White House Blocks Testimony on Crashers

[MannyGoldstein]

Source: The NY Times

The White House on Wednesday invoked the separation of powers to keep Desiree Rogers, President Obama’s social secretary, from testifying on Capitol Hill about how a couple of aspiring reality television show celebrities crashed a state dinner for the prime minister of India last week.

“I think you know that, based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress,’’ Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters during his regular briefing. “She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress.’’

Mr. Gibbs also said the flap over the unauthorized intruders has prompted the White House to change its procedures; from now on, a representative of the social secretary’s office will be stationed at Secret Service checkpoints for major social events in case questions arise. The White House deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, conducted a review and issued a directive to the staff.

“After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex,’’ Mr. Messina wrote in the memo, posted on the White House web site late Wednesday afternoon. “White House staff were walking back and forth outside between the check points helping guests and were available to the Secret Service throughout the evening, but clearly we can do more, and we will do more.’’



Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/white-house-revises-rules-for-major-events/?hp

---

'nuff said

[24601]

1. Well, that certainly stands up for openness & transparency...NOT! n/t

[bluestateguy]

2. I don't trust those pinheads in Congress to investigate anything

Let the law enforcement agencies investigate like they're supposed to.

And Congress can get back to work on the health care bill.

[24601]

3. Yes, certainly Congress should stay away from anything in the

Executive Branch. Shall I tell Senator Finegold that he should lay off the NSA?

[Morning Dew]

38. Let Arlen Specter help with the investigation.

We'll find out there was only a single crasher.

[onehandle]

4. It's a Secret Service matter. Investigate then charge them with a Federal Crime and be done with it.

I will accept nothing less than actual jail time for them.

[24601]

5. And which Federal Crime would that be? If they never lied, and

telling a literal truth isn't a crime even if it misleads .

Perhaps one of them used the wrong fork - that should be good for 6 months at Gitmo.

[louis-t]

6. I wonder if their names were really on the list.

Their facebook indicated they were thanking their friend for getting them on the list.

[24601]

9. I doubt they were on the list - otherwise there is no story and the

Secret Service would have no reason to apologize or be embarrassed.

[Mike Daniels]

36. Actually, the "friend"* sent e-mails and voice mails telling them not to come

The couple chose to ignore them all and then claimed a dead phone battery kept them from being able to check on any late messages after they were already in route.

I don't know about jail time for these two. To be honest, the "worst" thing (for them) that could happen to these twits is for Bravo to tell them they are no longer being considered for inclusion in the "Real Housewives" show.


* From what I read the couple used a "Face Book" connection to reach out to the Pentagon liason to request tickets. Apparently, the couple and the liason have the same lawyer in common and they used that "link" to contact the liason.

[marshall]

39. It should be easy to find out if they are on a list

It seems like there were lists at more than one checkpoint. Could these lists have been produced by different agencies? Was there a preliminary list? A list of people who were background checked for a possible invitation? Maybe the White House sends a bunch more names for background checks than actually end up getting invitations, and they were on such a list.

The couple claim they showed up just to see if they were on "the list", and they were and they got in. What more can they say unless that is proven to be a lie? Track down whoever was at the checkpoint involved, find that list (if it hasn't been destroyed) and see if there names are on it. If they are on it, that's the end of the story as far as this couple is concerned. If they are not, they lied and they can be questioned about whatever means they used to coax their way through the door.

I think this first checkpoint is the key. There seem to be more checkpoints within, the last of which was having your name at a place on a table. Perhaps these interior checkpoints assumed an error was made and that these people must be legit because they had to have already gotten by the first checkpoint.

Get to the bottom of the first checkpoint.

[24601]

10. Now they I rethink it - you're too lenient - how about jail for anybody

who spoke with them, smiled at them, or posed for pictures with them as well? That should round them all up.

And we don't need to have any laws broken, just jail anybody who was there - after all, the jails are too empty anyway.

[FarCenter]

7. Congress can better spend its time on other matters within their competence

However meager that may be.

[tomm2thumbs]

8. invoking the separation of powers over reality star wannabes is embarrassing

for this White House, this Presidency and government in general. In fact, the no-drama Obama slogan needs to be scraped off that bumper for a new one. Any ideas?

[Solly Mack]

11. ...

...

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

12. Obama just outdid Bush/Cheney on this one.

The power that traditionally is claimed by the president is one of "executive privilege," not separation of powers. The theory is that the president needs to have access to the best advice available without the advisers subsequently being called before Congress to testify about what they told the prez.

Executive privilege does not exist in the Constitution, although its existence has been held to be implied. In U.S. v. Nixon the Supreme Court confirmed there was a qualified privilege:

"Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings."

Notice that the power is limited to Presidential communications: "What happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval Office." Except when it's a Democratic president getting a blow job. So far that's the only time a Federal court has ruled that presidential aides could be called to testify even though executive privilege has been asserted.

Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established. This shifts the burden to the prosecutor, who must show to the Court's satisfaction that the material sought is essential to the resolution of the case.

What Bush/Cheney did was twofold:

1. They claimed that the power of executive privilege could be exercised to keep any Cabinet or other high-level official from testifying before Congress, even when subpoenaed.

2. They then went ahead and claimed that subordinates of the president or vice president (Harriet Meyers comes to mind) could blow off a Congressional subpoena without consequences. They didn't even have to show up before Congress to assert executive privilege.

Obama has expanded this:

1. Gibbs didn't say executive privilege was being exercised. He said the secretary (small 's') would not testify based on the "separation of powers." Hence the president is taken out of the equation -- the testimony sought doesn't have to involve the president either directly or indirectly. All that has to be claimed is "separation of powers" and any testimony by an employee of the Executive Branch can be effectively muzzled.

2. The successful exercise of this new power would render Congress toothless insofar as its power and obligation to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch. No one, absolutely no one, in the Executive Branch would have to respond to a Congressional subpoena. "Talk to the hand 'cause the face ain't listening."

In essence the role of Congress will become this: "Sit down, shut up and hand me the ATM card."

I remember this being drilled into my head in high school: "The government of the United States is composed of three co-equal branches of government, any two of which can serve as a check on the third."

Ah, the good old days.

[24601]

40. Never thought of a blow job as communication* - nice touch. But

as for "What happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval Office", didn't those "communications" take place in the President's private study next to the Oval Office rather than actually in the Oval Office itself?

*I'm going to suggest to my wife that we work on our communication tonight. If it works, I'll give you credit.

[Synicus Maximus]

13. Separation of Powers Cited for W.H. Social Secretary

Source: NY times

The White House on Wednesday invoked the separation of powers to keep Desiree Rogers, President Obama’s social secretary, from testifying on Capitol Hill about how a couple of aspiring reality television show celebrities crashed a state dinner for the prime minister of India last week.

Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/white-house-revises-rules-for-major-events/?hp

[Avalux]

14. Appropriate. The Pukes want a circus.

Desiree Rogers is not responsible for the fuck up; the Secret Service officer who let the couple in without an invitation is responsible.

[Imajika]

15. Yup, you are correct.

The Secret Service is responsible for this.

The Obama Administration is right to refuse sending Rogers to testify.

[rpannier]

22. Part of the responsibility of the Presidential Social Secretary is to stand at the door

Every Presidents social secretary does it.

She was not where she was supposed to be.
She bears some responsibility for that fiasco

[Mike Daniels]

37. Even if it's not the Secretary at the door there's always been someone on her staff present

at the main checkpoints.

As you said, it's common protocol and so the WH staff does bear some responsibility as well.

[msatty99]

16. Be honest... i

If this had happened to Bush and they refused to allow the social secretary, a person who might have facts to provide about
whether these people had invites, e-mails etc., we would be crying "Arrogance" and "think they are above the law"

I don't get it. I WAS SO HAPPY when Obama won. What is happening?

[proud progressive]

18. REALITY! that is what is happening

and, yes. i was happy, too. cannot believe i was duped at my age. obama and his cronies may be a cut above the previous gang, but that ain't saying much

[high density]

23. What's happening?

The Democrats seem to finally be getting a clue against the crooked games that the Repukes have been playing for decades.

[Harry Monroe]

17. Stonewalling by Democrats or Republicans is still stonewalling

When Bush would invoke same powers to prevent someone from testifying before Congress, we'd scream bloody murder and rightly so. It is hypocritical for our side to play the same card. I voted for Obama, but I barely recognize the man I voted for a year ago.

[msatty99]

20. Neither do I.

Last year it looked like a new day. But looking back over the past year...the bail out of Wall Street, the sad weak leadership on
healthcare, the banning release of photos of abuse, failures (in my opinion) of DOJ, failure to close Guantanimo and this week the escalation of war (by our Nobel Prize winner) and now stonewalling Congress. I feel like its 2007 all over.

Pitiful.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. Note: The Wall St. bailout occurred under Chimp.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94862528

[high density]

21. So you disagree with the White House being politically astute and denying the GOP circus?

What more do we need to know on this matter? The Secret Service screwed up big time. End of story. The GOP wants a huge distraction from healthcare and everything else that is important, and this is the perfect sort of thing to get whipped up into a media frenzy. It's naive to think that the GOP wants some sort of serious inquiry here.

[rpannier]

24. She wasn't where she was supposed to be

She is partially responsible for this and the Administration should know this.

[high density]

25. OK, let's say your assertion is true

What does bringing her before congress do to fix this issue?

[JDPriestly]

30. "supposed" This is a new administration. If the Obama administration

did not place the social secretary at the door, that is the business of the Obama administration. Personally, I think that having unarmed civilians at the door with the Secret Service in an administration that has faced so many threats would be a very bad practice. She would only have been a potential hostage -- and added danger to the situation. The practice of having the social secretary at the entry is a bad one. The Secret Service was not doing its job. Obama will handle this in his usual tactful way. No one will be blamed unfairly. It was a mistake. It won't happen again. This whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

If this is the "scandal" that the right wing media is blowing up, then the Obama White House must be pretty scandal-free.

Remember the "reporter" who was actually a male prostitute at the White House press briefings. Now that was a scandal. This was a mistake on the part of the Secret Service.

Apparently some aide to Gates had some kind of correspondence with this couple. So if there is a problem it is in Secretary of Defense Gates's office.

[Harry Monroe]

26. I disagree with hypocrisy

Nothing more, nothing less.

[tazkcmo]

34. Not "end of story".

It's become larger than a couple of socialites crashing a dinner for the wealthy and powerful while the rest of us scramble about for the crumbs they drop. It's about honest, open, transparent governance. As I remember, a mainstay of the Obama platform. Personally, I could give a rat's ass about the couple or the dinner except in the context of wasteful spending and gross displays of consumption and entitlement. I do not agree with the White House being politically astute at the sacrifice of the WH being forth coming, open and accountable.

[Alcibiades]

19. What's good for the goose is good for the gander

After eight years of stonewalling on important matters, it's fine by me if they want to stonewall this, particularly since it's a tempest in a teapot.

[tomm2thumbs]

27. they should volunteer her appearance - what is not to learn from this?

Just make sure she doesn't wear that to the hearing.

[Wizard777]

28. Now remember. This means Obama is fully cooperating with the investigation.

At least that's what it meant when Bush told Congress the weren't getting Jack Shit. Jack Shit could actually be Bush's real name. Because I don't think Congress even got that out of him. Suuuure George Bush is your real name.

[letmebefrank]

29. So much for all that openness and transparency?

This sucks. It was a pretty serious security breach and SHOULD be investigated, learned from and whatever steps necessary should be put into place to ensure that it couldn't ever happen again. Friends of the Obama's or not, she should go and testify honestly. Doing this only adds to the circus atmosphere and those of you claiming otherwise ARE hypocrites.

[msatty99]

31. Yes. She should go.

As I stated she would have actual information about the invitations, emails etc., For those who want to defend this stonewalling,
'because they (repubs) did it' I would say that if 'being a dem' means playing just as nasty as those moral washouts, then include
me OUT.

Bush was acting imperially when his whitehouse thumbed its nose at Congress. It was shameful then and its shameful now. What moral
authority will Democratic congressmen and women have in the future seeking answers from a Republican administration if we surrender
to the 'race to the bottom'? Our Country is more important than our Party and more important than any President, even this one.

"Hard ball Politics" Don't make me laugh. Play hardball, if you must, over the stuff that counts like healthcare. But refusing
to allow the 'social secretary; to testify...my god! What vital national interest is at stake to be protected by not letting
her testify?

Disappointing

[JDPriestly]

32. 6 posts. Wonder how long you will last, letmebefrank.

[No Elephants]

33. How come separation of powers prevents the WH social secretary from testifying, but not

the Secret Service? They both work for the Executive Branch.

And, since when does questioning a social secretary raise a separation of powers issue? It is not as though Congress is attempting to require Obama to appear, or anyone is claiming she advised the President and therefore Executive Privilege is an issue.

Smells like bs.

Beyond that, why doesn't Obama voluntarily allow her to appear? Hell, even President Lincoln himself went before Congress voluntarily.

The most transparent administration ever, my ass.