Comments (100)

Robin Michael wrote on March 21, 2007 2:55 PM:

The preznit has no recollection of being briefed on the matter? As a guest on the Thom Hartmann show just pointed out, doesn't that mean Tony just flushed his boss's "executive privilege" argument down the crapper?

Richard Cownie wrote on March 21, 2007 2:59 PM:

Someone pointed out that US Attorneys are appointed,
and fired, by the President. Gonzalez can't have
done it on his own. The President had to be
involved somewhere along the line.

Mr Blifil wrote on March 21, 2007 2:59 PM:

Whoa Nellie, he was loaded for bear when the 18 day-gap came up for consideration. Well rehearsed, pre-planned response in all it's obfuscatory glory.

I think Bush now officially has a problem.

Benjamin wrote on March 21, 2007 3:02 PM:

Can Tony Snow ever work in journalism again? Why do people take jobs like this if all your going to do is lie all morning? This man use to be an editor? We cannot let thise white house get out of these subpeonas!

jennifer wrote on March 21, 2007 3:02 PM:

Content on function rather than content. For those of us who can't watch video at work, a link to the transcript, or at least an overview, would be helpful.

Ryan wrote on March 21, 2007 3:02 PM:

18 day gap?
Wasn't the Nixon tape gap 18.5 minutes?

The cpmparisons are just too easy.

Ryan wrote on March 21, 2007 3:03 PM:

And it's Dubya's fault I can't type.

Midwest Product wrote on March 21, 2007 3:03 PM:

I've been harping on this in the research thread, so you will have to forgive me for sounding like a broken record.

There is another, second gap in the document dump paper trail, covering the final 48 hours prior to the firings. The last pre-massacre email is from AM December 5 (in which Paul McNulty actually expresses reservations about firing USA Bogden). The next message in the document dump is on December 7 after the phone calls had started. It would be nice to see Mr. Snow and the others questioned about this as well. Did everyone just forget for two whole days that they were about to fire 8 high-ranking officials?

Anonymous wrote on March 21, 2007 3:04 PM:

"Ive been led to believe there's a good answer for it."

Priceless. The best nonanswer I ever heard.

Ryan wrote on March 21, 2007 3:05 PM:

"Why do people take jobs like this if all your going to do is lie all morning?"

Common knowledge that press secretaries are intentionally left in the dark so that they can be telling the truth when they say "I don't know."

ccinnc wrote on March 21, 2007 3:06 PM:

There isn't an 18-day gap! I found an e-mail on Nov 29 from Elston to Long (#1-7), an e-mail exchange between Griffin and Goodling on 11/16 (#7-9) and another on December 1 (#7-9). Granted this isn't a lot of e-mails considering how many you'd expect to see, but there isn't a total gap.

jjg wrote on March 21, 2007 3:06 PM:

According to Snow, what happened at the Department of Justice is "what the Congress is rightly interested in."

And, presumably, Congress should not be so interested in what happened at the WH.

Geez, think they're going to let Gonzalez take the fall?

Dungheap wrote on March 21, 2007 3:07 PM:

My take is that the document dump was obfuscation. It was not in response to a subpoena (I don't believe) and Justice simply put out whatever it deemed responsive, relevant and, most importantly, not privileged.

I imagine the missing 18 days were withheld on the grounds that the communications therein, showing the deliberative process of the Executive branch in consultation with Justice, are privileged. Hence, they were not disclosed.

If that is the case, the President has every reason to press ahead with the executive privilege argument until a court rules on it. That way, Rove and Miers won't testify and the documents withheld on privilege grounds won't have to be disclosed until a court so rules. I imagine they think they can keep this tied up in litigation for a while and get some breathing room.

ccinnc wrote on March 21, 2007 3:07 PM:

And keep in mind, T'giving was in there too.

I'm not making excuses, but we need to be accurate to be credible.

Unmitigated Audacity wrote on March 21, 2007 3:07 PM:

"18 day gap?
Wasn't the Nixon tape gap 18.5 minutes?"

Goes to show these assholes are an order of magnitude worse even than the proto-fascists in the Nixon WH.

Peter Principle wrote on March 21, 2007 3:11 PM:

By the end of the week, they will no doubt be blaming it on a "sinister force."

Where's Al Haig when they really need him?

mario wrote on March 21, 2007 3:11 PM:

This is great!

The USA's serve at the pleasure of the President.

But the Prezident has no recollection of "this ever being raised".

(of course, we can always quibble about what "this" is.)

These guys are constructing a logic pretzel that threatens to devour Washington.

And we all know how well the Prez does with pretzels.

And here's another preoblem with the "executive privilege" argument. Bush has already said it's OK for Rove, et al to talk about these "candid" and "privileged" conversations, so long as it's done on his Alice in Wonderland terms.

Doesn't that also throw any exec priv argument out the window?

Melanie wrote on March 21, 2007 3:11 PM:

Benjamin,

Snow worked for Fox. He'll get the revolving door back when he's ready.

Carl Nyberg wrote on March 21, 2007 3:12 PM:

Bush had to sign off on the decision to sack the USAs. Why did he think he was firing them?

tbhull wrote on March 21, 2007 3:15 PM:

It is weird how things change over time. The government now, with the abl assistance of the internet and AT&T, almost unfettered access to unlmited information about each individual citizen. We are a truly transparent citizenry, whether we want to be or not.

The Government on the other hand is secretive and completely opaque. From court gag orders, to court ordered prior restraints on the press, to closed court proceeding for high profile cases, to to closed Congressional hearing, to private interviews with Congressional members, to the president stating that secrecy is needed in deliberations even deliberations that border on obstruction, the government is becomingly increasingly secretive. This is troubling. The government is of and for the people, not for some ruling class to operate without the light of day.

Sean wrote on March 21, 2007 3:17 PM:

Part of transcript available at http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/snow-gap/

jc wrote on March 21, 2007 3:18 PM:

In response to ccinnc, the gap is actually a little more than *3* orders of magnitude larger than the 18.5 minutes missing from the Nixon tapes. 18 days = 25,920 minutes.

victoria2dc wrote on March 21, 2007 3:18 PM:

You missed the most important Q and A: Tony said the prez dosen't remember signing off of it.

Then someone (I think it was Ed from CNN)responded that if the prez didn't sign off on it then how can there be exec. priv. if he wasn't guided, briefed and signed off on it?

This could be a critical legal question... please send it to Josh!

ahem wrote on March 21, 2007 3:20 PM:

"The preznit has no recollection of being briefed on the matter? As a guest on the Thom Hartmann show just pointed out, doesn't that mean Tony just flushed his boss's "executive privilege" argument down the crapper?"

Unitary executive, baby: any executive branch underling (present or past, apparently) is protected by the powers of the preznit.

That's what 'unitary executive' means in the White House reading.

Bearpaw wrote on March 21, 2007 3:23 PM:

Benjamin: "Can Tony Snow ever work in journalism again?"

Huh? When did he work in journalism? Didn't he used to work for Fox News?

Mark wrote on March 21, 2007 3:23 PM:

When asked why the documents do not demonstrate poor performance by the fired AG's, Snow said it is a question for justice, then eventually said that's a great question. When asked about the 18 day document gap Snow said he hears justice has a great explanantion. When follow-up pressed about Gonz. memo to Mier asking about Prz approval just before the 18 day gap; Snow says the President has no recollection of any of this.

Ryan wrote on March 21, 2007 3:26 PM:

Tony Snowjob?

Hah. Ed Schultz makes me laugh.

Midwest Product wrote on March 21, 2007 3:27 PM:

"Bush had to sign off on the decision to sack the USAs. Why did he think he was firing them?"

Mr. Bush certainly hasn't indicated that he signed off on it. He was very, veeeery careful at yesterday's presser to say "White House" whenever he discussed the approval to fire the 8 USAs. I think all of the crap coming from the White House is supposed to make it appear that the President had literally no idea that any firings were occurring. This is matched in the doc dump by revisions made to William Moschella's opening statement to Congress, in which all references to the President are cut and replaced with "the Administration". Of course, if their claim is that Mr. Bush didn't fire them, in what sense did they serve 'at the pleasure of the President' rather than 'at the pleasure of some guy at DOJ'?

Nick wrote on March 21, 2007 3:27 PM:

> Can Tony Snow ever work in journalism again?

NO! Here's the rule: You can jump from government to journalism (like Stephanopoulos) or journalism to government, and suffer only minimal snickering. You can jump from government to journalism and BACK to government (as Snow has done) but then people get to make fun of you openly and should completely disregard any work you ever did as a reporter. You can NOT go journalism-government-journalism, and you most CERTAINLY can not go government-journalism-government-journalism and expect to have a SHRED of credibility as a journalist. I mean, who would even hire you? *

-Nick

*Fox News = not journalism

DallasNE wrote on March 21, 2007 3:28 PM:

Earth to Tony Snow, did the Department of Justice really believe that they could get away with conviently leaving out 18 days worth of data? They had to know that the bloggers would be looking specifically for any gaps in the paper trail.

I fully expect them to blame the technical people for mistakenly deleting key files. Well, IT is my business and there is zero possibility of inadvertant deletion of data. Any IT professional would require written instructions on the methods, the circumstances and the list of senior officials that could submit such a request. Tampering would be even more serious.

Further, I fully expect the Bush gave the directive in the first place to explore cleansing of US Attorney's and that he also signed off on the final list of those being fired.

This is an abuse of power that even Republicans will have a hard time ignoring. It could even lead to calls for impeachment.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 21, 2007 3:30 PM:

Mr. Snow no longer bothers with non-denial denials. He doesn't even say "no comment". If he has nothing to say, why is he still there?

Douglas Watts wrote on March 21, 2007 3:30 PM:

There isn't an 18-day gap! I found an e-mail on Nov 29 from Elston to Long (#1-7), an e-mail exchange between Griffin and Goodling on 11/16 (#7-9) and another on December 1 (#7-9). Granted this isn't a lot of e-mails considering how many you'd expect to see, but there isn't a total gap. Posted by: ccinnc. Date: March 21, 2007 03:06 PM
--

The "gap" is approximate -- not literal. There is no obvious reason or explanation why the paper trail would drop off so precipitously and then start up again. If there was, Mr. Snow would have stated it today when asked.

rlogan wrote on March 21, 2007 3:33 PM:

We're up against the clock now thanks to more than half a decade of free passes to this administration.

Douglas Watts wrote on March 21, 2007 3:39 PM:

As has been said before, Bush's opposition to subpoenas for White House staff is of the blanket nature, and mostly to do with other issues than firing US attys. But they feel they need to draw the line right now and this is the first time the issue has come up since 11/7/06

mbbsdphil wrote on March 21, 2007 3:39 PM:

Benjamin, isn't the question whether Tony Snow ever work in journalism?

achilles wrote on March 21, 2007 3:42 PM:

Let's not forget that there's a whole other story here that ties into this but has not been brought up anywhere that I have seen so far. And that is Valerie Plame.

At heart, Bush's claim of Executive Priviledge is based upon a long-understood, but not mandated, Attorney/Client kind of priviledge, which grants the President certain rights to privacy. Bush is arguing that to allow his aides to testify before Congress is a violation of his rights.

However, National Security clearances are mandated and protected by law, and Bush and his advisors knowingly violated this for their own purposes. Yes, it's true that no one has been prosecuted for the actual leaking of Valerie Plame's name and identity. But, it was a violation of a mandated legal protection nonetheless.

What the President is arguing by trying to sheild his advisors is this: "we can violate the law when we want to, and we can refuse to comply with the law when we want to."

In short, the President is claiming that the Executive Branch can break the laws of National Security at will, and refuse to follow the laws regarding legally-mandated subpoenas at will. Although Bush has not said so using the exact words, his argument matches Richard Nixon's exactly. That is, "If the President does it, it's not against the law."

In the big picture, he actions of Bush's advisors, and the protections he wants to afford them, cannot be taken out of the context of the Plame case.

The Constitution does *not* grant the Executive branch the discretion to break the law when the President chooses. Nor does it grant the President the right to refuse to honor the law when he chooses.

Yet, in essence, this is what Bush is arguing: that there is no power outside the President to which he is accountabile when it comes to restricting or compelling his actions.

In sum, this is the argument of a King, not an American President. It's wholly unacceptable, both in it's broad reach and the details on which it is being hung.

It MUST be slapped down, and hard. Our Consitutional form of government depends on it.

uh wrote on March 21, 2007 3:42 PM:

18-day gap?

Well, obviously the email servers were down. I believe Michael Brown's firm had been hired to keep our email going, so that's why it took only 18 days to get it back up and running. Kudos to Brownie, once again!!

Jane wrote on March 21, 2007 3:44 PM:

Rather than letting Bush stonewall this in the Courts which have been packed with conservative Bushies, Congress should move directly to impeachment unless they get sworn testimony. Never too late to impeach to deter the next President who wants to behave like Bush.

Sholom wrote on March 21, 2007 3:44 PM:

The answer to the gaps . . . perhaps?

DOJ, in 3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Document 12, noted which kinds of documents it would not provide (becuase of confidentiality, or whatever). I can't help but think they are torturously (pun intended) expanding the definition of the words in the memo to cover the emails during the "18 days", and, as "Midwest Product" noted, the 2-day gap between Dec 5 and 7, the immediate 48 hours before the dismissal phone calls.

Anyone want to take a look at that memo again and share some thoughts?

It's at http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt12070319.pdf

mbbsdphil wrote on March 21, 2007 3:45 PM:

Dungheap, good point. Three thousand is a blip. These weren't even three thousand documents, but document pages. Civil discovery routinely yields hundreds of thousands, occasionally millions of document pages.

Even given the narrowness of the topic, the political visibility and varied purposes for which these decisions would have been made, and the number of bodies involved, suggests that three thousand is only a small part of the communication trail.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 21, 2007 3:45 PM:

Go back to the first document dump. There is a gap in emails between March 2005 when Sampson and Miers corresponded about firing the USAs until January 2006 when Sampson and Miers again discuss the issue.

Brett Tolman inserted the USA revision into the Patriot Act in, I think, December 2005. The revision reportedly was written by William Moschella. Surely Moschella circulated memoranda about how the PA revision would impact the appointment of USAs.

I don't believe Kyle Sampson evaluated the USAs in February 2005, sent the evaluations to Harriet Miers in March 2005 and then no one in the DOJ or the White House ever discussed the issue again in the nine month period between March 2005 and January 2006.

By focusing on the USA performance evaluations, the Bush administration is deflecting attention away from how the PA revision came about and how the administration planned to exercise the power of the PA revision to appoint replacement USAs.

As Bud Cummins wrote, Main Justice wrote 30-page memorandas to replace light bulbs.

cowalker wrote on March 21, 2007 3:45 PM:

I think of him as Pony Snowjob, as in "Ponies for everyone in Iraq at the end of the next Friedman unit!"

Michael wrote on March 21, 2007 3:46 PM:

You can NOT go journalism-government-journalism, and you most CERTAINLY can not go government-journalism-government-journalism and expect to have a SHRED of credibility as a journalist.

Moyers?

Not that Snoo-Snoo is in the same league, of course, but still.

aqualung wrote on March 21, 2007 3:46 PM:

Fox News is to journalism what professional wrestling is to sport.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 21, 2007 3:51 PM:

Sharks or Dolphins?

The MSM talks about the "feeding frenzy" over the USA scandal and this small (but Unprecedented!) document release, suggesting that we're sharks in the water chasing a few drops of blood.

I admit the case may lead to unraveling considerable crimes. But that little guy on my shoulder tells me we should consider feeling like dolphins caught in a tuna net.

What are we NOT paying attention to? Let's keep Iraq, Iran and a few other mega-disasters on the front page, too.

Donald Cormac wrote on March 21, 2007 3:51 PM:

The 18 day's worth of e-mails? They're still stuck in the toobz - just ask Senator Stevens (R-AK). (;>

mbbsdphil wrote on March 21, 2007 3:57 PM:

Tony Can't Say That, Can He? (Thanks, Molly.)

My favorite for Mr. Candor is Tony Sno-wall, in honor of his stonewalling responses in the growing number of investigations.

Terrence Obrey wrote on March 21, 2007 4:01 PM:

Tony you scumball.

You LIE!

You will go to Gitmo with the rest of the Bush assholes!

You're all enemy combatants!

Terry

Mark F. wrote on March 21, 2007 4:07 PM:

Can somebody please put Tony under oath?

The sheer volume of horseshit that has spewed forth from this man's piehole is truly amazing. An ordinary man would have choked to death by now.

Brian M. wrote on March 21, 2007 4:08 PM:

When was Tony Snow ever a journalist?

Opinionator, sure. GOP columnist, sure. FAUX News flack, certainly.

He'll probably go back to FOX and get groomed for Roger Ailes' job.

You have to feel for the guy, though. He's like the Iraqi Information Minister at this point - forced to defend things he's not even aware of, and to put forth a party line he doesn't believe.

Ned Balzer wrote on March 21, 2007 4:08 PM:

This "document dump" reminds me of the doc dump on WMD the Iraqis did in the leadup to the war. And of course, this administration accused Iraq of obfuscation. What goes around comes around.

BenL wrote on March 21, 2007 4:12 PM:

Here's a link to some research from 1995 relating to Congressional subpoenas and Executive privilege.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs//data/1995/upl-meta-crs-184/95-464A_1995Apr07.htm?PHPSESSID=3a10a9637262ffe5ef85b642b5109059#5

It outlines in some detail, claims of Executive Privilege in response to a Congressional subpoena. It indicates what appears to be an argument that Executive Privilege is not absolute, and is subject to being tossed if another institution of government is unable to fulfill its own duties, absent the Executive Branch complying with the subpoena.

Woobot wrote on March 21, 2007 4:15 PM:

SNOW: The president has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.

Someone needs to ask Snow if there are any documents that indicate that the issue was raised with Bush or if anyone else at the WH recalls raising it with Bush

riche wrote on March 21, 2007 4:17 PM:

geez tony, about that 18+day gap, a little
testy aren't you? wonder why?

vox clamantis in red state wrote on March 21, 2007 4:20 PM:

When people like this front man for the presnit give a press briefing, the proper uniform of the day should be him wearing nothing but a pair of briefs. That would help the brevity too.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on March 21, 2007 4:21 PM:

When people like this front man for the presnit give a press briefing, the proper uniform of the day should be him wearing nothing but a pair of briefs. That would help the brevity too.

kozmik wrote on March 21, 2007 4:23 PM:

" There is another, second gap in the document dump paper trail, covering the final 48 hours prior to the firings. The last pre-massacre email is from AM December 5 (in which Paul McNulty actually expresses reservations about firing USA Bogden). "

Sounds like important news. Considering the timing it's a rather conspicuous gap.

btw, I'm thinking about the "intellectual property" and "credit" issues of online journalism and especially this sort of citizen journalism.

Wondering if TPM is corresponding with other predominant journalists to share "leads" TPM has developed. Such a semi-formal sharing of "leads" TPM develops might be 1) helpful to other journalists 2) establish a semi-formal provenance, for whatever it's worth, down the road.

Josh Marshall mentioned that a TPMMR poster may have been the first to publicly comment on the 18 day gap. A TPM forum is a quasi-public space not exactly comparable to publication on the front page. The initiation of a lead, or a question really, is a small part in tracking down a story. None the less it's a vital part.

So how does TPM ensure credit where due, to encourage this great new form of journalism? Maybe an environment similar to "open source" software design, where each contributor tags their part, the credits being inherently embedded?

I imagine courses in journalistic ethics must have become far more complicated over the last decade.

Incredible wrote on March 21, 2007 4:25 PM:

I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but remember that Libby was prosecuted for lying by these lying bastards.

yellowsnapdragon wrote on March 21, 2007 4:26 PM:

Mrs. Pantstrepon, Hmm. Duke Cunningham pleaded guilty on November 28, 2005. USA Patriot Improvement Act amendment was added in committee on December 14, 2005. January 9, 2006, Lam's name appears on an email from Sampson to Miers of attys to be sacked.

sean wrote on March 21, 2007 4:29 PM:

At least for me (Mac OS X 10.4.9, Safari), the content-type is wrong for the second video. It's being downloaded as text/plain instead of flv.

Midwest Product wrote on March 21, 2007 4:32 PM:

Sholom - thanks for that PDF, I had entirely forgotten about it. Two interesting points: (1) they specifically claim they will not release documents relating to the NDC district and the special EARS investigation there, but isn't that exactly what the lone email in the 18-day gap is about? (2) the other two types of FULL documents that specifically refused to release (as opposed to simply redacting names or info on an otherwise visible document) relate to a leak investigation in West Michigan and to memoranda concerning whether or not to pursue the death penalty. There is no way those three types of justifications could ever explain the gaps. They have additional redactions specifically timed AFTER December 7, but not BEFORE, when the major gaps occur in the data.

LionelEHutz wrote on March 21, 2007 4:32 PM:

Conyers should give Bush 1 week to comply with the subpoenas, and if he fights them, go straight to impeachment hearings. It's what the Bushies seem to want anyway.

anonymous wrote on March 21, 2007 4:35 PM:

In response to ccinnc, the gap is actually a little more than *3* orders of magnitude larger than the 18.5 minutes missing from the Nixon tapes. 18 days = 25,920 minutes.

And in the end, that's the only distinguishing difference between this President and Nixon. Nixon had an 18 minute gap, Bush has an 18 THOUSAND minute gap.

Mark F. wrote on March 21, 2007 4:39 PM:

Does anyone know of an online copy of the piece, written by Tony Snow, that was mentioned in the presser today? From what I could gather from the question, Snow put up quite a stink during the Clinton impeachment when Clinton claimed executive privilege. I thought it might be fun to read, but I haven't had any luck finding the piece.

(Sean: I've been having problems with those blip.tv video links since they started putting them on this site. Firefox wants to download them instead of playing them too. I solved the problem by enabling popups and javascript temporarily. Safari is opening them fine on my box, by the way. I think the problem may be the syntax in the link.)

Zee wrote on March 21, 2007 4:39 PM:

Where's Mr Cheney in all this?

Is he the dog that isn't barking?

Suddenly the single person long understood to be the acting President is absent from any consideration.

Likely?

erica wrote on March 21, 2007 4:41 PM:

I agree with the person above who points out that it's important to stay focused on what made the WH decide that the firing was worth doing. This involves looking not only at the actual caseloads (who had inconvenient investigations going) but also at the potential future (presumably pro WH) impact of moving the new appointees into the chosen jobs.

In other words, what did the WH want to do over the next two years that it wouldn't have been able to do with the existing attorneys in place???

cevrero wrote on March 21, 2007 4:43 PM:

I'm waiting to hear from Snowjob that there's no motive for Bush to have these USAs fired for political reasons,.....even though Bush admittedly said yesterday that "it appears to be political, but it aint"(I'm paraphrasing).
But isn't it classic Bush, to spin it completely 180 and say that it's the democrats who are making this a political issue, when everything points to the whitehouse and the justice department being in bed with each other on this.
Is it just me, but how can this "joke" of a president even get support from Republicans when he fumbles over every word with a lying twitch. and Why does he always say that in Washington there's always alot of politcs as if he's not a politician,....he's just a poor old cowboy trying to make the world right.

samg wrote on March 21, 2007 4:47 PM:

what i don't understand is how the president has any power to affect the terms of how harriet miers testifies before congress, since she no longer works for the white house, and is a private citizen. how can the president stop congress from subpoenaing a private citizen?

Anonymous wrote on March 21, 2007 4:47 PM:

Hacks like Tony Snowjob will always find work with Fox or some lobbyist group or think tank supported by those who profit by the GOP holding the presidency. He's a good GOP soldier: Keep your mouth shut and throw yourself on the grenades when asked to.

cevrero wrote on March 21, 2007 4:48 PM:

Bush said yesterday to the effect that one of the USAs completed his 4 year term and that's why they replaced one them. But why did they replace him 2 years after he completed his 4 year term. It seems they're trying to use the term cycle as a reason to replace a few of them.

epv wrote on March 21, 2007 4:51 PM:

Tony Snow is an imbecilic buffoon who also says that testifying under oath doesn't mean a thing... Such is the neo-orwellian vomit that the Bush gang hurles upon the American people.

Let us hope that Congressional Democrats INSIST that subpoenas are issued- that they do not back down from testimony by Rove, Miers & Gonzales (and, if need-be by Bush & Cheney) under oath, in public, and transcripts on-the-record.

Indeed, Gonzales has already lied to Congress:-- why is this mafia-style consigliere who serves the Bush Crime Family still in office?

When will Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove & Gonzales be removed from office and frog-marched off-to-jail where they belong?

Just watch-- for if the case for demanding testimony goes before the Supreme Court-- then we will all be treated to the obscene spectacle of Dicky-boy Cheney taking the Scalia-gang off-to-hunt ducks! Nauseating!!!

kozmik wrote on March 21, 2007 4:52 PM:

Moyers is a unique case. Tony Snow is in many ways the opposite of what is good and decent about Moyers.

Moyers was drafted into politics at a young age while studying Journalism and writing for a Texan paper. In the Johnson admin he was most associated with the Great Society legislation and the Peace Corps. He also has a Masters in Divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The part of his career spent in the Admin was probably the low point of his journalistic career, and a long time ago. Subsequently he's criticized the declining standards of journalism (since the 70's) and increasingly deceptive tactics of politicians.

He's always been a humanitarian, and his involvement in government served that purpose. His long format, in depth, journalism shows the humanitarian and public servant in him. His demeanor matches his actions and shows what a thoughtful and decent person he is, never glib. He certainly wouldn't want to be a mouthpiece now.

For Tony snow, it's just the opposite.

Snow has built a career as a mouthpiece, his career greatly benefiting by the decline of journalistic standards. He was a primary guest on Rush Limbaugh through the 90's and jumped aboard FOX.

Being the mouthpiece for the Bush Admin is Snow's crowning achievement. Snow is just about the complete opposite of Moyers in regards to personality, ethics, and journalism.

It just goes to show that government and the media can be good or bad, like anything else.

kozmik wrote on March 21, 2007 4:57 PM:

Correction, Moyers came in with the Kennedy admin where he was deputy director of the newly created Peace Corps, and then stayed with the Johnson admin.

From Wikipedia:
During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962-63. When Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963–1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. When Walter Jenkins resigned from Johnson's staff in October 1964, Moyers became the President's informal chief of staff until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House Press Secretary[1]. In the New York Times on April 3, 1966, Moyers offered this insight on his stint as press secretary to President Johnson: "I work for him despite his faults and he lets me work for him despite my deficiencies." [3] The details of his rift with Johnson have not been made public, but may be discussed in a forthcoming memoir.[2]

Astigmatist wrote on March 21, 2007 4:58 PM:

In answer to Mark F's question ---

Yesterday Glenn Greenwald posted some juicy Tony Snow quotes on Clinton and executive privilege:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Scroll down to the "Executive Privilege" post, March 20th.

Mark F. wrote on March 21, 2007 5:02 PM:

Astigmatist:

Thanks--I just found it. It's starting to show up as a Google News result. Amusing to read. Snow, from March 29, 1998:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560724

Brian wrote on March 21, 2007 5:02 PM:

Joe Lieberman says the 18-day gap in emails is because the Ned Lamont campaign was performing a denial of service attack on the Department of Justice - and we all know Joe is always right, just ask him ;-)

grokgov wrote on March 21, 2007 5:09 PM:

Imagine if Scott McLellan were dealing with this stuff?

As evil as he is, Snow is a genius, a fucking iceman.

Mark F. wrote on March 21, 2007 5:10 PM:

Just found an interesting tidbit. According to this document http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf from the Congressional Research Service, 31 of Clinton's top aids testified before Congress on 47 separate occasions. So the White House claim that it just isn't done is pure B.S. Of course it is.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill. [3/13/07]

White House Counselor Dan Bartlett: I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly to these matters. [3/13/07]

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): No, I think you’re violating a precedent there that should not be violated. … I believe that under the separation of powers, there are limits to the extent to which Congress can subpoena or demand testimony from those who were closest to the president. [3/15/07]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/20/white-house-testify/

Mike in LA wrote on March 21, 2007 5:11 PM:

Mark F at 4:39 pm
Go to Americablog.com -- they've posted the Tony McSnowjob editorial in which he blasted away at the idea of executive privilege (ten years ago, of course).

VeganMilitia wrote on March 21, 2007 5:11 PM:

Where's Mr Cheney in all this?

Try this one on for scary:

Attorney scandal brings down Bush;
Cheney, after the one scandal in which he actually was *not* involved, ascends to the presidency.

We awake the next morning to the bombing of Iran and declaration of martial law.

Arne Langsetmo wrote on March 21, 2007 6:48 PM:

BenJamin:

Can Tony Snow ever work in journalism again?

What? Musta been napping. When did Snow ever work in journalism?

Cheers,

hubbabubba wrote on March 21, 2007 8:08 PM:

Yes, the President's pleasure is involved here and he HAD to have been briefed on the recommendations or determinations of DOJ/Gonzales. And Rove would have been the one pushing the paper in front of him saying, this is what we think you oughta sign-off on because-----

It's the 'because' Rove trumps up in that action that we need to know about. It's the 'because' that DOJ prepared we need to know about--where it came from, who developed the rationale, the method and the final determination.

Rick996 wrote on March 21, 2007 8:32 PM:

Sounds like Nixon's gap.

Ronn Zealot wrote on March 21, 2007 8:35 PM:

Amazing - just watched these videos. Tony Snow looks like a man who just realized he drank the Kool-Aid.

bcg wrote on March 21, 2007 9:01 PM:

What I recently read about impeaching the president made it clear to me why proceeding against Bush at this time is a problem. Although the Democratic House could vote to impeach (at this point, most likely on party lines, making it a "partisan attack on the President"), the case would then be tried in the Senate (where Joe Lieberman gives the Democrats a majority) and judged by Bush's appointee and conservative water carrier, Chief Justice Roberts. Even if Dick Cheney weren't waiting in the wings, at this point, it doesn't look like the proceedings would have a desirable outcome.
My view is that, if impeachment is going to bring down this government, more better dirt is going to have to come out. As the country, then, becomes increasingly alienated from the President, those of his supporters in the House and Senate who might jump ship will (the Inhofes and Roberts will always stay on board) and the trial will be able to proceed without producing the equivalent of a hung jury and a slap on the wrist.

david78209 wrote on March 21, 2007 9:05 PM:

At least Tony Snow didn't do a "Rosemary stretch" and try to make an excuse for the 18 day gap.

anon wrote on March 21, 2007 10:25 PM:

The stench of desperation....

Snow reeks of it.

efc1918 wrote on March 21, 2007 10:37 PM:

VeganMilitia presents a dismal scenario indeed. But it might not be accurate to say that this is the one scandal that does not involve Cheney.

Read the story at ThinkProgress and follow the bouncing $140,000.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house/

Scott wrote on March 21, 2007 11:12 PM:

Tony Snow has a future in films ... as Frankenstein

lance1138 wrote on March 21, 2007 11:48 PM:

Great item on Think Progress on this topic:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/tony-snow-executive-privilege/

Donp wrote on March 22, 2007 12:55 AM:

Hi Everyone from the guy who first pointed out the 18 day gap after 2 in the morning, since I happened to pick document 2-1 to read. I'm so glad that it has been picked up by the press. But having dissected it, I wanted to be sure that two more points were understood about this gap from what I read. Others should read it themselves. Thank God for bloggers and the Internet huh? And TPM of course...

1) The interesting thing about the gap is that the last email is from Meiers saying that someone will figure out if the "boss" has to review this and that if he did, it would take a few weeks. Well guess what? It did. Do the math. Today Snow said Bush "couldn't recall". Sounds like they've got a BAD case of amnesia in the White House. Maybe it's contagious. Maybe Bush caught it from Scooter Libby. Of course we all see how credible that was when put on trial by real people. Also, it was suggested by Sampson of Justice that "Karl's shop" should look at the plan. Unless they were eating turkey for 18 days, they had plenty of time to review it. ALSO, it was noted in the Nov 15 plan that they would have to expect lots of political backlash. Well if you were the White House, who else would you consult about this other than Rove?? So having him testify under oath sounds more important than ever.

2) Look at what changed in the plan circulated to fire the AGs on Nov 15, and the one that emerged on Dec 4, which was the one signed off on by the White House according to their own email. First, AG Ryan's name was ADDED to the list. So doesn't it make you wonder where that name originated from? IT DID NOT COME FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AS OF NOV 15. The next plan circulated on Dec 4 INCLUDED Ryan's name, after an admitted round of White House approval. DOESN'T THIS BY DEFAULT MEAN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE ADDED THIS NAME?? Someone should look into what the White House might have had against Ryan - this could be the key to an obstruction of justice charge....did the White House have any reason to fire Ryan in order to stop some investigation? Rove and Meiers should be asked about this under oath.

As a 45 year old who remembers Nixon brought down, this is all too eerie. He KNEW he had to provide the tapes (which eerily he also tried to protect with Executive Privilige, and we see what the Supreme Court ruled then). So he simply erased what was most damning. This White House knew they had to provide documents. So they just left out those the most damning. E.g. THOSE THAT WERE DURING THE PERIOD OF FINAL WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF THE FIRINGS. Isn't that obvious?

I didn't have time, but someone should sit down and look at the Nov 15 vs. Dec 4 plans (I'll have time tomorrow if no one gets to it) and look for other changes that were made after WH review. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about the process would spot something here.

donp wrote on March 22, 2007 12:59 AM:

Regarding Tony Snow and the 18-day gap:

Presidential spokesmen are hired to sing the administration's song for sure. But in an interview of Scott McClellan with (I think) Jon Stewart recently, he pointed out that he specifically said that he ***was told*** by Rove that he didn't know anything about leaking Plame's name to the press. In other words, McClellan didn't want to be caught baldface lying by saying he wasn't involved, he just repeated that he SAID he wasn't.

Now look at Snow. He knows something. He wouldn't anwer the question about the gap. He said "go ask Justice". That's a WOW. There's a reason he can't/won't answer this. You can tell. It'll be interesting to find out what that reason is...

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 2:37 AM:

"Ive been led to believe there's a good answer for it."

Priceless. The best nonanswer I ever heard.

Actually I think Poppy Bush's administration understood the art of the non-answer better than Tony Snow or any of Junior's accomplices ever will.

For example, a Bush I lackey would have answered, "I assure you that the President is fully committed to maintaining the integrity of the US Attorney system."

That is what I call effortless mastery.

alex@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 10:37 AM:

hi cool site. awesome3

bill@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:25 AM:

hello

rice@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:42 PM:

hello

rose@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 11:36 PM:

hello

clomid wrote on May 13, 2007 12:21 PM:

Very nice site!

kilka wrote on July 31, 2007 12:51 PM:

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

Demens wrote on October 2, 2007 9:34 AM:

Hi, nice page.!
look on my pages:
conservation dedicated organization profit

ok.. bitte