[shrug] The text of the statutes is in the link. Argue your interpretation.
Yes, given the paucity of case or statutory law on this issue, I am forced to agree.
My rebuke against the OP, Cartooniverse, is based precisely on that: the OP suggests that this issue is cut and dried, with no question that the actions here are illegal. The OP laments that “…Apparently the only Rule Of Law is that which eminates [sic] from Kennebunkport, Maine.”
Truth is, I agree with you in no small wise. I’m more comfortable with a scheme that lets the elected representatives in the Congress probe the minutiae in the White House than I am with a scheme that lets the White House shield itself. I’d rather have it for a Travelgate as well as for an Attorneygate.
But it’s by no means settled law, and the President’s position isn’t crazy.
Knowing what we know right now, if I were a judge, I’d rule that Miers must comply with the subpoena, and any specific claims of executive privilege must be made for specific questions, after they are asked.
Your groveling submission is noted with approval.
I’m getting a bit dizzy, over here. Can one actually overdose on smug?
Yet another thread in which I am very grateful for the input from John Mace, Bricker, and Mr. Moto. It is so easy for me to get swept up in outrage, and I don’t have the legal or political education to know if outrage is legitimate or if it’s just another extension of my fervent hatred for that man and his administration. (It’s gotten to the point where if he said his administration is going to proceed under the assumption that the sky is blue, I’d have 19 serious objections to the assumption and another 34 to the arrogance of proceeding without consulting folks who have been out beyond the atmosphere).
There are loads of places I could find people who would offer opinions of a more conservative and/or pro-Bush-administration perspective, but it’s the ones on the Straight Dope who I rely on to have based their perspective on established law and principle, and who will be ready with cites and expository paragraphs.
As one of the teeming liberal-radical horde-members, I don’t know as how I say often enough how much I value the SDMB “loyal opposition”. Keep fighting ignorance.
To the issue at hand, I am swayed that, viewed as a tactical and political maneuver, GWB is enacting a strategy that any admin of either party, if under seige, would be inclined to enact. And I agree that it is reasonable, politically and pragmatically speaking, for the Bush administration to regard itself as under seige. Although there’s a huge part of me that wants to shout out “You ain’t seen nothing yet and you deserve it and then some”.
I question (as I have often questioned w/regards to this administration) the extent to which they are tone-deaf as to how their behaviors are going to play out in the world of public (therefore political) relations. I don’t think there’s ever been an administration as maladroit at spin control as this one is. On both domestic and international theatres the Bush admin seems to excel in making their behaviors look heavy-handed, stupid, imperialistic, arrogant, and oblivious.
Could I see Bill Clinton utilizing such a tactic if the Republican Congress in the late 90s had been subpoenaing his counsel? Yes, point taken. But is there a difference? Yes, IMHO: The Clinton Administration had not at that time been painted (or painted itself) as having a massive tendency towards Imperial Presidency, and did not have a significant portion of the electorate (or Congress, Republican though it was) worried that the Executive Branch a la Clinton was contemptuous of checks and balances.
Bush and his administration should be quite aware that (again, in part as a consequence of truly abysmal public rel, i.e, they act that way and make no useful attempt to soften the image AFAICT) they ARE perceived as arrogant imperialistic unchecked and unbalanced “we can do as we damn well please” executive branch folks, Thus, the strategy, while not a major departure from things one would consider tangentially appropriate for executives in general, strikes me as bad politics, tone-deaf, stupid, and once again arrogant as hell.
I agree completely.
Sure. I’ll give you that. What’s more, the same charges were leveled at Bill Clinton when he invoked privilege - he was seen as arrogant by many.
Furthermore, when Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi (among many other representatives) both asserted that the FBI raid on Jefferson’s office was unprecedented and likely unconstitutional - it was a public relations disaster that backfired on Hastert in a major way.
Hastert had no interest in shielding Jefferson from anything, really, so his actions can be understood only as a zealous defense of legislative branch prerogatives. The same can be said about this action by Bush - it may look guilty as hell and play poorly in public, but if viewed through the lens of an executive branch protecting its traditional power, it makes perfect sense.
(This should also, at least in part, answer RTFirefly.)
Executive privilege is guarded zealously, which means two things. First of all, it will always be invoked whenever Congress or the courts intrude into the offices of the White House. Secondly, since the last thing any president wants is a court decision that might negate the privilege or restrict it into practical oblivion, the matter will usually be settled through negotiation before it gets that far.
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?
Other than as an “everybody does it” defense, glossing completely over any distinctions between one privilege claim and another, but rather treating them all as identical, I don’t see how. And that’s a one-size-fits-all rebuttal, so even that wouldn’t answer me in any particulars.
No, that’s not how it works. You made the claim; you back it up with a real cite, not “emailer” from “tpm.com”.
Niether that simple, nor that abstract. A defense of executive privilege in the abstract is all very sensible. Out of the abstract and into context, its a whole different kettle of piranha. What appears to have been afoot is an attempt to restructure the roster of USAs in an attempt to favor the Republican Party, even to the extent of using prosecutorial powers to affect elections. This is not a good thing. If it is not so, I would imagine they would be eager to have it known, eager to be vindicated, for once. It would be huge, it would be right up there with Dan Rather, they wouldn’t shut up about it ever!
But no. Whoever tries to conceal innocence? Now, I admit to a certain disaffection with the Bush admin, but I certainly don’t want to condemn them without the facts. I want to get the facts, and then condemn them.
You’ve pointed out that Clinton in fact claimed EP in a few instances (which you’ve been kind enough to enumerate) but lacking any discussion of the basis of the claim, and how it compares with current claims of EP.
So all you’ve got is that Clinton claimed EP too. That rebuts the claim that EP is solely a tool of Evil Republicans, but I think the debate has moved past that.
Let me help you out, here, Carol. You really want to stick it to him? Prove the cite is bogus. Prove that “e-mailer” is making shit up, and ol’ BG fell for it, that’ll frost his ass but good! Of course, if you can’t, if it turns out that “e-mailer” knows what he’s talking about then what you got there is a vapid technicality, worth about one half a butterfly fart.
But hey, you got it, bring it. Just be sure you got it. About all you’ve shown so far is an insinuation.
No, it’s up to BG to prove his cite is legitimate, not the other way around.
“emailer” is a cite? On the SDMB? in GD? Since when?
BTW, AHunter3, I meant to thank you for your kind compliment above.
Mr. Moto already provided the requested cite to statute in Post #46. Interestingly, he also actually took the time to read it and point out a potential flaw in the argument made by “emailer”. Unlike you.
It’s telling to me that you apparently can’t even be bothered to READ THE FUCKING THREAD before spouting your bullshit.
But I read an email that says otherwise!
My argument is equally strong as yours, by the way.
Please furnish a method whereby readers of this thread may judge that for themselves.
If you want to believe posters like BG who “cite” emails, for heaven’s sake, that’s your problem, not mine.
Dennis Hastert, like Colin Powell, got stuck with the shitty end of the stick. He should have had an opportunity to run as a national candidate. Yeah, sure, when called upon to do so, he echoed party and/or admin sentiment, and unfortuntely he was called upon in that manner in some situations that made him seem like a yes-man. Part of his job. Biut I always heard good things about him, and he was not (is not) a demagogue and in fact could reach across the aisle and would be a reasonable centrist politician for the Republican party to offer up. Tom DeLay he was not. There may be things I am not aware of that I should be aware of, but based on my limited field of knowledge, Dennis Hastert was one of the ones the Republican Party should have anointed as potential Prez candidate. He’d be doing well now against McCain and Romney.
(Yeah, I’d rather see it between Domenici and Snowe, whatever)