White House invokes separation of powers to block testimony of … social secretary

posted at 9:13 pm on December 3, 2009 by Allahpundit

This is kind of like asserting executive privilege to block disclosure of the White House chef’s recipe file. Even lefties can’t believe it:

[I]t is literally inconceivable that anyone drafting the Constitution would have imagined the position of White House Social Secretary, paid for with taxpayer funds, and that the majesty of separation of powers rhetoric would apply to a situation like this…. This is simply yet more evidence that all presidents, regardless of political party and ostensible commitment to “transparency,” take on royalist airs when taking their oath of office.

Congress wants to talk to her about how the Salahis managed to crash the party at last week’s state dinner. Why can’t they? Because she’s a crony of Obama super-crony Valerie Jarrett, which means she’ll be spared the same fate underneath the Hopenchange bus that so many other loyalists have met over the past two years. Politico can only marvel:

In a White House not known for its tolerance of staffing errors, [Desiree] Rogers has been the beneficiary of an unprecedented show of support from senior administration officials. A former corporate executive from Chicago, Rogers has known the Obamas for more than a decade and seems blessed with a status that may shield her from the fate of departing White House counsel Greg Craig or Louis Caldera, the Military Office head who was canned for a botched Air Force One photo op…

For the second day in a row, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the administration had no intention of making Rogers available for lawmakers’ questions, brushing off the charge by Rep Peter King (R-N.Y.), the Homeland Security committee’s ranking member, that the administration was “stonewalling” the congressional probe.

“There’s, I think, a pretty long history of ensuring that White House staff can provide advice to the president and do so confidentially,” Gibbs said.

The confidential “advice” to Obama in this case, presumably, was which fork to use for appetizers. To no one’s surprise, the fightin’ Democrats in Congress that screeched for years about executive secrecy and checks and balances under Bush ended up caving to The One here by declining to subpoena Rogers. Read Dana Perino’s post at The Corner rubbing their faces in it, then, via Greg Hengler, watch Gibbs answer a reporter’s question about what Rogers was doing during the state dinner with one of his snottiest, most condescending dodges yet. The rest of the press corps actually “ooohs” over it. Exit question: Is there more to this than a simple “royalist” assertion of executive prerogative? The social secretary’s right not to have to face Congress is a strange hill for the White House to die on. I wonder if Rogers somehow ended up approving the Salahis’ invitation to the dinner and the administration wants to hide that fact lest it look like they’re chummy with a shady pair of reality-show stars. Hmmmm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

FWIW that shady pair of reality stars are insisting they were in fact invited. Putting their credibility against Obama’s & Gibbs’, I’m going to have to go with the reality stars.

Dark Star on December 3, 2009 at 10:04 PM

You know the Secret Service is a group of highly trained professionals.

Desiree, a Jarrett and Obama crony, not so much.

Based on this, my guess–and this is a guess–is that the Secret Service had been hamstrung by Desiree or other powers that be in the White House. The Secret Service, being the professionals that they are and not being Obama cronies, are taking responsibility and having to take the fall.

INC on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM

As I understand it, Justice William O. Douglas believed that that Second Amendment guaranteed the individual right to own a gun.

By any measure, a libera/left Justice.

“For example” is not proof.

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM

“Are you done speaking?”

Unreal.

Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Doorgunner,

Yexactly

cane_loader on December 3, 2009 at 10:06 PM

That Sanford Levinson?
Yes, the same Sanford Levinson who boasts that he’s a “card carrying member of the ACLU” and that Bush was the worst president ever.

Yep, that guy.

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:00 PM

1. IN THEORY the ACLU has quite a noble purpose, and one I hope conservatives would support. Too bad it has been corrupted in practice.

2. Plenty of us conservatives think Bush was among the worst presidents ever as well, all the more dangerous for being a RINO in wolf’s clothing.

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 10:09 PM

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Boxpoopi is here; set your /sarc to full contempt.

Doorgunner on December 3, 2009 at 9:59 PM

Why Doorgunner, how kind of you, not that I know who you are, but still. I surmise you must be a Quitter Fan.

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Re-reading the HotAir headline at the top of my browser window is a reality check.

I remember that when the Dems passed the Boland Amendment and Ronnie Reagan and Ollie North and John Poindexter and Robert MacFarlane, etc. found a way to still fight the Commies when the Dems said they couldn’t, the White House invoked separation of powers.

So since WHEN is the WH social secretary fighting off Communists?????!!!!????

Which rabbit hole have we fallen through? Is Obama conducting foreign policy now through his social secretary so that she must be screened by a constitutional penumbra, as it were?

Someone in Congress seriously needs to light them up on this and don’t let go.

cane_loader on December 3, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Waterloo!!!

cane_loader on December 3, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Wow. Ms. Rogers is pretty. I wonder if Obama likes having her around as his…ahem..ahem..”personal Social Secretary”?

portlandon on December 3, 2009 at 9:59 PM

After doing a little reading, I get the impression that Ms. Rogers likes men. You know, men who know how to get things done. That leaves BO out of the picture.

Looks like a pure business deal on her part. Oh, well. They come and they go.

Cody1991 on December 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Actually, no: but I’d t’row one in’er.

And your two point supposition @ 10:09 almost makes me… eh, we’ll see.

Doorgunner on December 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Plenty of us conservatives think Bush was among the worst presidents ever as well, all the more dangerous for being a RINO in wolf’s clothing.

Yes, but you think he was a bad President for entirely different reasons than Levinson.

And as I read him (Levinson), Levinson laments the existence of the Second Amendment. He recognizes that it guarantees an individual right to bear arms but is not happy to do so.

You and I understand it as an essential liberty for the individual against the possible abuses of the state. A “doomsday provision” as Judge Alex Kosinski calls it.

As he said:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Actually, no: but I’d t’row one in’er.

Doorgunner on December 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Man, for that particular occasion, I would even go after you. LOL.

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 10:21 PM

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM

OK I won’t defend Levinson, not being knowledgable enough about him. I do think his main presence on Reason was always because of the individual rights issue, which it was good to have him as someone who respects the rule of law, even if he did not agree with what it said. There’s integrity in that, at least.

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 10:24 PM

But why Congress? It just seems to me that this is a matter that should be addressed internally.

malclave on December 3, 2009 at 9:55 PM

I think Congress is the biggest bunch of blowhards on Earth, but I think we saw how quick the internal White House decided to throw the Secret Service under the bus. Was the Secret Service even aware that the White House had dispensed with the normal person from the Social Secretary’s office to check the guests in?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2009 at 10:30 PM

There’s integrity in that, at least

Sure. I don’t question his integrity either. As the above quote indicates (or seems to), he’s willing to criticize a liberal president too.

He’s just a liberal scholar. Nothing wrong or evil with that.

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:32 PM

OT: I do like that Kosinksi characterization: a “doomsday provision”.

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Kozinski not Kosinski.

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:34 PM

It is funny, given the myriad of stories on Rove, etc., over this principle.

However, you can’t invoke principle just when it suits you. It’s either all the time or none.

AnninCA on December 3, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Read the distinction that Dana Perino makes, found in the link of Allahpundit’s post. Desiree Rodgers, by virtue of her position, is NOT involved with policy making. She can claim no “privilege” nor protection for this security lapse that is attributable to her, not the Secret Service.

onlineanalyst on December 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM

watch Gibbs answer a reporter’s question about what Rogers was doing during the state dinner with one of his snottiest, most condescending dodges yet.

Maybe the reporter was trying to get arise out of Gibbs ( they succeeded ), but shouldn’t the lazy a$$’$ have dug a little harder than asking the press secretary.
You know, a little investagative stuff.

donh525 on December 3, 2009 at 10:42 PM

donh525 on December 3, 2009 at 10:42 PM

My guess is that she knew the answer to the question. She probably got the exact reaction she was looking for.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Read the distinction that Dana Perino makes, found in the link of Allahpundit’s post. Desiree Rodgers, by virtue of her position, is NOT involved with policy making. She can claim no “privilege” nor protection for this security lapse that is attributable to her, not the Secret Service.

onlineanalyst on December 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM

However, she serves at the behest of the King.
The King has decreed she shall not speak.
All hail the King! One finger please.

donh525 on December 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Kozinski not Kosinski.

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:34 PM

LOL probably only a Pole would notice the difference. :D

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM

LOL probably only a Pole would notice the difference. :D

Well, I hear Lech Walesa’s a big fan of AP’s so I played it safe.

He can’t understand the Meghan McCain infatuation but he’s a forgiving sort of guy.

SteveMG on December 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM

My guess is that she knew the answer to the question. She probably got the exact reaction she was looking for.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM

She should have punched his clock!
He insults these dolts with impunity.

donh525 on December 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM

Some perspective is needed here.

O’bama was selected in large part by the 18-29 voters. Those voters were tiny kids and grew up getting indoctrinated by only one President. Clinton. Having him in there for 8 years permanently tainted the water supply known as “public education”.

Del Dolemonte on December 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Gibbs – even your little boy knows when you are liar.

man – imagine if Tony Snow told a black woman to settle down and compared to her actions to a little boy.

poppieseeds on December 3, 2009 at 10:56 PM

She should have punched his clock!
He insults these dolts with impunity.

donh525 on December 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM

In that case he would have gotten what I wanted. I agree, it was really quite rude of Mr. Gibbs and totally in keeping with what I expect from this White House. Can you imagine Tony Snow or Dana Pereno acting like that?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Some perspective is needed here.

O’bama was selected in large part by the 18-29 voters. Those voters were tiny kids and grew up getting indoctrinated by only one President. Clinton.Having him in there for 8 years permanently tainted the water supply known as “public education”.

Del Dolemonte on December 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM

If they have to drink from the private water supply for awhile, they’ll come around

donh525 on December 3, 2009 at 10:59 PM

weren’t these “crashers” part of a Palestinian group? didn’t I read that somewhere? if so, that is what Bambi is trying to hide. that & the total incompetence of the WH.

kelley in virginia on December 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Someone linked to that article on a thread here several days ago because I read it and it was better than a spy novel. I know where to find it but I don’t know how to link to it directly. It was at gatewaypunditfirstthings, titled “White House Party Crashers Linked to Obama’s Radical Pal Rashid Khalidi” by Jim Hoft on 11/28. You will not want to stop reading and read through the comments – there is a lot of scary information. The main thing you will notice is a picture taken in 2005 of several people posing with this couple and one of them is Obama! This whole thing smells bad! The full link is: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/11/obama-met-with-salahis-in-2005-theyre-linked-to-obamas-radical-pal-rashid-khalidi/.

silvernana on December 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM

Can you imagine Tony Snow or Dana Pereno acting like that?

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Tony was a classy individual, one of the very best.
Dana has class as well, and pretty feisty.

donh525 on December 3, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Wow, I learned something I didn’t know about links – it automatically did it for me. Good to know – I’m very computer illiterate!

silvernana on December 3, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Good to know – I’m very computer illiterate!

silvernana on December 3, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Me too, it took me six months to figure out the link feature.

thomasaur on December 3, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Having him in there for 8 years permanently tainted the water supply known as “public education”.

Del Dolemonte on December 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Busting the teacher’s unions should be NUMBER ONE priority for conservatives but somehow it just never comes up. It makes me sad.

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Wow, condescending doesn’t even begin to describe this. Besides being an incompetent boob, Gibbs is a racist, sexist, SOB. He should have been fired yesterday.

WarEagle01 on December 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM

SIGH.

The problem is — she’s probably RIGHT.

But this is politics and there’s more to it than simply running around being right all the time. MUCH more.

This move just further confirms that, whatever else she does (or does not) have going on, she’s politically inept.

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM

OOPS please disregard. Wrong thread. :D

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM

I wonder if Rogers somehow ended up approving the Salahis’ invitation to the dinner and the administration wants to hide that fact lest it look like they’re chummy with a shady pair of reality-show stars board of directors member of the the Task Force on Palestine and probable buddy of Rashid Khalidi.

Connie on December 3, 2009 at 11:36 PM

In the April Ryan/Gibbs clip Ryan says the talk around DC about Rogers’ presence at the party as a guest was that she acted like the belle of the ball and even overshadowed the First Lady.

Um, that’s kinda interesting.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

KittyLowrey on December 3, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Desiree Rogers is clearly an incompetant politically appointee. While the White House is scrambling to save her incompetant face, the fact is she put the President in danger. There is a point at which incompetance can no longer be excused. Look for Rogers to be quietly replaced, or promoted, in the near future.

I was amused at the claim of her having been a ‘corporate executive’, leaving the impression she left the business world to become a social director. Seems like the most incompetant people always find someone to help them along in their travels. Of course, this is the only way for the incompetant to get around at all.

Freddy on December 3, 2009 at 11:42 PM

I’ve never liked that April person, but I wish she would have hurled her chair at that piece of *$%#@&%&#

baldilocks on December 3, 2009 at 11:43 PM

baldilocks on December 3, 2009 at 11:43 PM

LOL! I think you just blew your chance of being HotAir’s White House correspondent.

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2009 at 11:54 PM

There’s something fishy here. Yes, every member of the Executive Branch is immune to SUBPOENA by Congress. Most always, Congress and the President show some sense: Congress does not seek to compel answers, they just ask; and the President chooses to instruct his subordinate to give answers under penalty of perjury. Presidents usually instruct them to refer a few hot ones to the White House directly.

That the White House stonewalls a request by a Democrat Congress for an appearance by a social secretary is either a sign they dawdle over a precipice of evildoing, or, they’re just insanely stupid.

Chris_Balsz on December 4, 2009 at 12:02 AM

That the White House stonewalls a request by a Democrat Congress for an appearance by a social secretary is either a sign they dawdle over a precipice of evildoing, or, they’re just insanely stupid.

Chris_Balsz on December 4, 2009 at 12:02 AM

… or both.

D2Boston on December 4, 2009 at 12:14 AM

I was thinking that next late Friday afternoon after all this dies down, Desiree will be quietly shown the door. But once she’s not on staff Congress could subpoena her couldnt they? If they wanted to take this up again at that point. So maybe she wont be shown the door?

YehuditTX on December 4, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Question?

If those 3 Secret Service members are fired and Ms Desiree Rogers and Ms Jarrett don’t have to answer questions from Congress about their role in this fiaso- how many forms of ID and how long do you think future party guests of the WH are going to have to stand outside before being admitted entrance to an event?

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 4, 2009 at 12:39 AM

1. IN THEORY the ACLU has quite a noble purpose, and one I hope conservatives would support. Too bad it has been corrupted in practice.

voxpopuli on December 3, 2009 at 10:09PM

You’re joking right?????I give you a quote from Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

The ACLU does NOT have a noble purpose. Of course, what they state their purpose is is largely cover, and it’s unfortunate that so many buy into that cover. Their real purpose was evident as early as 1931:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.

-Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities

Baldwin and Sanger were both quite fond of each other as well and the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are practically joined at the hip.

Jason Coleman on December 4, 2009 at 1:35 AM

White House Party Crashers
silvernana on December 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM

Ahem

The politically correct term is Undocumented Party Guests

agmartin on December 4, 2009 at 1:53 AM

Exit question: Is there more to this than a simple “royalist” assertion of executive prerogative? The social secretary’s right not to have to face Congress is a strange hill for the White House to die on. I wonder if Rogers somehow ended up approving the Salahis’ invitation to the dinner and the administration wants to hide that fact lest it look like they’re chummy with a shady pair of reality-show stars. Hmmmm.

Yes, they are connected to Muslim scum, money laundering and other causes, and can’t make it through the clearance system (due to flags) to attend “officially”. Thus, she approved them. They are not lying about having been invited.

Schadenfreude on December 4, 2009 at 2:56 AM

INC on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Precisely. These are some of the finest professionals in the world. They set the standard for protection worldwide. There is absolutely, positively, unquestionably no f’ing way that one of them waved the Salahis past his/her checkpoint. Jeez, that’s covered in Protection 101!!

n0doz on December 4, 2009 at 3:07 AM

I wonder if Rogers somehow ended up approving the Salahis’ invitation to the dinner

The way the government works is this: If her testimony would look good for Bozo she’d be over to congress testifying before they got the coffee ready.

Otherwise they don’t send her. You all know the game, right?

dogsoldier on December 4, 2009 at 6:49 AM

Sorry to lean on stereotypes, but I’ve never heard a lib/Dem/reporter in that room so filled with attitude toward someone who was lying through their teeth like a little sissy the Press Secretary.

Then again, I’ve never seen a smarmier Press Secretary than this fat, pink douche.

Jaibones on December 4, 2009 at 7:05 AM

Robert, please continue to talk to the press like children and they are going to turn on you.

yoda on December 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM

Women asking questions is just a distraction to this administration…they will get back to you later honey…

right2bright on December 4, 2009 at 7:51 AM

“Are you done speaking?”
Unreal.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2009 at 10:05 PM

The Obama Doctrine: “But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

P.S. “I’m the President!”.

Buy Danish on December 4, 2009 at 8:15 AM

This is pathetic. The friggin’ President is protecting a not even very good, social secretary, and two reality stars.

It wouldn’t surprise me to have Barry and his massive ego schedule another Tuesday night speech to lecture us on Tiger Woods innocence.

Gross. This administration is just gross.

anniekc on December 4, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Follow the trail:
Bravo TV is having a reality show in which these two are associated with.
NBC owns Bravo. (Note how Brain Williams of NBC news has made this story a main feature of his Broadcast and the couple appeared on the NBC Today show.)
GE owns NBC (until it is sold to Comcast).
GE has some good contacts in the White House.

albill on December 4, 2009 at 8:28 AM

Ah, the chicago corruption in full flower! Let them keep that dingbat social secretary because she’s a disaster waiting to happen. Man, there will have to be some major fumigation of the White House once we get rid of this bunch!

mozalf on December 4, 2009 at 8:38 AM

They don’t care about their own WH security, how can they possibly care about the country’s?

curved space on December 4, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Geeze, lighten up, people! So Desiree had a little bobble.

I mean, it’s not like anybody would want to sneak into the White House and cause, y’know, trouble or anything, is it?

mojo on December 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM

After watching politics as long as I have I didn’t think I could honestly type these words?   Well here goes.  I am stunned.   I just cannot believe the way Gibbs talked to that reporter.   A flaming SOB Gibbs is.

martywd on December 4, 2009 at 11:00 AM

American Power tracked-back with, ‘White House Stonewalls Gatecrasher Probe (VIDEO)’.

Donald Douglas on December 4, 2009 at 11:42 AM

The White House Social Secretary is a key member of the president’s senior staff. She regularly sits in on cabinet and national security briefings and is privy to all executive branch decisions…like whether to serve pretzels or Doritos at the next media reception. I completely understand the Administration’s decision to invoke executive privilege. She could easily reveal some important state secret under tough questioning from some Republican congressman. Heck, we already know whose fault the breach in White House security was anyway. Didn’t three lower level uniformed Secret Service officers just get suspended? Case closed.

sdd on December 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM

I wonder if Rogers somehow ended up approving the Salahis’ invitation to the dinner and the administration wants to hide that fact lest it look like they’re chummy with a shady pair of reality-show stars. Hmmmm.

A reality show on NBC… whose merger with Comcast was just approved… Comcast’s honcho endorsed OboobaCare the next day…

Obooba/Immelt 2012!

Akzed on December 4, 2009 at 12:36 PM

What if the Salahis radicalize and then are at risk of racist backlash? Is anyone thinking of the Muslims of America?

BL@KBIRD on December 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM

If they were cleared by Rogers, that would clear the Secret Service agents of wrong doing. This follows the pattern of cops acting stupidly, investigating the CIA, not rushing to judgement re terrorist shooting at Ft. Hood. Obama protects his Chicago amigos and throws our best public servants to the wolves.

Pat in NC on December 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Here’s a link to the full transcript of the Ryan/Gibbs exchange:

Will Desiree Rogers Be The White House’s Next Van Jones?

And the part that made me sit up and listen:

Q But could you talk — seriously, could you talk about that? I mean, was there a concern in this White House that she came out being — some might have called here the belle of the ball, overshadowing the First Lady at the beginning

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know who “some” are. I’ve never heard that.

Q Well, it’s been bantered around Washington, and it’s been in circles — Democratic circles as well as Republican circles, high-ranking people.

MR. GIBBS: April, that’s not a station I live in in life –

Q — administrations as well.

Can you imagine how happy Michelle was to hear that? That EVERYONE is thinking and talking about Rogers overshadowing her?!

Oh, my.

KittyLowrey on December 4, 2009 at 1:25 PM

The real story here is that some idiotic Republican Congressmen want to go on a silly fishing expedition over White House security.

Maybe RINOs like Peter King would better serve our country by focusing their efforts on military base security.

Let the Secret Service handle White House security.

This kind of nonsense is precisely how the GOP lost conservatives.

They need to act like serious leaders, not like impudent teenagers.

The breach of White House security is worth a hearty laugh, for sure, but Congress needs to work on more important matters.

molonlabe28 on December 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM

They said Obama was inexperienced but I never thought that he needed “advise” for the social secretary of a national security nature.

Then again, I wonder who’s fault it was that they gave those DVDs to Gordon Brown. Perhaps she gave Obama bowing lessons.

J_Crater on December 4, 2009 at 4:29 PM

molonlabe28 on December 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Ummmmmmmmmmm, hearing was demanded and called for by Dems, too.

Actually, this story, despite the party aspect, has some real implications and needs to be fully explained (not that I’m holding my breath that it will—fully, that is).

KittyLowrey on December 4, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Gibbs really got shook up. He lost his composure and out came the put-down and condescending tone. Wow!

I bet we’ll see a public apology.

The question was really impertinent, however.

AnninCA on December 4, 2009 at 7:03 PM

SEPARATION OF STUPIDITY IS NOT SANCTIONED.

Cybergeezer on December 4, 2009 at 7:45 PM

Gibbs has never even seen a Victoria’s Secret fashion show, because they’ve all been SECRET!

Cybergeezer on December 4, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Obowma could appoint her the “Recent Vow of Silence Czar” and be done with it.

dthorny on December 4, 2009 at 9:13 PM

The lies from Michelle Obama and Gibbs and Emmanuale, stating that death threats for Obama had risen 400% over every other President in history was found to be a LIE !!! Secret service says death threats are the same as last president and that of Bill Clinton.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5879268.shtml

nelsonknows on December 5, 2009 at 1:05 AM

Gibbs is truly an embarrassment to Barry O. I sure hope he’s around in 2011. He alone could cinch Barry’s defeat.

Griz on December 5, 2009 at 3:05 AM

nice thing to later call back on as an earlier case when Palin really has something to invoke it for.

900-something days to go and counting…

mooseburger on December 5, 2009 at 4:27 AM

The MOUTH OF SAURON speaks again

nelsonknows on December 5, 2009 at 9:03 AM

I’m practicing tying 13 wraps on the hangman’s noose

nelsonknows on December 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Going to be some interesting tell-all books written about this WH in a couple of years.

Missy on December 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2