Ignoring bipartisan criticism of administration, media warn that U.S. attorneys investigation could backfire on Democrats
Several media figures have asserted that the investigation into dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys by the White House and Justice Department will backfire on congressional Democrats, claiming that the Democrats may appear to be "too political" or "the party of investigation rather than legislation."
None of them mentioned that Republicans have joined Democrats in calling for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to resign, as well as in criticizing the Bush administration's offer to allow White House aides to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys but only in private and without an oath, transcripts, or subsequent subpoenas. As USA Today reported on March 15, Sens. John E. Sununu (R-NH) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) have advocated that Gonzales step down or be fired. On the March 25 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said:
SPECTER: I talked to the attorney general yesterday, and I told him that he would have an opportunity, as far as I was concerned, to present his case, but that he was going to have to have an explanation as to why he said he wasn't involved in discussions -- that's the key word -- and now you have these e-mails which appear to contradict that. Look, we have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find he has not been candid and truthful, that's a, a very compelling reason for him not to stay on.
Also, as Media Matters for America noted, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) rejected the White House's offer to allow aides to be interviewed by Congress, and voted to authorize subpoenas for White House aides. Grassley even made a point of documenting his vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee records. According to a March 22 Congressional Quarterly article, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) also said he "would like transcripts of interviews."
On the March 18 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood claimed that "[i]nvestigating the Bush administration is a lot easier than passing new laws," and cautioned that "[o]ne danger for Democrats is whether they look too political in exploiting this." NBC's Brian Williams "paraphrased" Harwood's comments on the March 26 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, saying: "I can't help but wonder if the Democrats are finding it a little easier to investigate than legislate." Williams went on to ask: "How much mud is getting splashed back up on the Democrats?"
On the March 25 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Time managing editor Richard Stengel claimed that he is "so uninterested in the Democrats wanting [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove because it is so bad for them, because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance," adding: "That's not what voters want to see." Stengel was referring to efforts by congressional Democrats to receive sworn testimony from Rove and other senior White House officials regarding the firings. He also claimed that the investigation is "small-bore politics," to which MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell responded: "The Democrats have to be very careful that they look like they're not the party of investigation rather than legislation and trying to change things."
In a March 26 New York Times article, reporter Adam Nagourney wrote: "The biggest question is, how far can Democrats go in opposing this president? The biggest risk is going so far that they feel the sting of a backlash -- of being transformed from the fresh new face of change to the latest cast of Washington players enmeshed in partisan wrangling." Nagourney later noted: "Democrats clearly have some leeway to go at least as far as they have gone, if not further. A poll for the Pew Research Center last week suggests that Americans are strikingly sympathetic to Democrats: 50 percent said they identified with or leaned toward the Democrats, compared with 35 percent for Republicans. Their main opponent, President Bush, is weighed down by the war and his own unpopularity, making him feeble on this field, even Republicans said."
By contrast, on the March 26 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, senior news analyst Cokie Roberts, when asked if Democrats "are in danger of overplaying their hand," said that "they can do that," but also noted that Democrats "feel the Bush administration had six years of essentially no oversight whatsoever with the Republican Congress," and that Democrats are seeking to obtain bipartisan support, as they have in approving subpoenas for administration officials to testify on Capitol Hill.
From the March 18 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
JOHN SEIGENTHALER (anchor): Well, with the Democrats now in charge, is this just a sample of what the Bush administration can expect from Congress?
HARWOOD: Without question, and that may be the most dramatic consequence of the 2006 elections. Investigating the Bush administration is a lot easier than passing new laws, as Democrats are discovering in their struggle over exactly what to do about Iraq. One danger for Democrats is whether they look too political in exploiting this. Senator [Charles] Schumer [D-NY] sits on the Judiciary Committee. He also chairs his party's Senate campaign machinery for 2008.
From the March 25 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
STENGEL: I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove because it is so bad for them, because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance. That's not what voters want to see.
CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): So instead of, like, an issue like the war, where we can say it's bigger than all of us, it's more important than politics, this is politics?
STENGEL: Yes, and it's much less. It's small-bore politics.
O'DONNELL: The Democrats have to be very careful that they look like they're not the party of investigation rather than legislation and trying to change things.
From the March 26 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
DON IMUS (host): What's going to happen -- we're talking with Brian Williams from the NBC Nightly News -- what's going to happen with Alberto Gonzales?
WILLIAMS: Oh, boy. Well, we have some interesting testimony coming up from Mr. Kyle Sampson this week, as you know, and --
IMUS: Well, who is he?
WILLIAMS: Huh?
IMUS: Who is he?
WILLIAMS: The former chief of staff there, and he's going to testify on the record, and he's gonna talk about what he knows about these U.S. attorneys. And, you know, I keep going back to a moment on weekend Nightly News, it's two weeks ago now, when John Harwood of CNBC said -- you know, I'll paraphrase him -- I can't help but wonder if the Democrats are finding it a little easier to investigate than legislate. And that may haunt this debate. It's interesting night after night when we find ways of telling this story and explaining the moving parts. It will be interesting when the Pew survey folks -- kind of when this story is all over -- ask about public attitudes. How much mud is getting splashed back up on the Democrats?
Of course, you watch a guy like Arlen Specter yesterday on Meet the Press and take your cue from the Republicans, and it's very interesting, and people like Senator Sununu who, of course, is in the Times for a different reason, and that is he's one of this group up in '08.
From Nagourney's March 25 New York Times article:
Democrats say this escalating battle acts on the message voters sent by putting them in charge. That is, to end an unpopular war and bring oversight to a White House that has gone largely unmonitored.
Still, there are questions and risks for the new majority party. The biggest question is how far can Democrats go in opposing this president? The biggest risk is going so far that they feel the sting of a backlash -- of being transformed from the fresh new face of change to the latest cast of Washington players enmeshed in partisan wrangling.
Democrats clearly have some leeway to go at least as far as they have gone, if not further. A poll for the Pew Research Center last week suggests that Americans are strikingly sympathetic to Democrats: 50 percent said they identified with or leaned toward the Democrats, compared with 35 percent for Republicans. Their main opponent, President Bush, is weighed down by the war and his own unpopularity, making him feeble on this field, even Republicans said.
From the March 26 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:
RENEE MONTAGNE (host): Still, are the Democrats in danger of overplaying their hand on this one?
ROBERTS: Sure, they can do that, and they know it was a problem when Republicans controlled Congress in the Clinton years. To spend a lot of time on investigation, on issues that voters don't really care much about, can be very damaging to a party in Congress. But they feel the Bush administration had six years of essentially no oversight whatsoever with the Republican Congress, and they're trying to balance that with the problems of overstepping their hands, and they're getting Republican backing when they can. And on the question of testimony of administration officials, which the White House is trying to block on this U.S. attorney question, it looks like the Democrats are getting some Republicans to side with them on getting those administration officials to Capitol Hill to testify and, at least, to have transcripts of what they say.
What a terrible picture. It looks like Tommy Lee Jones going to pick his nose. THAT would never happen!
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
6 SIX YEARS, 6 SIX YEARS, 6 SIX YEARS, 6 SIX YEARS, 6 SIX YEARS!!
Ok; How long has a small number of Neo-Cons in control of all three branches of government governed without Oversight, run our debt to "never heard of before" levels, lied us into a disastrous war, and has subverted democracy into a quasi-fascism?
Brian Williams knows better, all these men know better. Their carriers are tied to this form of media moguls news broadcasting, and they will hold their water to the end, may it come soon in the form of the Fairness Doctrine.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I know it's hard for some to understand but it is possible to investigate and legislate at the same time. These people take us for idiots.
"How far can Democrats go in opposing this President?" Nagourney asks?
This President.
This popular President.
This popular, well respected, well trusted President.
This popular, well respected, well trusted President who has seen anywhere from 40-45% of poll respondents saying they wouldn't mind if he was impeached.
That President?
Nagourney must be a resident of that non-reality based world of the Neo-Clowns I hear so much about.
The 30-Percenters?
Members of that elite group of the remaining 30% of the nation that still supports Monkey McScandal and his band of merry traitors...
So far this is the only thing they've done to oppose Bush. They were ok with invasions, ok with killing people, ok with torture, ok with promoting his gang of crooks....but god forbid he fire a few attorneys at the wrong time in his term!!! Wow!! It's the Crime of the Century!!!
Dems are pathetic.
try posting when you are not drunk. You might be able to make a coherent point then.
Would you have complained when they convicted Capone of tax evasion?
Did you complain when Madeleine Albright said the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were "worth it"? Did you complain when Nancy Pelosi said the Democrats will not bring impeachment proceedings against Bush? Did you complain when the Democrats voted to promote Gonzales to Attorney General?
So many crimes to investigate, and this tiny non-crime being persued. They can't take it anywhere. There's no laws against it. There will be no convictions or firings, just lots of media hype that will die out in a few weeks. It's all political theater to distract the masses while the Dems just voted to fund the illegal occupation of Iraq for another year!!!
And they got all the Dem puppies running around, thinking this is a major blow against the White House. It's not. War crimes trials would be a blow. Defunding the war crime would be a blow. Passing legislation actually demanding our troops come home would be a blow. But the Dem leaders are playing their supporters for fools yet again, feeding them meaninglessness as importance and kicking them in the teeth on all the real issues.
"So many crimes to investigate, and this tiny non-crime being (sic) persued (sic)."
If any one should know about pursuing tiny non-crimes, it's a Republican. Just ask Bill Clinton. Problem is: firing USAs to obstruct justice IS a crime, as is lying under oath about your complicity in that crime. Yes, lying under oath is crime even if you're a Republican. See, our legal system is designed so ANYONE who breaks the law, not just dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, is brought to justice. After six years of skating on the thin ice of incompetence and corruption, the Democrats are turning up the heat, so I expect a few loyal Bushies are going to get VERY wet.
Randy
Cynicism is a terrible thing. I'm not giving up just yet on my party. And to answer your questions, yes on all counts. I am often pissed at this Dem or another there Red. And I'm not jumping for joy at how far they've gone in oversight and ending the criminal Iraq war. That being said, despite your belief, they are investigating the hell out of these yahoos as fast as Congress can legally move. I want them all impeached and sent to international court too, but that takes time. Just like it took time for them to ruin our country.
But Democrats won't impeach. They said that as soon as they took the majority. Meanwhile, people keep dying. They could have stopped the funding of the war, could have introduced Bolan Amendment-type legislation to end the war...but they didn't. They put forth a NON-binding resolution then proceeded to give MORE money to the war and place the entire decision of withdrawal in the White House's hands.
Your party has betrayed you. They do not intend to stop the war. They have betrayed us all.
What "backlash"? From the 30 percenters who still like Bush? Republicans weren't concerned with the backlash from appearing to be more interested in investigation of Clinton's sex life than legislation, and his approval rating was what, twice Bush's?
The concept of the liberal media is disproving itself. If there is going to be a backlash, Bush's base obviously can't mount it on its own because it's getting more and more marginal. The media would have to help Bush's cause in order for there to be any significant negative response. So either this is an absurd right-wing talking point which ignores current polling and recent history, or it's an admission that the media is going to help Bush. Either way...
this is an adminsitration that begs for oversight. the press surely would not do it otherwise. it's only because of the democrats being in charge that we know the things we do.
Agreed, I'm still waiting for a further investigation, I believe there was one from an english source, that there is a possible money trail between Hamas opponents and our own government.
Oh yeah. This is a big risk for the Dems. From this past weekend's USA Today poll:
Wow. I wouldn't have guessed the numbers in favor of investigation, etc. to be so high. Just when you think the public doesn't pay attention or give a crap...
I guess most people can see the difference between a blow job and crapping on the Constitution.
It is a demonstration of gross ignorance to suggest that Bush is "crapping the Constitution". Specifics, please, or shut up.
It is downright delusional to suppose that Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. The charges against him were perjury and obstruction of justice, the very same charges that Richard Nixon resigned over rather than face impeachment.
These charges pale in comparison with others that many, including myself, would have leveled against Clinton. For example, James Riady and John Huang plead guilty in 2001 to charges that they had funnelled over $8 million into Clinton's campaign coffers as a part of an undisclosed quid-pro-quo scheme prior to 1994.
"It's like Deja vu all over again"--Yogi BerraThey've been at it for decades. Just a few changes and Presto! The following NY Times piece from November 1986 would be indistinguishable from what we've been seeing since Nov. 2006.
Bush and Cheney have turned the USA into a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens. If the Democrats don't turn a deaf ear to the "conventional wisdom" and exhortations we've heard since the election -- "impeachment is off limits," "it's about issues, issues, issues," "suppress anger," "don't overreach," etc -- they'll once again prove themselves to be the impotent wimps so many believe them to be, and just as they did in 1988, they'll watch in shock as a Republcan takes the White House out of their waiting hands.
Thanks for that post, the excerpt is both informative and even amusing, in a way that does cause a smile at how little things change, and how old tactics that work (or even just seem to work) never go away, but keep getting new work, with new gangs.
I couldn't read the linked item, as I don't subscribe to 'Select', but the excerpt was enough, and all I would've wanted in addition, was the by-line.
Sure, just change the names, and it's the same old refrain: "Back off, you don't know the hazzards you're chancing!" "You'll cut your own throats if you go too far" "Backlash! Fear the backlash!"
I like the excerpt for it's invoking the Spanish Inquisition... I figure Fox or somebody to pick up on that, and re-cycle it soon, for the present matter.
Other fine words used: pitfall (twice), baying for blood (you dogs!), seize control of the national agenda (another good one I expect to see re-cycled), and over-react.
...it's all just part of the noise that wounded animals make, to confuse and discourage the thing that threatens them... that thing being JUSTICE in this case, and the agents who work it.
And as far as employing this kind of noise, as just part of a defense: It's cheap and easy to do... it spends little more than the stinky breath expended, to make such hot-air threats against investigations, and JUSTICE...
...and besides, what's the point of owning the "media" anyway, if you can't use them to broadcast (and publish) noise.
What else are they going to do... practice the art and industry of Journalism?
What is it that loyal Bushies have to fear?
What is the problem with testifying under oath, under the public eye and with a transcript? Loyal Bushies are not able to answer those questions.
We the public are intrigued. First Gonzales said it was performance, then he backpeddled and said the President can fire at will. Why the backpeddle? Why invoke the fire at will claim after the performance excuse fell flat? Why didn't Gonzales invoke the fire at will claim in the first place instead of the performance excuse?
Gonzales said he was not a player in the firings then it turns out that he was? Why did he lie to the public?
The way Bush and his top aides are responding to this issue makes one wonder if they are either very stupid or they have a very clever scheme going. Either way it doesn't appear to be in the people's favor and this is what we need to get to the bottom of.
The Democrats are in danger of being seen as "too political" and "the party of investigation rather than legislation"? What rubbish. The U.S. Congress investigating the firings of U.S. Attorneys is not superficially political, and neither is a Congressional investigation into the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War, NSA wiretapping, CIA secret prisons, corruption in general. The Dems would never tire of mentioning that that was exactly what they would do if they took over Congress. The American people knew that, and they voted them anyway. Therefore, the American people want them to investigate one of the worst Presidents in history.
Just as when these idiot 'pundits' prattle on about Iraq, and somehow incredibly never mention the most important concept to the matter, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY (and whether it is served by that invasion and occupation)...
So also do these idiots now prattle on about this matter, of the U.S. Attorneys being fired, and never make mention of the single highest concern here...
JUSTICE
...as in, if any of these firings were meant to prevent or interfere with any Federal investigation or prosecution, then it constitutes an Obstruction of Justice.
These fools say 'politics' and 'political wrangling' and 'vengeance', these fools say 'backlash' and 'overplaying their hand' (to which the fool says back 'overstepping their hand'... 'overstepping their hand'?).
What about JUSTICE?
Isn't it worth an investigation, to perhaps uncover the crime of Obstruction of Justice... wouldn't then such an investigation be JUSTICE itself?
How can these idiots neglect to say the word JUSTICE, when the issue is one of U.S. Attorneys (who are our agents of JUSTICE) being stopped in their work...
When it involves the Department of JUSTICE, and perhaps an Obstruction of JUSTICE?
But why ask these questions, of those fools and idiots, when they are the same fools and idiots who can prattle on, about Iraq, for hours, and days, and months and years, and somehow strangely never even mention the concern of U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.
Republicans put out the bait....Dems, who can't seem to get their wagon movin'on anything, jumped on the bait like a fly on a junebug...more of much ado about nothing.... just what the Republicans set 'em up for....entertaining!
I would call that an apt analogy if they THOUGHT that is what they were doing. Since a fly jumping on a junebug, that is a form of beatle would be committing suicide much like a deer jumping on a wolverine.
It could be bait and distraction, not enough is known just yet to be sure... and they do that, they initiate inane and pointless debates, at times when they are most vulnerable, to distract the American People, and whatever honest Press might still exist... all things 'Gitmo' and detainees and interrogation and torture and 'secret prisons' are examples of this, and are all strangely surfacing right now too...
The things that indicate that there is much more than smoke here (and again, not enough is known as yet): Their refusal to be sworn, or even transcribed on the public record; the AG's sudden PR tour (he's safeguarding your children you know, from the Internet Wire); and what may turn out to be (if reportedly true) an invoking of the fifth amendment, and a refusal to speak on this matter, by an aide to the AG...
Because if that happens, then we will have seen something that nobody in their right mind does frivilously... it has a true (and career-long) 'backlash' in the legal community, to invoke the fifth and refuse to testify in a legal proceeding...
And if and when it happens, it will be signal.
And of course these firings constitute no crime, and even the charge of being 'political' is of no damage, unless there is evidence that these things were meant to prevent or interefere with any Federal investigation or prosecution... in which case the crime is Obstruction of Justice.
No Obstruction of Justice here, just a lot of smoke and distraction?
Maybe.
But then why refuse to be sworn, and refuse to be put on the public record... and most importantly, why invoke the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination?
If and when that happens, it will be signal, to be sure.
And I'd add: Senate and House investigators go down this trail, in search of just one animal...
The crime of Obstruction of Justice
...which is what has been committed, should these firings have been meant to prevent or interfere with any Federal investigation or prosecution.
The very instant that Senate and House investigators determine that no such crime has been committed, then they break from that trail, and get back to tracking bigger (real) game...
...but should a crime have been committed here, then JUSTICE must be served, and somedody's got to be held accountable.
Otherwise, what's the purpose of JUSTICE, or of having a Department of JUSTICE.
then why is Abu Gonzo's 'Monica' feel the need to tkae the 5th? Because she would be forced to lie to protect Abu? Oops, too bad the 5th does not cover that! Oh, well just another of those quaint laws.
The smart thing for Congress to do here is to grant Goodling immunity with regard to her testimony. Then she would not be able to take the Fifth.
no, not until Sampson testifies. For allwe really know Monica has lots and lots of 'goodling's' (sorry just could not resist ;p ) to tell.
Gonzo is already gonzo-along with alot of others. I'm real curious to see how "candid and truthfull" ol' "magic bullet" Specter is when they ask him the particulars of how his name is on that provision to the Patriot Act that gave Bush (et al), the go ahead on non-confirmation of new appointees to US Attorney slots.
How can a political party be too political?
Good point, McTeethinator! Also, how in the name of Jeb McCrisco can they come up with this anti-Dem backlash theory out of whole cloth, all the while ignoring poll-based evidence to the contrary?! And these same geniuses turn their suspicious natures off regarding the all-signs-pointing-to-the-obvious possibility that the administration's attorney firings and the AG's now-documented lying were for the purposes of (1) obstructing justice, and (2) hiding the obstruction? Not worth mentioning I guess... commercial break coming up!
That backfire thing has been the mantra of ALL media for the last several weeks. Nonstop.
Every freaking pundit in print, radio, or TV except Lieberman has been using that phrase "...backfire on the democrats" and what's worse is the idiot politicians who are actually starting to believe it.
Jeez but I would just love to see one democrat call these shiite heads on that nonsense.
"Wolf, why do you keep saying that holding investigations and getting to the truth of a matter would backfire on us? Why haven't you ever used that phrase with republicans?"
And on and on ad infinitum.
Of course none of the TV opinion talkers are going to report the fact that one formor US Attorney David Iglesias was fired for not bowing to pressure to give publicity to sealed indictments of Democrats or that Carol Lam was fired for sending a Republican to jail and continuing to indict more Republicans. TV opinion people are not going to discuss why Deputy Attorney General Paul McNaulty lied saying that the firings were performance related.
Are the Democrats just supposed to let the administration lie and obfuscate and stand by helplessly? First they have no guts and then they are overstepping. They actually are highly competent public servants who are doing what is required of them. A caller to CSPAN said it wouldn't be so bad if Leahy hadn't said he didn't care what the Presidents position was, he was going to issue subpoenas, that Leahy should have more deference to the Pres. But as Hagle has said Bush is thumbing his nose at Congress and doesn't treat them as co-equals, so it's Bush who has no deference and no respect. And if we question him we are playing politics and not supporting the troops. I'm tired of being constantly vilified by villains.
The Washington Stenographic Corps working for the corporate-sponsored, Bush-supporting media must have received an advanced copy of the Republican talking points re: investigations and oversight. How many repetitions did Huxley say it took before a lie became a "truth," before an urban legend became a fact?