Thats why there are 3 branches

Post #279,185 by bepatient 3/22/07 9:33:10 AM Reply	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 by Seamus 3/22/07 9:50:32 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 3/22/07 9:53:30 AM Reply	So? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #279,194 by Seamus 3/22/07 10:03:11 AM Reply	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 by bepatient 3/22/07 10:06:16 AM Reply	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 by Seamus 3/22/07 10:11:14 AM 3/22/07 10:11:34 AM Reply	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 Expand All History
Post #279,200 by bepatient 3/22/07 10:14:43 AM Reply	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 by Seamus 3/22/07 10:19:58 AM Reply	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 by boxley 3/22/07 10:39:59 AM Reply	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 by Seamus 3/22/07 12:48:48 PM Reply	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

Welcome to IWETHEY!