btw… i googled “wanda sykes, ‘first lady’”… here’s the video:

A Black Guy, A Sista and A White Dude…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9zf9aKNcsw

very funny…

The Court’s language regarding the “need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets” applies only to the invocation of executive privilege in the context of a criminal trial.

What the court was saying there is that Nixon could not invoke executive privilege to ignore the district court-issued subpoena in a criminal case “absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets.”

The current controversy does not involve a criminal prosecution or a court issued subpoena. It involves the possibility of a congressional subpoena in a non-criminal trial setting. Thus, to invoke executive privilege here, the Bush administration does not have to make a claim that military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets would be endangered if the congressional subpoena were honored.

These are critical differences. The court’s ruling in U.S. v. Nixon is narrowly written to apply only to court-issued subpoenas in a criminal trial.

“We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

In other words, the generalized assertion of privilege may indeed suffice to withstand a subpoena issued by Congress in a non-criminal trial setting.

Comment by katy #170

WOW…

…NO mo’…

The key part of the ruling against Nixon’s claim of executive privilige in the Watergate Scandle is ”

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets

Now tell me are the firings military? No
Diplomatic? Nothing diplomatic about the handling for sure.
Sensitive national security secret? No

Even if Bush lied and talked about it with Rove or Meyers, it still does not meet the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court for a claim of Executive Privilige.

Please cite any court ruling in your rebuttal for verification.

boy, that’s one i’d like to have a heartoheart with…

am i alone to think she was used, even a plant?… silly girl…
but she so seduced that dummy…
i’ve dated his kind… he just couldn’t turn it down… dummy…
…

#142,

Wayne, I will address U.S. v. Nixon. For the record, I do think administration officials should testify publicly before Congress in this matter.

Now, having said that, U.S. v. Nixon is not exactly on point or entirely analogous to the current situation. That decision did not state that Executive Privilege is not a valid doctrine. In fact, quite the opposite. The Court said, presidential communications have the “presumption of privlilege” and that “The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.”

Nor did the decision address the issue of executive officials being required to testify before Congress. The dispute in U.S. v. Nixon was not between the president and Congress. It was between two parties that were officers of the Executive Branch — the special prosecutor and the president.

The case does not touch upon the denial of information to Congress.

What the Court did decide in U.S. v. Nixon is that while executive privilege does exist, the privilege is not absolute and can give way to the “fair administration of criminal justice.” The Court said, “The allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts.”

The Court concluded “that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

In short, the Supreme Court found that the executive privilege is a vald doctrine, rooted in the Constitution, but that it does not protect the president from turning over evidence that is the topic of a subpoena sought by a prosecutor and issued by a district court for use in a criminal trial.

The facts surrounding the controversy ultimately resolved in U.S. v. Nixon are very different from the current controversy.

Comment by Exley — March 21, 2007 @ 12:54

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/22/lewinsky.scandal/

POWER TO THE SUBPOENA!

Shoot any Sherrifs on sight trying to deliver subpoenas…

Go Congress!!

You mean like Bush’s speech yesterday? You CONS have always been the “petulant and petty” party.

People don’t care how “secretive” the Bush adminnistration is. It’s a non-issue. Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 21, 2007 @ 1:19 pm

For you, but not for the *majority* of americans. And by *people*, you mean your religious zealous friends? They don’t count – you’re the minority. As was shown in 2006.

Catch a clue – moron.

This morning Tony snow flake again on the new’s and I wonder…..How weird is this yet again, bush and company trying to make the world play by their rules, not the rule of law…I find this entire thing bizzar..No swearing in, no note’s, no cameras…..LOL…We will give you what we want you to have and our term’s only….Confadentialety of the president.???? You don’t like the question just don’t answer…..”We have made an extremely generious offer.” WTF is that about.? If you have nothing to hide why all the fuss, just go and answer the question’s under oath….More lies and hiding will never take this away..Lot’s of speel and their using stone walling again with the press…If this keep’s up the republicans can pack their bags and go away forever, the public looking on..Blessings all

Too bad [Snow's] not under oath.

There’s an idea…make Snow-job swear in before every press conference. ^_^

Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 21, 2007 @ 11:32 am

And they’re going to cry all the way to the White House.

Comment by shane

They will get crushed in 2008 if they insist on being the “petulant and petty” party.

People don’t care how “secretive” the Bush adminnistration is. It’s a non-issue.

That was LIBBY, the ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT (and Cheney’s CHIEF OF STAFF) who is now a CONVICTED FELON.

Karl Rove needs his face SMASHED by a group of soldiers PERMANENTLY WOUNDED and MAIMED for Bush’s Iraq/WMD

LIES.

Then sent to Iraq to be LIBERATED!!!

SHWEET!!!