Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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.
|
I am not sure what you want. The issue is not a new one. Each time the issue has come up the circumstances have been unique.
Quote:
|
In the case of the US attorneys, the issue was not the president's right to fire the attorneys.
|
Did the President terminate them? I thought it was done in the line of command. If the President had discussions on the topic or gave his o.k., that is his prerogative. The conditions of employment for the US Attorneys as I understand it, is "at will", meaning they can be terminated without cause.
Quote:
|
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.
|
There should not have been hearings on the issue. In hind-sight it is now clear Congress should have focused on more important issues.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Yes. Even though what happened to Plame was "big boy" politics at its worst, she engaged in the game and I consider her to be a sophisticated participant, not a victim. You don't just walk up to a grizzly bear and punch it in the nose and think you can walk away with no consequences.
Libby fell into a perjury trap, I would suggest Obama administration officials avoid the b.s. Libby was subjected to - plead the 5th, claim executive privilege or simply give vague responses, whatever to avoid the trap. All of your arguments used for the action against Libby, can easily and will most likely be used against Obama administration officials. I thought it wrong with Libby and will think it will be wrong if done in the future.
I would error on the side of protecting WH communication, period.
Quote:
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.
|
I believe in probable cause as opposed to blind fishing expeditions looking for criminal activity and I never support set ups or sting type operations - in a broader sense I find that to be an abuse of government power. Any citizen can fall victim to the power of the government under those circumstances. the government can always find something, I don't care who you are.
Quote:
|
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.
|
We disagree regarding Bush. I will maintain my same view on the subject in the future with Obama or others in the WH.
Quote:
|
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 number is not relevant, one can lead to a stand-off and a true test of the balance of power. And if it is one, I expect any sitting President to defend executive privilege. The integrity of the office, national security and other issues are at stake.
{added}
I am curious on you view of the Justice Dept. handling of the alleged Black Panther voter intimidation case? Should this matter be further investigated? Were political considerations involved in decisions made on how this matter would be handled? Was administration officials involved in any decisions? At what level? How would we know? Should administration people be put under oath?