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).
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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
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.
IANAL and FWIW but this discussion 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.
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.
