"Informational Briefings about the Political Landscape"

by emptywheel

Before I get into the jist of the story, let me point out three details about the WaPo story reporting political briefings in many agencies around the government.

First, once again Scott Stanzel appears to be the spokesperson designated to make uncomfortable admissions--he also got to 'fess up to the 5 million missing emails. As we get more and more damaging revelations, I'll be curious to see if this trend continues--if they keep Stanzel as their designated honest guy, and Dana Perino (or Snow, when he returns) as their asshole roadblock.

Second, to add to the fodder about Scott Bloch's (in)ability to conduct an investigation into this stuff, there's this quote:

"Political forecasts, just generally . . . I do not regard as illegal political activity," Bloch added. But he said his office would examine whether it was appropriate to use federal facilities or resources as well as review exactly what was said. "Where you cross the line is where you get into the slant of someone being elected or defeated" or trying to get a political party into or out of power, he said.

You see, Scott Bloch appears to have created a space for himself in which he doesn't have to ask why the briefings occurred, why the presentation took the particularly slant it did, or why the presentation included a close focus on the RNC's 72 hour electoral plans. So long as he doesn't have a witness saying, "... and then Lurita Doan asked what GSA could do to help Republicans get elected," it doesn't count as political in Bloch's book. (And see below how closely this coordinates with what appears to be a WH-generated talking point, suggesting real coordination between Bloch and the WH.)

Third, look at the timing. Waxman gets subpoenas addressing both of these issues (with voiced support, in principle, from a number of Republicans on the committee), and voila, we get action. (Though it appears that this briefing may have also been a response to WaPo reporter Jeffrey Smith's reporting on this.)  I've got some emails in to understand the timing of all these issues. But it appears like this may be a ultimately unsuccessful attempt to stave off a subpoena relating to these issues.

Now onto my thoughts about the briefings themselves...

The Agencies
The WaPo article describes the WH admitting to 20 briefings at 15 agencies in 2006-7, plus similar briefings that occurred during previous election cycles. Jeffrey Smith appears to have gone on to call various agencies to develop a partial list of which agencies were involved. He got confirmation of briefings from:

• GSA
• Commerce (this spokesperson appears to be working from the "purely informational" talking points; also this briefing admitted to a general briefing, then a separate one for senior political staff)
• EPA (there were two separate briefings)
• VA
• Transportation
• DHS (though this spokesperson appears to have missed the talking points, because he or she had to correct the first comment made to Smith)

Then, in addition, Stanzel admitted to briefings at:

• HHS
• Interior
• Labor
• HUD
• Treasury
• Education
• Agriculture
• Energy
• NASA
• Small Business Association
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Office of National Drug Control Policy
• US AID

Some of these agencies are mired in their own political scandals. For example, we know FEMA has given Mississippi and Louisiana different Katrina treatment. Did someone do that in response to a briefing that told him to make it hard for Governor Blanco to win re-election? And NASA and Science and Technology Policy ... did these briefings include a discussion about the importance of words like "Intelligent Design" and "Abstinence" and the danger of the phrases, "Global Warming" and "Family Planning"? And did the meetings at Energy and Interior talk about which campaign donors should get the preferential contracts for our nation's natural resources?

The Two-Step Briefing Process
Smith provides outlines of what might be a two-step briefing process. Trusted hacks Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor appear to have given the more public briefings. But, at least at Commerce, the top managers received a second briefing. Smith also describes Rove being involved in briefings:

Stanzel said that Rove "occasionally spoke to political appointees at departments and agencies" but that his presentations were more "off the cuff" and were meant to convey "their importance to advancing the president's agenda."

And Smith explains that, after the GSA briefing that first exposed this practice, GSA was supposed to have a follow-up meeting in which top managers would discuss more specific details.

At its completion, GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan asked how GSA projects could be used to help "our candidates," according to half a dozen witnesses. The briefer, J. Scott Jennings, said that topic should be discussed "off-line," the witnesses said. Doan then replied, "Oh, good, at least as long as we are going to follow up," according to an account given by former GSA chief acquisition officer Emily Murphy to House investigators, according to a copy of the transcript.

"Something was going to take place potentially afterwards" regarding Doan's request, GSA deputy director of communications Jennifer Millikin told investigators she concluded at the time.

Boy, Karl Rove must be P-I-S-S-E-D at Doan for fucking this up so royally. First, she asks in public how GSA can help Republicans, giving Waxman cause to start digging into these briefings. Jennings then tries to give her the hint that she's only supposed to talk specifics at the follow-up briefing, "Off-line." And then Doan refers to "follow up." It sure looks like the one-two process is that Jennings or Taylor comes in, gets appointees thinking about how their agencies can politicize the government to serve Rove's goals, followed by a meeting with Rove where they talk specifics. Off the cuff, you know.

The Talking Points
Jeffrey Smith strongly suggests that those he got to speak on the record were working off of one set of talking points--Smith repeats that talking point twice.

Those discussing the briefings on the record yesterday uniformly described them as merely "informational briefings about the political landscape."

[snip]

By the end of yesterday afternoon, all of those describing the briefings on the record had adopted a uniform phrase in response to a reporter's inquiries: They were, each official said, "informational briefings about the political landscape."

While Smith doesn't say it, this strongly suggests the spokepersons for all of these agencies received a talking points document from the White House or RNC directing them to describe the briefings as "informational briefings about the political landscape." Note how well that phrase lines up well with Scott Bloch's take, that the briefings themselves, if they remain "information briefings about the political landscape," do not violate the Hatch Act. And because, if the spokespersons of designated agencies have been given such talking points, then surely this is a limited admission campaign, an attempt to try to spin these meetings as innocent "political forecasts."

Looks like there are two logical angles of follow-up. Get more details on Rove's "off the cuff" briefings with top political appointees, to find out how much detail they discussed about politicizing government agencies. And find more low-level appointees like those at GSA who will testify that these were more than "information briefings about the political landscape."

Comments

[Sojourner]

Ah! The best-laid plans of Karl Rove going astray! This whole issue of "talking points" deals with more than suggestions -- it expects that the people involved will be good little automotons, and repeat everything verbatim that Karl comes up with for them to say.

It is very clever to use the phraseology "informational briefings about the political landscape" to attempt to evade anything suspicious. It is so typical, though, of everything that we see from this administration -- walking a very thin line between legal and illegal.

I think it also says a lot about Rove and whoever else is helping him pull the strings to accomplish what he wants -- they expect that no one else is capable of rational thought, or thinking for themselves. How arrogant! Also, how stupid! Eventually, smart people rebel against the chicanery that they are forced to dispense.

I suspect there is a major rebellion brewing in the ranks, and there are some people who have integrity that are fed up... Everything we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

[kim]

This is off topic EW but I want to mention something I saw on Moyer's Iraq show last night - the 'reverse Judy,' Chalabi telling journalists stories about Iraq and the journalists going to the WH to get confirmation of his fictions. I'd love to know who in the WH came up with these press manipulations.

Regarding the various other WH scandals, I am comforted to know that you are doing your usual great work.

[Outahere]

Very OT so please excuse - what's up with the sight?

Unless here in 'posting a comment' it looks very strange with limited articles, no info on recent posts, categories, archives, contributors etc.

Most of the blue section stuff usually to the viewer's right is at the bottom of the page starting after EW's "The Other 13" with Where We Met.

Do I need gallons of more coffee?

[emptywheel]

Outhere

What browser/platform are you using/ It looks good to me--and I'm still on teh first cup of coffee.

[Ace Armstrong]

Since every day brings us one more closer to the next election, every Republican who is facing re-election in 2008 must begin sorting the wheat from the chaff.
In the Senate where the proportion of Dem/Repub up for re-election is skewed to the Dems favor, the continuing litany of this administration's transgressions is anathama for the Republicans.
Because the body politic has evolved to one third republican, one third democrat and one third independent, it is the control of the independent vote that becomes crucial.
Democrats need only to continue questioning the ethics and morals behind this bizarre amalgam of paleocons and evangelical christians.
The sudden apparition of Mr. Bloch as defender of truth can best be seen as another segment in a holding action that is desperately clinging to the notion that the best defense is a good offense - the operative word being good.

[Outahere]

Still lookin' funky even with more coffee in me. Using Windows- Explorer. I bet it's better later (much like the noise in my car no one hears but me ya'know?)

I was wondering when this Stanzel would show up again. I'm thinking we will be seeing him often!

[P J evans]

(using Windows/IE: it does look very different now, the 'recent posts' and contributor list don't appear on the front page)

Non-political briefings, my *ss! Non-political briefings wouldn't have slides listing GOP candidates who needed help and Democrats who should be fought tooth and nail. They wouldn't have slides listing candidates at all - that's blatantly political right there.

[DemFromCT]

visual site problems:

It's a typepad problem, not you or me. Should be resolved soon.

[Coyoteville]

More on visual site sight problems.

I use Mac OSX 10.3.9 and Safari, and it started for me last night with the April 25, 2007 "The Other 13" post by emptywheel. I can't see any posts older than that one, no way to comment on that posting, wrong formatting, etc.

At least, today's postings look and behave OK.

[Coyoteville]

Dem from CT.

More weirdness. I clicked on the Emptywheel link under Contributors, and the "Other 13" post abruptly jumps (in the middle of the post) to the "Foley Preying on Parents' Inability to Monitor Internet Use" post dated Sept. 30, 2006. There are NO posts between 9/30/06 and 4/25/07 visible (to me). A bigger TypePad problem??

[tomj]

Looking at the known facts, if using government resources for political purposes is a violation of the Hatch Act then:

1. Were the political appointees (paid for with tax dollars) required to attend the briefings (wherever they were held)? If not, was anyone _invited_ who did not attend, and who still has a job.

2. Was the workplace (the fact that everyone was together during the day) used as a way of organizing the meetings? Simply having the WH Staff showing up at your workplace seems like the government facility is being used as an organizational resource, not available to non-party workers.

3. Did the WH Staff use government resources to travel to the location of the meetings? Although department workers might have taken a lunch break from their job, if the intent of the meeting was political, then travel to and from the meeting during work hours would be use of government resources.

Maybe these points are why the WH is pushing the idea that the meetings themselves were not political activity. Isn't this a change from a few weeks back where there were claims that the meetings were during lunch?

[Elliott]

It's Hatching!

[Mimikatz]

One very telling stat from the WSJ poll that came out yesterday (in today's paper) is that only 21% of the public want the next Prez to follow Bush's policies and and a whopping 74% want something different. That is more than 3.5-1, something I doubt we have seen in my lifetime, which goes all the way back to FDR.

This is going to drip on and on, with the non-Bush/Cheney GOP getting more and more desperate about their politcal prospects.

And career people are already going to Congressional staffers. They don't need to go to the Press (and why would they, other than Dana Priest, Walter Pincus and McClatchy); they go to Waxman or Conyers and then the Press has to cover the hearings. Career people see that the next Pres isn't going to be looking for Bush loyalists to promote.

This is going to unravel. It just may be slower than we want. But it is going to unravel. Not everyone is a Libby, or a Liddy.

[obsessed]

Our old pal James Comey is due to appear before the Waxman committee on USAGate.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003106.php

[scarecrow]

ew -- the Committees might also ask Bloch and each of the agency contacts to provide information/e/-mails etc on who advised each of them to use the terms "information briefings about the political landscape."

[marksb]

Tomj, in addition there may be an assumptive "workplace environment" situation here, as in employment harassment cases, where you are not required to attend or take action, but it is clear that your career and employment performance metrics will be negatively impacted if you don't.
So: play with the Party or lose in your job. The whole career vs. political employee thing is BS anyway. If you are career civil service and some political hack is your boss, you've gotta dance to his tune to keep your career on track.
--and--
It's more clearly looking like Bloch's in the game on Rove's team, doesn't it?

[freepatriot]

hey, tokyo jodi, the worm tongue, YOUR TALKING POINT IS READY

There is no prohibition under the Hatch Act of allowing political appointees to talk to other political appointees about the political landscape in which they are trying to advance the President's agenda. None.

you can stop hiding under your bridge now worm tongue

[mesquite]

Even if some of the "informational briefings" were held at the Whitehouse, wouldn't that be using Government property for Political purposes? It seems to me the only way they could really get around it would be to have them at a personal residence or restaurant or RNC rented space, AND either take time off from their jobs, or do the meeting after hours.

[P J Evans]

nesquite @ 16:33

That's how they should have done it, to keep it legal. But IOKIYAR. (Anyone think there wouldn't have been GOoPers loudly screaming for impeachment if this had happened under Clinton?)