« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Snow: "There Are A Lot of Things Going on" at The DoJ
It was a rather brutal press gaggle for Tony Snow this morning. Some highlights:
Q: The attorney general said mistakes were made in the Patriot Act, mistakes were made in the prosecutors, so how many mistakes...SNOW: There are a lot of things going on at the Department of Justice, and the president has confidence in his attorney general....
Q: Anybody calling Senator Sununu? What's your direct response to him?
SNOW: We're disappointed.
My personal highlight is Snow dismissing the false testimony given to Congress by Justice Department officials as "testimony on the Hill where people weren't fully briefed on email trails and so on.."
Much more below the fold....
Update: Another highlight:
Q: Tony, in the email traffic, loyalty came down as a criteria for employment as a US attorney. Does the president believe that loyalty to him and his administration is an important criteria?SNOW: No, the criteria -- and I don't want to be a fact witness. I think you have to go back and take a look at the emails. I'm not sure that the characterization is accurate, but you're going to have to ask the person who wrote the email --- and that would be Kyle Sampson -- what he meant by it.
Full Transcript:
Q: The president said yesterday that "Al has got some work to do up there" on Capitol Hill, that he wants him to go up there. It seems like maybe he's leaving it up to Gonzales to save himself, prove himself, or not. SNOW: No, the president has got confidence in the attorney general. But he's also made it clear that the Department of Justice didn't handle properly the notification of US attorneys they intended to find replacements for, the Capitol Hill notifications, in some cases, and furthermore, there was some testimony on the Hill where people weren't fully briefed on email trails and so on. And therefore, the attorney general, I think, is going to be doing some outreach to members of Congress to explain what went on. Q: The attorney general said mistakes were made in the Patriot Act, mistakes were made in the prosecutors, so how many mistakes... SNOW: There are a lot of things going on at the Department of Justice, and the president has confidence in his attorney general. Q: Is the White House going to allow testimony from Harriet Miers and Karl Rove? SNOW: Well, what we're doing right now is we are trying to get the information that congressional committees need in a manner that's consistent with presidential prerogatives. Fred Fielding was up on the Hill yesterday having conversations with members on the Hill, and I think they're going to be working that out over the next couple of days. Q: What sort of "manner" would that be? SNOW: I'm not going to prejudge it. We'll just have to wait and see. Q: Are you ruling out actual testimony. SNOW: No, I... Q: ... which would be unusual. SNOW: I'm going to let Fred make those determinations. That is really up to him.Q: Does the president believe that it was appropriate to fire some of these prosecutors?
SNOW: Yes, absolutely. Look, there are a couple of things to keep in mind, Toby. First, US attorneys serve four-year terms. And then there's a holdover provision. So in each of these cases, the four-year term had expired, and it's perfectly appropriate for people who work at the pleasure of the president to be replaced at the pleasure of the president. So yes, it's perfectly appropriate.
Q: But they're saying "at the pleasure of the president," but he said that he did not specifically know about the cases.
SNOW: No, he did not, specifically. What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers. And the Attorney General had a recommendation to replace seven US attorneys, and the president said, "okay." And he approved that decision.
Q: Tony, in the email traffic, loyalty came down as a criteria for employment as a US attorney. Does the president believe that loyalty to him and his administration is an important criteria?
SNOW: No, the criteria -- and I don't want to be a fact witness. I think you have to go back and take a look at the emails. I'm not sure that the characterization is accurate, but you're going to have to ask the person who wrote the email --- and that would be Kyle Sampson -- what he meant by it.
Question Well, I'm asking you...
SNOW: Well, I'm telling you that the president's criterion here is, "are people being effective, are they performing up to standards as US attorneys?" That does not mean that they are being held to political litmus tests. It does mean that there are performance standards that they ought to be measured against.
Q: He looked into their performance and found it wanting?
SNOW: The Department of Justice did, yes....Q: Anybody calling Senator Sununu? What's your direct response to him?
SNOW: We're disappointed.
Question Anybody telling him that?
SNOW: I suspect... I don't know. He called over to Leg Affairs yesterday briefly, about 15 minutes before he made the announcement. So we were aware that it was coming. But I'm not certain that there have been any phone calls. Did the president call him? No....Q: Tony, in your earlier comment on the US Attorney's Office, you laid the emphasis on the mistakes being in how this information was communicated to Congress.
SNOW: Yes.
Q: But I'm curious, is it the White House position that in the actual decision to remove the US attorneys, and the decision of who to replace them with, that there was no inappropriate political pressure brought to bear there?
SNOW: That is correct.
Q: Okay. And in terms of the role of Karl Rove and people in the political shop, beyond the fact that he told Ms. Miers that this was not a good idea to get rid of 93, what role did they have, now that you've reviewed the situation?
SNOW: I'll tell you, we are still in a position where we're also doing internal document reviews. And DOJ also has not completed its document production. So I'm just going to have to hold off on that. I cannot characterize fully.
Q: How can you say that there was no political element in this, after putting the emails out which detail it very clearly, and which specifically state that the people who were dismissed, the seven of them anyway, were not -- I forget the exact language -- on the administration's agenda?
SNOW: No, no, no, what they're talking about is under-performing in terms of benchmarks that have been laid out in terms of priorities. In one case, for instance, you had disputes over application of the death penalty. When you're talking about an agenda, this is not talking about doing politics, this is saying that you have certain things that have been specified by the Department of Justice as areas of emphasis and concern...
Q: Even after successful prosecutions by many of these attorneys?
SNOW: No, look, that's great. But the fact is that you ought to be -- not only have successful prosecutions, for instance, in corruption cases, but you also have other obligations and points of emphasis that you also have to meet. This is not an either/or situation. And certainly we have no qualms of the fact we're perfectly happy with the corruption investigations. People who corrupt public officials ought to be rooted out and prosecuted.
Q: Tony, just to follow on Mike's question, is it the White House position then that the mistakes that were made were limited to improperly informing the federal prosecutors about the reasons for their dismissal, and improperly informing Congress...
SNOW: Members of Congress, yes.
Q: ...that there are no mistakes...
SNOW: And also some of the testimony.
Q: ...and that there were no mistakes made beyond that?
SNOW: Look, these are people who serve at the pleasure of the president. It is perfectly appropriate to replace them.
Q: No, what I'm asking is, what...
SNOW: Yes, well, what do you mean "beyond that"? Tell me, help me out, what kind of metric are you trying to discuss here?
Q: I'm just asking, what were the mistakes?
SNOW: Well, again, I'll refer you back to the Department of Justice because they're the ones who conducted the review.
Q: Was the president aware of this? I mean, if they're serving at his pleasure, was he aware of each case?
SNOW: The president isn't going to micromanage the Department of Justice. What he does is he relies upon the recommendations of the Attorney General and he accepted them.
Question Why was Scott Jennings, someone in the political shop, involved in some of these discussions?
SNOW: Again, we'll look into it and we'll try to get you...
Q: Are you saying, Tony, that there's nothing wrong with White House staffers all the way up to and people including the president saying to Attorney General Gonzales and his people, we're hearing grumblings that you guys aren't moving fast enough on these investigations...
SNOW: Well, no, no, no, you have just mischaracterized. Okay. There are two things. Let me break...
Q: ...the president said he was passing along concerns.
SNOW: The president said that there were general concerns about...
Q: that he was passing along...
SNOW: Yes, but that's it. And as I said...
Q: Nothing more than that?
SNOW: No, of course not. As a matter of fact...
Q: Even though there was an investigation...
SNOW: No, again, you've completely conflated it. No, what you've done is you've tried to say that the president was talking about specific cases. Never did. So when you're talking about the specific cases -- he said, you know, I'm hearing general (reporter interrupts) Please let me finish, and then you can continue, because this is getting to be bad comedy here. Somebody comes to the president and says, "I've got concerns" you hear a number of people with concerns about a general class of cases; the president says, "I hear that there are some concerns about this." That's it. No directive, no attempt to say, go after these people. I mean, we've made it clear, and I think I was pretty crystal-clear about this when I talked to you yesterday, the day before: no specific individuals, no specific cases. Furthermore, it is absolutely appropriate for members of the administration, if somebody complains about something that they think involves a lack of effort on the part of the Department of Justice, to pass it on through appropriate channels. Members of Congress do this all the time. Now, sometimes they do it in front of microphones. You'll see members of Congress complaining about what they think is inappropriate. It happens all the time. And the point I made is if somebody...
Q: It doesn't happen when...
SNOW: ... if somebody says, we've got an allegation of corruption, or we have an allegation of vote fraud, those are serious crimes. But what you don't do is you don't get into the business of the Department of Justice and say, this is how you do it. You simply say, here is a concern we've had, you pass it on to the appropriate people so they can make the appropriate judgments on the merits.
Q: And there was nothing wrong with the president or his aides passing along concerns about groups of ongoing cases?
SNOW: No, of course not. Absolutely not.
Q: In answer to her question about what exactly these people were fired for, you referred her back to the Justice Department.
SNOW: Right.
Q: That's utter obfuscation.
SNOW: No, it's not.
Q: In the emails, it's very clear that they're fired because they weren't on the team.
SNOW: No, that's not true, Bill.
Q: It doesn't allege anything else or any kind of misconduct or under-performance.
SNOW: ... you've gotten a snapshot...
Q: And so you send us back to the Justice Department, which will, of course, tell us nothing because they're an investigation underway.
SNOW: Well, wait a minute, there are still ... first, there is ongoing document review at the White House and document production at DOJ. Second, the Department of Justice has made it clear that the reviews were based on performance. If you call it...
Q: They haven't spelled out what that's about.
SNOW: Well, actually, in some cases they have. And you have to refer to the testimony. But in this particular case -- I'm not going to be fact witness on Justice. They laid out reasons and they -- performance-based reasons.
Q: They didn't lay them out.
SNOW: Yes, they did.
Q: Where?
SNOW: We'll get to you what we can.
Q: The Attorney General has said mistakes were made.
SNOW: Yes.
Q: The president has agreed mistakes were made.
SNOW: Yes. The mistakes were not...
Q: What mistakes does the president believe were made?
SNOW: Again, let me just be clear. It is perfectly appropriate for the president to replace people who serve at his pleasure. And he does not believe that the mistake was made in replacing people. He has that executive authority. But on the other hand, the way this thing was handled in terms of notifying Capitol Hill, or for that matter, also notifying some of the attorneys, that was not done in a way that meets with the president's full approval, and furthermore, now -- members also went up to brief Capitol Hill and they had not had a full opportunity to review all the documents. And so it's important for everybody to go back and take a good, solid look at everything. But the president stands by the decision to replace seven US attorneys who did serve at his pleasure.
Q: Tony, if Congress goes deeper into why Carol Lam was removed...
SNOW: Yes.
Q: Are you confident that there is evidence to show that she was removed not to sidetrack her from the corruption investigations?
SNOW: Absolutely. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, one of the corruption charges was being handled by an entirely different US attorney, up in Los Angeles. No, look, she should -- good for her for prosecuting Duke Cunningham.
Q: Is the White House talking to Republican members of Congress to try to stave off other defections with regard to calling...
SNOW: I don't know, I'm sure there are conversations, but I don't know that I would characterize it that way. What is going to happen is the Attorney General is going to have an opportunity to answer whatever questions or concerns members of both parties may have.
Q: So they are talking to Republican members of Congress?
SNOW: Look, we've got a lot going on right now, Victoria. We're talking every day because we've got a Senate resolution that is under consideration in the next couple of days. The House is looking at the budget supplemental. So we're in constant conversation with Democrats and Republicans. There's a lot of stuff going on on the Hill.
Comments (51)
C 92 wrote on March 15, 2007 12:33 PM:Mr. Snow:
Will your "document review" also include those e-mails sent by White House staff at work using their non White House e-mail accounts at gwb43.com or elsewhere?
We learned that J. Scott Jennings, Deputy Director of the Office of Political Affairs writes with his gwb43.com email when talking to the DOJ...
Tony, don't forget to look outside the EOP.GOV system. There appear to be a lot of "Presidential Records" that are lurking outside of the system yet were created by Presidential staff. A thorough investigation, please.
Nuncamas21 wrote on March 15, 2007 12:40 PM:Hmm. Aren't federal death penalty cases exceedingly rare? Like, there have been only a few? I might be completely unaware of a whole lot of this, but I thought they were rare.
Robin Boerner wrote on March 15, 2007 12:40 PM:"Q: Is the White House going to allow testimony from Harriet Miers and Karl Rove?
SNOW: Well, what we're doing right now is we are trying to get the information that congressional committees need in a manner that's consistent with presidential prerogatives"
I think that was a NO, HELL NO and Bush is going to lock himself in a closet with Turd Blossom and a bag of pretzels until the evil Democrats stop picking on him.
Mike_in_NY wrote on March 15, 2007 12:45 PM:When Tony Snow says they serve "at the pleasure of the president," doesn't he really mean "at the pleasure of Alberto Gonzales"?
anon wrote on March 15, 2007 12:45 PM:...I think that was a NO, HELL NO...
Which is why they need to go ahead and subpoena Miers and Rove asap. If they resist subpoenas, the Dems can hold a daily press conference to call attention to the problem and generate some serious heat on the WH.
workaday joe wrote on March 15, 2007 12:49 PM:Despite the many wrongdoings and "mistakes" involved in these firings, it really all seems to come down to Carol Lam. You know, maybe it really is just a coincidence that she seemed to be on track to crack one of the biggest corruption scandals in US history. But enough coincidences start to look like a pattern.
Does anyone have a good summary of what she was up to? I mean, I remember Duke Cunningham, of course, and I remember that Dusty Foggo and Jerry Lewis were wrapped up in this somehow. But where was she headed? Anyone have a timeline or factsheet on her work? Who is carrying on this investigation now? What are there "priorities"?
Just curious.
Aaron G. Stock wrote on March 15, 2007 12:50 PM:Snow: "People who corrupt public officials ought to be rooted out and prosecuted."
Granted that, further down the line, he said "Good for her" re: "public official" Duke Cunningham, but still, assuming it's transcribed correctly, that's a curious turn of phrase.
Aaron G. Stock wrote on March 15, 2007 12:54 PM:workaday joe at 12:49 PM,
Josh Marshall, next door at talkingpointsmemo, had such a list only yesterday:
archives/013023.php
chris miller wrote on March 15, 2007 12:59 PM:"What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers."
Court martial Gonzales. That sounds about right.
Cole Moore Odell wrote on March 15, 2007 1:01 PM:Hold it. "What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers."
Since when are Cabinet officers members of the U.S. armed forces? Between their fetishes for "C-i-C" and "pleasure of the President," what a bunch of leather slaves the GOP are.
Bloke wrote on March 15, 2007 1:04 PM:Where's Jeff Gannon/Gucket when you need him? Some of those questions actually looked like they had follow-up! Mr. Snow needs a tame "Reporter" to misdirect, if it keeps going like this the whitehouse press corp may actually grow a collective pair.
bern dunigan wrote on March 15, 2007 1:05 PM:How about this non-answer:
Q: Was the president aware of this? I mean, if they're serving at his pleasure, was he aware of each case?
SNOW: The president isn't going to micromanage the Department of Justice. What he does is he relies upon the recommendations of the Attorney General and he accepted them.
How is it that the reporter doesn't come right back with "I didn't ask you whether or not the president is a micro-manager. I asked you specifically if the president was aware of this"
Node of Evil wrote on March 15, 2007 1:18 PM:Ah, Tony, you tell too much:
'What he does is he relies upon the recommendations of the Attorney General and he accepted them.'
Bush accepted the changes at the time. Now he's saying that he's "disappointed" at how this was handled. Here's my take -- I think the President is disappointed that he's going to lose the power to appoint USAs w/out Congressional approval. That's still the ball, and I think they're still trying to protect it. Because what happens if Congress starts to repeal various powers that were previously granted to the President? Bush approved, and he still does, of the firings in principal. And that's where the problem lies -- he doesn't recognize or is ignoring the obvious obstruction-of-justice issues that are all over this issue.
pj wrote on March 15, 2007 1:22 PM:Ahhhhhh..!!!!! The smell of executive privilege is in the air!
kentuck wrote on March 15, 2007 1:23 PM:"Look....just because they found a body in the Oval Office does not mean that the President knew everyone that came thru his office. He relies on his staff to keep track of who's coming and going into the Oval Office. He's very concerned that there was a lack of communication to the Congress about this death in the Oval Office and we are willing to admit that 'mistakes were made'. He has sent Mr Fielding over to talk to a few select Congressmen to make sure they understand that nothing illegal happened and that the President has a right to have bodies removed from the Oval Office whenever he chooses. After all, he is the Commander in Chief. Also, he bleieves the Attorney General needs to explain further to the Congress why that body was in the Oval Office..."
mikem wrote on March 15, 2007 1:24 PM:SNOW: No, he did not, specifically. What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers.
My gosh, these people are funny. So now GWB is casually referred to as the CIC? "The CIC delegates..."? What the heck does delegating responsibility to cabinet officers have to do with being the CIC?
EH wrote on March 15, 2007 1:25 PM:Oh god, can you imagine them letting Miers up there? She'd be torn apart like a turtle egg.
ohiomeister wrote on March 15, 2007 1:26 PM:I'm pretty sure that when Kyle Sampson listed loyalty to the President as a criteria, he meant it, but I'm happy to hear his response when he is asked about it.
Bob wrote on March 15, 2007 1:26 PM:Yony Snow said, "What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers. And the Attorney General had a recommendation to replace seven US attorneys, and the president said, "okay." And he approved that decision."
Tom wrote on March 15, 2007 1:26 PM:This use of the term "Commander-in-Chief" is not a bit surprising, but it is very troubling. There is no commander in chief of the cabinet! The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The cabinet is not part of the armed forces. This loose talk about the president - any president - as commander-in-chief always seems to assume that our nation is subject to an individual's command. It isn't.
Snow's use of the military phrase "commander in chief" to describe civilian delegation of responsibility does tell you everything you need to know about how the average Republican would like the country to be run....
pj wrote on March 15, 2007 1:27 PM:Yes. The entire executive branch serves at the pleasure of the president. And until very recently the Congress also pleasured the president. In fact, this whole oversight thing is really start to steam the president and whoa betide those who would have the temerity to do so. Think there may be some more USA investigations of Dem corruption once the smoke clears?
chimpeach wrote on March 15, 2007 1:27 PM:"Q: Even after successful prosecutions by many of these attorneys?
"SNOW: No, look, that's great. But the fact is that you ought to be -- not only have successful prosecutions, for instance, in corruption cases, but you also have other obligations and points of emphasis that you also have to meet."
EH wrote on March 15, 2007 1:29 PM:Yes, Sgt. York, we understand you led an assault with seven other men on the enemy line and captured 132 Germans along with their headquarters and machine gun nests. That's all well and good. But, how can we possibly promote a man who fails to keep his boots properly shined?
Every time you hear CiC in relation to civilian responsibilities, it's because calling him The Decider is too ridiculous even for Snow. The purpose is the same, though: intimidation.
I don't know if that's the full transcript of the whole press conference, but I'm heartened that there aren't any Khalid Sheik-Mohammed questions.
Keith Smith wrote on March 15, 2007 1:40 PM:Q: And there was nothing wrong with the president or his aides passing along concerns about groups of ongoing cases?
SNOW: No, of course not. Absolutely not.
Question for Tony:
"Then why has the White House used "the inappropriateness of the President commenting on ongoing cases" as a cover for not commenting on the many White House scandals over the past few years?
Jim wrote on March 15, 2007 1:43 PM:As a word freak, I have to give Snow his due for quietly correcting one reporter's misuse of the plural "criteria" when he should have used the singular "criterion."
Gary Pruitt wrote on March 15, 2007 1:47 PM:what a douch-bag...
J. Thomason wrote on March 15, 2007 1:50 PM:A pattern of the historical imperative that GWB used in answering questions about evolving relationships with China in during the 2000 campaign continues to illuminate the "mytho/histrorical" narrative under which he operates.
The historical pattern Bush assumed was "war lord, entrepreneur, trading partner." The memory of this characterization casts an entirely new light on the "mission accomplished" moment and now Snow referring to Bush as CIC in the context of civil government.
It strikes me as odd that the party line with respect to Gonzales is the one that was attempted with Libby to avoid culpability--he was too busy to know that his testimony was false.
And likewise there is always a fall guy: Tenant, Brownie, Rumsfield, now Sampson.
The final operational pattern that exists here moving beyond the Rovian understanding of generating the "under investigation meme" is the
technique of using a lie wrapped in a truth to mislead, like the 16 words. The lie, there was no intent to obstruct justice or no criminal intent, here is wrapped in the truth that the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President.
So both the meta-narrative and the tricks are being becomming familiar. This is always the beginning of the end in the "confidence" game.
J. Thomason wrote on March 15, 2007 1:58 PM:What is yet to be seen is whether a republic of laws seeking justice will endure in the face of a persistant psychology which holds government out as a game for the aquisition of absolute power.
Leaving he economic issues aside for now, I for one stand with We the People and the notion of inalienable rights in the face of the authoritarian impulse.
"[T]he" even for the "he" in the last sentence.
Anonymous wrote on March 15, 2007 2:04 PM:Snow: " What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers. And the Attorney General had a recommendation to replace seven US attorneys, and the president said, "okay." And he approved that decision."
Ok - let me get this straight. According to snow the AG had a recommendation to the prez. But am I not correct that the AG's own presser made it sound as if his chief of staff was in charge of that? So now we're down to this: attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the AG's chief of staff.
My word is "brain." It takes a lot of brain power to subvert the verbiage these folks throw up!
Edward Hutchinson wrote on March 15, 2007 2:07 PM:This is my absolute doubleplusgood favorite:
"And therefore, the attorney general, I think, is going to be doing some outreach to members of Congress to explain what went on."
That's so beautiful. "Doing some outreach" as a euphemism for "fighting like a crazed badger to save his sorry ass."
powkat wrote on March 15, 2007 2:18 PM:Any Democrat (guilty or not) who is investigated by a USA in the next 14 months will cry foul. And rightly so - the Bushies have now broken the Justice Department as well as Defense, HHS, etc.
The only way a Democrat could be in trouble would be the classic: caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
eCAHNomics wrote on March 15, 2007 2:21 PM:Now that Snow has used Grecian hair formula for men, he must tint his eyebrows & eyelases dark.
judyinnm wrote on March 15, 2007 2:25 PM:What does the president's position as "commander-in-chief" of the army & navy have to do with the
Dawn wrote on March 15, 2007 3:04 PM:justice department stuff? Guess that's the only way they can justify the White House having so much control over a department that's run by a (attorney) GENERAL.....
I also was wondering why he felt the need to invoke the Commander in Chief status here. Well I guess I wasn't exactly wondering - they pull that out like a security blanket whenever they feel threatened.
I wanted some reporter to ask them why they have to review documents to be able to tell us what their priorities were and what the procedure was for firing/hiring USAs. What he really meant was that they have to see what can be proven to be the priorities/procedures.
This is going to be a fun couple of months! Thank you TPM for keeping up with ht elatest!
Aaron G. Stock wrote on March 15, 2007 3:09 PM:powkat, at 2:18pm, wrote:
"Any Democrat (guilty or not) who is investigated by a USA in the next 14 months will cry foul. And rightly so - the Bushies have now broken the Justice Department as well as Defense, HHS, etc."
I know, and it's so annoying when in Philadelphia, it's our own Dem Vince F. being indicted for corruption (rightly), and his attorney is, pretrial, publicly using this very defense (as in, he will likely seek jury nullification (I think that's the proper term) during trial, only the attorney in question is probably going to be better at it than was Libby's attorney Wells).
whichtruth wrote on March 15, 2007 3:11 PM:Interesting that Snow refers to Bush as "Commander-in-Chief".
Q: But they're saying "at the pleasure of the president," but he said that he did not specifically know about the cases.
SNOW: No, he did not, specifically. What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers. And the Attorney General had a recommendation to replace seven US attorneys, and the president said, "okay." And he approved that decision.
JTL wrote on March 15, 2007 3:25 PM:The thing that really struck me about this conference was not only have the Press Corps started asking incisive questions but that, in several cases, they actually asked follow-ons to OTHER reporters questions. It almost seemed like they were working together to break through Snow's BS.
At bloody long last.
TheraP wrote on March 15, 2007 3:31 PM:A Lot of Things Going on at the DOJ - STORIES DON'T MATCH!
a. Look at these direct quotes from the official transcript of AG's press conference on Tuesday (3/13/07)
"Many decisions are delegated. We have people who were confirmed by the Senate who, by statute, have been delegated authority to make decisions.
"Mr. Sampson was charged with directing the process to ascertain who were weak performers, where we could do better in districts around the country.
"I just described for Pete the extent of my -- of the knowledge that I had about the process. I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country."
NOW CONTRAST THAT WITH SNOW'S COMMENTS TODAY:
" What he does is, as the Commander-in-Chief, he also delegates responsibility to Cabinet officers. And the Attorney General had a recommendation to replace seven US attorneys, and the president said, "okay." And he approved that decision."
SEEMS LIKE A PROBLEM TO ME!
Decisions get approved, but no one knows why they approve the decisons - and that's our government at work! Just kick the can down the road. And where it stops, fire that person! It's the can's fault!
cevrero wrote on March 15, 2007 3:38 PM:What Snow really wanted to say:
Q: The attorney general said mistakes were made in the Patriot Act, mistakes were made in the prosecutors, so how many mistakes...
SNOW:I think what everybody in this press conference tends to forgot too often is that we're at war and the enemy is lurking, calculating, and preying and at any instance the islamofascists could attack us. Make no mistake, mistakes we're made, but not by us,....indeed the mistakes you speak of were made by the forces of evil. You want to know the truth about mistakes? Do ya? Well, you can't handle the truth!!
Q: Did the President call the code Red?
SNOW: You goddamn right he did, and there's nothing you can do about it? Because the democrats are all a bunch of pussies!
SNOW: Next question!
Anonymous wrote on March 15, 2007 4:08 PM:What I want someone to ask Snow, Bush or "Al" is, if "mistakes were made", just who made them? Mistakes don't get made by themselves. Despite what they would have us believe, people make mistakes. So, if they know they were made they must know who made them.
Of course, we all know the answer and they don't want to go on record admitting anything.
fred dodsworth wrote on March 15, 2007 6:19 PM:Paul. I'm very disappointed. You opened this piece with the following statement:
G. Major wrote on March 15, 2007 7:00 PM:"It was a rather brutal press gaggle for Tony Snow this morning."
Since when does doing the real work of the press warrant the adjective 'brutal'?
Brutal is the bad shit that is happening to the people of Iraq.
Brutal is the bad shit that is happening to those poor suckers who signed up for the National Guard.
Brutal is what happens to you when an IED blows half your fucking leg off and you end up at Walter Reed Hospital fighting with the rats for the other half of your leg.
Brutal can not ever happen in a press conference (until they allow reporters to bring automatic weapons to press conferences and those same reporters use those weapons to get the truth out of lying scum-sacks like Tony Snowjob).
Check your language, check your frame.
As a point of interest, the president is neither his staff's Commander in Chief, his cabinet's Commander in Chief, nor any other agencies’ Commander in Chief, except the Armed Forces.
Article II, Section 2: The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of several states, when called into the Actual service of the United States....
Occasionally, they will drop that "Commander in Chief" line, it is mostly when they are in a real bind and cannot find a quick retort. They would not know a Commander in Chief from a hole in the ground. It is really somewhat scary.
Anonymous wrote on March 16, 2007 12:32 AM:And he certainly isn't the citizens of this country's Commander in Chief.
rose@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 1:32 PM:Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra
rose@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 1:32 PM:Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra
rose@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 1:32 PM:Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra
clar@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:26 PM:hello
clar@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:27 PM:hello
clar@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:27 PM:hello
gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 6:02 AM:hello
ma177zda wrote on October 1, 2007 2:41 AM:c818t