# Bush orders ex-counsel to defy congressional subpoena **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438 "2007-07-12T00:15:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/21 "2007-07-13T02:18:49Z")
[QUOTE=Blalron] I’m wondering, just how can the President “direct” Harriet Miers on this matter when she’s no longer a White House employee? [/QUOTE] I don’t know about the mechanics of this specific instance, but stuff like this isn’t particularly unusual for the government. People are often subject to restrictions of various kinds upon leaving federal employment, which certainly means that they must accept direction from the executive branch. This is common both for holders of security clearances and people who might be unable to lobby their former agency for a period of some years. Other rules certainly may apply, but these are common ones. So yes, this can be done, at least in general terms. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/22 "2007-07-13T02:21:01Z")
[QUOTE=Blalron] Isn’t it rather astonishing that Bush claims Harriet Miers _doesn’t even have to show up_? As you’re probably aware, even if someone does have a legitimate claim (like pleading the Fifth), they still are bound to show up and claim it in response to specific questions. Doesn’t this strike you as the act of an _activist executive_ run amuck? Or is legal activism ok when its the Unitary Executive doing it? [/QUOTE] It could as easily be seen as an act of an activist Congress to subpoena her when privilege likely applies. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/23 "2007-07-13T02:23:48Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] It could as easily be seen as an act of an activist Congress to subpoena her when privilege likely applies. [/QUOTE] Congress is **supposed** to be activist, and there is no basis for EP here under _Nixon v. U.S._ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/24 "2007-07-13T02:32:08Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Congress is **supposed** to be activist, and there is no basis for EP here under _Nixon v. U.S._ [/QUOTE] You really believe that? Perhaps the new Roberts court will revisit this issue. How do you think they will rule? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/25 "2007-07-13T02:39:02Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Congress is **supposed** to be activist, and there is no basis for EP here under _Nixon v. U.S._ [/QUOTE] Everyone I’ve read on this subject that seems to know what they are talking about agree that the limits of executive privilege are not well defined. Sometimes it is the height of wisdom to admit that there are things out there that are unknown or undefined. This is one of those times. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/26 "2007-07-13T02:40:46Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Sometimes it is the height of wisdom to admit that there are things out there that are unknown or undefined. This is one of those times. [/QUOTE] It’s certainly not the choice the Bush Admin is making. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/27 "2007-07-13T02:42:24Z")
[QUOTE=John] You really believe that? Perhaps the new Roberts court will revisit this issue. How do you think they will rule? [/QUOTE] Wait to see how they rule on the nullification of the 22nd Amendment by signing statement, then we’ll have a better idea. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/28 "2007-07-13T03:01:50Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] It’s certainly not the choice the Bush Admin is making. [/QUOTE] Huh? The only way to know would be to take it to the SCOTUS. How would agreeing to Congress on this amount to acknowledging that we don’t know? It wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/29 "2007-07-13T03:07:03Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Huh? The only way to know would be to take it to the SCOTUS. How would agreeing to Congress on this amount to acknowledging that we don’t know? It wouldn’t. [/QUOTE] The Bush Admin is taking the position (apparently, insofar as Fielding will even **explain** their position) that **all** intra-WH communications are covered by EP, end of discussion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/30 "2007-07-13T03:11:15Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] The Bush Admin is taking the position (apparently, insofar as Fielding will even **explain** their position) that **all** intra-WH communications are covered by EP, end of discussion. [/QUOTE] Dude, it’s a negotiating position. When you go and buy a car, do you just accept the first price that the dealer names? As much as Bush likes to ignore laws, I have no doubt if the SCOTUS compels her to testify, they’ll do so. But on this single issue of HM, I’d do exactly the same thing Bush is doing, and I think most presidents (regardless of their party) would do the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/31 "2007-07-13T03:18:47Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] It’s certainly not the choice the Bush Admin is making. [/QUOTE] Not the choice the Clinton Administration made some years back either. I think we can assume that the executive will assert executive privilege as a general rule. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/32 "2007-07-13T03:24:01Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Not the choice the Clinton Administration made some years back either. I think we can assume that the executive will assert executive privilege as a general rule. [/QUOTE] Is it possible for you to reply to a political thread without using the “C” word as a catch-all diversion and/or excuse? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/33 "2007-07-13T03:25:49Z")
Certainly there is some plausibility to confidentiality for conversations between the President and his advisers. National security, and all that. I don’t want to know the contents of his intelligence briefings, I’d be pleased to be assured that he has them! But they are attempting to stretch this umbrella of protection to a circus tent adequate to the Shrine Circus, with the three rings, the elephants and the clowns. How can the confidentiality of executive privilege protect past conversations, with people who have no further official function? When we permit such pernicious expansion of power and protection, we set a pretty poor bar. Imagine what might happen if a scoundrel should become President? Or worse still, an ignoramus! A dire prospect. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/34 "2007-07-13T03:26:11Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Not the choice the Clinton Administration made some years back either. I think we can assume that the executive will assert executive privilege as a general rule. [/QUOTE] And he got a blow job. So Bush is okay if he wants a hummer from an aide as well. The tu quoque kabuki. You can count on it like fireworks on the fourth around here. They ought to make 'em do it on Dancing with the Stars. I’d very much like to see Julianne Hough do the tu quoque kabuki, especially if I were one of them. But nobody does it as well as our gang. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/35 "2007-07-13T03:39:11Z")
_choo, choo tu qooque kabuki! choo, choo tu quoque kabuki…_ Boodley acky sacky, want some seafood, Mamma! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/36 "2007-07-13T04:30:26Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] Is it possible for you to reply to a political thread without using the “C” word as a catch-all diversion and/or excuse? [/QUOTE] When we are discussing the legality and applicability of executive privilege, the fact that Bill Clinton, one of only 42 men to hold the presidency, invoked it some six times becomes quite relevant - especially as that term immediately preceded this one. So no, hardly a tu quoque. Just a reference to recent history. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/37 "2007-07-13T04:32:54Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] When we are discussing the legality and applicability of executive privilege, the fact that Bill Clinton, one of only 42 men to hold the presidency, invoked it some six times becomes quite relevant - especially as that term immediately preceded this one. So no, hardly a tu quoque. Just a reference to recent history. [/QUOTE] Six times? I only knew of [twice.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#Clinton_Administration) What are the others? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/38 "2007-07-13T04:37:46Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Six times? I only knew of [twice.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#Clinton_Administration) What are the others? [/QUOTE] And on the first try, it didn’t work at all. On the second try, he had to make due with a negotiated testimony. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/39 "2007-07-13T04:54:00Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] When we are discussing the legality and applicability of executive privilege, the fact that Bill Clinton, one of only 42 men to hold the presidency, invoked it some six times becomes quite relevant - especially as that term immediately preceded this one. So no, hardly a tu quoque. Just a reference to recent history. [/QUOTE] I agree. George freakin’ Washington claimed EP, so citing a recent President doing the same is absolutely germane to this discussion. **Czarcasm** : \*\*Moto \*\*is not saying, well it’s bad, but Clinton did it, too. That would be a _tu quoque_. He’s saying it’s unclear whether this is bad, especially since other presidents have done the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/40 "2007-07-13T05:08:51Z")
[Clinton invoked privilege](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/17/karl.faln/) after granting clemency to the Puerto Rican ultra-nationalists. [He invoked it](http://www.ndsn.org/nov96/execpriv.html) to avoid disclosing a drug policy memo. [He invoked it](http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/haitipot.htm) with regard to documents on the Haiti situation. He invoked it twice in the travel office investigation, and at least once in the Lewinsky matter. Actually my count of six might have been low. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438.md?page=3)