Nothing to Hide
by matt at 6:00 am on July 20th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Congressional Man DateBroader Privilege Claimed In Firings - WaPo (7/20/07):
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The argument that the White House did nothing wrong is now untenable. This is un-Constitutional on its face. These people are nothing more than criminals.
On the flip side, we’ll probably see a whole new round of stern letter writing.
sarabeth wrote:
What is all this bullshit in the WaPo story about “The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly…”?
Why can’t they just say he/she declined to be identified, and just leave it at that?
They seriously believe this is an unauthorized disclosure? Especially in light of:
Why the hell do they play these silly games and unquestioningly put out bullshit? Just adding insult to injury is what it is.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:42 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Hand-wringing first, I think.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:44 am ¶
matt wrote:
post and times changed their policies about unnamed officials a few years ago, mostly due to the plame case. this is typical of that change.
also typical of how that change hasn’t added to the quality of their coverage.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:45 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
That sounds so horribly like: … and he does spill his seed upon the ground and, lo, from each seed does spring a full-grown loyal-Bushie U.S. attorney.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:49 am ¶
matt wrote:
nullus?
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:50 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
what’s their policy now on un-named officials?
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:52 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
nullus for a solitary act of seeding?
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:56 am ¶
matt wrote:
kind of explained here
killa cam is always watching
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:58 am ¶
matt wrote:
ok, looks like you are safe on the method man technicality
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 10:01 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
After reading about the NYT policy, and assuming the WaPo policy is similar, my criticism still stands.
This source has the authority to decide “when and how to disclose the stance”, but he’s allowed to get away with saying he’s “not authorized to discuss the issue publicly”? That is pure bullshit.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 10:12 am ¶
matt wrote:
never said it didn’t.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 10:14 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I do think WaPo should have said: “The official spoke on the condition of anonymity. He tried to claim he’s not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, but obviously he is. So it boils down to: he refused to be identified because he works in the Bush White House, and they’re all arrogant little shits.”
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 10:20 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
i know. that was just for those who sometimes have trouble following along at home (and both of you know who you are!)
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 10:29 am ¶
sac wrote:
Somebody call my name? Damn, if I could only read, I’d be able to find out.
But anyway, I agree with all of the above except #13.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 11:02 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Whoever those two are, you’d better get hooked on phonics, stat!
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 12:05 pm ¶