Rahm plays kiddie games and gets smacked with a Blunt objection
(Not a parliamentary objection, mind you, but a firm slap with the back of the hand.)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Congress — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) is nothing if not a twit. He is full of grade school political hijinks, gotcha games, and "Cheney has cooties!"
Vice President Dick Cheney recently tweaked the Democrats by arguing that his office was not a part of the Executive branch of government in its handling of classified material. The lefties, in an out of media, went nuts, and it was entertaining to watch.
Rahm Emanuel is nothing if not a clown. While the Congress is preparing a measure to fund the Executive branch, Rahm thought it would hilarious to propose an amendment cutting the funding from the Vice President's office from the bill because the Veep had made the claim that, for the purposes of the handling of the classified info, he was not a part of the branch.
Nice hissy fit, Rahm.
House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Missouri) seemed more disgusted in this exchange, available on YouTube.
Read More…
Rahm's political rant is HERE.
Blunt's rhetorical spanking of Rahm is HERE. (The conclusion is HERE.)
The Congressman calls Rahm to task for offering an unserious amendment designed only to fulfill a Democrat press release. Everyone knows to which branch the Veep belongs. Rahm thought he would play a clever political game, but the former Clinton staffer played the fool. Well.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Let's Teach Kent Conrad A Lesson — Comments (9) »
Rahm plays kiddie games and gets smacked with a Blunt objection 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
300 million people and this is the best we can do for our elected rep? We don't have real business to conduct? There needs to be some butt kicking in Washington.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I'm curious as to why, when Dick Cheney attempts to make the absurd argument that his office is not part of the executive branch, it is referred to as "tweaking" (haha, that Cheney, what a kidder!) but when Rahm Emanuel responds in kind, he is "a clown"?
It seems to me that, in the exchange
Cheney: I don't have to do that, because I'm not part of the executive branch.
Emanuel: OK, while we are funding the executive branch, we don't have to fund your office.
both parties come off looking a bit childish, but it is Cheney who appears the clown (I mean, seriously, the Vice President just tried to claim that he isn't part of the executive branch) and Rahm who appears to be doing the tweaking.
This idea of clearly defined branch lines is something we've invented as commentary to the Constitution. The lines aren't expressly IN the document.
Run like Reagan!
It is my understanding that, speaking historically, you make a fair point. But recent VPs have pretty clearly been members of the executive branch.
Of course, if you think that the VP should be answerable to the rules of the executive and the legislative then, well, great!
If he threw a hissy fit in the process, then he's a clown.
If he shrugged and said "Ok, funding cuts will show th lack of a Vice President's Office in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government."
Then it's tweaking in kind.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
which had the effect of tweaking the Democrats.
Rahm Emanuel was playing a puerile game.
There is a difference.
...if you had to pick an adjective to go between "a" and "legal"...
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
Of course if Cheney was consistent it would help. You can't exactly claim executive privilege for things like his energy task force and then claim your not actually in the executive branch a few years later. Consistency is important to being taken seriously.
I was particularly interested in his argument that the executive order over classified information didn't apply to him. Since the President was following his OWN (amended) executive order I don't see how the VP could claim it doesn't apply to him.
TPM I think made a very important observation. One of the marines that was attached to Cheney's office was convicted of espionage. A real life spy in the VP office who actually stole documents from the VP! You can see why the federal agency in charge of classified information might be interested in exactly what material the VP has/had in his office... Right?
Here's a link on some details of the spy story.
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/10/05/espionage-in-the-white-house/
there is no "federal agency" in charge of classified information and the fact that someone may, or may not, have stolen documents from the White House does not make a case for NARA having the inherent authority to have access to those documents.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
asking about exempting American Samoa from the stem-cell research bill.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
If you will recall, and I'm sure you do, the Samoans were tough, tough wrestlers, Vince. At one point, they -- Afa & Seka -- took out Tito Santana & Ivan Putski.
What? Wrestling wasn't real? I suppose, then, that we can rest our case, dear brother.
The names of the Samoan Brothers.
Next time I'm in town, I'm going to throw down some toothpicks and see if you immediately know how many there are.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
because it was cool to be Samoan. He was from Hawaii or something.
Leave it to Mark to threadjack his owmn thread.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
Snuka was from Fiji, although he was distantly related to the whole clan of Samoan wrestlers. Afa and Sika, Yokozuna, Rikishi, Jamal/Umaga, and Rosey (ah, Three Minute Warning) are all close family members.
Yokozuna's dad (also the father of Afa and Sika) was very close to Peter Maivia, who is the grandfather of the Rock.
Samoa Joe is not in any way related to any of the above.
And now you know.
You'd think he'd at least count up the votes before proceeding.
I've been reading these blogs for a long time but have not registered until now.
I might get the BLAM but I've got to ask an honest question.
If Sandy Berger shouldn't take documents from National Archives why should the VP be allowed not to put any documents into National Archives (for five years)?
If it is really because he is not part of the Executive Branch then how can he claim Executive privelege on this weeks Senate Judiciary subpoena's on wire tapping?
vs. not putting personal emails in a national archive.
Yep you're right. No difference at all........
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Please give the statute that was broken and prvide specifics of the crime.
And I'm not the one who campared it to Sandy Burgler's crime.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Didn't things get really ugly for Nixon when the 17 minutes of audiotape went missing?
Wouldn't five years of non-compliance with President Bush's Executive order on document retention be worse?
difference between an Executive Order and a law? Right? And you do know that nothing happened to the person who erased the 18 1/2 minutes of tape, right? And you do know the penalty for trolling is banishment?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Give details of exactly how and when he broke the statue. Please tell me the LAW that he broke.
And since I'm demanding that you prove Cheney broke a law. I'll provide some evidence that Berger broke a law. In fact Berger pled GUILTY.
Deferals to what Nixon did over 30 years ago are irrelevent.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
It appears that the NARA beef with Cheney is that the VP's Office has refused since 2002 to provide the raw data on the number of documents that have been classified and declassified.
Nobody seems to be speculating on why the VP's Office is not forthcoming with this raw data.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that even though it is an Executive Order and not a law, that it might be backed up by a law. Obviously Berger broke a law not an Executive Order. However, equally as obviously, Berger was NO LONGER part of the Executive branch when he did his part in damaging the NARA document process. Obviously, Cheney is still part of the Executive Branh (I believe they have changed their minds about asserting that he is not) and thus may not be bound by anything more than the Executive order.
Other than being fired I don't think there are any penalties for defying an Executive Order (if it's one that is NOT backed up by law).
I believe the argument was that since the office of vice president was specifically mentioned in other parts of the executive order, he wasn't included in the parts referencing the more general "Executive Branch" offices.
IE: This section applies to the President and Vice President, this other section applies to ALL OTHER parts of the executive branch.
I'm also not a lawyer and may also be missinterpreting the EO and Cheney's response.
Now, can you explain to me how Sandy Berger willfully breaking a real law is equivelent to Cheney having a different interpretation of an Executive Order than you have?
And can you also explain to me the process and authority that the President has for "firing" a Vice President?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I'm clearly not up to speed on Bush's Executive Order / Cheney's level of compliance with that order and the general National Archiving process.
For instance, why would the librarians at National Archives care about Cheney's personal e-mails if it wasn't part of Bush's Executive order?
And aren't all documents covered by the Executive Order classified for the number of years that the Executive Order enforces?
That tagged along with President Clinton when he came aboard my old ship, USS George Washington (CVN-73) for the 50th anniversary of D-Day back in 1994. They "borrowed" our nice GW towels we kept for VIP visits. What? No ashtrays? Those crazy kids.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire