Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So it's more interesting because someone else makes the "theory of the supreme & transcendental executive" claim and very different than executive privilege Mr. Clinton was using when he was not willing to acknowledge subpeonas from Whitewater to Ms. Lewinsky?
or can we not simply agree, that abuse of power is abuse of power, no matter the rationale or reason?
|
Clinton argued that lawyer-client confidentiality trumped the Whitewater subpoena. His argument was essentially personal privacy, not a theory of the executives overarching supremacy. In the Lewinsky affair he first said that he was busy and that Starr was biased (which was entirely true), but eventually he testified. You may or may not buy his initial justifications for dragging his feet, but he argued with particularities and contexts rather than with a theory of the executive. But enough about that idiotic affair -- the only good to have come of it was that it made Bob Barr into an even bigger joke.
I don't think all abuse of power is the same. It sucks for Monegan to have been caught in the middle of the Palin family feud, but taking the country into war under false pretenses is far worse.