Post #279,077
3/21/07 3:37:34 PM
|
Got Civics?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,079
3/21/07 3:43:18 PM
|
What does Honda have to do with this?
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
|
Post #279,082
3/21/07 3:59:23 PM
3/21/07 4:00:36 PM
|
As in school class that teaches you how gov't works.
Exec >Branch< - Exec Privilege
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
Edited by bepatient
March 21, 2007, 04:00:09 PM EDT
Edited by bepatient
March 21, 2007, 04:00:36 PM EDT
|
Post #279,085
3/21/07 4:07:37 PM
|
Aide to exec, about items never under discussion with exec
You had some point?
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
|
Post #279,086
3/21/07 4:13:29 PM
|
Its the branch, not simply the Pres.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,087
3/21/07 4:17:35 PM
|
Clinton would've been happy for your expert opinion
-----------------------------------------
Draft Clark [link|http://draftwesleyclark.com/|now].
|
Post #279,089
3/21/07 4:33:39 PM
|
She was...and it saved her.
She was spared a conviction because she was determined to be an agent of the state (part of exec branch) and thus spared a provision of the law that would have forced her healthcare meetings to be public.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,171
3/22/07 8:26:44 AM
|
Exec Privilege
Is not a constitutional right the president has. Since Jefferson, presidents have tried to placate congress but not test the limits of the privilege in court.
It certainly is arguable what advise and consent means to members of the white house administration appearing before congress.
Seamus
|
Post #279,173
3/22/07 8:31:11 AM
|
I know that.
But its also not something specific to the President, ie. the President doesn't have to be directly implicated in something for him to invoke try and invoke privilege.
And it is arguable, since nearly every example of a Pres trying to invoke privilege ends up with Congress getting what they want anyway.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,176
3/22/07 8:40:09 AM
|
Doesn't seem that way
It is not a right the president gets to assert, the judicial branch has final say on what is an executive privilege; privileges relating to specific roles the president has.
It is not a blank that covers anything and everything the administration does.
Ultimately, seems the courts will be deciding this.
Seamus
|
Post #279,183
3/22/07 9:31:00 AM
|
Courts are not likely to be involved unless...
a crime has occurred. So, until it is shown the White House may be involved in criminal activity, the courts will say "Work it out, boys!".
Alex
When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
|
Post #279,186
3/22/07 9:33:57 AM
|
Refusing to testify is a crime
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,185
3/22/07 9:33:10 AM
|
Thats why there are 3 branches
Court decides in disputes between the other 2. Every example of attempts to use privilege have ended up in Court...which is what they are saying about this one too.
Doesn't change the fact that direct involvement of Pres isn't necessary for him to invoke the attempt...its done to shield the administration. (regardless of the fact that it almost universally fails).
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,190
3/22/07 9:50:32 AM
|
That's not what Bush is claiming
From what I can see, in Bush's view the judicial branch doesn't have rights to adjudicate once he claims exec privilege.
Even Tony Snow thought it was an intriguing question how exec privilege covers the situation he described yesterday:
'"In the White House Press briefing that just concluded, press secretary Tony Snow said that he was not aware of the president being briefed on the US Attorney issue. He further said the president did not sign off on the firings."
CNN's Ed Henry hit the nail on the head: if no conversations occurred with the president, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield presidential advice?
Tony Snow's response: "That's an intriguing question."'
from: [link|http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070321/cm_huffpost/043954|http://news.yahoo.co...m_huffpost/043954]
"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration,'' the columnist wrote. "Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything.''
A column by Tony Snow quoted from: [link|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=white+house+executive+privilege+Snow&btnG=Google+Search|http://www.google.co...tnG=Google+Search]
Seamus
|
Post #279,192
3/22/07 9:53:30 AM
|
So?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,194
3/22/07 10:03:11 AM
|
So it gets back to the Q
If Bush was not involved in decision to fire AGs, how can Executive Privilege be invoked?
The bigger question is how can people outside the white house support him now? Either the white house is lying and he was involved or he wasn't and the people who support run the risk of looking like hypocrites, like Tony Snow.
Seamus
|
Post #279,195
3/22/07 10:06:16 AM
|
They are calling his direct staff.
Its not just the President...its the OFFICE of the President.
And there's no question of the risks involved in this tactic...the biggest one being the historical fact that it doesn't work anyway.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,197
3/22/07 10:11:14 AM
3/22/07 10:11:34 AM
|
So?
So what if it is his direct staff, what they want to question his direct staff about doesn't seem to fall under the category of exec privilege. Or are you now claiming that exec privilege covers his direct staff regardless of the topic? Which is way out there.
Unless I am mistaken, what can be claimed under exec privilege is the activities of the white house, not the staff.
Seamus
Edited by Seamus
March 22, 2007, 10:11:34 AM EDT
|
Post #279,200
3/22/07 10:14:43 AM
|
So Rove is not White House staff now?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #279,201
3/22/07 10:19:58 AM
|
You missed my point
that exec privilege covers activities not people. If the activity is covered by exec privilege, then they can claim they don't have to testify.
Even President Clinton didn't claim exec privilege exempted him from testifying, though he did negotiate the specifics of how he testified.
Seamus
|
Post #279,203
3/22/07 10:39:59 AM
|
a link
[link|http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/05/executive.privilege/|http://www.cnn.com/A...cutive.privilege/] In a setback for President Bill Clinton, a federal judge has ruled that White House aides may not claim executive privilege before the Whitewater grand jury looking into sex-and-perjury allegations against the president.
Unless the White House appeals and wins, the decision means White House aides Sidney Blumenthal and Bruce Lindsey will have to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions.
Lindsey is a lawyer and longtime friend of the president; Blumenthal was a sympathetic journalist before he joined the White House as a communications advisor. because Clinton lost this case he knew claiming executive privilege would not keep him from testifying. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #279,211
3/22/07 12:48:48 PM
|
That is the why he chose to negotiate
The point was that Bush's direct staff is not exempt for testifying if exec privilege doesn't apply, assuming there is evidence they are involved. If it does apply, then any testimony is voluntary regardless of their position on the white house org chart.
The fact that Rove was Bush's deputy chief staff at the time the emails were written is irrelevant.
Seamus
|
