You’ve likely heard by now about Obama adviser Ben Rhodes’ interview with the New York
Slimes Times, in which he boasted about his spin campaign to sell the Iran deal last summer to both lawmakers and the American people. In the NYT interview, published last week, Rhodes touted the “echo chamber” he created with young and inexperienced reporters to help propagate the White House’s narrative about the so-called deal.
In the wake of the revelations Rhodes himself boldly made in the interview, Republicans called for their own interview of Rhodes — in the form of a House Oversight Committee hearing today. Meanwhile, multiple senators have called for the White House to fire Rhodes.
Naturally, the Obama White House is not cooperating on either front. It’s not only standing by Rhodes, it’s shielding him — the guy who apparently was so forthright in sharing all the gory details of his propaganda strategy with the Obama administration’s friends at the New York Times — from having to similarly share with Congress.
And in what is such irony as almost to be a (tragic) joke, the administration is using the Constitution as its excuse — citing “constitutional concerns” as its basis for protecting Rhodes.Seriously, I’m (Michelle Jesse) not making this up.
As The Washington Examiner reported:
In a letter to Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, Neil Eggleston, counsel to President Obama, said it would raise “constitutional concerns” if Rhodes were to testify. He also said Congress has been consulted enough.“While the administration will continue to consult closely with Congress on this important matter, testimony by one of the most senior advisers to the president raises significant constitutional concerns rooted in the separation of powers,” he wrote.
“Specifically, the appearance of a senior presidential adviser before Congress threatens the independence and autonomy of the president, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel in the discharge of his constitutional duties,” he added.Wow — suddenly this administration is worrying about the Constitution and separation of powers???!
How convenient to fall back on the Constitution and separation of powers when it’s handy and turn around and shred it when necessary — which is most of the time with this administration — to further its ideological agenda.
Like the so-called Iran deal itself, which was intentionally executed as an executive agreement instead of a treaty (which would have required ratification by Congress) — a move even the most liberal of media suggest was a dangerous precedent for expanded executive power.
Makes. Me. Sick.
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]