Bush may have already waived Executive Privilege in matter of US attorneys

[pnwmom]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070321attorneys,1,6959752.story?coll=chi-news-hed

SNIP

And some legal experts say the White House -- in agreeing to let Rove and others be interviewed, albeit privately and without an oath or even a transcript -- effectively has conceded that their revelations would not compromise the president's right to confidentiality.

SNIP

Bruce Fein, who served as associate deputy attorney general in Reagan's Justice Department -- and also as research director for the Republican minority on the Iran-contra committee -- said Bush has effectively waived his assertion to any privilege by permitting Rove and others to speak with congressional committees, albeit privately.

"There is no established precedent that justifies the president's position," Fein said. "At best, they can say it's still open… I think he would lose in court, but he wins as a practical matter, because the court is not going to decide this for years."

It is the advantages held by each side that are leading many to predict a compromise rather than a showdown.

"It is the largest high-stake game of chicken that I have seen, and the stakes are enormous," said Ray Shepherd, former staff director for the Senate subcommittee on investigations. Neither the White House nor Congress wants a new court ruling on executive privilege, he suggested, because it could turn sharply against one side or the other.

[Raven]

1. I'm not so sure of that....the President

put a lot of other "conditions" on their testimony so who knows. But it's a good argument to have in the arsenal!

[LiberalFighter]

2. Why does he need to claim executive privilege?

Bush claims that he didn't have anything to do with the firing of the attorneys. If he didn't have anything to do with the firings then that means there weren't any deliberations between him and anyone else. And did not receive any candid and confidential advice from his staff.

Executive privilege usually applies to White House deliberations, on the theory that the president needs candid and confidential advice from his staff. The Supreme Court acknowledged that need as early as 1803, in Marbury v. Madison. But the privilege also protects national security matters, especially when they involve military and foreign affairs, and has the very practical effect of allowing the administration to keep things like the names of spies and informers and the progress of delicate negotiations secret.

Yet he thru a subordinate notified those in the Dept of Justice subject to the pleasure of the President that he was not requesting their resignations after the 2004 election.

[Bitwit1234]

3. It did not take years for the courts to rule against Clinton

he had 31 aides that the court ruled against and they had to testify under oath. I have the list in front of me.

One was Sandy Berger NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
and remember bush wouldn't let rice testify under oath and the republican majority congress did not make her.

[napi21]

4. Johanathan Turley said the same thing on Dobbs tonight.

I may not always agree with the political positions of Turley & Fine, but I trust both of them on their assessment of Constitutional Law. These guys KNOW what they're doing!

[robinlynne]

5. why not subpoena only the emails between rove and myers, and between WH

and DOJ? If you eliminate the emails between Rove and Bush, no more executive privilege problem. Then after you get that information, upon finding info which incriminates Bush you have a justified reason to deny exec privilege!

[pnwmom]

6. And Miers is probably not protected by any Executive Privilege claim

because she no longer works for the President.

[robinlynne]

7. exactly. If you take the pres out of the equation, and get everyone elses emails

then you have respected executive privilege, right? and you still get a hell of a lot of information.