Question: Can Rove Be Protected By 'Executive Privilege' ???

[WillyT]

I know that this admin thinks it can walk on water, but under normal American circumstances, how far (which underlings are protected) does Executive Privilege go???

:shrug:

[solara]

1. Good question..I think it covers only 'elected' executive type officials

not appointees.. but I could be wrong....


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

4. No, I think you're right.

I remember during Watergate both Bob Haldeman and John Erlichman had to testify under oath to the Senate Watergate Committee. Of course, they were both arrogant asses, but then again aren't most Repukes....

[solara]

5. That's what I was remembering....

[originalpckelly]

2. Executive privilege is not in the US Constitution, nor is Congress's ability...

to subpoena people. This has always been a great trouble for the Congress, and the SCOTUS tries to stay out of the matter if at all possible, because it is thought to be a non-justiciable political question. Of course, it isn't.

We need to amend the US Constitution forbidding any "Executive Privilege" at all. The only thing a President or other executive official should be able to keep quiet about is their personal life. All matters about the President or his advisers, or any information about the performance of their duty should be made public. President's should not be able to keep secrets about the way they do their job.

On the other hand, we need to amend the US Constitution to give Congress the ability to subpoena any document or person performing a duty in the US government or a contract for the US government.

[flyingfysh]

3. what does the Constitution say about "Executive Privilege"?

Did anyone even mention the term before Nixon? He tried to use it to keep his crimes covered up.

[solara]

6. I just assumed "Executive Privilege" was valid because of national security

or some such thing.. heh.. I was not too swift back in those days.. :crazy:

[BlooInBloo]

7. Wikipedia is everyone's friend...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

[IChing]

9. I summarized the important points....thanks BlooInBloo

The Supreme Court did not reject that claim out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."

...The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Art.II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a genaralized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and graveley impair the role of the courts under Art. III" 418 U.S. 683, 707.

[IChing]

11. The point I see is that this is not a case involved with

military and diplomatic discussions.

sorry for the hasty summarized portion, I used my Mac to do that fast.

I think that he will use executive privilege but it really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in this case.

But the ruling was made long ago and he and his father appointed this Supreme Court.

Interesting point the OP brought up.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. Speaking of privilege... has Condi responded to any of the 11

requests for information yet? Can she be subpoenaed?

[robinlynne]

10. I think it covers exactly one person. the pres.

[kirby]

12. Exec Priv is separation of powers

The Constitution provides for separation of powers which protects one branch from prosecuting/intimidating another. Thus the big deal when the FBI raided Congressman William Jefferson office and seized his papers/computers - first time in history I believe. Exec Priv is separation of powers related to the Exec branch. Congressional Priv similarly prevents Congress persons from being arrested, subpoenaed, etc.

Bill Clinton refused to testify under subpoena. However a deal was made so that he could voluntarily testify. Nixon claimed Exec Priv but the Supreme Court said the right was not absolute if a crime occurred. My guess is that Congress cannot make Rove testify. Cutting funding of the White House priorities might be an option to compel some voluntary compliance. A lot of pressure can be applied when you are dealing with the majority party.

[BlooInBloo]

14. ROFLMAO! So many words - so many errors.

[kirby]

16. Enlighten us

My comments are consistent with Wikipedia you quoted. It would be more informative to point out any errors you perceive rather than the broad statement you made of 'so many words so many errors'.

[Justice Is Comin]

13. Rove, according to precedent will have

no claim to it or cover under it. If they want the fight, it will just be another blunder to piss off the American people even more.

The court only addressed it in matters relating to the president as the target. Rove, not only has no grounds to contest, the issue here has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence matters, foreign matters or foreign intelligence.

Therefore count on it, he will either do the smart thing and appear voluntarily, or he will appear under subpoena. Thats why Leahy is ready either way they want to go.

If he pleads the fifth---oh boy :popcorn:

[IChing]

15. I still think that they will try to use it to bide time

however the media, the people and even republicans will say it is wrong.

They have time to kill in the meantime, before a decision is made
and time is not the only thing they will kill.