# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/101 "2007-07-15T06:20:09Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] If you want to believe posters like **BG** who “cite” emails, for heaven’s sake, that’s your problem, not mine. [/QUOTE] ISTM that evidence of my having a “problem” would consist of my accepting **your** “cite” of an email, on the basis of your assertion that yours is of equal strength. “Believing” the poster suggests that I accept his post at face value, and don’t click on any links that he furnishes. In the case of **BG** ’s post, I did click on the link, and followed the link withn _that_ link, as I wanted to assure myself that the ellipses included by the anonymous contributor were not standing in for substantive verbiage that would tend to undercut the contributor’s conclusion that Bush’s order to Miers was a crime. I came away assured, FWIW. You, however merely put forth an assertion, and furnished no links. Hence my [del]request that you[/del] implied invitation for you to do so. I suppose it’s possible that no such email exists, and that you were attempting drollery. If that is the case, please accept my invitation to explicitly say so (as well as my commiseration on the always-frustrating occurrence of humor malfunction). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/102 "2007-07-15T07:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] But I read an email that says otherwise! My argument is equally strong as yours, by the way. [/QUOTE] How droll. Now make your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/103 "2007-07-15T13:23:46Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] But I read an email that says otherwise! My argument is equally strong as yours, by the way. [/QUOTE] You really think this? BG cited an emailed blog entry. That entry contained the text of a US Code and **linked** to the actual US Code Online so that the sceptical reader could see that that “emailer” was quoting accurately. You said “neener neener”. You think those two are equivalent. Wow. It would sure be nice if just once, you actually made an argument instead of threadshitting. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/104 "2007-07-15T14:50:13Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I said this above, but it bears repeating. When we are discussing the presidency, it is instructive at times to discuss how various presidents have actually done things. Now, Bill Clinton was president at one time, wasn’t he? [/QUOTE] That’s all there is to it, as far as you’re concerned, isn’t it? Yet you won’t discuss HOW his claims compare to Bush’s, will you? I think we all know why you won’t, and so do you. IOW, yes, all you have for us so far is the trite retort, repeated several times at that, of “Yeah, well, my guy is no worse than Clinton!”, just as I said. :dubious: ---
**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 15, 2007, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/105 "2007-07-15T18:22:29Z")
That certainly isn’t all there is to it. And if you wish to discuss how the claims are different, that is a conversation I would gladly join. I wouldn’t want it to be a one-sided one, though. So why don’t you give us your take on the use of executive privilege through history. ---
**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 15, 2007, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/106 "2007-07-15T18:39:25Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] That certainly isn’t all there is to it. And if you wish to discuss how the claims are different, that is a conversation I would gladly join. I wouldn’t want it to be a one-sided one, though. So why don’t you give us your take on the use of executive privilege through history. [/QUOTE] All of history, or just the part you seem to be concerned with all the time(the Clinton presidency)? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/107 "2007-07-15T21:22:34Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] That certainly isn’t all there is to it. And if you wish to discuss how the claims are different, that is a conversation I would gladly join. [/QUOTE] Great. Go right at it. Whaddaya got for us, chief? :dubious: I do so love the way “Well, our guy is no worse than Clinton” is now offered as a _defense_. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/108 "2007-07-15T21:39:10Z")
May I further suggest that we begin our historic survey of the uses (and/or abuses) of EP with the present day? I mean, we cannot truly appreciate the villainy of Clinton, _et. al._, unless we have the noble and spotless example of The Leader as a basis for comparison! Of course, it _appears_ as though EP is being used to thwart an investigation into activities designed to warp our political institution to favor the Republican Party. I rather strongly disapprove, as you probably know. But perhaps **Moto** can offer us a different interpretation? ---
**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 15, 2007, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/109 "2007-07-15T22:02:36Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] All of history, or just the part you seem to be concerned with all the time(the Clinton presidency)? [/QUOTE] Not fair. In this thread, I have discussed Washington, the Nixon case, and compared this case to the recent case concerning legislative privilege. There are folks in this thread with an unhealthy obsession with one particular president, but I’m innocent of that charge. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/110 "2007-07-15T22:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > There are folks in this thread with an unhealthy obsession with one particular president… Hey, I didn’t throw Reagan up to you one single time! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/111 "2007-07-15T22:48:29Z")
Well, gee, **Moto** , that’s who the thread’s about! Did you read the title and think it was about reviewing the imporance of Executive Privilege through history? Expecting a pointed debate about Millard Fillmore? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/112 "2007-07-15T22:58:54Z")
> [@](#): > > **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. I think someone mentioned the Oval Office tapes earlier. Nixon claimed EP for those and it was denied. Does anyone remember who testified before the Watergate Hearings? (I acknowlege that they were criminal hearings.) Halderman? Erlichman? Of course, John Dean did. Mitchell? Hunt? Colson? Liddy? Did they plead the Fifth? I was away from television during much of that I think. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/113 "2007-07-15T23:28:59Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Not fair. In this thread, I have discussed Washington, the Nixon case, and compared this case to the recent case concerning legislative privilege. [/quote] No. You haven’t **discussed** them. You have _mentioned_ that other Presidents have claimed EP. That’s the extent of your ‘discussion.’ I brought up one of Clinton’s EP claims, and showed how it was distinct from the present one. That wasn’t a whole lot, but at least I got that far. > [@](#): > > There are folks in this thread with an unhealthy obsession with one particular president, but I’m innocent of that charge. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/114 "2007-07-15T23:45:37Z")
**Zoe** , remember who that WH counsel in the Nixon administration _was_? Right. Fella name o’ Fred Fielding. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/115 "2007-07-15T23:52:30Z")
IANAL and FWIW but [this discussion](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/executive_3-24.html) from a PBS News Hour in 1998, during the Clinton EP issues, seems to explain the issues clearly enough that a non-lawyer not me can understand it. EP applies to matter of significant national policy and can be overridden if information is expected to be found that is relevant and that cannot be found in any other way. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2007, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/116 "2007-07-16T00:07:06Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] **Zoe** , remember who that WH counsel in the Nixon administration _was_? Right. Fella name o’ Fred Fielding. [/QUOTE] Tsk. They should’ve picked somebody with a better track record for invoking EP and making it stick. But it explains why Fielding refuses even to explain his reasoning this time around. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2007, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/117 "2007-07-16T00:29:53Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] How droll. Now make your argument. [/QUOTE] Provide a legitimate cite, and I will. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2007, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/118 "2007-07-16T00:35:49Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] Provide a legitimate cite, and I will. [/QUOTE] Post #96. (Cornell University School of Law not “legitimate” enough for ya?) ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2007, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/119 "2007-07-16T00:36:34Z")
[QUOTE=Zakalwe] BG cited an emailed blog entry. [/QUOTE] And there’s the problem, right there. I wouldn’t believe “an emailed blog entry” that the Sun rises in the East. Why on earth would you? ---
**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 16, 2007, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/120 "2007-07-16T00:37:26Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] IANAL and FWIW but [this discussion](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/executive_3-24.html) from a PBS News Hour in 1998, during the Clinton EP issues, seems to explain the issues clearly enough that a non-lawyer not me can understand it. EP applies to matter of significant national policy and can be overridden if information is expected to be found that is relevant and that cannot be found in any other way. [/QUOTE] Not quite. Certainly Clinton didn’t employ it in that way, as that article spelled out. Other presidents have only invoked it for matters of significant policy, but Clinton did not. Pardoning Puerto Rican separatists isn’t significant policy. Neither was the Espy case. Both of those cases, though, were efforts by President Clinton to shield certain prerogatives of the presidency from outside interference. Appointment of Cabinet officers is the president’s prerogative, subject only to the advice and concent of the Senate, and as such the vetting notes investigators wanted to see were properly off limits. I agree with this. Pardoning and commuting sentences is another absolute power of the president, and this one is checked by nothing - indeed, it was seen by the Founders as a check on the other two branches. Thus, executive privilege would apply there as well - congressional investigators had no right to see White House documents related to that pardon. Similarly, I don’t think Congress has an absolute right to know what the White House was thinking on this matter, since U.S. attorneys serve at the will of the president. Now, what the Justice Department thought on the subject is fair game, as I said above. The thing about legal principles is that they apply to everyone - even your political enemies. And while Clinton was wrong to use executive privilege to try to conceal private behavior, using it to protect internal deliberations about policy seems right and proper to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438.md?page=7)