It may just be the latest nail in the coffin of open, honest, and transparent policy when a White House aide can share the inside policy of lying to the public with the NY Times, but not with the Congress whose duty it is to oversee US foreign policy.
On the other hand, when the Obama administration recognizes the constitutional separation of powers, we may be making some progress. The separation of powers has pretty much been ignored for the last seven years, with the president consistently trying to overrule both Congress and the courts.
You have framed this issue as a violation of the constitutional separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. The real problem, in my mind, is the abuse of congressional oversight by the GOP-controlled Congress in trying to tie the hands of the Executive branch in negotiating with foreign governments. While we’re at it, let’s throw in the politicized process that is using Benghazi to try to steer votes away from Hillary Clinton (after 8 hearings that concluded with no showing of her responsibility) and the refusal by the GOP-controlled Senate to hold hearings on Obama nominees, including his nominee to the Supreme Court. Violation of separation of powers much?
“The appearance of a senior presidential adviser before Congress threatens the independence and the autonomy of the president, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel in the discharge of his constitutional duties,” Eggleston wrote. “We will not make Mr. Rhodes available to testify.”
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest argued it is not the Obama administration that manufactured lies about the nuclear deal, but Republican lawmakers. “The truth is it is Republicans in Congress who criticized the Iran deal who’ve got a lot to explain when it comes to saying things about the Iran deal that didn’t turn out to be true,” Earnest said at Monday’s daily press briefing.
“And if they want to hold a hearing to determine whether or not Republicans were just wrong and badly misinformed or if they were purposefully lying to the American people, then they can do that,” he added.
Chaffetz leading the pack in a message on Twitter. “Disappointing but typical,” he said.
Are you defending the administration that tries to make recess appointments when Congress in not in recess, or spends money not appropriated by Congress? Are you defending the IRS that selectively holds up approval for non-profits which do not agree with the administration politically, or continues to challenge the ministerial exception for churches even after losing the point in a 9-0 Supreme Court decision?
I agree that there is case law regarding executive privilege, but it seems to be waived when the advisor openly discloses his feats of deception for publication in the New York Times.
Oh yes, four people died, but that was years ago. Lies were told as to why that attack took place, but those lies, yd over and over again, aren’t important today. What difference does it make now?
The Senate is under no constitutional obligation to hold a hearing for any nominee.
The president does not have carte Blanche in foreign policy. It is executive abuse of power to negotiate a treaty, claim it isn’t a treaty, then try to enforce it with executive orders
I defend the Obama administrations actions given the unwillingness of the Senate to confirm his appointees. Absolutely.
The IRS did hold up approval for some organizations after selecting them for further review. This is not a separation of powers, although it did demonstrate mismanagement by the IRS commissioner, Lois Lerner.
The ministerial exception case you are referring to permitted churches to discriminate against those designated as “ministers.” The ruling came in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher who complained that Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., violated the Americans With Disabilities Act in 2005 when it fired her after she received a narcolepsy diagnosis. Again, not a separation of powers case.
However, I’m sure that you have dozens of other examples of “overreach” by the Obama administration that have been trumpeted by conservatives. Frankly, I think that the charges against Obama have more to do with his politics than with the office of the Presidency. If you want examples of presidential overreach, I would look no further than the Iran-Contra scandal of Ronald Reagan, for example. But he was a conservative hero, of course.
Except Mr. Rhodes, the aid in question, went on at some length during an interview recently that the administration lied about the deal and its details, that Mr. Rhodes job was to lie to the press about it, and Mr. Rhodes emphasized how easy that was to do since the members of the press know virtually nothing about foreign affairs and relied completely on what the administration (i.e. in the person of Mr. Rhodes) told them. That the press, having gotten rid of all its foreign bureaus and resident expertise had staffs of mid-20s writers who simply regurgitated whatever they were told- the lies Mr. Rhodes quite candidly admitted to spreading.
Did Clinton and her State minions lie to the American people about who attacked us and why?
Very simple question there.
That’s where this became political. It is one thing to meet reduced spending goals by reducing security (although we spent huge money on electric cars instead). It is one thing to have a lapse in security that allows an embassy to fall. It is one thing to have an embassy attacked and an ambassador killed by bad guys. This is the cost of doing a very risky business, and a cost that our State/CIA operators understand.
But when a politician blatantly lies about who attacked us, and why they attacked us, for political gain, then THAT is an ENTIRELY different thing.
And your example of the Iran-Contra affair being a “presidential overreach” isn’t accurate. It was a CIA covert operation, authorized by the President and absolutely within the purview of the Executive Branch. Just like the Fast & Furious operation was an ATF covert operation, authorized by the President and absolutely within the purview of the Executive Branch. Both were dumb, but the F&F op was certainly dumber.