[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not one person in this thread who is frothing with indignation over Rove’s claims has explained why he or she believes them to be not legally valid. There’s nothing about being a private citizen that makes executive privilege inapplicable. The privilege exists because a President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many advisers, public or private, would be unwilling to express except privately.
That’s what the law says.
[/QUOTE]
You certainly have me at disadvantage, sir, as I am not an attorney. But I had a feeling you might show up, so I’ve a question for you:
Does executive privilege nullify the House of Representatives’ power of inherent contempt?
[QUOTE=muttrox]
I believe that Congress does actually have some odd police powers, and does have a sergeant at arms that can make arrests. Ur… where’s that darn article about this?
[/QUOTE]
The privilege belongs to the President. If the President calls you up, and wishes you to assist him in decision-making by discussing a private matter with you, wanting your candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions, then your discussion with him is protected by privilege and you may refuse to testify about it if he wishes.
This is not an absolute privilege, but it exists and it’s legal. See U.S. v. Nixon.
[/QUOTE]
Because only you care to make a case for the lying, cheating bastid, Bricker. Go ahead, make your case. Use the weasle words you love so much. Make the sideways rationalizations.
You are supposed to be a man of law. Now that the law has no meaning for those in power, I would think you’d be the first to condemn it. But I’d be wrong.
He is scoffing at the law and hiding behind the skirts of mincing lawyers like you. This administration has done everything it can to undermine the process. But go on and defend them if it gives you a stiffy.
Who gets to invoke executive privilege? Karl Rove and his lawyer? I don’t think so.
Has President Bush declared Rove is protected by executive privilege? A declaration by the President should be the bare minimum for such immunity.
Because I don’t think there’s any legal precedent for a private citizen to declare himself immune from being subpoenaed on the basis that he used to work in the White House.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not one person in this thread who is frothing with indignation over Rove’s claims has explained why he or she believes them to be not legally valid.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if Rove’s claim of executive privilege is valid or not. (For that matter, has he actually made that claim?) But I don’t believe that he should claim that privilege, decide that it is valid, and exercise it by utterly ignoring a congressional subpoena.
If he is confident in his claim of privilege, let him wave it for the country to see. Let him sit in front of the committee and decline to answer their questions. Let the mean old democrats be seen to be hounding this principled public servant. Let the privilege claim be debated and decided by a disinterested party with the authority to do so.
I’ve no doubt that the legal braintrust of this administration know enough delaying tactics to drag this out until they are old and gray (you know what I mean). Flat-out ignoring a congressional subpoena is the first of them, and I agree with this pitting on that basis.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Who gets to invoke executive privilege? Karl Rove and his lawyer? I don’t think so.
Has President Bush declared Rove is protected by executive privilege? A declaration by the President should be the bare minimum for such immunity.
Because I don’t think there’s any legal precedent for a private citizen to declare himself immune from being subpoenaed on the basis that he used to work in the White House.
[/QUOTE]
Very good points IMO. I would hope the Congress pushes this at least far enough for the Administration to have to take a firm public stance - and deal with whatever fallout adopting such a position would involve. But I am not about to hold my breath!
Also, tho I am far from an expert, I do not believe privilege is generally absolute, covering every conceivable act by an individual. So it would be necessary to learn precisely what he is being subpoenaed for, and the specific basis for the claim of privilege.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
then your discussion with him is protected by privilege and you may refuse to testify about it if he wishes.
[/QUOTE]
Does the privilege extend only to non-disclosure of privileged communications or does it extend to a right to refuse to appear before a tribunal that has issued a legal subpoena?
In other words, I would think that even if certain communications between the president and Rove are subject to executive privilege, Rove has no right to refuse to appear before Congress in the face of a subpoena. Prior to the Bush administration, my understanding was that his privilege extended only to the point that he is before Congress and they ask him a question that the president believes is covered by the privilege.
[QUOTE=Enfant Terrible]
You certainly have me at disadvantage, sir, as I am not an attorney. But I had a feeling you might show up, so I’ve a question for you:
Does executive privilege nullify the House of Representatives’ power of inherent contempt?
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, there’s very little case law on the issue.
My best estimate, however, is: no.
Relying primarily on a case called Jurney v. MacCracken from 1935, it seems safe to say that both houses of Congress have the power to punish, by imprisonment, contempt when an act is committed that obstructs the performance of the duties of the legislature. The punishment in such cases is limited to the duration of the session of Congress.
Now, such imprisonment is reviewable by the judiciary, via the habeas writ.
So the sequence of events would be: The House votes a resolution of contempt, the Sergeant-at-Arms arrests Rove, and Rove challenges his detention via habeas.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
We’ll have a decision by 2013, tops.
[/QUOTE]
They’ll be able to drag this out past November and then Bush will start printing up his blanket pardons.
[QUOTE=Oy!]
That was a terrible decision, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
Then perhaps your ire should be reserved for the majority of justices who voted that way, and not for Rove for availing himself of the law of the land?
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Because only you care to make a case for the lying, cheating bastid, Bricker. Go ahead, make your case. Use the weasle words you love so much. Make the sideways rationalizations.
You are supposed to be a man of law. Now that the law has no meaning for those in power, I would think you’d be the first to condemn it. But I’d be wrong.
He is scoffing at the law and hiding behind the skirts of mincing lawyers like you. This administration has done everything it can to undermine the process. But go on and defend them if it gives you a stiffy.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, all I’ve done here is talk about the law. It’s you who seem to be ignoring the law. US v. Nixon was not decided by the Bush administration, or by any justice appointed by George W. Bush. The law is that executive privilege exists. You’re the one screaming that we should be willing to ignore that law and condemn Rove.