No Testifying for Obama's Social Secretary?

[shawn_oneil]

Wow. Executive Privilege for the Party Queen coordinator? At least Bush used his on people of substance. So much for Hope & Change and transparency.
Shawn

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 92,00.html

The White House announced Wednesday, Dec. 1, that Social Secretary Desirée Rogers would not be testifying to Congress Thursday about the two reality-television aspirants who got by the Secret Service at a recent state dinner to shake hands with President Obama. "I think you know that based on separation of powers, staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress," said press secretary Robert Gibbs in his daily briefing. "She will not be testifying in front of Congress tomorrow."

The decision is not likely to be contested by Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee, saving Rogers a potentially embarrassing turn in the hearing-room spotlight. Since Rogers was only invited, not subpoenaed, to testify by the ranking Republican on the committee, New York Representative Pete King, she faces no legal consequences for declining to attend.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... z0Yg7aoBQn

[shawn_oneil]

Wow. No comment for the left side of the isle.
Priceless,
Shawn

[Rob C]

Wow. Executive Privilege for the Party Queen coordinator? At least Bush used his on people of substance. So much for Hope & Change and transparency.
Shawn

I didn't respond because this is just silly. But since you asked... I believe oversight (aka checks and balances) is very important in our government but requesting the social coordinator to appear before a congressional committee...that's ridiculous. I suppose next they'll want Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens in there...

I think these three paragraphs from the Time article sum it up nicely.

There is, in fact, a long history of presidential advisers testifying about various controversies before Congress, though many Administrations, including Obama's predecessor, also have a long record of fighting such requests. Much of the testimony in recent decades has resulted from major congressional investigations, including the 1970s Watergate break-in and the 1990s Whitewater land deal. In the eight years of the Clinton Administration, dozens of presidential advisers testified before Congress. The list included people like senior adviser George Stephanopoulos, deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes and Maggie Williams, the chief of staff to the First Lady. "While there are some examples of White House advisers testifying before Congress about genuinely historic events," explained Shapiro, "this matter, though serious, doesn't rise to that level."

...

The fact that the White House doesn't believe that Rogers needs to testify does not mean it doesn't recognize that something went wrong in the now notorious gate-crashing episode. On Wednesday, the White House released a memo from deputy chief of staff Jim Messina that concluded, "the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex." As a result, the White House has changed its practices, particularly with regards to the role of the social secretary, whose staff will now be physically stationed at the checkpoints with Secret Service to check off arriving guests and deal with problems.

As for the actions of Rogers and other White House staff last week at the state dinner, Messina concludes that improvements can be made. "White House staff were walking back and forth outside between the checkpoints helping guests and were available to the Secret Service throughout the evening," he wrote, "but clearly we can do more, and we will do more."

[shawn_oneil]

I don't think it is silly.
The Salalis shook hands with the President of the United State, and could have presented a dangerous situation including harm to the PM of India. That is a serious situation, and even I can admit that for a President that I do not agree with in some, if not most, of his politics. The point I was trying to make is that Obama has changed his tune. He is not transparent, Washington has not changed, and please note that Congress is controlled by the Dems that are requesting to talk with Ms. Rogers. This is not a Republican issue of making a mountain out of a mole hill for political reasons. The issue of Executive Privilege was invoked on a matter that did not involve communications of staff with the President. That is what Executive Privilege means. This is a big stretch to indicate that some type of "privileged' communication between Ms. Rogers and the President had taken place.

Executive Privilege (Wikipedia)
....
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Now that is truly the 'silly' part!
Shawn

ps. That Time article is my first hearing that the White house has admitted that changes are in order on their staff. The Secret Service took all the blame with 3 agents suspended. I suspect the Obama media outlets didn't want to tarnish his image and didn't report that aspect.

[Rob C]

Since Rogers was only invited, not subpoenaed, to testify by the ranking Republican on the committee, New York Representative Pete King, she faces no legal consequences for declining to attend.

...and please note that Congress is controlled by the Dems that are requesting to talk with Ms. Rogers. This is not a Republican issue of making a mountain out of a mole hill for political reasons.

Ummmmm, I think you've underestimated your Republican comrades in Congress....

[shawn_oneil]

Since Rogers was only invited, not subpoenaed, to testify by the ranking Republican on the committee, New York Representative Pete King, she faces no legal consequences for declining to attend.

...and please note that Congress is controlled by the Dems that are requesting to talk with Ms. Rogers. This is not a Republican issue of making a mountain out of a mole hill for political reasons.

Ummmmm, I think you've underestimated your Republican comrades in Congress....

If it was just a request then my did the President create the Executive Privilege? You keep overlooking the very issue I keep on raising. I believe you have not sound justification for such an action. Plus that is just one Republican. "Comrades" give me a break. You keep putting you head in the sand.
Shawn

[Rob C]

Since Rogers was only invited, not subpoenaed, to testify by the ranking Republican on the committee, New York Representative Pete King, she faces no legal consequences for declining to attend.

If it was just a request then my did the President create the Executive Privilege? You keep overlooking the very issue I keep on raising. I believe you have not sound justification for such an action. Plus that is just one Republican.

Shawn - Are you disputing the very article you sited in the first place? Are you also utilizing and cherry picking facts from that very same article to support your argument?

Seems a bit convenient to me... Seems to me you're the one with your head in the sand.

One more thing, I don't think the President ever did invoke Executive privilege. They declined the invitation but a subpoena was never issued.

[shawn_oneil]

Shawn - Are you disputing the very article you sited in the first place? Are you also utilizing and cherry picking facts from that very same article to support your argument?

Seems a bit convenient to me... Seems to me you're the one with your head in the sand.

One more thing, I don't think the President ever did invoke Executive privilege. They declined the invitation but a subpoena was never issued.

But Gibbs' justification for Rogers' absence — invoking the separation of powers — nonetheless raised some eyebrows among legal scholars. "I'd completely fall out of my chair if they invoked Executive privilege with regards to a social secretary arranging a party," said Mark J. Rozell, a public-policy professor at George Mason who recently wrote a book on Executive privilege. "There is no prohibition under separation of powers against White House staff going to Capitol Hill to talk about what they know."

In response to questions from TIME, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said it was important to keep confidential some internal discussions at the White House. "The job of White House staff must be to provide confidential advice without the threat of having to testify about that advice before Congress, which is why the general rule has long been that White House staff do not appear before Congress," Shapiro said in an e-mail. "This is an aspect of the separation of powers, in the same way that executive branch officials cannot intrude into confidential relationships involving congressional or Supreme Court staff members."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... z0ZCF2z0mN

Rob,
Gibbs is the spokesmen for the President. If Ms. Rogers were to be subpoenaed Mr. Gibbs is inferring that Executive Privilege would be invoked. Read between the lines. In addition what about that transparency topic that President Obama use to talk about during his election and early days of the Presidency?
Shawn

[Rob C]

Gibbs is the spokesmen for the President. If Ms. Rogers were to be subpoenaed Mr. Gibbs is inferring that Executive Privilege would be invoked. Read between the lines.

Agreed BUT there isn't a subpoena so until there is one we'll never know how the WH will respond, will we. I believe this is called "posturing."

Another possibility is the WH sees this for what it is...

...a Republican issue of making a mountain out of a mole hill for political reasons.

... and the suggestion of separation of powers was made tongue in cheek.

[shawn_oneil]

Dear Mr. BUT,
Your logic is astonishing.
Shawn

[Rob C]

Dear Mr. BUT,
Your logic is astonishing.
Shawn

Actually, I think this is your logic, you're the one who suggested it.

...a Republican issue of making a mountain out of a mole hill for political reasons.