Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dc_dux · 10-20-2010, 11:00 AM

ace...you didnt address the issue of the different approaches to executive privilege by Bush and his predecessors...by attempting to apply it to any executive branch communications between any officials and not just the president.

In the case of the US attorneys, the issue was not the president's right to fire the attorneys. That was never in dispute. It was the manner in which it was done, including members of the administration potentially lying under oath (suggesting reasons for firing related to performance and willfully and falsely demeaning the reputation of the attorneys) during the hearings.

In the Plame case, you really think a communication between Rove and Libby, and not involving the president directly, should be covered by executive privilege? I dont and I dont think the courts would either, but the administration plan was not to test the limits, but to stall until they left office.

Both of the above involved potential criminal offenses and IMO, were legitimate areas of investigation and subpoena.

In any case, Bush's broad claims of executive privilege were excessive...at least in terms of all other recent presidents and I would hope Obama would be more in line with the Reagan/Clinton approach.

And I would hope the incoming Republican majority, if that is the case, is more in line with the Democrats issuing less than 25 (I said 50 earlier, that was wrong) subpoenas of Bush administration in two years than the previous Republican issuing nearly 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration in five years.

10-20-2010, 11:00 AM	#340 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...you didnt address the issue of the different approaches to executive privilege by Bush and his predecessors...by attempting to apply it to any executive branch communications between any officials and not just the president. In the case of the US attorneys, the issue was not the president's right to fire the attorneys. That was never in dispute. It was the manner in which it was done, including members of the administration potentially lying under oath (suggesting reasons for firing related to performance and willfully and falsely demeaning the reputation of the attorneys) during the hearings. In the Plame case, you really think a communication between Rove and Libby, and not involving the president directly, should be covered by executive privilege? I dont and I dont think the courts would either, but the administration plan was not to test the limits, but to stall until they left office. Both of the above involved potential criminal offenses and IMO, were legitimate areas of investigation and subpoena. In any case, Bush's broad claims of executive privilege were excessive...at least in terms of all other recent presidents and I would hope Obama would be more in line with the Reagan/Clinton approach. And I would hope the incoming Republican majority, if that is the case, is more in line with the Democrats issuing less than 25 (I said 50 earlier, that was wrong) subpoenas of Bush administration in two years than the previous Republican issuing nearly 1,000 subpoenas of the Clinton administration in five years. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-20-2010 at 11:20 AM..