Wednesday’s "Good Morning America" continued its hyperbolic, Democratic-friendly coverage of the scandal revolving around the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys and President Bush’s announcement that White House officials such as Karl Rove would not be testifying under oath on the subject.
An ABC graphic described the disagreement between the White House and Congress as a "constitutional showdown." Co-host Diane Sawyer asserted that Bush was "double-daring the Democrats in Congress," while fellow host Robin Roberts wondered if the White House could even survive more revelations.
The first report, which aired at 7:02am on March 21, featured ABC reporter Jessica Yellin derisively using the "decider" nickname to describe President Bush:
7am tease:
ABC Graphic: "Constitutional Showdown"
Diane Sawyer: "This morning: showdown. President Bush throws a gauntlet to the Democrats in Congress, refusing to let Karl Rove testify under oath about the firing of the federal prosecutors. Is the next stop the Supreme Court?"
7:02
Diane Sawyer: "But first, let us turn to that lead story which is the showdown in Washington. The President double-daring the Democrats in Congress and it’s over the question, the big votes today in the House and Senate on subpoenas for White House officials like Karl Rove to testify under oath. The President defiantly says no testimony under oath and White House correspondent Jessica Yellin has a ringside seat for this particular clash. Jessica."
ABC Graphic: "Bush Defiant on Attorney Firings: Dems Want Rove Testimony Under Oath"
Jessica Yellin: "Good morning, Diane. The issue today, can White House officials be forced to testify before Congress? President Bush is digging his heels in and he's ready for a fight. To Democrats who want to put Karl Rove under oath and before the cameras, he says it's not gonna happen. The man who calls himself the decider sounded defiant."
President Bush: "I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials."
Yellin: "Instead, he said Karl Rove and other White House officials will be available to answer Congress' questions about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, but only if they're questioned behind closed doors and not under oath."
Bush: "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials."
Yellin: "That's just not good enough for congressional Democrats."
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): "We are disappointed. And I think, I think that may be an understatement."
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): "No transcript? No oath? No public testimony? What are we hiding?
Bush: "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."
Yellin: "In what he called an extraordinary move, Mr. Bush promised to turn over many White House e-mails related to the U.S. Attorney firings. And appearing as angry as he had in a long time, he insisted he's standing by the Attorney General and maintained no one broke the law."
Bush: "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper."
Yellin: "But the Democrats don't want to take the President's word for that. They want to subpoena Karl Rove and others. And the House plans to vote on that today. Robin?"
In the second report, "This Week" host, and former Clinton administration official, George Stephanopoulos appeared to discuss the issue. Just last week, Stephanopoulos predicted that Gonzales would soon resign. On Wednesday however, it was GMA anchor Robin Roberts who forecasted doom. She wondered if the White House could even survive more "firestorms":
Robin Roberts: "All right, Jessica. And we go straight to ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos for more on this. And George, we heard in Jessica’s piece that of course the President is going to allow Karl Rove to be interviewed by congressional investigators but Democrats want much more than this then we saw in Jessica’s piece. Why is that?"
George Stephanopoulos: "Well, they say, if, if Karl Rove and other White House officials are prepared to tell the truth, what's the matter with taking an oath? And, of course, there’s also some politics involved here, Robin They do want that public testimony. So, they're going to push today, as Jessica said, the first votes on the subpoenas will happen in the House today. They're likely to happen in the Senate tomorrow, which could set up a confrontation that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. It can also set up, though, a compromise, Robin. I think you see, between the lines, the possibility of one where there is private testimony by Karl Rove and others but a transcript is taken and it is under oath."
Roberts: "Of course, a lot of pressure on the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. And the President has come out defending him. Is that enough to keep his job?"
Stephanopoulos: "For now. It's going to buy the Attorney General some time, enough time, perhaps, to get to the hearings and try to explain himself. But, Robin, he still has precious little support on Capitol Hill. You do not have any Republican Senators, any Republican members of Congress, willing to come out and support him right now. They're going to wait and see how he does in these hearings. They're also going to try to protect Karl Rove for at least a time. Their fear is that, at least in the White House, is that, if that if they go to, if they get rid of Attorney General Gonzales too quickly, Democrats are going to smell blood and go straight at the White House."
Roberts: "Quickly, George. How many firestorms like this can this White House survive?"
Stephanopoulos: "That is the question. You've had the Scooter Libby trial. You’ve had the Walter Reed scandal. What the President was trying to do yesterday is show that he’s willing to fight, because if he doesn’t, he’s afraid the Democrats are going to going to come up with a one a week."
Very few people would argue that the events over the last few weeks have been positive for the White House, but "Good Morning America" has certainly been a willing participant in providing Democratic spin on unfolding events.
In contrast, when A Democrat was in the White House, ABC News didn't find congressional investigations quite so compelling. This is how, in April of 1997, then "World News Tonight" anchor Peter Jennings described a GOP Congress looking at Democratic improprieties:
Peter Jennings: "When we come back, two investigations of fundraising abuse, two of them on Capitol Hill. Is it a waste of time and money?"
John Cochran: "....But they don't want to get together. The easy-going Thompson, who may have presidential aspirations, says it's important to be as tough on Republicans as Democrats....But Dan Burton is a hard-charging partisan and has resisted investigating anyone but Democrats....So although Congress complains a lot about too much duplication in government, we'll be seeing double when the House and Senate begin months of dueling hearings into campaign fundraising."
-- ABC's April 10, 1997 World News Tonight.
In July of that same year, ABC reporter Linda Douglass covered an investigation into illegal contributions to Democrats by wondering if the American public is "paying attention to any of this":
"...Democrats gripe that the hearings are too partisan, so next week the committee will focus on foreign contributions to Republicans, all the while wondering if the public is paying attention to any of this. Linda Douglass, ABC News, on Capitol Hill." -- End of July 18, 1997 World News Tonight story.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
From the Democrat Party
March 21, 2007 - 12:41 ET by allanfThe coverage might as well have been written by the Democrat Party. Let's see there is Chris Cuomo, son of Mario Cuomo, former Clinton aide George Stephanopolis and Diane (all Dictartor Tour) Sawyer. They are not an easy group to watch.
This childish taunt from Sawyer: "double-daring the Democrats in Congress"
Perhaps the Bush Administration does not want its people to be the victims of a partisan witch hunt led by Senators with questionable ethics.
Are there still any bias-deni
March 21, 2007 - 13:03 ET by mattmAre there still any bias-deniers out there?
Once again, the media let's t
March 21, 2007 - 13:21 ET by GalvanicOnce again, the media let's the DNC lead them through the story instead of doing their own work.
FACTS:
1. The US Attorneys are appointed by the President, and serve at the President's descretion.
2. The US Attorneys answer to the Attorney General, who in turn, answers to the President.
3. The Attorney General asked for resignations of seven (8?) US Attorneys. They were fired.
4. White House advisers cannot fire US Attorneys.
If the Congress wants answers to their queries into the firings, there are only two people they need talk to: the Attorney General who fired them, and (if they wish), the President to confirm that the firings were authorized. No need to talk to Rove, Miers, or White House dogs Barney & Miss Beasley; talk to the people who are accountable.
When Karl Rove comes into c
March 21, 2007 - 13:41 ET by radiofitz34When Karl Rove comes into congress for questioning, he should say about as much as Barney would say, except he probably shouldn't bark. It might look bad.
Amen Galvanic
March 21, 2007 - 19:16 ET by vman92This whole sorry episode springs from the Legislature's belief, and their sad attempt to fool the gullible American populace, that there has never been conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. That somehow GWB is at odds with history. It is sad to say that many in our media, and the population at large, don't in fact understand that this country was built by people who were in and of themselves at odds with each other as to how much power each branch should have. To claim ignorance of the truth of the powers granted to each branch of our governement; is to show ignorance of history.
Senator Schumer complains tha
March 21, 2007 - 14:56 ET by KC MulvilleSenator Schumer complains that the executive branch must agree to testify under oath, in public because, after all, what do they have to hide? No one in the media challenges that. So let’s challenge that ourselves.
This is the essence of executive privilege. They prosecuted Scooter Libby because he gave conflicting testimony, not about the content of what he said, but in his recollection to authorities of when and to whom he said it. But now, in this case, everyone acknowledges that no crime was committed. The senators won't grill the advisors about a crime, or any advice that had anything to do with anything illegal.
For any fair-minded person, now, put yourself in the position of a presidential advisor. You can now expect to be prosecuted for anything you say, whether it has anything to do with a crime or not. A prosecutor only needs to show that you fail to remember everything you say. If you’re an advisor, what do you do? You listen to your lawyer, and never say anything to anyone.
Without his advisor’s advice, a president has to make decisions entirely by the seat of his own pants. And to the Democrats, if this president is as dim as you think he is, don't you want someone to buffer us from his excesses? Executive privilege, as any thinking person can see, is a worthwhile value to preserve.
The senators want the testimony in public and under oath. The president has offered to have his advisors talk to congress. The penalty for lying, in both scenarios, is exactly the same, but at least the president’s scenario preserves some shred of executive privilege. The president made a fair offer, one that accommodates the senate’s curiosity while preserving executive privilege. That’s why we need to throw Schumer’s disingenuous “what do they have to hide?” comment back in his face.
At this point the president s
March 21, 2007 - 15:03 ET by Clear thinkerAt this point the president should shut down all inquiries and tell Shumer and his fellow Dems to shut up and go back to work!
End of story.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
President Bush throws a g
March 21, 2007 - 17:19 ET by motherbeltPresident Bush throws a gauntlet to the Democrats in Congress, refusing to let Karl Rove testify under oath about the firing of the federal prosecutors.
and
"Bush is double-daring the Democrats in Congress"
versus:
Democrats threw down a gauntlet to the White House today, demanding that Karl Rove testify in front of Congress, under oath........double-daring the White House to refuse.....
Kind of a different tone, huh?
In point of fact, the Democrats are the one "throwing down the gauntlet", since they are the ones making the challenge; they are acting like they have a right to subpoena White House aides, just because they want to. President Bush is saying no, we are not cooperating with a fishing expedition.