Barack Obama has never shown much of an appreciation for the separation of powers. At an event in Argentina, in March, the president said he found it “very frustrating … that power is distributed across a lot of different institutions.”
But suddenly he’s invoking the separation of powers to stop his national security aide from testifying to a congressional panel.
The New York Times magazine recently revealed that White House adviser Ben Rhodes bragged about creating an “echo chamber” among news media to confirm the administration’s bogus narrative in support of the Iran nuclear deal.
It contained many lies about what the deal contained and how it was negotiated. By manipulating journalists, the administration misled the public. It was deliberate, calculated and of course dangerous dishonesty.
As we’ve noted, this episode is an indictment of the media, which Obama has played like a well-tuned Stradivarius since before he became president. Reporters, pathetically grateful for access to high-ranking White House officials, and susceptible to flattery (Rhodes offered both in abundance) willingly parroted the administration’s talking points.
Rhodes and the White House are trying to limit the damage done by the Times’ story. Rhodes insists the White House wasn’t trying to “spin” the nuclear deal but simply “push out facts.” This Tuesday, he brushed off criticism, saying his behavior is just “what happens in Washington.”
Rep. Jason Chaffetz invited Rhodes to testify to his House Oversight Committee. But after initially suggesting he might appear, Rhodes declined. White House counsel Neil Eggleston sent a letter to Chaffetz claiming that Rhodes’ appearance would create “significant constitutional concerns rooted in the separation of powers.”
Citing executive privilege, Eggleston said an appearance by Rhodes would threaten “the independence and autonomy of the president.” This was strange, given White House spokesman Josh Earnest’s claim four days earlier that Rhodes’ refusal to appear had “nothing to do with executive privilege.”
It is telling that Rhodes felt free to brag to reporters about manipulating them on an important national security issue, but when Congress wants to talk to him about it, it suddenly becomes a matter of grave constitutional concern. As Chaffetz tweeted on Monday about Rhodes: “Talks to reporters and his ‘echo chamber’ but not Congress. Disappointing but typical.”
It’s clear that this administration embraces constitutional principles only until they become obstacles to its legislative priorities. When they do, Obama sees no problem bypassing that co-equal branch of government with a stroke of his pen. “If Congress won’t act, then I will” has been Obama’s refrain as he has implemented unconstitutional executive orders on everything from immigration to guns to healthcare.
All this from a former constitutional law professor who once promised to run “the most transparent administration in history.” The only thing transparent about it is the shamelessness with which it pursues its agenda.
