Comments (43)

Crust wrote on April 26, 2007 5:25 PM:

I love the phrase "informational briefings". What other kind of briefing is there?

Bearpaw wrote on April 26, 2007 5:31 PM:

Crust: There are also "dis-informational briefings". For an example, just look at Perino's briefing today. Or her briefing yesterday. Or her briefing the day before that. Or ...

Jane Michener wrote on April 26, 2007 5:31 PM:

On government time? With the prospect of using government resources for party purposes?

SC: Garden Who led you down the garden path?

Crust wrote on April 26, 2007 5:32 PM:

Fair point, Bearpaw. ;)

Anonymous wrote on April 26, 2007 5:36 PM:

Well let's see...

-Use of government facilities for political briefing (violation of Hatch Act)

-Use of government teleconferencing systems for political briefing (viloation of Hatch Act)

-Encouragement of US Govermnent employees by a supervisor to engage in political partisan activity (violation of Hatch Act)

-Use of government resources to the partisan political advantage of the GOP (keeping Feinstein out of a GSA building opening-- violation of Hatch Act)

-Use of Hatch-restricted government personnel to set up a political briefing (violation of Hatch Act -- and PARTICULARLY ONE TYPE that SCOTT BLOCH LIKES TO PROSECUTE

"...In the 22-page Nov. 17 decision, Joseph Gontram, an administrative law judge for the MSPB, found that Eisinger violated the Hatch Act over a three-year period by using his SBA e-mail account to receive and send more than 100 e-mails related to his position as an elected official in the Green Party of California..."

"...Technology has brought about many changes, but the law barring the use of government resources for political activities remains, said Special Counsel Scott Bloch, in a statement.

"Whether it's old-school low-tech or new-school high-tech, the Hatch Act remains an important principle our office is dedicated to enforcing," Bloch said..."

Charles Crevequer wrote on April 26, 2007 5:41 PM:

Security Code: nail
as in:

BEN:
Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.
BRIAN:
Crucifixion?!
BEN:
Yeah, first offence.
BRIAN:
Get away with crucifixion?! It's--
BEN:
Best thing the Romans ever did for us.
BRIAN:
What?!
BEN:
Oh, yeah. If we didn't have crucifixion, this country would be in a right bloody mess.
BRIAN:
Guards!
BEN:
*Nail* him up, I say!
BRIAN:
Guards!
BEN:
*Nail* some sense into him!

Nail some sense into the lot of them!!

Tom McHale wrote on April 26, 2007 6:10 PM:

Dana P said that the Clinton administration ran the same type of informational meetings.... is there any any evidence of that or is she just muddying the water?

Anonymous wrote on April 26, 2007 6:20 PM:

She just had to say, "I know the Clinton administration had similar breifings."

roflmfao!

Just think. After more than 6 years the Bushies still use Clinton as a scapegoat. These are the same people who claimed Clinton's standards were so low yet they now apparently set their own model to these same substandard levels.

Code Word: fire as in, 'fire that lying phoney peroxide blonde.'

Anonymous wrote on April 26, 2007 6:23 PM:

"...I know the Clinton administration had similar breifings..."

Scott Jennings was briefing the Clinton Administration?

LP wrote on April 26, 2007 6:25 PM:

None of the commenters have touched on the REAL issue in all of this -- the fact that if one did happen to play the drinking game Paul proposed, one would have a healthy buzz going pretty quickly. I counted 17, personally.

mayan wrote on April 26, 2007 6:35 PM:

I have no real working knowledge of the Hatch Act. Is there wriggle room for the "political wing" of the WH to use governmental resources for electioneering? It's counter-intuitive to me but I don't know what the general practice is.

bobh wrote on April 26, 2007 6:59 PM:

No. No wiggle room. in a govt bldng on govt time w/govt equipment - violation - period. Doesnt matter if your a pol appt or not. Fuck em.

These federal and D.C. employees may not-

* use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
* solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
* solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* engage in political activity while:
o on duty
o in a government office
o wearing an official uniform
o using a government vehicle
* wear partisan political buttons on duty

see here:

http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm

Youffraita wrote on April 26, 2007 8:08 PM:

bobh beat me to it on the Hatch Act. But Blondie is just another Bush Co. flack -- you can't blame her for lying; it's what Bush flacks do. It's what pays her salary. Tony Snow was even worse; she at least seems like she knows she's lying about everything.

JRL1977 wrote on April 26, 2007 9:12 PM:

Really, what's wrong with a little information?

From LA TIMES today:
"Iraq refuses to provide civilian casualty figures to U.N."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-fg-unreport26apr26,1,812126.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 27, 2007 12:37 AM:

Perky press poodle performs piss poor pet tricks. News at eleven.

What if the governmental division of the FOX Opinion-cast Netwwork threw dis-information sessions and the press refused to show up . . .

It is almost enough to make you wish that Scott was back on the block . . . He at least looked like he wanted to cry when he had to lie.

RSS wrote on April 27, 2007 12:47 AM:

Code word soap, like we need plenty to clean up this mess.

This might be useful: http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/federal/fha-08.htm

"Political activity has been defined in the Office of Personnel Management’s Regulations as an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group. 5 C.F.R. 734.101..."

Sounds like it was political to the core. Of course any activity meeting this standard would also be "informational."

steambomb wrote on April 27, 2007 2:36 AM:

Bloch is a partisan republican stone wall. You will understand this when they start using the fact that he is investigating Rove to keep Rove from having to testify in front of congress. They know that taking it to the supreme court isn't going to help them on executive priviledge. Only if they can achieve some other precedent do they have a chance to protect Rove.

Ron Byers wrote on April 27, 2007 7:38 AM:

The President, Vice President, some Presidential aids, and Cabinet Secretaries and some similar officials whose appointments are confirmed by the Senate, can use government facilities for political purposes as long as the government is reembursed. That is a very limited group, but it is legal for Karl Rove and Scott Jennings to brief Mrs. Doan personally. Of course, the party would have to reemburse the Government for the use of the facilities.

Nearly all other political appointees can't participate in political activities on government time. Neither can they use government facilities for political purposes.

Jennings and Doan's crime comes in encouraging or requiring non-exempt Federal employees to violate the Hatch Act. The fact that those non-exempt Federal employees are political appointees makes no difference. Traditionally, the Office of Special Counsel has erred on the side of labeling an activity a prohibited political activity. For example a voter registration drive might not be a partisan political activity, but if that activity is advanced by one political party or the other the OSC's position has been that the activity is a "political activity" and prohibited even though there is no showing that one party or the other was favored. The mere poster indicating who sponsored the event is enough to violate the Hatch Act.

Informational briefings aimed at promoting one party or the other, or clearly sponsored by one party of the other, are almost by definition prohibited political activities.

Dana is counting on her good looks and the White House press corps tradition of not working very hard to pull this one off. Too bad news organizations never send real reporters to "cover" the White House.

Unfortunately for Perino, Waxman has a real lawyer's memo examining this very issue. You can find it at his committee's website.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 27, 2007 8:10 AM:

bobh, Ron Byers,

Fine work summarizing Hatch Act as it applies to its current flaunting by RoveCo. Need someone to follow-up describing how it will/should be enforced. If there is no enforcement, Hatch Act does as much good as a decoration on the wall.

Ron Byers wrote on April 27, 2007 9:08 AM:

Here is a summary of criminal statutes that might be have been broken by Roves program. Of course, the facts have to be found to support any charge. This list is taken from http://ethics.od.nih.gov/Topics/politics.htm

"All federal employees, regardless of position, pay, duty, or leave status, are subject to criminal prosecution for the conduct summarized in the following statutes:

18 U.S.C. 595: Interference by Administrative Employees of Governments
"No administrative employee at the federal, state, or local levels of government, in connection with federally financed activities, may use official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or election of any candidate for federal office."

Scott Jennings' offical position with the white house was certainly used to encourage attendance of the briefings which were clearly for the purpose of affecting the elections of candidates for federal office.

18 U.S.C. 600: Promise of Employment or Other Benefit for Political Activity
"No one can directly or indirectly promise employment, a raise in pay, a contract, a grant, or other government benefit as an enticement to, or reward for, political activity to be rendered in the future, in connection with any election, convention, or caucus." There had to be a modivator to insure good attendance at the briefings. Either promotion, which is prohibited, punishment, which is prohibited below.

18 U.S.C. 610: Coercion of Political Activity
"No person may command or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, a federal employee to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including voting, making political contributions, or working on behalf of any candidate." The boss says I want you to show up at a political brown bag in the conference room. Coersion or promise of promotion? Think maybe people might feel compelled to show for the dog an pony show?

There are a host of statutes relating to solicitation of contributions, but so far I haven't read about contributions.

Johann wrote on April 27, 2007 9:53 AM:

It continually amazes me that anyone even goes to these White House briefings to hear Perino attempt to justify or explain away the positions taken by this Administration.

bobh wrote on April 27, 2007 10:35 AM:

I'm glad they do. It gives the admin more rope to hang itsel fby.I'm continually amazed they bother to HAVE the pressers anymore.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 27, 2007 10:38 AM:

Ron Byers,

The statutes are clear, and there is no shortage of potential witnesses who can be called to testify offenses have taken place. What is the next step? Who files charges? In what jurisdiction will the offenses be prosecuted?

osage wrote on April 27, 2007 11:20 AM:

I would like to hear legal arguments from someone more qualfied and accountable for providing reliable conclusions than "Dana Perino"! She doesn't even make common sense let alone legal sense. Again, more incompetent nonsense from the mouth of a morally flexible political appointee with no authoritative knowledge or expertise trying to cover up Republican legal wrong doing. And the freak show continues!

Ron Byers wrote on April 27, 2007 11:27 AM:

The office of special counsel and the US Attorney for DC are the places to start. I understand the OSC already has started an investigation. A lot of people think that investigation is merely to innoculate Rove and company.

Given the DoJ is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the RNC operated by Rove's political shop (that's what the US Attorney scandal is all about) I don't hold out much hope. You really can't expect them to investigate themselves fairly, can you?

Maybe a special prosecutor could be appointed.

Anonymous wrote on April 27, 2007 11:57 AM:

Didja notice the pathetic wimpy attitude of the reporters asking questions. Almost apologetic in tone for daring to ask a question.

And the agressive rudeness of Perino, interrupting, haught attitude, etc.
And no one calls her on the rudeness crap.

Never thught I would be nostalgic about the Watergate investigations.. Anyone else in the room remember how THOSE pressers were handled by serious reporters....

ah, the good ole days......

broken bottle wrote on April 27, 2007 12:23 PM:

Does anyone else seen any interesting parallels between the White House's "political briefings", their attitude about the US Attorney replacements and the way that the Republican Congress ran their K Street project? The Republicans came to power in the White House and Congress and began systematically infusing party loyalists and party policy at nearly every level of the system. I'm stunned at what has been going on in the last 6 years. If only the situation were as innocuous as a lack of congressional oversight. It's like everyone in power just agreed to do their thing and not get in each other's way at all because they were all working towards the same goal: Rove's permanent Republican majority.

jimbo92107 wrote on April 27, 2007 12:29 PM:

Perino is like a dirty cop being caught taking a bribe: "Hey, I'm just doin' a little business here, it's the American way, capiche?"

Ron Byers wrote on April 27, 2007 12:40 PM:

Refreshments and a pass to the White House. They get refreshments and a chance to hobnob with powerful Republicans. You can't expect members of the White House press corp to rock that cushy boat. Remember they are impotant stenographers.

Ron Byers wrote on April 27, 2007 12:43 PM:

Maybe if enough of us laugh at those Press Corp clowns they will start doing their job.

Na.

brantl wrote on April 27, 2007 12:52 PM:

Isn't it a shame that such a pretty girl is such a lying sack of shit?

sweetgumroot wrote on April 27, 2007 1:47 PM:

In the six weeks six Perino took over for Snow I have noticed a steep decline in her rapport with the press corp. Initially she was courteous and more candid than her predecessors. Now she's what we see in yesterdays meeting - condescending and confrontational. The questioners seem more aggressive and candid with her.

I'd love to see this pattern evolve into an embarrassing blow-up at the podium. I don't thing her personal constitution is built for what's coming in the next six months.

Ha Ha wrote on April 27, 2007 2:53 PM:

This marketing rep for the White House should go watch "Bill Hicks on Marketing" on youtube. He said it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

BlueJersey wrote on April 27, 2007 3:25 PM:

She talks so fast it sounds like she's on drugs..

py wrote on April 27, 2007 4:00 PM:

Just got off the phone with osc to ask them to comple bloch to recuse himself because he cannot be effective in the investigation of his masters bush-cheney-rove-hughes.

Tel: (800) 85-HATCH or (800) 854-2824, (202) 254-3650

of course, you can only leave a message. five minutes after i left a message i got a call from an 800 number. i answered, nothing. i got a hang up call from an 800 number. called it back by hitting the log. ring, ring, nothing. you try it. maybe i'm just being SUPER paranoid.

chompiz wrote on April 28, 2007 1:26 PM:

Geez, Lurita, Durita, whatever her name was said that it was only an informal brown bag lunch break, nothing to see here , move along.

az5762 wrote on April 28, 2007 3:00 PM:

Can someone PUH-leze make a video of this Perino chick mocking her like the poor Iraqi fool who was Saddam's spokeman & would talk to the foreign press during the time American tanks were driving around Bagdad city centre (literally BEHIND himself), saying things like "We will drive them out blah, blah, blah"? She should aspire to THAT LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY AND INTEGRITY. Seriously.

security code: face, as in, how can she look herself in the mirror every morning? She probably doesn't, even if she is not Jewish, she's must be in a permanent Shiva. Mirriors covered.

pre AmeriKKKan wrote on April 28, 2007 5:38 PM:

so there's NOTHING wrong with non-political appointees to share information with other non-political appointees about the non-political landscape?

ummmm, dana (perdition, umm, perino)

absurd AND ludicrous.

Julianne wrote on April 29, 2007 12:00 AM:

Damn. Makes you long for the likes of Tony Snow. At least he was creative.

Jonglly wrote on May 5, 2007 12:48 AM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 4:39 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 9:48 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:22 AM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.