is a fair description of what Congress is doing. It is also what they SHOULD be doing. I think people tend to view the word as something you do to legitimate authority but that really is not part of the definition. I dont think Bush has a leg to stand on to demand how his administration gives testimony to Congess which has oversight authority in cases like this. All this said I dont think this wording is unfair
" Congress is insisting that these people testify, Bush is defying them. "
I think Clinton would too. Letting congress tell the President that every move he makes needs to be explained to them sets a wrong precedent. Next, they'll be demanding that a hearing be set to determin the color of the drapes in the White House. The President has the authority to fire these people and he did it. Whether you like the timing is inconsequential. Simply put, they got fired...you don't like it? Too bad
Clinton aides testified to Congress under oath numerous times. It is not up to the president to "let" them testify. Congress subpoenas them - they have to testify.
Or plead the Fifth, of course. But they have to show up.
Oh? What Clinton aides testified, to Congress, after he fired the (91?) federal prosecuters?
You mean when he put in his own USAs after taking office, like every president does? Probably none. There'd be no need to, because there was no wrongdoing.
I hope you aren't really going to argue from that ignorant a perspective.
In what way is this different? The president fires some attorneys. What difference does it make if it's at the beginning, middle or end of his term....he still has that option, right?
But, basically what you're saying is that democrats can fire all the attorneys they want-no questions asked, but not republicans? Yeah, that kind of thought pattern makes sense coming from your side. It's certainly nothing less than what is expected from your basic lefty. Glad to see you didn't let anyone down.
Yes, Autopsychic, Clinton was pressured to testify, and did testify, regarding a sexual harassment charge that appeared frivolous and, in fact, was. The judge summarily dismissed the charge, but Clinton got into a heap of trouble over it anyway, albiet because of a false stastement he made under oath.
So don't go lecturing us about bad precedents. They've already been set.
True. In fact, I believe it would even be accurate - by definition of defy - to say that Congress is defying the President to defy them. Confusing eh?
I believe the issue here is that some take defiance to be - or to imply - opposition to authority. If that becomes the common usage, then the definition will probably change. However, Webster doesn't appear to be there yet.
So, technically, the MMFA criticism is incorrect. On the other hand, the clarification doesn't hurt. I would have just worded it differently so as to not be directly critical of the reporter.
Agree with you Tom. Dems are defying the President "point blank"... as well they should.
Yeah, they should. Let's have some more hearings and waste more time/money. Then, let's have someone charged for lieing who isn't even involved in the case. Hmmm, this sounds a lot like the Plame thing....the dems aren't interested in charging the real criminal, they just want to "create" a wrong by forcing testimony.
I think Bush had a fair offer, 'if you want to ask questions, do it out of the limelight', but the dems need to posture themselves so they refused. The dems will do anything to win the next election and this just plays into their greedy little hands. It'll go nowhere and the public will see the dems for what they are....worthless do-nothings. (has it been 100 days yet? How many promises have been kept? Has minimum wage been increased? )
The Dems don't need this to win the next election. Bush single-handedly lost the Repubs the 2008 presidential election by his incredibly inept performance.
Well, the dems sure seem bent on making things close. 100 days, all those "promises"! ANY of them kept by Pelosi, yet? How bout the congress, they kept any? How bout the senate, they kept any, yet? Yeah, the dems are doing all they can to lose the election. And, they still have another year and a half to keep screwing things up. That'll be good practice for when (if) they win the presidency.
What I'm hearing is that the President has offered to let them talk...so long as they can lie.
Only if there are no reprecussions against lying are they going to be allowed to speak...what kind of offer is that?
"oh i will talk, so long as i don't have to tell the truth?"
Absolutely. It is absurd.
It's worse than that. Another condition is that they be able to lie to the public about what lies they told to Congress. No lying!
I can only agree here Tommy - with the addendum "nice job, it's about time SOMEBODY did"
Tommy, while you question why this is posted here on Media Matters for the millionth time, there is more to it than saying that Dem's are defying the president here. A big part of this has to do that certain reporters are saying that the White House is fighting on values of moral principles. However, I do believe that the headline should be highlighting that rather than a reporter saying that Dems were defying the president (which is a noble thing to do in my opinion).
"BOO HOO the Dems aren't being nice...."
Nerzog is right. It's Bush who is defying congress. the implication here is that congress is out of bounds when in reality the executive is. it's just lazy reporting.
Or else in Dana Bash's world you mindlessly do whatever the President says (as long as that president is a Republican). Their constant use of language to express underlying and indirect support for the president is so systemic that I don't think it's pure laziness. It may be cultural for her "training" and generational.
When people were concerned about the powers of the Patriot Act being intrusive (wire tapping,read your personal mail) those law-abiding Republicans kept saying over and over...IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE WHY WOULD THIS WORRY YOU?...Now that is the question for this group in the White House.
Also, a reminder to our President, I am sorry, but you no longer have the "political capital" to decide which line can be crossed. If you haven't noticed, the people elected a new congress to decide where the line will be DRAWN. They have the brushes in their hands so, when the line is painted, you, THE DECIDER, can make your choice to cross it or stay on your side. But we will move closer to you every chance we get. The best of luck to you.
Well, Puddinhead got away with it when he and Dick "testified" in secret before the 9/11 commission...I guess he thinks that's how these things are done.
"no oath, no transcript, no public hearing."
In other words...no perjury charge.
Congress finally doing its job to oversee the executive branch, and Bush is mad. He can't just do what he wants to do anymore, and he doesn't like it. I'm sure that this will be challenged in court sooner rather than later, and it will draw out, and we'll probably never get answers. I have to echo what someone else said, as was the refrain from this administration and its republican cronies, if they haven't done anything wrong (as they keep insisting) then why all the foot dragging and not testifying under oath? Executive priveledge? Hogwash. There has been plenty of precedent during Clinton's years that say people can testify or give depositions under oath. I mean, Clinton did for crying out loud. Why can't Rove and Miers?
This is fun to watch. Most of these Troglodytes who are screaming "executive privilege" were probably denying that any such privilege existed during the Clinton witch hunt.
The scene I want to see is Butterbutt Rove on live teevee invoking the Fifth after every question.
That's probably more than true. I can't wait to see them up there, testifying, and taking the 5th. I think that this would say a lot if it were to happen.
On something related, I was watching Tom Delay this weekend decry the personal politics of destruction, because he's been indicted. He says that when he went after Clinton, it was different, it wasn't personal.. Yeah, right, OK. Jeesh...
Actually, that's exactly the case. Glenn Greenwald documents this well in his post: "The president's oh-so-noble reliance on 'executive privilege'".
The particularly funny thing about this is Gonzales was probably in the clear legally until he - apparently - lied to Congress. Prior to that, the trouble was isolated to some members of Congress. I wonder how many more bodies will end up under a bus before 2009.
" until he - apparently - lied to Congress "
Apparently? Is that an opinion or do you have proof? It's not like you to accuse someone without some kind of proof, let's see it.
It's my opinion. I don't think there's any question that his testimony to Congress was untrue. However, I'll leave a small chance that Gonzales was truly clueless as to who was involved in the decision to fire the attorneys he fired. Stranger things have happened in this inept administration.
As this unfolds, I guess Bush will get to test drive his Troglodyte-packed Supreme Court.
I don't think that SCOTUS will side with Bush on this one. I think they would side with the Constitution.
My guess is that a majority - including Roberts - would rule against the Administration. Scalia, on other hand, would once again demonstrate that there's a legal argument for any position, no matter how asinine.
Yep. Georgie will fight this to the highest court in the land, consequences to the nation be damned. It's all part of his relentless quest to be sure that all the facts are known.
All the "facts" not restricted by oaths or recorded by transcripts. The more flexible type.
BTW Rusty, I recently mentioned a publication that was influential to me in my formative years. I believe you responded (not surprisingly) that it was part of your literary history as well. This was in the L.A. Times this past Sunday. so I'll repay you for your educational post on setting up links to text by sending you to fonebone .
Hey , that works! Next thing you know I'll be using a stick to knock fruit out of trees.
Thanks man. I can't believe Mort Drucker is still alive! Gotta pick up a copy.
A toast of halvah to you.
Excuse me for butting in, but I was a big fan of MAD as well. Don Martin was my hero. You've probably already seen this, but I find it appropriate to this conversation:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushworry2.htm
Actually, Nerzog, I was butting in on a heartbreaking little exchange Rusty was having with Neondesert( I think that's who it was) about titling links, and a love that dare not speak its name.It was very romantic, and I shoehorned in on it, little tart that I am.
You guys had to like how Dave Berg always put himself in one of his strips.
Loved it! Berg was great. I still recall his pithy observations from time to time.
Malveaux, O'Donnell and a lot of other "reporters" have a habit of telling us what politicians believe.
O'DONNELL: ...... the president believes any president should be able to get candid advice from senior advisers without worry about being brought before Congress and questioned.
MALVEAUX:........they believe, on principle alone here, that they have got to fight this........
How about, at minimum these self righteous imbeciles throw in a couple of qualifiers here. They are constantly braying about their impartiality.
They cannot know what politicians believe. only what they assert.
Right!
The President believes.., is not exactly neutral. An accurate report would be the President states... and then say whatever it was he actually stated.
It's time for the President to honor the Constitution and respect the "rule of law" he has stated he's so fond of.
There's a reason why we have three supposed distinct branches of government. And when the Executive Branch start subverting the law with the judicial branch.. well I say subpoena time is long overdue.
This is the role and responsibility of Congress- oversight.
I think many so called journalists need to go back to school.
Let me see if I remember:
1. The legislature, to MAKE the law.
2. The Judiciary, to interpret the law.
3. The Executive, to BREAK the law.
Was that right?
Bush is the one that is in defiance. He is telling Congress how to conduct their investigation by telling them that it must be done on his terms. Bush does not have the power to tell Congress how to conduct an investigation. He has threaten Congress that he will force this matter to be resolved in the court of law. This threat is only to run out the clock a Bush game plan. There is no defiance on the part of Congress none whatsoever.
Exactly. Bush is essentially refusing to let his people testify. If their testimony is not under oath, not in public and not on the record, it is not testimony.