White House Declares War... on Constitution [VIDEO]

Did Tony Snow go to high school? Has he ever taken a civics course? Has he never seen Schoolhouse Rock?! Because, ya know, it's almost impossible to, like, not know that this (second video) is complete and utter bullshit: "[Congress] does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House."


Steve Benen: "Look, I know these guys are into all kinds of strange ideas about a unitary executive, but this is ridiculous. If the legislative branch doesn't have oversight responsibilities over the White House, does Snow think the White House has to answer to anyone? … [T]his isn't the executive privilege argument, this is the executive privilege argument on crack."


Even though I know Tony Snow probably isn't genuinely ignorant of the basic principles of American government, and is probably just spewing this nonsensical, incoherent, and Constitutionally-inaccurate horseshit because that's what he's paid to do, I'm going to go ahead and offer some help--to him, to his Oval Office masters, to whomever doesn't (or refuses to) understand that we don't live in a dictatorship (yet)--in the form of this handy-dandy chart I copied from one I found online on an elementary school resources website:

Enjoy, Tony. And take your time.

There will be a quiz at my discretion.

Evan Adds:

In the first video, Snow empties his pouch of good will in a contentious exchange with CBS's Harry Smith, whom he describes as "partisan" when the BS spewing from Snow's mouth is so unbelievable it must be challenged.

Essentially: That the White House is making a gesture of "good will" by allowing Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to have an off the record chat with congress over their -- and quite probably the president's -- role in the politically motivated firings of US Attorneys.

CREW is all over the emails' connections to the White House and Marty Lederman (thanks O) highlights one of the crucial reasons the White House's "generous offer" is meaningless:
But much more important than [the fact that the questioning wouldn't be transcribed] is that the White House would limit the scope of the testimony, and of any documents provided, so that they would not cover communications made within the White House -- i.e., among the presidential advisors who (presumably) most directly counseled the President to remove the U.S. Attorneys. And it's presumably in those communications that any evidence of the actual reasons for the removals would be contained.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card


Thanks for your support!

Did you enjoy AlterNet this year? Join us! We're offering AlterNet ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. From now until March 15th.