GOP Will Fight GAO Lawsuit.
January 30, 2002 8:47 AM Subscribe
GOP Will Fight GAO Lawsuit. Says Orrin Hatch, "the General Accounting Office, shouldn't be 'trying to impose disclosure on internal White House meetings to determine policy. ... If you have to do that, pretty soon there wouldn't be any meetings.'"
This is going to be a tough move to defend come election time.
pretty soon there wouldn't be any meetings
That sounds like a good plan to me. Then maybe we can plan policy in public rather than behind closed doors with rich corporations.
posted by owen at 8:59 AM on January 30, 2002
That sounds like a good plan to me. Then maybe we can plan policy in public rather than behind closed doors with rich corporations.
posted by owen at 8:59 AM on January 30, 2002
Any Republicans here that can explain why behind-closed-door discussions are bad when they're about health care policy, but good when they're about energy policy?
Bush's tactical mistake was to put a Constitutional officer in charge of the meetings. Hilary was clearly beyond the reach of Congress.
Closed doors suck though. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If you don't want people to hear it, you probably shouldn't be discussing it.
posted by luser at 9:00 AM on January 30, 2002
Bush's tactical mistake was to put a Constitutional officer in charge of the meetings. Hilary was clearly beyond the reach of Congress.
Closed doors suck though. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If you don't want people to hear it, you probably shouldn't be discussing it.
posted by luser at 9:00 AM on January 30, 2002
I fail to understand why the administration has not chosen to take the high moral ground in the post-Enron environment and said, "Hey, we don't have to share this information, but in the spirit of cooperation and clarity we will." Instead, they are making it clear that they have something to hide or are morons or both.
posted by shagoth at 9:01 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by shagoth at 9:01 AM on January 30, 2002
shit, this ain't about closed doors, it's about campaign finance reform. if the nation can't see through the hypocrisy and expense of these activities, we are doomed to keep repeating this crap over and over.
posted by machaus at 9:08 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by machaus at 9:08 AM on January 30, 2002
The GAO has said that they will drop the suit if the president invokes executive privilege so this is kind of a waste of time for everyone.
posted by revbrian at 9:23 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by revbrian at 9:23 AM on January 30, 2002
The GAO has said that they will drop the suit if the president invokes executive privilege so this is kind of a waste of time for everyone.
I don't think that it's a waste of time politically. Forcing Bush to publically get behind Cheney on this cover-up would be a major score for Democrats.
posted by Pinwheel at 9:26 AM on January 30, 2002
I don't think that it's a waste of time politically. Forcing Bush to publically get behind Cheney on this cover-up would be a major score for Democrats.
posted by Pinwheel at 9:26 AM on January 30, 2002
I'm tempted to believe that they must be hiding something if they won't disclose the information. But I'm also one to be thoroughly annoyed by arguemnts like "why should honest folk want encryption or freedom from ubiquitous surveillance, wire-taps, etc?"
I might be willing to maintain a double-standard in this case, but it's something to think about...
posted by whatnotever at 9:27 AM on January 30, 2002
I might be willing to maintain a double-standard in this case, but it's something to think about...
posted by whatnotever at 9:27 AM on January 30, 2002
I always thought it was funny that Cheney would withold information on this subject. After all, we are technically his bosses, and when was the last time things went well when you witheld information from your boss?
Not that I'd really like to know who's planning the future of every creature on the planet anyway.
posted by themikeb at 9:29 AM on January 30, 2002
Not that I'd really like to know who's planning the future of every creature on the planet anyway.
posted by themikeb at 9:29 AM on January 30, 2002
The great thing (for Democrats) about Enron so far is that even though the money's been spread all around - it's smearing the Republicans a lot more, and it doesn't help when Cheney stonewalls like this - even if there's nothing to the meeting, it gives the appearance of "bad".
posted by owillis at 9:31 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by owillis at 9:31 AM on January 30, 2002
" ... Any Republicans here that can explain why behind-closed-door discussions are bad when they're about health care policy, but good when they're about energy policy?
Bush's tactical mistake was to put a Constitutional officer in charge of the meetings. Hilary was clearly beyond the reach of Congress..."
Well, I'm not a Republican (though sometimes I play one on TV), but the difference you cite - that Hilary wasn't a government official, but Cheney is - is the heart of the matter.
Hilary was a private citizen. Cheney, however, is a member of the Executive Branch. The GAO is not part of the Constitution, but was created by the Legislative Branch. While our three branches are all responsible to each other, they are also protected from each other. Congress can't simply decide it can have anything it wants to from either the Executive or Judicial branches. Cheney, in other words, is protected by the Constitution in ways Hilary simply wasn't.
My own opinion is that Cheney should turn the political crap Waxman and Dingall are pulling back on them ... and agree to hand them the information so long as they hand over the identical information about all the people and groups they've met with to gather the information they wanted to oppose the energy policy. The answer would be an unqualified and adament "No!" ... this just is not how business is done. But I'd be interested in how they justified demanding it from Cheney at the same time as declining to provide it themselves.
As it stands, two members of the minority party in the House have requested that the GAO get this information. Neither the House nor the Senate have formally voted. If two members of a minority party think can can (very publically) use the power of a congressional agency to get information that is clearly meant solely for partisan political purposes - well, yes, I hope Cheney fights them.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:51 AM on January 30, 2002
Bush's tactical mistake was to put a Constitutional officer in charge of the meetings. Hilary was clearly beyond the reach of Congress..."
Well, I'm not a Republican (though sometimes I play one on TV), but the difference you cite - that Hilary wasn't a government official, but Cheney is - is the heart of the matter.
Hilary was a private citizen. Cheney, however, is a member of the Executive Branch. The GAO is not part of the Constitution, but was created by the Legislative Branch. While our three branches are all responsible to each other, they are also protected from each other. Congress can't simply decide it can have anything it wants to from either the Executive or Judicial branches. Cheney, in other words, is protected by the Constitution in ways Hilary simply wasn't.
My own opinion is that Cheney should turn the political crap Waxman and Dingall are pulling back on them ... and agree to hand them the information so long as they hand over the identical information about all the people and groups they've met with to gather the information they wanted to oppose the energy policy. The answer would be an unqualified and adament "No!" ... this just is not how business is done. But I'd be interested in how they justified demanding it from Cheney at the same time as declining to provide it themselves.
As it stands, two members of the minority party in the House have requested that the GAO get this information. Neither the House nor the Senate have formally voted. If two members of a minority party think can can (very publically) use the power of a congressional agency to get information that is clearly meant solely for partisan political purposes - well, yes, I hope Cheney fights them.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:51 AM on January 30, 2002
they are making it clear that they have something to hide or are morons or both.
the photo editor at yahoo seems to think the answer is monkey-like moron, shagoth
posted by danOstuporStar at 9:51 AM on January 30, 2002
the photo editor at yahoo seems to think the answer is monkey-like moron, shagoth
posted by danOstuporStar at 9:51 AM on January 30, 2002
I fail to understand why the administration has not chosen to take the high moral ground in the post-Enron environment and said, "Hey, we don't have to share this information, but in the spirit of cooperation and clarity we will."
That's exactly how I've been feeling for the last couple weeks now.
I know it's a majority opinion here, but I do think their point about guarding the confidentiality of the counsel that an administration seeks does have merit. But I think it's ill advised, at best, to hitch that wagon to the matter of Enron & Cheney's energy task force -- a political hot potato if there ever was one. I mean, if you agree that maintaining strict confidentiality is something the administration has a right to fight for -- and I know most of you don't, but play along with me for a minute -- is this really the case you want to go to the mat over? Why? What's so important about these relationships? I just don't see it.
By disclosing to the GAO the information that office seeks, Bush & Co. would not only be doing what I think is the "right" thing to do, as well as the politically smart thing to do, but they'd also avoid the strong possibility of losing this case in court and seeing the establishment of the precedent they're so set against.
posted by verdezza at 9:54 AM on January 30, 2002
That's exactly how I've been feeling for the last couple weeks now.
I know it's a majority opinion here, but I do think their point about guarding the confidentiality of the counsel that an administration seeks does have merit. But I think it's ill advised, at best, to hitch that wagon to the matter of Enron & Cheney's energy task force -- a political hot potato if there ever was one. I mean, if you agree that maintaining strict confidentiality is something the administration has a right to fight for -- and I know most of you don't, but play along with me for a minute -- is this really the case you want to go to the mat over? Why? What's so important about these relationships? I just don't see it.
By disclosing to the GAO the information that office seeks, Bush & Co. would not only be doing what I think is the "right" thing to do, as well as the politically smart thing to do, but they'd also avoid the strong possibility of losing this case in court and seeing the establishment of the precedent they're so set against.
posted by verdezza at 9:54 AM on January 30, 2002
the answer is monkey-like moron
oh, that pic is so going on filepile
posted by machaus at 10:00 AM on January 30, 2002
oh, that pic is so going on filepile
posted by machaus at 10:00 AM on January 30, 2002
whatnotever, the difference between you and the White House is that you are a private citizen conducting private affairs, and they are public servants conducting public affairs. There is supposed to be a double standard in place. The right to privacy should apply in one case and not the other.
posted by Potsy at 10:27 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by Potsy at 10:27 AM on January 30, 2002
[I don't think that it's a waste of time politically. ]
Agreed. I don't imagine congress is willing to release the same information on their strategy meetings either, and I'm not sure it would help to have all that information.
posted by revbrian at 11:36 AM on January 30, 2002
Agreed. I don't imagine congress is willing to release the same information on their strategy meetings either, and I'm not sure it would help to have all that information.
posted by revbrian at 11:36 AM on January 30, 2002
"The GAO has said that they will drop the suit if the president invokes executive privilege so this is kind of a waste of time for everyone."
revbrian, is that right? I hadn't seen that anywhere. In fact, I thought Cheney had invoked executive privilege in his response to Waxman. The GAO was arguing that they are not going after information used by Cheney for his duties as Vice President, but rather as head of the "Energy Commission" or whatever the hell they called it.
By the way, I'm with those who think if they weren't worried about what they'd have to release they would have already done so with great fanfare ("look how open we are!")
posted by pardonyou? at 11:59 AM on January 30, 2002
revbrian, is that right? I hadn't seen that anywhere. In fact, I thought Cheney had invoked executive privilege in his response to Waxman. The GAO was arguing that they are not going after information used by Cheney for his duties as Vice President, but rather as head of the "Energy Commission" or whatever the hell they called it.
By the way, I'm with those who think if they weren't worried about what they'd have to release they would have already done so with great fanfare ("look how open we are!")
posted by pardonyou? at 11:59 AM on January 30, 2002
[revbrian, is that right? I hadn't seen that anywhere. ]
I heard it on CNN's inside politics yesterday and the "chattering class" has been assuming it for weeks.
[with those who think if they weren't worried about what they'd have to release they would have already done so with great fanfare ]
This approach has been suggested and I'm not against the voluntary release of the info. I just don't think congress has a right to it. Neither, do I think the president has a right to congress's inner info.
Congress has a legitimate oversight responsibility, and that should be exercised on the president's policies, not on the internal process.
posted by revbrian at 12:22 PM on January 30, 2002
I heard it on CNN's inside politics yesterday and the "chattering class" has been assuming it for weeks.
[with those who think if they weren't worried about what they'd have to release they would have already done so with great fanfare ]
This approach has been suggested and I'm not against the voluntary release of the info. I just don't think congress has a right to it. Neither, do I think the president has a right to congress's inner info.
Congress has a legitimate oversight responsibility, and that should be exercised on the president's policies, not on the internal process.
posted by revbrian at 12:22 PM on January 30, 2002
And what if the policies are affected by the process so deeply that ethical and legal issues are raised- especially in light of the known corruption of some of those who participated deeply in the process that produced the policies: do you still maintain we need a firewall or a cloak of invisibility over Cheney's actions?
I'm all for privacy, even privacy for presidents and vice-presidents, but when it comes to public issues (as opposed to blowjobs), that privacy dissipates. This administration, and you as well it seems, are taking a pessimistic approach (the Freedom of Information act among other atrocities of this administration): all things should be secret unless they can be proven to need revealing. I take the optimistic approach: the democratically elected government should have no secrets unless it can prove that it needs to (such as matters of urgent national security or ongoing military actions that require secrecy). One of the bodies to which it should prove this need is the Congress, or at least relevent subcommittees, else we get another self-righteous yet grossly illegal activity like Iran-Contra.
Cheney's claim that future input to the presidency and vice-presidency by third parties will be inhibited if he is forced to reveal this information rings falsely: no one with a legitimate interest should be ashamed of doing their civic duty and speaking to their elected officials, unless they have something dirty to hide. It's perfectly legal for Enron to have been at the table, if of questionable ethics; the hiding of it is disturbing, because it raises the question of who was really there and what they were after. Cheney's position is akin to a restaurant refusing entry by the health inspector on the grounds that it would inhibit the chef's comfort and ability to make his meals in the future.
posted by hincandenza at 3:27 PM on January 30, 2002
I'm all for privacy, even privacy for presidents and vice-presidents, but when it comes to public issues (as opposed to blowjobs), that privacy dissipates. This administration, and you as well it seems, are taking a pessimistic approach (the Freedom of Information act among other atrocities of this administration): all things should be secret unless they can be proven to need revealing. I take the optimistic approach: the democratically elected government should have no secrets unless it can prove that it needs to (such as matters of urgent national security or ongoing military actions that require secrecy). One of the bodies to which it should prove this need is the Congress, or at least relevent subcommittees, else we get another self-righteous yet grossly illegal activity like Iran-Contra.
Cheney's claim that future input to the presidency and vice-presidency by third parties will be inhibited if he is forced to reveal this information rings falsely: no one with a legitimate interest should be ashamed of doing their civic duty and speaking to their elected officials, unless they have something dirty to hide. It's perfectly legal for Enron to have been at the table, if of questionable ethics; the hiding of it is disturbing, because it raises the question of who was really there and what they were after. Cheney's position is akin to a restaurant refusing entry by the health inspector on the grounds that it would inhibit the chef's comfort and ability to make his meals in the future.
posted by hincandenza at 3:27 PM on January 30, 2002
" ... Cheney's position is akin to a restaurant refusing entry by the health inspector on the grounds that it would inhibit the chef's comfort and ability to make his meals in the future..."
No, Cheney's position is akin to the chef of one restaurant refusing to permit a "health inspection" by someone hired by a competing restaurant whose intention is clearly to damage his reputation in any way possible. The GAO is not some completely objective, disinterested health department with no connection to the "restuarants" involved.
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:48 PM on January 30, 2002
No, Cheney's position is akin to the chef of one restaurant refusing to permit a "health inspection" by someone hired by a competing restaurant whose intention is clearly to damage his reputation in any way possible. The GAO is not some completely objective, disinterested health department with no connection to the "restuarants" involved.
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:48 PM on January 30, 2002
[No, Cheney's position is akin to the chef of one restaurant refusing to permit a "health inspection" by someone hired by a competing restaurant whose intention is clearly to damage his reputation in any way possible.]
Let's not forget that the competing restaurant in this case wouldn't dare allow a health inspector on their premises either!
Wouldn't that be a hoot? Release all the minutes from all the backroom dealings in washington on both sides of the aisle. We'd have an interesting election, no? Viva revolution!
posted by revbrian at 4:19 PM on January 30, 2002
Let's not forget that the competing restaurant in this case wouldn't dare allow a health inspector on their premises either!
Wouldn't that be a hoot? Release all the minutes from all the backroom dealings in washington on both sides of the aisle. We'd have an interesting election, no? Viva revolution!
posted by revbrian at 4:19 PM on January 30, 2002
" ... Wouldn't that be a hoot? Release all the minutes from all the backroom dealings in washington on both sides of the aisle. We'd have an interesting election, no? Viva revolution! ..."
Actually,what I'd really like to see is the notes from the private meetings the GAO itself is having to decide whether or not to sue Cheney.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:22 PM on January 30, 2002
Actually,what I'd really like to see is the notes from the private meetings the GAO itself is having to decide whether or not to sue Cheney.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:22 PM on January 30, 2002
« Older | Beyond Indigo Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by magullo at 8:53 AM on January 30, 2002