First, the bad news (which actually came at the end oftoday’s gaggle).

MR. SNOW: Okay, one last thing. There have been a lot of rumors about my health, so let me tell you what’s going on. In a recent series of CAT scans and PET scans and MRIs, we have found a small growth in my lower abdomen. Blood tests are negative, PET scans are negative. But out of an aggressive sense of caution, I’m going to go in for surgery on Monday and have it removed. I’ll be out for a few weeks, because it’s still — you know, they’re going to cut me. And it will take me a little while to heal up. So I’ll come back here a little lighter — (laughter) — in, oh, I don’t know, a few weeks, maybe three or four weeks. Dana Perino will be handling the responsibilities from behind the podium.

Bad for Pony’s health, but also bad for gaggle obsessives. Three to four weeks of the humorless, fanatical Bushite Dana Peroxide? I don’t think I can take that.

Anyway, back to the gaggle. Chimpy’s gonna fold like a cardboard box in a thunderstorm.

Q Did the President respond to Fred Fielding, or did Fred Fielding have a conversation with the President?

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way, as you know, the issue of internal White House deliberations figures rather large in what we’re discussing here. But if Fred Fielding has made a representation that he would take something to the President, you can take it to the bank that that happened.

Q Okay. And then what was the President’s response? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: I’m not even going to try to fake that one. Again, internal deliberations. Thank you. The President’s position is pretty clear.

Unprecedented

Q We spoke with the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. Senate says there is no precedent for having an official of this nature come and speak to the Committee without a transcript. The House also says they can’t find any precedent. Why should this case set a precedent?

MR. SNOW: Well, the fact is what they’re trying to do is to establish their own set of precedents. What we’re trying to do is to set a precedent for adult behavior in a way that is going to reflect well on a situation and offer an opportunity — I don’t think you’re going to find any case where there has been no allegation of impropriety, no specific —

Q It’s not about —

MR. SNOW: — any specific allegation of impropriety, suddenly to say, we’re going to offer up internal deliberations. But we’re doing this because we know there are concerns on the Hill and we want to address them. I think that this is — I’m not sure that there are any situations for which there is a precedent for this.

Q Even transcripts?

MR. SNOW: For any of this.

[snip]

Q You just don’t want a record of what they said.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no. The record, in fact, is going to be available. So then if there are follow-on questions of a factual nature, they are going to be able to be answered.

Q Available, but without a transcript?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”

Pony Blow completely exasperated CBS’ Harry Smith this morning. Raw Story had the video and transcript (hat-tip to Grand Moff Texan). Continue reading Harry Smith Gets Snowjobbed

Intoday’s gagglewe discover that the White House is concerned that Karl Rove might burst into flames.

Q The cameras weren’t on this morning. You came and said one of the big stumbling blocks is you don’t want to see Karl Rove with his hand up in front of a bunch of cameras flashing.

MR. SNOW: You bet.

Pony Blow Explains Checks and Balances

MR. SNOW: There are — in this particular case, the Department of Justice — the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we’re doing something that we’re not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we’re doing.

[snip]

Q So Tony, this President for years has used the Constitution as his backdrop. He said, look, this is my right under the Constitution.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q This government was founded on a series of checks and balances. Why not, if you’re going to say you’re using the Constitution, just apply what she’s using there to what this government was founded upon: checks and balances —

MR. SNOW: What actually —

Q — and one legislative body checking another legislative body, and having a top White House official testify under oath.

MR. SNOW: Well, we are an executive body, not a legislative body. And secondly, we have, in fact, said, what we’re going to do is bend the rules in favor of Congress on this part, because we are going to give the —

Q There are checks and balances, correct?

MR. SNOW: What we are doing — yes, but you’re mixing —

Q Not necessarily.

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, look, again, there’s a legitimate oversight of the Justice Department and the decisions that went into this, and what we’ve said is since there were conversations and communications between the White House and the Justice Department, you ought to be able to see them all — every one, every single — every single communication available to the American public.

Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”

Oh, my. Pony Blow was really off his game today.

Pony Wants Us To Believe That Individual Memories Are More Reliable Than A Written Record

Q But, Tony, in the interest of getting at the truth, in the interest of accuracy, why not have an official, indisputable record of what was said — a transcript?

MR. SNOW: Well, first, Jonathan, you’re jumping way ahead and I think — but let’s lay out some of the things that go on. This is a decision that was made at the U.S. Department of Justice. What we have said is, all the key officials are available; sworn testimony, whole bit. Furthermore, the email traffic is available. You will also have available an exhaustive rendering of email from the White House on the outside. And you’ve got the fact basis there. The question you need to ask is what do you gain from the transcript? And the answer is, not much, because —

Q You gain accuracy.

MR. SNOW: No, no —

Q — what was said, not a characterization of what was said, but you know exactly what was said.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, what you’re trying to do is create a presumption of a hearing or a trial. And what we’re saying is —

Q What we’re saying is —

MR. SNOW: No, this is an attempt to get fact. These are, in fact, interviews. They will have specific fact questions. I don’t know how you make this —

Q Tony, the Senator —

MR. SNOW: Let me finish the answer, Ed, and then I’ll get to you.

You start with a decision made at the U.S. Department of Justice. This is where you’ve got the deliberations, the analysis, all these things taking place; you have full access to everything there. The question is, okay, do you have any further questions that may involve the White House? If so, then you also have external communications from the White House elsewhere. That ought to — and if there are other specific questions of fact that have to deal with anything that’s unresolved, you can ask. And, frankly, when it comes to a fact answer, people there are going to be able to get it right, just as I think you get it right when you take notes based on a conversation with me for your reporting, without a transcript.

[snip]

Q Are you afraid that they’ll be able to go through and find inconsistencies in testimony if there’s a transcript?

MR. SNOW: No, they’ll be able to do it.

[snip]

Q Tony, how would a transcript make it a political spectacle? And what about a transcript would be not in keeping with amicable and —

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think you’ve always got a temptation, somebody sort of waving a piece of paper — let me reverse the question: Why would not an interview be conducive to getting at the facts?

Q Well, because if, then, the facts were then discussed, then it would be one person’s word against another and facts might get muddled.

MR. SNOW: No, I don’t think so. I mean, I think somebody asks a straight, factual question, you’re going to have witnesses from both parties and from both chambers — House and Senate, your going to have Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate. And you’re going to have people who are responsive. And you know, if they don’t think they’ve got it right they can ask over and over and over until they get it precisely right. So I don’t think that’s —

Q Why not have a record of these facts?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, the facts — my guess is that there will be, that people are certainly going to be open to discussing the facts that they hear.

Continue reading “Today On Holden’s Obsession With The Gaggle”