didn't Clinton lose exec privilege??? doesn't this set precedent??

[bobbieinok]

not sure - asking for info

[Sparky McGruff]

1. That was the Fellatio Exception

It's in the constitution. Article 98, section 200: "The right of a President to remain free of interference from the Congress shall never be infringed, provided that He is a Republican, and there is no accusation of Fellatio"

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. During Clinton's term, a federal court determined that a sitting

president could be sued in a civil lawsuit. (They never have before.) So, as I've said before, civil courts have more power in this country than congressional hearings. At least that seems to be the obvious conclusion.

[philosophie_en_rose]

8. Could 9-11 families sue Bush?

Would that force discovery of certain classified information or at least push the Bushies to answer hard questions?

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. I don't know. But if it's possible, there's a lawsuit already in the works

So, someone must already be planning a subpoena -- one hopes.

I just don't know what kind of immunity he has since the negligence that was involved with 9/11 was directly related to his duty as President -- and is probably more civil than criminal. But, if we can get Bush under oath, it shouldn't take too long to get the man to perjure himself.

I think Cheney is the one that is most vulnerable if we can get to the bottom of those energy meetings. If he was out for personal gain, then we might have something solid to work with. I can understand why he is so loud about his opposition to Kerry. He can only hide behind executive privilege as long as he's an active vice-president.

[malachibk]

3. I saw on the news

that Bush is framing this as a "reassertion of the privilege" or some such crap like that. You know, Nixon and Clinton were forced to cede the e.p. so now his stand is to take it back from the Congress or whatever. very convenient

[AZCat]

5. Hasn't the Bush* Admin framed EVERYTHING as executive privilege?

I remember way back in August 2001 the WH attorney proclaiming that W's blocking of his pre-presidential papers, along with those of his daddy's, Clinton's, and those of the Reagan admin, was all OK because of executive privilege.

There seem to have been several times since then that they pulled out the same excuse.

Like tax cuts, do they have only one move in their playbook?

[pacifictiger]

4. not quite unfortunately

the difference is the "criminal" civil case filing in the court system against him. Quick, someone find civil wrongdoing to charge him with - too bad the statute of limitations has probably expired on Bush's activities with Harken.

[The Spirit of JFK]

6. LOTS of Precedents

In 1973, White House counsel John Dean testified at Congressional hearings. Not even lawer-client privilege kept him out of that one.

In 1974, Kissenger appeared before House Committe on intelligence while he as
serving as both Seretary of State AND National Security Advisor.

In 1980, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler and National Security Adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski appeared at hearings to investigate the role of Billy Carter, the
President’s brother, with regard to Libya.

In 1987, many executive officials in the Reagan administration (inlcuding WH
staff) testified before Congress regarding the Iran-Contra affair.

And in 1995-1996 White house officials appeared before House committees
regarding the White House Travel Office firings and Whitewater.

In 1974, the Supreme Court recognized "the valid need for protection of
communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist
them in the performance of their manifold duties." (US v Nixon, 1974), but
concluded that executive privilege is not absolute...that the privilege must
yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal
prosecution.

If there really IS such a right as Executive Privilege, it is obviously NOT absolute, and Constitutionally should ONLY apply to the President since the Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President. Any other officials (including the VP) should not be included.

So while Bush MAY have a case for himself (I repeat, MAY)...the others should not.

[pacifictiger]

10. again,

those instances all involved specific criminal wrongdoing, not general policy investigations over a broad period of time, at least that is how they are defending it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Kick

This is worth bookmarking.

[camero]

7. Funny

I thought executive privilege was just that. A privilege. Bush seems to act as if it were a right.

[BR_Parkway]

12. It doesn't even apply in this situation

ShrubCo impaneled this independent investigation, not Congress.

He is denying her testimony from himself (executive branch), not a seperate power (congress)

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Good point.

Kick