During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the U.S. attorney scandal today, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the committee, asked former White House political director Sara Taylor, “did you speak with President Bush about replacing U.S. attorneys?” “I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys,” Taylor responded.
Taylor also acknowledged that she “did not attend any meetings with the “President where that matter was discussed” and that she was “not aware of a presidential decision document” in which the president decided to proceed with the firing plan.
In his closing comments, Leahy noted Taylor’s admission that she did not discuss the U.S. attorney firing plan with the President, saying it “seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved.” “And that really shows, again, that the White House counsel’s broad instruction is not only unprecedented, but it’s unsound,” added Leahy. Watch it:
Leahy then mused on the White House’s possible motivations for asserting such a broad interpretation of executive privilege:
So I ask again, what is the White House so intent on hiding? If the president didn’t make these decisions, well then who did and why did they? Was it Mr. Rove or was it, as some of us feel, to corrupt law enforcement for partisan advantage, which would bother me far more than political machinations if it’s corrupting law enforcement?
So we’ll continue our efforts. We’ll keep trying.
(HT: TP commenter Marcus Aurelius)
Transcript:
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT):Now, since the 2004 election, did you speak with President Bush about replacing U.S. attorneys?TAYLOR: I’m trying — again, I’m trying to…
LEAHY: I know what you’re trying to do, but you…
TAYLOR: Well, no, and I appreciate your patience, but I’m trying to make a determination on deliberations versus what is a fact-based question.
And so, I guess you asked me a fact-based question. I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys.
LEAHY: Did you attend any meeting with the president since the 2004 election in which the removal and replacement of U.S. attorneys was discussed?
TAYLOR: I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed.
LEAHY: Are you aware of any presidential decision document since the 2004 election in which President Bush decided to proceed with a replacement plan for U.S. attorneys?
TAYLOR: I am not aware of a presidential decision document.
[...]
LEAHY (D-VT): I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and to the best of your knowledge he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved.
And, of course, the president has made those statements publicly. He said that these were decisions he did not make. Actually other senior officials at the Justice Department said that under oath. Your testimony today under oath bolsters that impression. And that really shows, again, that the White House counsel’s broad instruction is not only unprecedented, but it’s unsound.
I say that because if it is unsound, if it is unprecedented, as I’ve said, it does not protect you from a contempt citation. This broad invocation of the notion of executive privilege to obstruct Congress from learning the truth leads one to believe it’s part of a cover-up.
So I ask again, what is the White House so intent on hiding? If the president didn’t make these decisions, well then who did and why did they? Was it Mr. Rove or was it, as some of us feel, to corrupt law enforcement for partisan advantage, which would bother me far more than political machinations if it’s corrupting law enforcement?
So we’ll continue our efforts. We’ll keep trying.
Thank you, Mr. Eggleston, for being here. And I guess other attorneys from your office are here, Mr. Eggleston. Am I correct?
EGGLESTON: Yes, sir.
LEAHY: And we stand in recess.
You go get em Sir. And get em good!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:23 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
July 11th, 2007 at 5:25 pmAnother, rather important question would be; is Sara Taylor lying when she says she didn’t discuss the matter with Bush? Does she think Bush claiming executive privilege and including her in that claim allows her to lie to Congress?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThis is no witch hunt, unless you despise the USA and want to see it destroyed from the inside. This is a serious matter to weed out the crooks and to clean our political system up.
I noticed that the liberal web sites are under troll attack from those who want to see our country destroyed. Ignore these trolls and they will sit in their third world countries and pout that their tactics did no good.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pmHmm, now what was it that the reich-wingers used to say? “If you have nothing to hide then you shouldn’t be afraid to testify.”
July 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pmNew and Improved RoboTroll 3200 Reports:
What a witch-hunt!
No underlying crime!
Pleasure of the Presidentâ„¢!
Clinton Did It Tooâ„¢!
14% approval of Democratâ„¢ congress!
Rwanada!
Look over there! Something shiny!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pmUndercuts? I think the word Eliminates could be used here.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThis is a serious matter to weed out the crooks and to clean our political system up.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHaha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooks”. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
Since when did criminality have a political affiliation? If a person is a crook, then it doesn’t matter to what party they belong to.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pm#2 if the Republicans had complied with their oversight responsibility when they were in power then maybe the administrations evildoers wouldn’t have to appeared in front of congress now.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:33 pmExamples, please.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pmHaha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooksâ€. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
So you admit that they are commiting crimes then? It doesn’t matter who got away with what years ago, if they commited crimes, then they need to face justice.
And the crimes form this administration outdo all of the others put combined.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pmAt lease someone in Washington is a lawyer who is educated in law. It was sweet the way he called out Bush. Now Miers knew she would be destroyed and her reputation of not lying would be over. So rather then lie under oath just take that 5th Amendment aka Executive Privilege way out. Now at lease the Supreme Court will have some work to do when they come back. Alito and Roberts will have to make history by giving the famous 5-4 vote for what ever the White House tells them. To bad Nixon didn’t have these crooks if he did we would have never seen a criminal President impeached. Crimes does pay in the United States if your a Republican even sin works well.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pm“Haha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooksâ€. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:31 pm”
Except that this president makes Nixon and the Mafia look like childs play…..
This is the MOST CORRUPT administration in our 231 year existence…..
It’s just sad that YOU support criminals…… I don’t know why you don’t love America or the Constitution, but you are a person that does not deserve the freedoms that I and many Vets served and died for to provide to you.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:36 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Well if you had been watching, Specter was wondering where all his colleagues were. Leahy pointed out that everyone was informed of the date and time and that their seats were waiting for them.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:36 pm#11: Pick up a history book. The usual stuff: bribery, murder, war, backstabbing,… you name it. And yeah, even Clinton admin did it.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pmLeahy is a canny old lawyer – he laid the perfect trap, baited it, and here come Ms. Taylor, thinking she is protected, thinking she’ll show up and snow the Senate and she walked right into it. And it’s so simple – if the president wasn’t there, then there is no privilege – and you can be held in contemp for refusing to talk. The look on her face when she realizes what’s happened is priceless.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pmYou could see a twitch in her brow right when he makes the point that if the pres wasn’t involved, exec priv won’t apply.
Or maybe she’s thinking of that killer all-night coke party she just left a couple hours ago.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pm#15: Yeah. That was a nice show. The truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend. An exemplary piece of dirty politics.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:38 pmI love the way he set her up on that. then sent her off thinking about contempt of Congress charges to come. “and you have a nice day”
July 11th, 2007 at 5:38 pm#17: Nah. I doubt her lawyer missed that trap.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pmNo-one in particular has an opinion:
Haha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooksâ€. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
So, jumbo-dumbo, why do you complain about this being a “witchhunt” if this is “business as usual”? I would surmise that this would be a perfectly normal, business-as-usual investigation, then?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:40 pmPLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:40 pm#22: Whatever happens in DC should stay in DC.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThe look on her face when she realizes what’s happened is priceless.
Comment by Powkat
can’t wait to see chimpy’s mug when they slap the cuffs on him.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pmThe truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend.
Oh, man! Those Republicans are out for lunch or at prayer. QUICK, let’s have hearing. That’s wily.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pmLeahey needs to tighten up his game and stop with the fancy conclusions.
He’s right, if Taylor didn’t speak with the President or attend any meetings then she has no claim to executive privilege, but the fact is Executive Privilege CANNOT be invoked in a domestic matter not associated with national security anyway, so the case is moot.
The US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.
It CANNOT, under ANY circumstances be used just to conceal private White House conversations.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:42 pmWilly – Not just cuffs, shackles – and an orange jumpsuit and flip-flops.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:43 pm“What a witch-hunt.”
So what, pray tell, makes this a witch-hunt. If Bush has done nothing wrong, why does he feel it necessary to try to declare Executive Privilege (meaning it covers conversations between a staffer and the President), when the testimony that Congress is seeking is about conversations between Ms. Taylor and Ms. Meiers, or with people in the DOJ.
Remember how all you Rethugs told us about the Patriot Act, “if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Well, the same thing applies to the President. If he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding it all?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pmBush must have fired them, because, we are repeatedly told, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, not at the pleasure of the President’s aides.
The President is the only one who can remove them, no?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pmLeahy may not move as quickly as some of us wouldlike, but he is deliberate in his actions and words. He nailed it today when he notes that Taylor’s testimony explicitly places Bush out of the discussions — at least, those of which she was a part — ipso facto, no executive privilage applies.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:46 pmThat bolsters my thinking on why Meirs is not being allowed to testify at all – because Leahy will trap her in her own words whatever she may say and they won’t risk that.
Katie: Are you saying that the President should be treated like any other citizen? I think not.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:46 pm#11 Examples, please.
Oh, you know, Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra. The usual crony-conservative criminality.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pmTheres no witch hunt here. Well respected US Prosecutors have testified that they were fired for political cause, and several cited certain cases that they felt were being squashed by their removal.
The government has a duty to investigate such claims.
The tried to, and Bush invoked Executive Privilege, something he cannot do here.
The isn’t a witch hunt. Its a pig roast.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pmThe crook seems to be the president himself. The worst administration in history!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:48 pm“The truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend.” Comment by A No-one without a Brain — July 11, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Nice try, moron. There’s no such thing as “a time that the Repukes couldn’t attend.” They simply chose NOT to attend, because all of them besides Specter decided that whatever else they CHOSE to do at that time was more important than carrying out their Senatorial duties as members of the committee.
You can’t just decide not to show up for a scheduled committee meeting that you knew about well in advance (obviously, Ms. Taylor and Sen. Specter certainly did, as did the obstructionist White House), and then turn around and complain that it’s unfair that there was only one repuke present during the meeting.
I mean, I know you repuke-li-trolls have your ways of spinning facts until they turn into the origami figures you’re trying to make, but this attempted doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:48 pm“Are you saying that the President should be treated like any other citizen? I think not.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:46 pm”
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
He is NOT A KING!!!!!!
He is a CITIZEN!!!!!
Man the trolls are IDIOTS!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:48 pm#37: Ok. Where’s my motorcade, Secret Service detail and a guy who walks a few feet behind me and pays my bills?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:49 pmYou say witch hunt? Fine.
Toss ‘em in the lake with the hands and feet tied.
If they sink, they’re innocent. If they float….they a witch! Burn them!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pmThe truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend. An exemplary piece of dirty politics.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Evidence? Links? Explanation?
Was today a Republican High Holy day or something? Why were 41 Republican senators able to vote against cloture (and the troops) on the Webb bill this morning?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pmWhat sickens me is how they throw around the adjective “constitutional” to executive powers that do not exist in the Constitutional.
Executive privilege has ZERO Constitutional basis. And it’s not like it’s an accident – Legislative privilege is explicitly established in the Constitution.
But consersatives don’t see the President as a Constitutional officer, no matter how much they throw around the adjective “constitutional”. They see the President as a fixed-term semi-elected dictator. Well, as long as he’s one of their own.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
Right. I guess if you’re a staunch Republican with absolutely no concern for silly things like equal justice under the law, then it doesn’t bother you to see the U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the country stocked with like-minded staunch Republicans whose goal is to soft-pedal the investigation of crimes committed by fellow Republicans. And it would tickle you to death to see them investigate the hell out of Democrats, pushing bogus voter fraud charges against “liberal” groups right before an election.
Try the shoe on the other foot now. If you want the Justice Department to operate in full partisan fascist mode, please be consistent and tell us you won’t mind if the Democrats do the same thing when they take over the White House next year. And, no, it hasn’t been done by the Democrats ever before. This anti-American attempt by Rove, Gonzales, Bush, and Cheney to stack the deck has never been tried in this country before. This kind of behavior is typically found only in banana republics.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pmwhy not ASK the logical follow up question? did you discuss this issue with KARL ROVE?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm“Ok. Where’s my motorcade, Secret Service detail and a guy who walks a few feet behind me and pays my bills?
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:49 pm”
Just because he has extra security because he is in a HIGH PROFILE position, does not put him above everyone else……
Show me in the Constitution where this is the case!!!!! Show me where he is ABOVE all other citizense! Show me where he becomes ABSENT of any rules or need to follow any of the laws……
I can show you where he is suppose to UPHOLD the laws, not break them!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pmThat is a complete LIE that the Rethugs “couldn’t attend” they have the exact same constraits as the ones that DID show up. God, you people make up ANY excuse! Those slimy Rethugs didn’t attend out of CHOICE. They have utter contempt for the American people and Rule of Law or Truth or even Freedom. They hold up all the legislation pushing for transparency and accountability every day on the floor. All of them have to be ousted!Any supporter of this corrupt regime is a traitor too.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmIssa is enough to make you nauseous.
Who votes for these idiots??
No-one in particular – you monicer explains it all. You are absolutly that – NO-ONE. Your repukian talking points are crap, you are a criminal and a total knuckle-dragging subhuman puke, go mow your lawn so your trailer trash neighbors can see those fine rusted cars on your front lawn, neanderthal.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmThe President is not exempt from the law. He is not a King. He may get some priviliges due the office, but he is not above the law.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmPlease cite the books you are referring to. Also, please list the American politicians (other than the obvious convicted criminals) who have committed the following crimes:
bribery
murder
war (is this criminal in all cases?)
backstabbing (I’m not sure this is a crime, murder might cover it)
When you’re done, consider Bushco’s actions in relation to these real crimes:
Treason (the Plame affair)
Obstruction of Justice (DoJ situation)
Violations of the Hatch Act
Illegal acts under the color of law (no-bid, crony contracts)
Election fraud
Fraudulent claims based on forged documents that led to a war (an illegal war due to the underlying fraud)
Lying to Congress and while under oath
Subornation of perjury, fraud, and obstruction of justice.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pm#45: Whatever the reasons, the hearing was hardly fair with only Republican present. If they really are going to push for a contempt citation, I’m sure this issue will be brought up.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmNow the democrats can really put W on the ropes if they have the guts to do it.
Hope so.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:54 pmWas today a Republican High Holy day or something? Why were 41 Republican senators able to vote against cloture (and the troops) on the Webb bill this morning?
Comment by spit take
Apparently they were ‘Bushed’ after that vote……had to go take a nap. lol
July 11th, 2007 at 5:54 pmThe truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend
Yeah, Jeff Gannon was “entertaining”
July 11th, 2007 at 5:55 pmYou know you’re on to something when the faithful start screaming ‘witch hunt’.
It must go deeper than a Cuban cigar, so to speak.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pm“The truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend.”
Ok, I give. What stopped the Republics from attending. Were they all at a party hosted by the DC Madam? Are they all on vacation?
So, inquiring minds need to know why the Republics couldn’t attend and the Democrats could. What urgent government business kept them away?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pmCome on, Buck Fush. Let us know how you REALLY feel.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pmThe President is not exempt from the law. He is not a King. He may get some priviliges due the office, but he is not above the law.
Comment by Law Man — July 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Thats right. In fact, the Constitution clearly states that he can be impeached for something as simple as a misdemeanor.
Misdemeanors can be as simple as a traffic violation, or failure to pay a fine.
If the President is liable to misdemeanors, then he is no more above the law than any US Citizen.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pm#49 No-one in particular
Whatever the reasons, the hearing was hardly fair with only Republican present. If they really are going to push for a contempt citation, I’m sure this issue will be brought up.
Here’s what you missed by not having all of the Republicans members of the committee there: “Clinton did it.”
That’s all they would have had to say. And it’s bullshit, too.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI mean come on Pat!! If she refuses to answer THAT question by invoking ‘executive privilege” then you GOT them cold!!!!! Why aren’t the DEMS more confrontational? Why was IMPEACHMENT off the table in January? All you have to do is focus on ONE crime! The violation of FISA!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pm#32 – the President SHOULD be treated like any other citizen, including being held accountable for crimes he commits during his term of office. The President (as set up in the US Constitution – remember that?) is the Executive; that is, he is responsible for executing the laws of the nation AS DIRECTED BY CONGRESS. And for all you ‘Clinton did it too’ choirboys, yes, he should also be held accountable.
Maybe if presidents felt fear for the consequences of their actions, we might not get caught up in illegal wars and such.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pmThat is a good question. Why were those Repubs so chicken shite to not show up at the hearing?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pmKatie: I’m not privy to the schedule of Republicans, but it’s clear that they would not have missed this session unless they were either stopped from attending or had pressing issues elsewhere and couldn’t reschedule because dems decided the time and date.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:59 pmThe facts are clear here.
Bush CANNOT invoke executive privilege, and congress should immedately demand the testimony of Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, or arrest them, and have them thrown into jail under contempt charges until they testify.
Period.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pmThe US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.
It’s not quite that simple. The court left wiggle room for other invocations of executive privilege. From the NPR fact sheet:
Didn’t the Nixon case settle the issue of executive privilege once and for all?
No. In fact, in its ruling on the Nixon tapes, the Supreme Court noted “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.” In other words, while rejecting Nixon’s particular claim of executive privilege, the court left the door open for future claims by future presidents. And there’s a key distinction to keep in mind: The Nixon case was part of a criminal investigation; the current case involving the Bush administration is not.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:04 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
—————————————————————————
You’re damn right, I say we the people tell Leahy to go fukc himself!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmit’s clear that they would not have missed this session unless they were either stopped from attending or had pressing issues elsewhere and couldn’t reschedule because dems decided the time and date.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
You’ve got these guys confused with the 109th Congress. That was the Republicans who scheduled votes and such last-min middle-of-the-night-behind-the-back bs. Remember the Patriot Act vote?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmWake me when Congress actual DOES something about the criminals actions of the administration, by.. I don’t know… actually calling for criminal investigation into the NSA wiretapping and begin impeachment proceedings based on same.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmNo-one in particular:
Lazy troll? Or laziest troll ever?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmLeahy spends too much time behind a table. He needs to take his pension and spend more time with his wife.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pmOh yeah!
Clinton did it.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm“#45: Whatever the reasons, the hearing was hardly fair with only Republican present. If they really are going to push for a contempt citation, I’m sure this issue will be brought up.” Comment by A No-one Without a Brain — July 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
You keep tossing us softballs, moron, and we’ll keep hitting them out. Here’s a news flash for you — this issue will not matter, since the repukes CHOSE not to attend (as has been explained to you countless times over the last hour). The hearing certainly was fair, since those Senators who have enough respect for their constitutional duties to the American people actually showed up to participate in it.
Those alleged Senators who chose to sit in their offices (or their brothels, or their public bath houses, or their sandboxes) and avoid carrying out their duty cannot now turn around and say the hearing wasn’t “fair” — it certainly WAS fair, since everyone who had an interest in participating had the same opportunity to do so. It’s like being in court — even if a defendant choses not to participate in the hearing, it goes forward anyway and the defendant can’t later come back and say he was unfairly convicted just because he wasn’t there…
Oh but there I go trying to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person — and I’m a pinhead!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmNo-one in particular:
Lazy troll? Or laziest troll ever?
Comment by Zooey
Yeah, that’s kind of a toss-up.
I especially like the photo of Miers next to Bush.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmCould she have looked more enamored of him?
#68: Yeah. I’m pretty lazy allright.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:08 pm“What a witch-hunt.
“At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…”
If you can do it, we can do it.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmLeahy spends too much time behind a table. He needs to take his pension and spend more time with his wife.
Comment by CT_V1 — July 11, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Maybe he should spend more time with hookers, like his morally hypocritical repuke senator colleagues instead!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pm“The Nixon case was part of a criminal investigation; the current case involving the Bush administration is not.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:04 pm”
Which is why the Dems need to make it clear right now that they are in fact investigating criminal acts……
Then there can be no claim to “Executive Privilege”…….
Criminal acts”
1) Warrantless wiretapping
2) Caging
3) Falsifying of information to Congress
4) Mishandling of Secret Information
5) Presidential Records Act
6) Hatch Act
7) Breaking the FISA law
I could go on, but these are just a few that they could anounce and destroy Bush’s “Executive Privilege” claims right here and now!!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmBush is an evil man!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmI can’t wait untill Hillary gets elected and improves my life!
God bless her!
Down with Budh!
The Nixon case was part of a criminal investigation; the current case involving the Bush administration is not.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Yes it is.
Several attorney’s cited particular cases involving republicans that they felt were being squashed by their removal.
That constitutes obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.
Nice try.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmNOIP –
“stopped from attending”??? Man, those Democrats throwing body tackles at the door are getting WAY too pushy. Gotta cut back on their vitamins…
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm#72: It doesn’t matter if the GOP Senators chose not to attend. We’re going to spin it as an unfair hearing because only one Republican Senator was present and the public’s going to buy it.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmRemoveBush,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmI agree Bush is a criminal!
We need to elect and honest clean person like Hillary!
She’s un-corruptable and believes in the rule of law!
Bush is an evil man!
I can’t wait untill Hillary gets elected and improves my life!
God bless her!
Down with Budh!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pm—————————————————————————-
What’s up!?!
“I agree Bush is a criminal!
We need to elect and honest clean person like Hillary!
She’s un-corruptable and believes in the rule of law!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:10 pm”
Sarcasm at it’s best I see……
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmAnd they did not “leave the door open”.
Their decision set whats called “precedent”, and although their debate and commentary discussed the need of a president to speak freely, they CONCLUDED that he cannot use that to avoid subpoenas or just to conceal facts from an ongoing investigation.
They CONCLUDED that unless its national security, or a matter of international diplomacy then he cannot use it, plain and simple.
Once again, nice try.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmPIP,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmWho are you?
Silly troll: “One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…”
Could these conservative trolls get any dumber? Hard to imagine. All but one Repub on the committee refuse to show, the only repub who DOES show complains that he wishes more from his party WOULD HAVE shown up, and the troll takes this as proof that the committee is “unfair.” God, that’s just so stupid.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmEvidence? Links? Explanation?
Was today a Republican High Holy day or something? Why were 41 Republican senators able to vote against cloture (and the troops) on the Webb bill this morning?
Comment by spit take — July 11, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
You are off a bit, it was 40 Republicans, LIEberman (Likud-Israel) and 2 Republicans who did not have the balls to vote either way who do not support our troops.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmMegatron,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmJust another Hillary fan!!!
She save the country for us Leftists, so that Islam can spread throughout the world in peace!!!
RemoveBush,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pmNo I’m a Clinton fan!
She’ll have Universal Healthcare, Taxes on the rich, anti-Globalization, and she’ll stop the exposting of jobs!
She’ll run a clean and transparrent government!
No Illegal pardons!
“Comment by BARTLEBEE — July 11, 2007 @ 6:12 pm”
If I’m not mistaken…….
They did claim that the president could claim “Executive Privilege” anytime, but it could not be upheld when the Congress was investigating a criminal act……
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I remember it to be.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pmWe’re going to spin it as an unfair hearing because only one Republican Senator was present and the public’s going to buy it.
Comment by A No-one Without A Brain — July 11, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Ummm…the public’s done buying your BS, knucklehead. Check your latest numbers — nobody believes a word you idiots say anymore, except for the 29% who wear their tinfoil hats as tight as you do and play in the same little sandboxes. And you can thank your hero King George the Brainless and Deadeye Dick for that.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pm“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.â€
What is an example of this?
What advise could anyone give to the President that would be different knowing that everyone else could scutinize it?
A hypothetical? Anyone?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:16 pmI could see how illegal or unethical advise would change, but you wouldn’t want that sort of advise anyway, right?
I especially like the photo of Miers next to Bush.
Could she have looked more enamored of him?
Comment by SGT Higgins
And they talk about Clinton’s ugly women….wow.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmLeahy was a career prosecutor before he was a politician. He’s building a case here and his reasoning is boxing them into a corner. IF the president wasn’t involved, then executive privilege is irrelevant. If executive privilege IS relevant, then the president WAS involved and Sara Taylor lied under oath and is subject to charges of perjury. Don’t underestimate Leahy. He’s smarter than your average republican.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmPiP,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmHillary is a grea person.
She cares about us!
I remember when Bill was President, I made more money!
Hillary will make companies pay people better!
“No I’m a Clinton fan!
She’ll have Universal Healthcare, Taxes on the rich, anti-Globalization, and she’ll stop the exposting of jobs!
She’ll run a clean and transparrent government!
No Illegal pardons!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:14 pm”
Don’t believe it…… She is certainly 1000 times better than Bush, but she is in the same playing field as Bush…… Why do you think that Clinton and Bush 1 are together a lot these days????
They are just less destructive, but still part of the same bunch….
I want someone who is less bought and paid for for our next president.
I like Dennis K. or Ron Paul…. They actually stand for the American people and most importantly, the CONSTITUTION.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmWe need to drive Bush out and make Hillary President for Life!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pm“Yes it is.”
No, it’s not. Not yet, at least. Keep in mind that those words weren’t mind; they were the words of one of NPR’s legal affairs correspondents.
“Several attorney’s cited particular cases involving republicans that they felt were being squashed by their removal. That constitutes obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.”
I agree, but so? That still doesn’t make it a criminal case until and unless someone files formal charges.
“Nice try.”
I’m just pointing out to you that executive privilege is a little muddier than you claim. That’s confirmed elsewhere, as well, including articles in findlaw, wikipedia, and others. I’m not asserting that Bush will win; I’m not asserting that his claim is valid; I’m just pointing out that it’s not as open-and-shut case as you claim and that the court in the past has expressed deference to the concept of confidential communication between a president and his advisors, even as they ruled against specific instances of such matters.
I happen to agree with you that the Supreme Court of a couple of years ago would have ruled against Bush in these cases, just as they ruled against Clinton, who made a similar argument. With Roberts and Alito, though, I’m no longer sure which way the court would rule.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmAnd they talk about Clinton’s ugly women….wow.
Who cares about the looks as long as they know what they’re doing?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:19 pmRemoveBush,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:20 pmYou liar Hillary never did anything illegal.
She’ll run the least corrupt government in history!
You will vote for her!
I will vote for her!
America will vot for her!
I can’t wait!
She’ll be a great leader who cars about us!
Who cares about the looks as long as they know what they’re doing?
Comment by Terrific Jones
Then you’re certainly not talking about our Harriet, are you?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pmPIP,
“She save the country for us Leftists, so that Islam can spread throughout the world in peace!!!”
Islam is a peaceful religion!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pmIslam has never commited acts of agression againsy any other civilization.
Mohamad was a peaceful man like Gandhi!
#103: Oh, but I certainly am.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pm“You liar Hillary never did anything illegal.
She’ll run the least corrupt government in history!
You will vote for her!
I will vote for her!
America will vot for her!
I can’t wait!
She’ll be a great leader who cars about us!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:20 pm”
If Hillary is my option for the Dems, I will stay home…….
I’m tired of putting the same people into office!!!!!
Do some research…… Her and Bill are tied to the Bush’s, and they run around the same groups of people……
Birds of a feather…….
July 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pmPIP,
“She save the country for us Leftists, so that Islam can spread throughout the world in peace!!!â€
Islam is a peaceful religion!
Islam has never commited acts of agression againsy any other civilization.
Mohamad was a peaceful man like Gandhi!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pm—————————————————————————-
What the hell are you talking about. Shut up.
Gotta wonder if the Jones troll knows that’s a slang term for a heroin addiction??
July 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pmIt would explain a lot.
If I’m not mistaken…….
They did claim that the president could claim “Executive Privilege†anytime, but it could not be upheld when the Congress was investigating a criminal act……
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I remember it to be.
Comment by RemoveBush — July 11, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
You are mistaken. They concluded the President does not have an “ABSOLUTE right to executive privilege” unless there is specific and credible national security or international diplomacy at stake.
Here. Read their ruling again.
To read the Article 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 generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III
Nixon’s claim was rejected because it was a generalized claim that he needed to protect his conversations.
Which is the EXACT same claim Bush is making.
Neither Bush nor his attorney has made any specific claims regarding national security or international diplomatic efforts, but instead have based their entire argument (their words not mine) on the notion that a president needs to speak in private without fear of recrimination, which is the exact same claim that the Supreme Court already ruled a president cannot make.
So wrong again.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pmMegatron,
I know!
I want to throw bush out of office so that muslims can take over the USA!!!
We will all have to submit to Allah, but that is so much better than being free!!!
Let’s tell more muslims to come to the US!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pmFirst we will have to kick out all the dogs!
“And they did not ‘leave the door open’.”
Yes, actually, they did, which is why you have landmarkcases.org noting:
Nixon lost, but he lost on fairly narrow grounds since the Court simply did not want to absolutely rule up or down on such an issue. They ruled against Nixon’s claim of “absolute” executive privilege but left the door open for other invocations of privilege including, as you note, privilege to protect security and state secrets.
“They CONCLUDED that unless its national security, or a matter of international diplomacy then he cannot use it, plain and simple.”
No. They ruled that he can use it in those matters. In other matters, it’s a case by case basis.
“Once again, nice try.”
A random Google search shows source after source, CNN, findlaw, wikipedia, NPR, CBS, landmarkcases. org, agreeing that executive privilege is still a muddy issue. It simply is not the settled law that you think it is.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pmComment by PiP — July 11, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
We could sure use Muslims around here to spruce things up a bit!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI agree, but so? That still doesn’t make it a criminal case until and unless someone files formal charges.
Comment by PaulBWrongAgain — July 11, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Once again you just don’t seem to understand what you’re reading.
The ruling, which I’ve posted for you twice now, says that it cannot be used to impede an investigation.
against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes
A subpoena is issued by Congress during investigations, not just after criminal charges have been filed. Congress has the power to subpoena to DETERMINE IF criminal charges can be filed, NOT only AFTER they’ve been filed.
Therefore, the ruling does apply.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pmCt,
and that’s just what we’ll get if we vote for Hillary!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:31 pmAlso from the NPR primer [emphasis added]:
Do presidents invoke executive privilege mainly in matters of national security?
No, not at all. Presidents have cited the privilege for all sorts of issues. For instance, the Bush administration invoked the spirit, if the not letter, of executive privilege when it argued that Vice President Dick Cheney need not disclose what was discussed during his Taskforce on Energy meetings. The Supreme Court upheld the administration’s claim in 2004. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, issued this warning: “Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the government are set on a collision course.”
July 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pmTerrific Jones,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pmWhy do you hate Muslims?
They’re a peace loving bunch!
No. They ruled that he can use it in those matters. In other matters, it’s a case by case basis.
Comment by PaulBWrong — July 11, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Wrong again.
They ruled unequivocally that it CANNOT be used for generalized immunity.
I will post it one more time for the learning impaired.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“Once again you just don’t seem to understand what you’re reading.”
Sigh… I do, actually. Suffice to say that I disagree with you, both as to how far the current investigation has gotten and whether the courts have definitively settled this matter. And given the current makeup of the court, with Roberts and Alito added, I think it’s pretty clear that this is not nearly as settled as you would like it to be.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pm“They ruled unequivocally that it CANNOT be used for generalized immunity.”
No. Flatly no. They ruled that that “generalized immunity” had to be balanced against other considerations.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:38 pmBartlebee, I already agree with you that, on the merits, Bush should lose. I’m simply stating that it just isn’t as much of a slam dunk as you are claiming, particularly with Roberts and Alito joining an already conservative court.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:42 pmTaylor claimed she had taken an OATH TO THE “PRESIDENT”.
Mein Fuhrer!
Leahy reminded her that her OATH was to the US Constitution, NOT “YOUR Fuhrer”!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:43 pmWe could sure use Muslims around here to spruce things up a bit!
Comment by CT_V1
And all we get are these p*ss-ant trolls…
July 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pmNo “underlying” crime? Hmm, actually the Bush crime family preferred style is OVERlying…
July 11th, 2007 at 6:48 pm#122 ~ I’m going to E-Trade to buy a shitload of stock in laundry detergent companies.
What with the piss-soaking these trolls are doing, sheets, underwear, etc. Stock prices are bound to go up.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pmSigh… I do, actually
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Sigh, no you don’t.
You don’t even have your facts straight.
Earlier you said.
The Supreme Court upheld the administration’s claim in 2004.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
You are wrong.
The supreme court did not “uphold” anything, and refused to rule, throwing the case back to the lower courts.
Inventing history to support your claims only works with other republicans, but not me.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pmBartlebee, just to be clear, this is the comment of yours I have trouble with:
You’re misreading the ruling. They didn’t say that those were the only things you could invoke executive privilege for; they said that those were the things you definitely could invoke executive privilege for. For other invocations of executive privilege, it’s a balancing act, e.g., between the need for private consultations vs. the need for information on criminal investigations.
And again, that just isn’t what the ruling said. It absolutely can be used for such concealment unless there are other compelling reasons why those conversations should be made public, as was true in Nixon’s case and in Clinton’s case, but was not true in Cheney’s case. Nixon and Clinton lost; Cheney won.
Personally, I happen to agree with you that Bush’s claim for executive privilege doesn’t meet the test. What I’m arguing with you about is two things: a) your absolutist reading of that ruling, which I believe to be incorrect, and b) I’m not at all certain that the current Supreme Court will rule the way we both hope they will.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:51 pmBut if you would like to refute me, I invite you to show us the favorable ruling from the courts that you actually just invented.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:51 pmProcter & Gamble today
61.56 +0.53 +0.87%
Keep it up trolls, you just made me $3,000.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:52 pmOnce again Paul, since you just “invented” a Supreme Court decision that NEVER OCCURED, I will rest my case.
I can’t argue with fairytales.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:53 pmHowever, my invitation to actually POST your imaginary SCOTUS decision, then I’m all ears.
But since you invented it, and cannot post it, I will assume you’re done.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:54 pmI believe the republicans knew exactly what they were doing by not showing up, Nay one.
Because they knew exactly what was going to happen to her. She was going to get blown out of the water and they didn’t want to be there looking like idiots when they could stay away and play the DEMS ARE BULLIES card.
Spectre didn’t just get off the boat. He and leahy know how to play this game. If they could have saved her they would have.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:55 pmSpectre knew she was toast.
Thats why they weren’t their,,,Nay One.
Sigh… Bartlebee, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican, as a quick search for my name on this site and on Kevin Drum’s washingtonmonthly.com site would show.
Regarding the Cheney 2004 ruling, I used a faulty source (the perils of too-quick Googling) and so did not have complete information. A better source, findlaw.com, had this to say:
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney.
It held that: “Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch “shall bear the burden” of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections.”
So you’re right that this was not a precedent for executive privilege. I apologize for the error.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:57 pmAnd like the earlier case that they refused to rule on that you cited, but instead tossed back to the federal courts, I predict that they will again do likewise, concluding that the precedent had already been set in the 1974 ruling, and toss it once more back to the lower court.
The lower court may not rule correctly, and it may drag on, but I don’t think it will get that far.
I think Congress will either strike a deal, or if they do it right, will toss Miers and Taylor into jail compelling them to tesitfy.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:58 pmSo you’re right that this was not a precedent for executive privilege. I apologize for the error.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Ok, I’m glad you looked that up.
And I am not calling you a republican and I likewise apologize for my persnickety style of debate, its just the New Yorker in me.
And I am leaning to one side of the decision, because I honestly believe that the ruling has already been made.
As apparently the Supreme Court also felt in 2004.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:59 pmI honestly cannot see the Supreme Court, even a right leaning one, making any further ruling in this matter beyond what the 1974 court ruled.
Why?
Because to do so would be to effectively neuter themselves with regards to any future oversight of the Executive Branch, which would effectively dismantle our three tiered government, and render themselves impotent.
Not even the zany Alito wants that.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm“Once again Paul, since you just “invented†a Supreme Court decision that NEVER OCCURED, I will rest my case.”
Garbage. In this instance, I’m using the very case you cited and the very words you quoted. You simply got it wrong, as any careful reading would show. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that all non-security and non-diplomatic related claims of executive privilege could not be used. They simply ruled that those two could always be used. See the difference?
In other areas, a balancing act must apply, as the very quote you cited states:
“…providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest…”
Note the part in bold. The court was balancing the claims of executive privilege against other needs, not asserting that those claims would never apply. Every single source I’ve found confirms this reading of that lawsuit, Bartlebee.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pmGarbage. In this instance, I’m using the very case you cited and the very words you quoted. You simply got it wrong, as any careful reading would show. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that all non-security and non-diplomatic related claims of executive privilege could not be used. They simply ruled that those two could always be used. See the difference?
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Ok, first you admit you misquoted the 2004 case, and now you claim I was talking about the 74 case?
Now you’re just not making sense. That post you just quoted was clearly regarding your false claim that in 2004 the SCOTUS ruled to uphold an Executive Privilege claim, which it did NOT.
So what you’re talking about here, I haven’t a clue.
And I’m not sure you do either.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pmAnd as I said, Bartlebee, I agree with you that in this case those other needs overrule executive privilege. All I’m doing is making the very persnickety and precise claim that the court didn’t explicitly rule out all other claims of executive privilege in 1974.
I sincerely hope that the current Court agrees with you and me on this, and I happen to agree that it should be a slam dunk, but it’s worth noting that one of the things that Alito and Roberts have in common is that they both have an expansive view of presidential authority as do, I believe, Thomas and Scalia. All they need is one more justice.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pmThe Supreme Court is in Bushco’s back pocket.
The question is how do you impeach sitting Supreme Court Justice’s Thanks to three Psycho Judges Thing 1 Wack nut ALITO and Thing 2 Wack nut Roberts and Hall of Fame Thing 3 Wack nut SCALLIA.
No matter what happens these three are gonna back Bushco even if he torches the Constitution
July 11th, 2007 at 7:10 pmTaylor sounded like a bumbling snot-nosed kid out there today.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:11 pm“Ok, first you admit you misquoted the 2004 case, and now you claim I was talking about the 74 case?”
Bartlebee, you quoted from that case above!
“Now you’re just not making sense.”
Yes, I am, actually, other than my mistake about Cheney, for which I’ve already apologized. This is the claim of yours that I have a problem with:
That assertion just isn’t true, as can be seen from the words from the 1974 ruling that you quoted above. If you have a later ruling that explicitly supports this assertion, then I’d love to see it, because I don’t think such a ruling exists.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:12 pmAll I’m doing is making the very persnickety and precise claim that the court didn’t explicitly rule out all other claims of executive privilege in 1974.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
And all I’m doing is telling you you’re wrong.
When the Supreme Court rules on a matter, thats it unless THEY overturn it.
The 74 court said clearly that unless there is some national security or diplomatic issue at hand, that the privilege cannot simply be invoked for “generalized” immunity from subpoeanas.
Thats it. I can find no wording in the decision that states that there are any other circumstances that can be used to invoke the privilege. If you can find some I’ll be happy to look at it however. But the ruling was pretty clear. It said NO GENERALIZED immunity.
Which is exactly the argument Bush is using.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pmLook! I am getting sick of this.
I KNOW I quoted the 74 case. GEESH I’ve quoted it half a dozen times!!!!
What are you dense?
YOU took a post of mine where you said, Garbage. In this instance, I’m using the very case you cited and the very words you quoted. .
Here you are claiming that I said you invented the 74 case, when I was talking about your invention of the 2004 ruling, WHICH YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT.
I NEVER claimed the 74 ruling didn’t exist, and you’re now just making some kind of ridiculous (and convoluted) strawman argument.
I was not talking about the 74 case.
Don’t make me explain it again.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThere is, in the history of humanity, a struggle between good and evil. Some see the advance of civilization in terms of conquering the worst elements of individual greed and power benefit all of those of society. Some people, like No One in Particular, seem to justify a march backwards. They constantly say that people have always done criminal, selfish or inappropriate things. They imply that this makes it natural and we should not be upset, hold hearings or demand accountability.
I do not care which party is in power. It is both necessary and appropriate to demand accountability. Clinton embarrassed the country with his lies about Lewinski. Some of his pardons were inappropriate and for that he should be condemned.
However, the Bush administration has set forth a record that exceeds any modern presidential administration in modern time. Nixon screwed up in attempting to forge ahead with Viet Nam, quell dissent and evade embarrassment for Watergate. However, Bush has far exceeded the scope of Nixon. His torture program and GTMO clearly violated the Geneva Conventions branding his administration as war criminals. (I do not joke, Germans were convicted as war criminals for the use of water boarding.) His failure to adhere to warrant requirements under FISA was a clear violation of the 4th amendment and FISA. But his blatant attempt to politicize every department of government and to become a tool of moneyed interests exceeds anything Nixon did. The number of officials leaving this administration (DoJ, Libby and others) exceeds the record of any other administration.
However, the most objective measurement of the depravity of the Bush administration comes from all of those who have left and told their tales of how these Mayberry Machievelis have replaced government and policy with nothing but politics. It comes from the Republican luminaries of the Regan and Bush I administration who constantly criticize incompetence and lack of ethics of this administration.
I want to see good triumph over evil. I know that it will be a never ending struggle. However, the hope of humanity is not in the final triumph but rather in the progress we make over time. Evil triumphs when those like “no one in particular” convince others that evil is to be accepted and tolerated as a natural part of life. It is not. It is like cancer and must treated with aggressive measures where ever and when ever found.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pmAnd the 74 ruling leaves NO ROOM for doubt. It clearly said “NO GENERALIZED NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY”
It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
By the way, if you are really on our side, could I convince you to go over to Bush’s side?
They could use a guy like you.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm“And all I’m doing is telling you you’re wrong.”
Then so is every other source I’ve been able to find. Not a single one of them claims that the 1974 decision explicitly and unequivocally ruled:
You’re simply misreading the decision, as I’ve already noted above.
“When the Supreme Court rules on a matter, thats it unless THEY overturn it.”
I agree, but the court didn’t say what you claim they did. Their ruling was far more nuanced.
“The 74 court said clearly that unless there is some national security or diplomatic issue at hand, that the privilege cannot simply be invoked for “generalized†immunity from subpoeanas.”
Ah, now we’re getting a little closer to the real issue and you’re already qualifying your formerly unqualified statement. The court qualified it further: “as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes.” Note the words that they used in that ruling that are not in your unqualified statement above.
“Thats it. I can find no wording in the decision that states that there are any other circumstances that can be used to invoke the privilege.”
Really? What about a subpoena that is not “essential to enforcement of criminal statutes?”
July 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm“Here you are claiming that I said you invented the 74 case, when I was talking about your invention of the 2004 ruling”
No. You misread me.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pmNo, YOU’RE misreading the decision.
In fact, of the two of us here, you’re so far the ONLY ONE who INVENTED a Supreme Court ruling to support your position.
You INVENTED a decision that did not exist.
Now you claim “I’M” misreading the decision?
You clearly didn’t even know about the decision until by you googled it.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:23 pmReally? What about a subpoena that is not “essential to enforcement of criminal statutes?â€
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
So? Its a valid point except Congress has stated its investigating the possible criminal firings of US Attorneys.
Everything I have stated has been in that context, so inventing a scenario that I am not purporting is just another strawman for your army.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:25 pmAnyway you’ve wasted enough of my Wednesday night.
Like I said, if you’re not a member of the right wing, could I possibly convince you to become one?
You’ll do us more good there then you ever will here.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pm“And the 74 ruling leaves NO ROOM for doubt.”
Actually, it does, as I’ve already noted and as every source I’ve been able to find notes.
“It clearly said “NO GENERALIZED NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY—
As far as I can tell, that phrase does not exist in the ruling, so we’ll have to disagree on what’s clear.
The ruling said that there was no absolute executive privilege “as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest.” Nixon lost on narrow grounds: the need for information to enforce criminal statutes overruled his claim of executive privilege. The court did not explicitly rule that he had no expectation of executive privilege on non-security and non-diplomatic matters; just that that claim was overruled in this instance.
“It doesn’t get any clearer than that.”
Only if you ignore some of the other words in that ruling.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pmIt is about time to start trowing these people in jail for contempt!! They are liars and crooks. Regarding the Comment by No-one in particular: I’m sure he thought the same thing when the Cons were witch-hunting the Clinton’s for eight years. NO?? Seems like there is some hyprocasy going on here. Well, what’s new??
July 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pmAs far as I can tell, that phrase does not exist in the ruling, so we’ll have to disagree on what’s clear.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
And as far as I can tell you can’t even read.
READ THE RULING!
It says right here that there is NO PROTECTION FOR GENERALIZED CLAIMS OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
:|
Which part of that is making your head hurt???
July 11th, 2007 at 7:32 pmJust because they word it in an argument fashion, (as they do with all rulings, because the Supreme Court does not make law, they INTERPRET IT, DUH) doesn’t mean thats not what it says.
But like I said, I’m done. Leave me alone.
Go find Joe Lieberman.
You’ll like him better than me.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:34 pm“So?”
Um, just that this invalidates your claim that the court unequivocally ruled:
“Its a valid point”
Thank you. That’s why I bring it up. The court simply did not say what you claim they did.
“except Congress has stated its investigating the possible criminal firings of US Attorneys.”
Great. All that means is that you’re agreeing with me that the court did not say what you claim they did. I’ve already said that I agree with you that Bush should lose on the merits.
“Everything I have stated has been in that context, so inventing a scenario that I am not purporting is just another strawman for your army.”
Oh, nonsense. You asserted that the court had already ruled that presidents were only entitled to claims of executive privilege on matters of security and diplomacy. You put no qualifications on it whatever. This claim was incorrect. I was simply pointing that out to you.
“Like I said, if you’re not a member of the right wing, could I possibly convince you to become one?”
No. Do you always respond this way when challenged? I’ve already acknowledged my mistake; are you willing to acknowledge yours?
You’ll do us more good there then you ever will here.”
Personally, I want the side I support to be, above all, accurate. A right-winger would have shredded you far more thoroughly than I did. Now that you know your mistake, you will be better prepared to deal with that argument in the future and will start using the phrase “as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes” when you discuss this. That’s up to you, of course, but you’ll have a stronger case if you do.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:37 pm“It says right here that there is NO PROTECTION FOR GENERALIZED CLAIMS OF CONFIDENTIALITY.”
Which isn’t what you actually said. If you’re going to misquote a ruling, why is that my fault? In any case, that phrase does not stand alone, so taking it out of its proper context means that you are, once again, misinterpreting the ruling.
“Which part of that is making your head hurt???”
None of it, actually, other than bemusement at your refusal to look at the words that precede that part of the ruling.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:39 pmBush and his gang of crooks don’t believe in the Constitution or Government or the rule of law, they just say so. It is obvious to anyone who studies the facts that they are dismantling our government in an attempt to privatize everything. They want all control and all money of the United States of America to be put into the hands of private corporations and private individuals. They want no more public ownership. That should be clear to everyone by now.
Also, don’t be surprised if they engineer another “911″ in an attempt to stop these investigations. They are getting too close to home. These guys are criminals and will not give up power easily. They are psychopathic.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:40 pmright-winger would have shredded you far more thoroughly than I did.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
You shredded me?
So you’re right that this was not a precedent for executive privilege. I apologize for the error.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
So by your logic, you shredded me by having to frantically google, (BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION), and in doing so you INVENTED A SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT NEVER OCCURED.
If thats what you call shredding then PLEASE, join the freaking right wing.
Cause the only thing you “shredded” junior, was your credibility.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:41 pm“Just because they word it in an argument fashion, (as they do with all rulings, because the Supreme Court does not make law, they INTERPRET IT, DUH) doesn’t mean thats not what it says.”
LOL… Bartlebee, you simply cannot pull out an isolated phrase from a ruling! You have to look at in the proper context, which in this case is the phrase that immediately precedes the one you cite.
The court didn’t say that the president could not claim executive privilege in non-security and non-diplomatic areas, they simply said that he did not have an “absolute privilege” and that “a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal states” outweighed a “generalized claim of the public interest.”
“But like I said, I’m done. Leave me alone.”
Why? You’re still getting it wrong, despite the fact that you keep dancing around.
Go find Joe Lieberman. You’ll like him better than me.”
Lame, Bartlebee, really lame.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:44 pmAnd I did read the words before that. I LIVED through watergate skippy.
Those words were the CONCLUSIONS that the ruling was based on, and the rest merely a preamble.
The decision was, and is clear, which is why the 2004 case (WHICH YOU FALSELY CLAIMED WAS A RULING IN CHENEY’S FAVOR) was tossed back to the lower courts.
Because the precedent had already been set, and Cheif Justice Roberts does not like to overturn precedent except in extreme circumstances.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:44 pmHey, tell us more about your extensive knowledge on the 2004 Ruling that happened in your fantasy Matlock.
Then go google some more until you form a new position.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:45 pm“You shredded me?”
Yup. Your statement above was flatly incorrect and your only response so far is that I should leave you alone, join the Republican Party, and go look for Joe Lieberman. Pretty pathetic, actually.
I already acknowledged my error, Bartlebee. Are you prepared to do the same?
July 11th, 2007 at 7:46 pmYou shredded yourself idiot.
The minute you INVENTED a Supreme Court ruling that NEVER OCCURED.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:47 pmI already acknowledged my error, Bartlebee. Are you prepared to do the same?
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
SO?
People who work for me apologize every day for their errors, but that doesn’t mean it adds to their credibility or competence.
Wrong is wrong.
You showed your absolute ignorance of the issue when you admitted you had to “frantically google” to find something to refute me with.
In doing so, you interpreted something without bothering to read about it, and ended up creating an IMAGINERY SUPREME COURT RULING.
And now you think that somehow translates to “shredding me”?
I take it back. You don’t need to “join” the right wing.
You’re already there.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:49 pm“And I did read the words before that.”
Then why did you ignore them when you wrote:
That statement is unequivally wrong.
“I LIVED through watergate skippy.”
LOL… Not only is that irrelevant, but so did I.
“Those words were the CONCLUSIONS that the ruling was based on, and the rest merely a preamble.”
The words immediately preceding your favorite phrase were part of that conclusion, Bartlebee, and it is those words you’re ignoring.
“The decision was, and is clear”
I agree, which is why your statement quoted above is flatly incorrect.
“which is why the 2004 case (WHICH YOU FALSELY CLAIMED WAS A RULING IN CHENEY’S FAVOR) was tossed back to the lower courts.”
The Supreme Court did not rule on the executive privilege issue in 2004, Bartlebee. Remember?
“Because the precedent had already been set, and Cheif Justice Roberts does not like to overturn precedent except in extreme circumstances.”
Oh, my… Where have you been for the past several months? Roberts has shown no sign at all that he doesn’t like to overturn precedent. He’s overturned quite a few in the past year, most on 5-4 rulings.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“And now you think that somehow translates to “shredding meâ€?”
Yup. You got it wrong, I showed you where you got it wrong, and your only response so far is that I should join the right wing.
“I take it back. You don’t need to “join†the right wing. You’re already there.”
Q.E.D.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:51 pmAnd you’re lying now.
I clearly stated that my conclusions were based on an ongoing criminal investigation by congress of the White House.
You on the other hand defended the White House, claiming no criminal investigation was occuring, which it is.
You’re a trainwreck.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:51 pmProve where I was wrong.
I’ve PROVEN where you were.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:52 pmProve it.
Cause you can’t.
Cause I’m not.
And the Supreme Court agreed with me.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:53 pmThis is what the Supreme Court said in 1974:
This is what you claimed they said:
Free clue: there is a difference between these two statements. Can you figure out just what that difference is?
July 11th, 2007 at 7:54 pm“And you’re lying now.”
Nope. I don’t lie, Bartlebee.
I clearly stated that my conclusions were based on an ongoing criminal investigation by congress of the White House.”
Post 27 above, Bartlebee. The statements in your post are flatly incorrect, as I’ve shown repeatedly. Just admit that you misstated the results of the 1974 case and move on.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pmThe Supreme Court did not rule on the executive privilege issue in 2004, Bartlebee. Remember?
Comment by PaulinBred — July 11, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Look.
Now the troll is asking me, if I remember that a ruling that he fabricated, did not occur.
TROLL.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:57 pmThis was your post, Bartlebee:
“but the fact is Executive Privilege CANNOT be invoked in a domestic matter not associated with national security anyway”
Yes, it can, nor did the 1974 decision rule this out. It simply stated that such claims had to be balanced against other issues.
“The US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.”
And again, incorrect. The Supreme Court has made no such unequivocal ruling. The 1974 ruling was deferential to claims of executive privilege but ruled that in that case they were overruled by the need for information on a criminal investigation.
“It CANNOT, under ANY circumstances be used just to conceal private White House conversations.”
And yes, it can. It just depends on who is challenging the claim of executive privilege and why they are challenging it.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:59 pmRep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) added another plaque to his wall of shame during House hearings today looking into President Bush’s commutation of the Scooter Libby’s sentence. Ever eager to defend the President and the flagging hopes of the Republican Party, Issa accused outed CIA agent Valerie Plame of perjury.
For the details, see:
July 11th, 2007 at 7:59 pm“Issa Accuses Valerie Plame of Perjury.”
“Now the troll is asking me, if I remember that a ruling that he fabricated, did not occur”
LOL… Read what they wrote in 2004, Bartlebee. Even cases remanded to the lower courts get an opinion. The court did not rule on the issue of executive privilege, even though both Alito and Thomas wanted to.
Interesting that your definition of “troll” seems to be “someone who disagrees with me.”
July 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pmPiP(squeak), Megastupid & CT_V1″ – can you guys get anymore immature and stupid, no wonder the repukians are in deep sh!t, they have total Dip Sh!ts for supporters.
Losers.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pmSorry, that should have been “Scalia and Thomas,” not “Alito and Thomas.” I do that all the time, unfortunately.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:04 pmI do that all the time, unfortunately.
Comment by PaulBgone — July 11, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
:|
I never would have noticed.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:07 pmOn that 2004 ruling that Bartlebee is now having trouble with — from findlaw.com:
Just as I was wrong to claim that the case showed that executive privilege could be successfully invoked, Bartlebee was equally wrong when he wrote that:
I’ve admitted my error; think Bartlebee will admit to his?
July 11th, 2007 at 8:10 pm“I never would have noticed.”
Is that really the best you can do? Lame, Bartlebee, really lame.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:12 pmI see you’re still referring to a ruling that never occured, as “the 2004 ruling”.
And they based it on procedural matters, because otherwise they would have had to voice an opinion (sending it back to the courts based on some specific merit or lack thereof is in and of itself, a ruling),
It was never ruled on. And the reason it wasn’t ruled on, was because it was already ruled on, back in 1974.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:17 pmThe precedent has already been set, and since 1974, the acid test has always been “is this a matter of national security or international diplomacy” or treaty, as was the case with George Washington (the first president to invoke executive privilege), and anything BEYOND that is moving beyond defined law.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm“I see you’re still referring to a ruling that never occured, as “the 2004 rulingâ€.”
LOL… Bartlebee, just because they remanded it to the lower courts doesn’t mean that it is not a ruling, by both the strict and legal definition of that word. Of course it was a ruling!
“And they based it on procedural matters, because otherwise they would have had to voice an opinion (sending it back to the courts based on some specific merit or lack thereof is in and of itself, a ruling),”
Which means that they explicitly did not rule on the merits of the claim of executive privilege, which means that your statement above was incorrect. As already noted, Scalia and Thomas were quite prepared to do so, ruling in Cheney’s favor.
“And the reason it wasn’t ruled on, was because it was already ruled on, back in 1974.”
Nope, sorry. If they were going to invoke the 1974 case, they would have explicitly said so. Now you’re just making shit up.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:22 pmI have been trying to email the House Judiciary Committee members with my request that they invoke their “Inherent Contempt” power tomorrow when Harriet Miers doesn’t show up. I discovered that most Reps don’t let you email them unless you are a constituent. I am very frustrated. For those who might be interested, here is the link to the Congressional Oversight Manual which spells out inherent contempt and how to use it.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf
Here is the letter I was trying to send to the committee members:
I have been following the events of our current administration closely and feel compelled to let you know my opinion of these critical matters. As a United States’ citizen I have the right to know the truth about what has transpired in many of these scandals and fear that the message will be lost if you continue dragging these hearings out.
Congress must use their inherent contempt power with all witnesses who refuse to testify after being subpoenaed by either the House or the Senate. This procedure is spelled out in the Congressional Oversight Manual which was updated in May 2007. The consequences for their contempt must be sure and swift.
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby must be granted immunity and subpoenaed to testify immediately. Libby has so much information about the bigger players in all of these activities. We can’t let this all go the way of the Iran Contra scandal. This would hold true for any of the other smaller players in this farce. If it means that a few get their walking papers, so be it. The benefits far outweigh the costs.
I am now speaking for millions of American people and voters of this country. You must listen to our outrage about this criminal administration. We deserve to have our questions answered. It’s time to get to the bottom of this quagmire so the healing process can begin in this great land of ours.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:22 pmI don’t need to “google” everything to understand it within the context of history. The precedent was set. The courts did not feel that a general need to confidentiality was merit enough in light of a criminal investigation or proceeding, (which any 1st year PolySci student would likely know) and therefore ruled against Richard Nixon, thus setting precedent.
Anything beyond that precedent is to append existing use beyond that of existing law with regards to execution of this executive power (everyday activites of a private citizen do not need to be dictated as legal by decree, the legal authority of a public official to excert that authority, does) is therefore purely speculative, and not founded in existing law.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:26 pm“The precedent has already been set”
Yes, but not as “unequivocally” as you claim.
“and since 1974, the acid test has always been ‘is this a matter of national security or international diplomacy’ or treaty”
No. The acid test is whether the need to reveal that information outweighs the president’s need for privacy and confidentiality. If you believe otherwise, then by all means let’s see the portion of the later Clinton ruling that indicates that they used the acid test you claim.
“and anything BEYOND that is moving beyond defined law”
Well, that’s kinda my point, Bartlebee. The court left the door open to further claims of executive privilege, meaning that further claims of such privilege will have to be adjudicated.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pmAnd no I’m not making shit up. You’re the one guilty of that, remember?
You in fact confessed to it.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:28 pm“I don’t need to “google†everything to understand it within the context of history.”
LOL… Bartlebee, just admit that most of what you wrote in post 27 was false and move on.
“The precedent was set.”
Yes, just not the way you claim it was. For example, the Washington Post wrote about the Clinton case as follows:
Note that the judge in that case ruled precisely as I’ve been saying — not that Clinton had no claim to executive privilege in this matter, but that that claim was outweighed by Starr’s need for evidence.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:31 pm“And no I’m not making shit up.”
Yes, Bartlebee, you are. Sorry. I’ve already documented it.
“You’re the one guilty of that, remember?”
Nope, sorry.
“You in fact confessed to it.”
Nope, I confessed to using an incorrect source and getting a key datapoint wrong. Since you also got the 2004 case wrong, though, I’m not feeling too bad about it, particularly since I openly confessed to getting it wrong.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pmI did not get the 2004 case wrong.
I was the one who corrected you after you invented it decision to make your argument.
Since then, you’ve been playing catchup.
But whatever.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pmBy the way, Bartlebee, the lower court in the Clinton case, according to the Supreme Court brief filed by Ken Starr, had this to say:
Note the part in bold. Starr further went on to say, describing the lower court’s thinking:
And, of course, the lower court agreed that there was such sufficient showing of need in this case, which is why Clinton lost. In other words, the acid test used was the one I describe above, not the one you describe. And your assertion that such claims were unequivocally ruled out in 1974 is simply false.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pmHave fun playing with yourself.
Nite.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pm“I did not get the 2004 case wrong.”
LOL… Yes, Bartlebee, you did. Why are you bothering to deny it? Here’s the quote of yours that gets it wrong:
Sorry, Bartlebee, but you’re flatly incorrect. This is what I mean by “making shit up.”
July 11th, 2007 at 8:40 pmSee you around, I’m sure, Bartlebee. If you’re as careless of your facts on other topics as you are on this one, I look forward to our discussions.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:41 pmPaulB and Bartlebee:
Thanks for bogarting the blog, you bloghogs!
You’ve been dancing around the same issue endlessly, forcing the rest of us to hit the Page Down button over and over just to find some new input. How very troll of you!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 8:50 pmYou’re the one who invented a scenario that never occured.
You’re the one who even admitted to frantically googling, and then not even knowing what you were looking at.
I posted real events and facts to back them up.
What you just do not get, is that presidents just can’t invent powers, not legally anyway. The 2004 case that was NEVER ruled on by the SCOTUS, but instead tossed back to a lower court, the judge in that court really had no where to go on a legal basis. If he had ruled powers to the president that were not expressly granted our outlined in an earlier SCOTUS decision, or found anywhere in the Constution, then his decision would have been overturned by another judge, who understands that the president cannot just dictate his own powers.
You clearly are a buffon. You try to talk smug, but you’re the one who can’t get his facts straight.
A fact that is proven in your above comments.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pmSee? See post number 194, Paul?
Now you know why I didn’t want to continue debating you on your mindnumbingly innane minutia.
I tried not to let you sucker me in, but I did.
Sorry Kate. Didn’t mean to hog the blog.
At least we were on topic, ay?
July 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pmBartlebee; winning friends and influencing trolls again?
July 11th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI guess Willy. I just can’t seem to stay out of trouble.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pmBartlebee:
On topic…granted. But you should know better than to feed the trolls. It is not possible to enlighten them; but they can drag you down with them ;).
July 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pmBattling their circular logic is an object lesson in futility. not even good exercise. Unless of course you are drinking. Then it’s fun.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pm“You’re the one who invented a scenario that never occured.”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, I didn’t. I got one detail wrong and I admitted to it. You’ve gotten several points wrong and haven’t admitted a single one.
“I posted real events and facts to back them up.”
So did I, Bartlebee, including both the 2004 ruling (that you claimed did not exist) and the Clinton ruling, which debunked both your claim about the so-called “acid test” and your claim that privilege could not be invoked in non-security and non-diplomatic matters. I also referred to the 1974 ruling, which also debunked those claims of yours. I find it interesting that you have so persistently tried to defend the indefensible.
“What you just do not get, is that presidents just can’t invent powers, not legally anyway.”
Yes, Bartlebee, I know. What you refuse to acknowledge is that executive privilege in non-security and non-diplomatic matters does, in fact, exist. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have acknowledged this.
“You clearly are a buffon. You try to talk smug, but you’re the one who can’t get his facts straight.”
LOL… Bartlebee, I made one (count it, one) mistake. I openly admitted it and I apologized for it. You, on the other hand…
“See? See post number 194, Paul?”
LOL… Bartlebee, you’ve been tossing out insults right and left throughout this entire discussion. What on earth upset you so much about post 194? You have been, in fact, careless about your facts in this matter.
“Now you know why I didn’t want to continue debating you on your mindnumbingly innane minutia”
Considering that that “innane minutia” [sic] is absolutely critical to an understanding of executive privilege, forgive me if I don’t share your unconcern for such things. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pmWAS he a troll?
:|
I was pretty sure but I didn’t want to say for sure because I just didn’t know him.
I must be getting slow in my old age.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pmI got one detail wrong and I admitted to it.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Yea, one teensy weensy little detail.
You claimed that in 2004 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bush administration on Executive Privilege, although that never occured.
Just a minor detail.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:06 pm“But you should know better than to feed the trolls.”
Interesting. First time I’ve been called a troll. I welcome anyone pointing to the flaws in my discussion, other than the one I’ve already acknowledged.
“It is not possible to enlighten them”
LOL… Funny, I was just thinking that about Bartlebee.
“Battling their circular logic is an object lesson in futility.”
Care to tell me where my logic is circular? I’ve already shown that I’m prepared to acknowledge any errors I make. If I got something wrong, then by all means, show me.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pmYea, you’re right.
He’s clearly a right wing troll pretending to be an interested moderate.
Ok, I’ll take your advice Kate, and ignore him.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:08 pm“WAS he a troll?”
Nope. I’ve posted here before, although I mostly hang out at TAPPED and WashingtonMonthly.com. I always use the same handle, so a Google search will show you the type of posts I make.
“I was pretty sure but I didn’t want to say for sure because I just didn’t know him.”
You were “pretty sure” solely because I disagreed with you. That’s not a particularly useful definition to follow.
“I must be getting slow in my old age.”
You said it; I didn’t.
“Yea, one teensy weensy little detail.”
Yup. One detail among the several I used to make my case. The case is wholly unaffected by the removal of that detail. The 1974 case and the Clinton case are sufficient to show that you are wrong.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:09 pm“Yea, you’re right. He’s clearly a right wing troll pretending to be an interested moderate.”
ROFLMAO… I’ll take this claim as seriously as I do your other claims, Bartlebee. Like I said, a quick Google search like:
this one
or
this one
should be sufficient. But hey, if it salves your ego to consider me a troll, by all means, do so.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pmInsistant little troll, isn’t he?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm“Insistant little troll, isn’t he?”
ROFL… Only when I’m right. But hey, feel free to keep calling me a troll if it makes you feel better.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:16 pmPaulB? Do you know how many times to make reference to court cases where the outcome does not support your claims, but you then tack on “the court leaves the door open” as if that makes your case for you?
I’m counting now. I’ll get back to you.
And you were wrong about the 2004 case.
troll.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pmOk Kate, I lied. I just can’t let this moron babble unchecked.
You’re an IDIOT with a capital I PaulB.
Both cases you keep citing, in BOTH cases, the judge voted to uphold the PRECDENT set by the 1974 case!!!
As I have been arguing all along.
In BOTH the 1998 exective privilege claim made by Clinton with regards to his aides testifying in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the 2004 instance invoked by Dubya to conceal Cheney’s energy ties, the Judges declined to annoint the president with any further use of the power not specifically outlined in the 1974 Nixon case.
My point is, and has been consistent all along, that is that there is no further power outside of the 1974 ruling legally entitling the president to execute executive privilege, and so far, your 2 examples, have confirmed that.
Now, I think your clocks about as clean as I can get it, but if you want more, bring it on.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:20 pmYou see that? I’m not even drunk. This is your fault Bartlebee
July 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pmuh, I addressed that in 210. i got him counting now.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:22 pmThe president doesn’t get to invent his own powers, but if you are arguing that he does, while in the same breath as claiming to be a prog, then clearly the others are correct, and you are just a big, fat, troll.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:22 pm“PaulB? Do you know how many times to make reference to court cases where the outcome does not support your claims, but you then tack on “the court leaves the door open†as if that makes your case for you?”
ROFL… Willy, I’m not the one who made the following claims, every single one of them wrong:
1. but the fact is Executive Privilege CANNOT be invoked in a domestic matter not associated with national security.
2. The US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.
3. It CANNOT, under ANY circumstances be used just to conceal private White House conversations.
4. And the reason it wasn’t ruled on [in 2004], was because it was already ruled on, back in 1974.
5. and since 1974, the acid test has always been ‘is this a matter of national security or international diplomacy’ or treatyâ€
Every one of those statements is provably false, Willy. If you disagree with me, then by all means show me where I’m wrong. Bartlebee keeps dancing around instead of dealing with this head on. Maybe you can do a better job?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:24 pmThe president doesn’t get to invent his own powers,
Have you not been reading the papers for the last few years? Apparently he does get to make up powers.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:24 pmLoL, sorry Willy, I was kinda focused there for a moment.
Better get drunk.
I got a feeling this ones exceptionally thick.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:25 pmEvery one of those statements is provably false, Willy. If you disagree with me, then by all means show me where I’m wrong. Bartlebee keeps dancing around instead of dealing with this head on. Maybe you can do a better job?
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Prove it. Prove ONE place where the court ruled latitude BEYOND the powers outlined in the 1974 ruling.
Troll.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:26 pmAnd I just PROVED you wrong.
The TWO cases you cited, BOTH resulted in the judge DECLINING to advance any further powers than outlined in the 1974 ruling.
You beat yourself.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pmThey might be provably false, but you sir, have not done it.
In fact, your cases sighted make his case for him.
The courts have ruled here in this thread, after reading the cases presented by both parties, and you have lost PaulB.
Now, in your logic, that “leaves the door open”. And that is fine.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pmSomething I bet you have a lot of experience doing.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:28 pm“Ok Kate, I lied. I just can’t let this moron babble unchecked.”
Actually, you can, of course, particularly if your case is as strong as you claim it is.
“You’re an IDIOT with a capital I PaulB.”
Why thank you, kind sir.
“Both cases you keep citing, in BOTH cases, the judge voted to uphold the PRECDENT set by the 1974 case!!!”
In 2004, the court did not vote to uphold the precedent set by the 1974 case. And in the Clinton case, I agree with this statement, but the real issue is that the precedent and the “acid test” are not what you claim they are. Why are you having so much trouble dealing with this?
“As I have been arguing all along.”
Nope. You’ve been making false statements about what that precedent actually was.
“In BOTH the 1998 exective privilege claim made by Clinton with regards to his aides testifying in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the 2004 instance invoked by Dubya to conceal Cheney’s energy ties, the Judges declined to annoint the president with any further use of the power not specifically outlined in the 1974 Nixon case.”
The justices specifically did not rule on this issue in 2004. In 1998, they did, but see above. You’re arguing the wrong point.
“My point is, and has been consistent all along, that is that there is no further power outside of the 1974 ruling legally entitling the president to execute executive privilege, and so far, your 2 examples, have confirmed that.”
No, you still don’t get it. In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege. In fact, in 1998, the court specifically ruled that Clinton could claim executive privilege: “ the Court concluded that the subpoenaed testimony must be treated as presumptively privileged.”
“Now, I think your clocks about as clean as I can get it, but if you want more, bring it on.”
Any time, sweetheart. Since you’re arguing against points I’ve never made and ignoring the ones I have, I’m not particularly impressed with this post.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:30 pmBut you know PaulB. What I stated was correct. You can’t sight a case where the ruling is against your argument, and then just add “leaves the door open” as if that is the definitive word on the ruling of that case. it is cardboard logic.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:30 pm“Prove it. Prove ONE place where the court ruled latitude BEYOND the powers outlined in the 1974 ruling.”
LOL… Bartlebee, you still don’t get it. I’m simply making the point that you got the details of that ruling wrong!
“Troll.”
LOL… Whatever.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:31 pmIf you knew history, and knew what the Jay Treaty was without having to google it, you’d know that every instance of executive privilege successfully upheld by the courts has only been in matters having to do with national security or international diplomacy.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:32 pm“They might be provably false, but you sir, have not done it.”
Yes, actually, I have, both by the actual words of that 1974 ruling and by the ruling in the Clinton case. See above where the district court judge in that case specifically ruled that Clinton had a claim to executive privilege in a non-security and non-diplomatic case. That that claim was overruled by the stronger claim for information regarding a criminal case does nothing to change the fact that the courts have consistently recognized that the President does, in fact, have a claim for executive privilege in non-security and non-diplomatic cases. It’s really that simple.
“In fact, your cases sighted make his case for him.”
Nope, sorry, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you. Bartlebee simply misstated the court’s decision in 1974, something that is confirmed by the 1998 case.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:35 pm“If you knew history, and knew what the Jay Treaty was without having to google it, you’d know that every instance of executive privilege successfully upheld by the courts has only been in matters having to do with national security or international diplomacy.”
ROFL.. What does that have to do with anything? You made a provably false claim; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:35 pm“But you know PaulB. What I stated was correct.”
No. Sigh… This really isn’t that complicated. Bartlebee simply overstated the case, pretending that the court had unequivocally ruled that executive privilege could only be invoked in matters of security and diplomacy. That is flatly contradicted by both the 1974 and 1998 rulings. Look at what the judge wrote in that latter case — Clinton presumptively had a claim to executive privilege! The 1974 case acknowledged the same thing.
“You can’t sight a case where the ruling is against your argument”
Precisely what “argument” do you think I’m making? Bartlebee keeps getting it wrong. Maybe you can do better?
“and then just add “leaves the door open†as if that is the definitive word on the ruling of that case.”
But that is precisely what the court did — they acknowledged that the president did, in fact, have a claim to executive privilege.
“it is cardboard logic.”
Not at all; that’s the way court cases work! Look at the “acid test” that the judge used in the Clinton case. Was it that the claim to executive privilege was denied because it wasn’t related to national security or diplomacy, as Bartlebee asserts? Of course not, because that assertion is wrong. That isn’t the “acid test” that the courts use. The courts balance, as they have always balanced, the presidents executive privilege against the need for the information being sheltered.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pmPaulB: you bring to the table this quote ; “However, the Court held that this privilege is not absolute but can be overcome if a judge concludes that there is a compelling governmental interest in getting access to the otherwise privileged conversations, as in the case of the Nixon tapes.
Then you go again to mention that they did rule against Nixon’s absolute power of E.P. “but left the door open” for future use.
Well, the quote you found and pasted says ” if a judge concludes that there is a compelling governmental interest in getting access ” then this rule can be overcome.
I think there is without a doubt compelling governmental intrest in getting access to this material.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:45 pmIn 2004, the court did not vote to uphold the precedent set by the 1974 case.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Yes they did. In fact, they referenced it, and the US Constitution, and their reluctance to permit further interpretation than already provided by both.
In the District Courts view, these issues of executive
privilege will be much more limited in scope than the
broad constitutional challenge raised by the government.
The District Court adopted this approach in an
attempt to avoid constitutional questions, noting that if,
after discovery, respondents have no evidentiary support
for the allegations about the regular participation by
lobbyists and industry executives on the NEPDG, the
Government can prevail on statutory grounds
From the SCOTUS SYLLABUS
July 11th, 2007 at 9:47 pmCHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA ET AL.
No, you still don’t get it. In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
BAWAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHA
Ok, now I know you’re an idiot. In Clintons case the ruled that the aides COULD be called to testify.
In the 1974 case, they ruled that Nixons people had to testify.
You are a RUBE.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pmNo, you still don’t get it. In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Sorry. Wanted to make sure everyone knows who said this ignorant line.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pmLet’s go over it again, shall we?
1. but the fact is Executive Privilege CANNOT be invoked in a domestic matter not associated with national security.”
Yes, it can, as Clinton did, and the judge in that case agreed that “the subpoenaed testimony must be treated as presumptively privileged.” Clinton did, in fact, legitimately invoke executive privilege. Yes, that privilege was overruled by the stronger need for information in a criminal case, but that does nothing to change the fact that Bartlebee simply overstated what the court said.
What the courts have really said is that presidents can invoke executive privilege in non-security and non-diplomatic cases but that these claims must be balanced against the need for the information being sheltered. There is a fundamental difference between this statement and what Bartlebee wrote above.
“2. The US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.”
No. This statement is just flatly false. No court has ever “unequivocally” ruled this. Period.
“3. It CANNOT, under ANY circumstances be used just to conceal private White House conversations.”
Again, this statement is just flatly false. No court has ever “unequivocally” ruled this. Period.
“4. And the reason it wasn’t ruled on [in 2004], was because it was already ruled on, back in 1974.”
Bartlebee simply made this up, since the court explicitly did not rule on the matter of executive privilege, despite the fact that Thomas and Scalia wanted to (and wanted to rule in favor of Cheney). Had the other seven justices agreed with them, they could easily have disposed of this issue. They chose not to.
“5. and since 1974, the acid test has always been ‘is this a matter of national security or international diplomacy’ or treaty—
See my post on the Clinton case above and note the “acid test” the judge used. Note how the judge in that case didn’t use the acid test of whether it was a matter of national security or international diplomacy.
Sigh… This really isn’t that complicated. All I’ve asked for, from the very beginning, is that Bartlebee reign in his claims just a bit — to what the courts have actually ruled. It doesn’t even affect the outcome in this case, since I agree that this should (and hopefully) will follow the same path as the Clinton case — yes, Bush has the right to invoke executive privilege, but that right is outweighed by the need for the information he’s trying to protect.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:50 pmHere. From WIKI.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first President since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a Federal judge ruled Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.[4]
Later Clinton NEGOTIATED with Ken Starrr to testify and Starr AGREED, but that had nothing to do with a legal ruling.
The fact is the case YOU cited, ruled to uphold the 1974 SCOTUS decision, and even CITED it in their ruling.
You idiot.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:51 pm“Then you go again to mention that they did rule against Nixon’s absolute power of E.P. “but left the door open†for future use.”
Yes.
“I think there is without a doubt compelling governmental intrest in getting access to this material.”
I agree. But that doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Bartlebee’s comments.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:52 pmNo No No Paul, not that easy. You’re not getting away with this one.
You just said:
No, you still don’t get it. In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
WHICH IS FALSE.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:53 pmWIKIPEDIA
WRONG!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 9:53 pm“Ok, now I know you’re an idiot. In Clintons case the ruled that the aides COULD be called to testify.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, you really don’t know how to read, do you? The judge in that case ruled that Clinton had a right to invoke executive privilege — see my posts above for the specific quote — but that that right was overruled by the need for the information. I’ve said this all along, Bartlebee. You were so eager to exploit a “gotcha” moment, you didn’t even realize that I got it exactly right!
“In the 1974 case, they ruled that Nixons people had to testify.”
Yup, nor have I ever claimed otherwise, anymore than I have ever claimed that Clinton’s people did not.
“You are a RUBE.”
Um … considering your lack of reading comprehension, forgive me if I don’t take this seriously.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:54 pmIn both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
WRONG
July 11th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
The innacuracy of my comments you pathetic twit?
READ YOU INBRED TWIT.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Bartlebee; he doesn’t have enough sense to know his own material doesn’t support his case.
PaulB. Though you seem to be trying to argue that this is simply not cut and dry, you are debating the definition of the word “is” or the actual Branch of Government the OVP resides in.
There can be many ways to look at the rulings once you assert that they courts ruled one way, but then left the door open for another interpretation. And that is for all the little lawyers to use to try to shelter the actions of the President in the shaddows of loopholes.
You are indeed a troll because you spend time here trying to pump that primer.
Doesn’t work. Executive Privilege and it’s applications are very specific and anyone who attempts to use it in a preditory way that is unnatural to it’s intended purpose has, in my mind, committed a violation of trust if not the law.
It is not a grey area where there is any confusion. Just like a blowjob is a blowjob is a blowjob.
Your point is wrong.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm“No No No Paul, not that easy. You’re not getting away with this one.”
ROFL… You still don’t get it. My statement was 100% accurate, Bartlebee. I wish the same could be said of yours.
“You just said:
No, you still don’t get it. In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege”
Yup. Read the rulings. Both rulings specifically acknowledged that the president did, in fact, have a right to executive privilege BUT that that right was overruled in both cases by the need for the information being protected. I’ve said this in every one of my posts, Bartlebee. Every one.
“WHICH IS FALSE.”
LOL… Nope, not even remotely.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:57 pmJuly 11th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Go get em Leahy!
July 11th, 2007 at 9:59 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH???
July 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Both NIXON, and CLINTON, were DENIED executive privilege.
Thats a matter of HISTORY.
Paul however claims….
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Paul just invents history.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:01 pmI seen this live. It looked like she took a crap on herself when she realized she fugged up. Leahy played her sooooo smooth. I loved every minute of it. She thought she was cool. Until she got set up. Great job, Leahy. Keep the pressure on.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:04 pmMee thinks Paul the troll is out buying a new keyboard.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pmdid you read my post Bartlebee?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pm“Bartlebee; he doesn’t have enough sense to know his own material doesn’t support his case.”
LOL… Then show me. So far, all you’re doing is just claiming “I’m wrong” and not showing me a single statement of mine that is incorrect.
“PaulB. Though you seem to be trying to argue that this is simply not cut and dry”
That is precisely what I’m doing. Bartlebee, and I think, you, are having trouble understanding. You seem to believe I’m arguing the merits of the Bush case. I’m not — I happen to agree that the Bush case should be cut and dried and I hope the Roberts court would rule that way. I’m simply arguing that Bartlebee’s claims were too strong — he was misreading what the court said and ignoring the wiggle room they left, including the wiggle room where they explicitly acknowledge the right of the president to invoke executive privilege.
“you are debating the definition of the word “is†or the actual Branch of Government the OVP resides in.”
But that’s precisely what courts have to do! In this case, Bush clearly can invoke executive privilege. Both the 1974 case and the 1998 case allow it. Hell, in the latter case, the judge agreed that Clinton could do so. What the courts will then have to do is decide whether that executive privilege outweighs the need to expose the information being protected, precisely as they did in 1974 and 1998. In both of those cases, Nixon and Clinton lost because the courts decided that the need for the information outweighted the president’s right to protect it. Bush should lose on those grounds, not because the court has ruled unequivocally that he has no right to invoke executive privilege.
“There can be many ways to look at the rulings once you assert that they courts ruled one way, but then left the door open for another interpretation. And that is for all the little lawyers to use to try to shelter the actions of the President in the shaddows of loopholes.”
Yup, and that just bolsters my case. It simply is not as open-and-shut as Bartlebee would like to believe. The President’s lawyers can and will try to exploit those loopholes.
“You are indeed a troll because you spend time here trying to pump that primer.”
ROFL… Nope, sorry.
“Doesn’t work. Executive Privilege and it’s applications are very specific”
Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple, which is why the 1974 and 1998 rulings aren’t nearly as cut-and-dried as you and Bartlebee would like to believe.
“and anyone who attempts to use it in a preditory way that is unnatural to it’s intended purpose has, in my mind, committed a violation of trust if not the law.”
Violation of trust? Definitely. Unethical and immoral? Hell, yes. Illegal? If they properly follow precedent, yes.
“It is not a grey area where there is any confusion. Just like a blowjob is a blowjob is a blowjob.”
Oh man, could I go into this one, but I refuse to get distracted.
“Your point is wrong.”
That’s because you’re not seeing the actual point I’m making.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:07 pmYea I read it. It was good. But he’s way wrong here. They left no door “open for interpretation” because they don’t have the power to do that. Not the lower courts anyway.
SCOTUS on the other hand outlined the usuages as they understood them in 1974, and so far, no prior sitting SCOTUS has opted to overturn, or add to that authority.
He is completely and 100 percent WRONG.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pmLeahy is right if the president was not involved with the firings then why is he asserting executive privilege? Why are Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, other Justice department officials, and Taylor so eager to say that Bush was not part of the discussions. Are they saying that decisions are made in this White House without the consent of or any participation in discussions of and by the president? Is he not in charge?
All these people need to come clean because Leahy and Conyers are not going to back down from finding out the truth which the American people deserve to know. Also if Taylor or Gonzales lied under oath by saying they didn’t know the answer, but in fact did, then they lied under oath to Congress. They perjured themselves and a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate each of those instances.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:12 pmYoui’re full of shit Paul.
You don’t even know what you’re saying from minute to minute, and your story just changes as you get your ass handed to you.
Here. Let me help you again.
INBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH???
July 11th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
“Both NIXON, and CLINTON, were DENIED executive privilege.”
No, Bartlebee. They were allowed to claim executive privilege. Did you even bother to read this statement in the Clinton matter: “the Court concluded that the subpoenaed testimony must be treated as presumptively privileged.” Is any of this sinking in, Bartlebee? The judge agreed that Clinton had a right to executive privilege! The judge then weighed that executive privilege against the need for information in a criminal case, precisely as I’ve been stating all along.
“Thats a matter of HISTORY.”
Unfortunately, no. You simply don’t understand.
“In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege”
Yup, a statement that is 100% accurate. The courts have always allowed for executive privilege, including in cases where national security and diplomacy are not involved. The courts then weigh that executive privilege claim against the other matters placed before them, precisely as I’ve been saying all along/
“Paul just invents history.”
Your failure to understand is not my problem.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:13 pmThe idiot troll, just said that in 1998 and 1974, that the court ruled to allow executive privilege.
Yet every 5th grader in the country and up, knows that they ruled to DENY executive privilege.
I think the problem with this inbred troll, is that he doens’t know the difference between the words, DENY, and ALLOW.
Let me help him.
HEY TROLL.
DENIED, is what the accredited colleges told you.
ALLOWED, is what MESSIAH U told you.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:15 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH???
July 11th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
PaulB. In your last post at 250 you start off with “That is precisely what I’m doing.” refering to the fact that I know what your trying to say. I got that much right.
then at the end you say “That’s because you’re not seeing the actual point I’m making.” and I say…ok. Sorry, but you contradict yourself.
But, more importantly you say this “Violation of trust? Definitely. Unethical and immoral? Hell, yes. Illegal? If they properly follow precedent, yes.” Now that leads me to believe that we are all on the same page here.
You agree with many, if not all, the serious points I make. Except for the fact that that you are making an arguement based on the “fog of law” that there is grey area here. It is no more grey than OJ cutting off someones head. He got away with it, but I think he knew it was wrong when he did it.
But you could at least give me credit for reading your posts and understanding the point you were trying to make? Right?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:17 pmHe’s now arguing what the term, ALLOWED meant.
Your momma must be crying buckets boy.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:17 pm“Youi’re full of shit Paul.”
LOL… So you’ve said, Bartlebee, repeatly. Too bad you haven’t been able to substantiate that.
“You don’t even know what you’re saying from minute to minute”
ROFL… Actually, Bartlebee, I do. Quite well, in fact.
“and your story just changes as you get your ass handed to you.”
My story has never changed, Bartlebee. It’s always been about those five false statements of yours.
“Here. Let me help you again.”
LOL… Whatever…
“INBRED PAUL SAID – In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege”
Yes, Bartlebee, I did, a statement I continue to stand by and have supported. And just as you’ve taken statements out of context from court rulings, you have taken this statement of mine out of context, as well, and in both cases, it has led you astray.
“BUT THE TRUTH???”
The truth is precisely what I stated, Bartlebee. The courts have always allowed for executive privilege, including in cases where national security and diplomacy are not involved. The courts then weigh that executive privilege claim against the other matters placed before them, precisely as I’ve been saying all along. I haven’t changed that statement from the very beginning, Bartlebee; I’ve been consistent in every single post.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:17 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH???
July 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
formating error-repost-sorry
PaulB. In your last post at 250 you start off with “That is precisely what I’m doing.†refering to the fact that I know what your trying to say. I got that much right.
then at the end you say “That’s because you’re not seeing the actual point I’m making.†and I say…ok. Sorry, but you contradict yourself.
But, more importantly you say this “Violation of trust? Definitely. Unethical and immoral? Hell, yes. Illegal? If they properly follow precedent, yes.†Now that leads me to believe that we are all on the same page here.
You agree with many, if not all, the serious points I make. Except for the fact that that you are making an arguement based on the “fog of law†that there is grey area here. It is no more grey than OJ cutting off someones head. He got away with it, but I think he knew it was wrong when he did it.
But you could at least give me credit for reading your posts and understanding the point you were trying to make? Right?
July 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pmThe fact is, the SCOTUS HAS NEVER, nor has the lower courts EVER, ruled FOR executive privilege BEYOND the 1974 definition.
You’re full of shit, and have yet to prove one place where they did rule outside of the original ruling.
The two cases you originally provided as two cases where they voted for executive privliege, were actually cases where they voted AGAINST it, because it did not meet criteria established by precedent.
The precedent was the usage of executive privilege by earlier presidents, all of which were in matters where national security ties or international treaties or diplomacy were concerned.
The only two cases you posted, PROVED that you are wrong, and I am right.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:23 pm#
Leahey needs to tighten up his game and stop with the fancy conclusions.
He’s right, if Taylor didn’t speak with the President or attend any meetings then she has no claim to executive privilege, but the fact is Executive Privilege CANNOT be invoked in a domestic matter not associated with national security anyway, so the case is moot.
The US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.
It CANNOT, under ANY circumstances be used just to conceal private White House conversations.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
BART,
July 11th, 2007 at 10:25 pmBut that is ONLY if you beleive in Stare Decesis. And these guys do not. It should be interesting to see who does, and then impeach them for lying to Congress because they were all grilled on Stare Decesis.
“Now that leads me to believe that we are all on the same page here.”
With respect to Bush? Damn right. I want him to lose and lose badly. And I would absolutely love it if he were to lose while still in office. Either way, I want this adjudicated, even with the risk that a Roberts-led court will rule in Bush’s favor and even if the final ruling doesn’t come until Bush has left office, because I want this precedent hammered home and I want Bush and Cheney to know that their attempts to create an imperial presidency have failed.
“You agree with many, if not all, the serious points I make. Except for the fact that that you are making an arguement based on the “fog of law†that there is grey area here.”
Well that and the five statements that Bartlebee made that simply are not supported by the precedents in these matters. But I think you’re overstating the “fog of law” here. The law isn’t that foggy — the president undeniably has a right to claim executive privilege; it’s just that that claim has to be balanced against the need for the information he’s protecting. Now judging that “balance” can be a bit foggy but the precedents are pretty clear, which is why I Bush should, and I hope, will, lose.
I think it’s important, even critical, to acknowledge that fog, though, since I believe at least four justices on the Supreme Court will be looking there. We already know that Scalia and Thomas were prepared to declare that Cheney could, in fact, invoke executive privilege. We also know that Roberts and Alito are strong believers in an unfettered president and have no qualms about overturning precedents. If that’s correct, and these men rule as I fear, then all Bush needs is just one more justice. It’s important to acknowledge and understand that Bush could win and that it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as we both believe it should be. It won’t be the first time that the Supreme Court has handed Bush an unwarranted victory.
“But you could at least give me credit for reading your posts and understanding the point you were trying to make? Right?”
Yes, now if you could just get through to Bartlebee, who’s still trying to play “gotcha” and still not comprehending what I’m saying. Maybe these really are trivial matters, but I absolutely guarantee that the president’s lawyers and Congressional lawyers have been scouring these trivial matters for months.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:27 pmBartlebee, is there a particular reason you want to keep playing childish games?
“INBRED PAUL SAID – In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege”
Yes, Bartlebee, I did, a statement I continue to stand by and have supported. And just as you’ve taken statements out of context from court rulings, you have taken this statement of mine out of context, as well, and in both cases, it has led you astray.
“BUT THE TRUTH???â€
The truth is precisely what I stated, Bartlebee. The courts have always allowed for executive privilege, including in cases where national security and diplomacy are not involved. The courts then weigh that executive privilege claim against the other matters placed before them, precisely as I’ve been saying all along. I haven’t changed that statement from the very beginning, Bartlebee; I’ve been consistent in every single post.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:30 pm“You’re full of shit, and have yet to prove one place where they did rule outside of the original ruling.”
LOL… Since I’ve never claimed otherwise, forgive me for ignoring this strawman.
Bartlebee, you have the precise statements of yours, five of them, that I disagree with, along with my reasons for disagreeing with them. If you want to continue this discussion, might I suggest you start there? Because right now, this is getting silly.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:32 pm“The only two cases you posted, PROVED that you are wrong, and I am right.”
LOL… You have the five statements of yours that I disagree with, Bartlebee. Feel free to show me why those statements are accurate. Thus far, you’ve failed.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:34 pmExcuse me PaulB, but if a court says yes, you can claim Exec priv all you want, but the case revolves around something not concering National Security or safety and your exec priv is not valid, as the courts have found, then YOU are being the one who is playing semantics here.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:35 pmThey slapped Nixon and Clinton down, so therefore there is NO Exec Priv. Just because YOU feel they used it PROPERLY does not make it so.
to both of you silly silly boys, from The Nation;
James Madison, who is rightly referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” wrote extensively about the times in which impeachment would be necessary. “[If] the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty,” observed the man whose notes provide the essential outline of the deliberations of the Constitutional convention.
Madison’s Virginia compatriot, George Mason, who was an even more ardent advocate of impeachment, was similarly concerned about abuses of the power of the president to keep the law from touching his associates.
There is no question as to the opinion of the Founding Fathers nor apparently of the SCOTUS in the two sited rulings…
Any President who willfully misuses this authority to cover for potential crimes within his own administration is not only impeachable, but also guilty of treason.
Thus is it said by me. the great me. mealmighty
July 11th, 2007 at 10:37 pm“Excuse me PaulB, but if a court says yes, you can claim Exec priv all you want, but the case revolves around something not concering National Security or safety and your exec priv is not valid, as the courts have found, then YOU are being the one who is playing semantics here.”
No, because the courts did not rule that executive privilege was only valid in cases of security and diplomacy, despite what Bartlebee has claimed. That simply is not the “acid test” that Bartlebee claims it is, which is why the court in 1998 didn’t reject Clinton’s claim on those grounds.
“They slapped Nixon and Clinton down, so therefore there is NO Exec Priv.”
Sigh… They ruled quite narrowly in both cases, explicitly allowing for executive privilege. In the latter case, the judge even agreed that such communication would normally be protected by executive privilege, even though it’s not security or diplomacy, were it not for the conflicting need for the information being protected.
“Just because YOU feel they used it PROPERLY does not make it so.”
But I don’t feel they used it properly, any more than I feel that Bush is using it properly. I agree with the rulings in 1974 and 1998 and I agree that Bush should if those precedents are properly followed. I’m simply pointing out that Bartlebee’s assertions on these matters are false. We agree on the outcome; we disagree on the logic.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:40 pmSorry, that should be “and I agree that Bush should lose if those precedents are properly followed.” I left out the word “lose” above.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:43 pmStill think I’m a troll, willy? Pedantic and stubborn, I’ll freely acknowledge.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:45 pmOk folks, we have the way to take them down. Inherent Contempt. And if they bring it in the House, all they need is a simple majority and Ms. Taylor and Ms. Meiers go to jail. There is nothing that Bush can do to stop it. Just because it hasn’t been used since 1934 doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be used now. It’s perfect!
Inherent contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its “inherent contempt” authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against the Postmaster-General. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.
The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945).
July 11th, 2007 at 10:45 pm“I discovered that most Reps don’t let you email them unless you are a constituent.”
That’s no problem. Just look up a city in their state to find a zip code and then make up an address in that city. I’ve been doing this for months now and it works great. All their program does is to check to see that you have entered a valid zip code for their state.
But, you can get to Nancy Pelosi directly here:
http://speaker.gov/contact/
I send here a daily message.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:47 pmSorry dude, you are sounding more and more like a magician trying in vain to keep turning the bag inside out and saying “see it is not there.” I remember Clinton getting clapped down, and history teaches us that Nixon got the big slap too. So sorry Karl, it ain’t gonna fly here.
ANd BTW, Cheney cannot use EP, he is not in the Executive Branch, remember.
The whole Attorney firings is just another example of the cover-up is worse than the crime. Covering up and perjuring and lying is the crime now. Of course chucklenuts had no contact with Sara Taylor, it was Rove and Cheney who did it all.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:49 pmWe need to just hang Cheney ASAP. And Rove need a 50cal rigth through the melon, as he takes the family to church. His head should spontaneously combust as he enters a church or any other house of worship.
“Any President who willfully misuses this authority to cover for potential crimes within his own administration is not only impeachable, but also guilty of treason.”
I wish. Lord knows we have sufficient reason to impeach Gonzalez, Cheney, and Bush, all at once. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the votes in the Senate to do so.
I keep going back and forth on this issue. On the one hand, impeachment investigations would blow away the issue of executive privilege and all of the stonewalling we’ve endured thus far. It would also mean that the various members of the Bush administration would have to be a lot more concerned about making false statements than they have been thus far. Man, I’m salivating over finally seeing all of that crap they’ve been trying to hide.
Unfortunately, though, I’m not sure the public is ready to go along, the Republicans and the Bush administration will cry foul and an all-too-willing media will go along with them, and there’s no guarantee that it will make it out of the House absent a real smoking gun. And every guarantee that the Senate will not vote to convict.
I still come down on the side of investigate, investigate, investigate, and drill in on everything you find. If you find enough, the public will be on board. And once you have that, you have a far better chance realistically and politically of making it happen.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pm“Sorry dude, you are sounding more and more like a magician trying in vain to keep turning the bag inside out and saying ’see it is not there.’”
Sigh … another person who just cannot read what I write.
“I remember Clinton getting clapped down, and history teaches us that Nixon got the big slap too.”
Yes, they did, and in both cases, the courts acknowledged the right of presidents to claim executive privilege even while they ruled that that right was overruled by the need for the information they were trying to protect. The details matter. You just cannot go to the Supreme Court and say, “Clinton got slapped down and so did Nixon, so slap down Bush, y’hear?”
“So sorry Karl, it ain’t gonna fly here.”
ROFL… Whatever…
“ANd BTW, Cheney cannot use EP, he is not in the Executive Branch, remember.”
Of course he is, and of course he’ll claim executive privilege. He’s not going to make a silly argument like that in court; he knows better. That’s just for show.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pmLOL… You have the five statements of yours that I disagree with, Bartlebee. Feel free to show me why those statements are accurate. Thus far, you’ve failed.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
I have. A dozen times over.
Just saying I haven’t doesnt’ make it so.
And I have also disproved you on two occasions now, once when you invented a SCOTUS ruling that never occured, and a second when you claimed that the 1974 and 1998 rulings were in favor of executive decsion.
You sat here, and quoted two famous rulings where exectuve decision was STRUCK DOWN, and you said the courts allowed it and upheld executive decision, when in fact, they did as I said they did, and defined it by the precedent set by the Jay Treaty, and every instance of it since then by a sitting president, in that the boundaries of executive privilege reach to national security and international diplomacy, and not beyond.
You have YET to cite one case where executive decision was supported BEYOND those boundaries, and the only two cases you cited were cases where exective privilege was specifically struck down based on those very parameters.
The 1974 case was the first case to recognize executive privilege by the court, and it defined those outlines.
The 1998 case referenced the 1974 case as precedent in its decision, thus upholding those boundaries.
To date, not ONE case has shown any authority outside of those privliges, and to date, you have not been able to CITE ONE.
We’re waiting.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:07 pmAnd yes, I still think you’re a troll.
And if you’re not, you oughta be.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:07 pmah, theres ol bartlebee.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:08 pmTwo fish were swimming along in stream that suddenly dumped them into the ocean, where they were surrounded by all sorts of wild sea urchins, manta, eel and clownfish.
The one little fish looked at the other little fish and said, “with friends like these, who needs anemones?”
July 11th, 2007 at 11:10 pmyou got a blog
July 11th, 2007 at 11:11 pm“And yes, I still think you’re a troll.”
Bartlebee, considering your own behavior on this thread, I’d be careful about those stones you’re throwing. Your glass house is quite fragile. Ah, well, this statement of yours is as accurate as your others, so I’m not too surprised.
“And if you’re not, you oughta be.”
LOL… “Oughtta be?” No comment necessary.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:13 pmsee? troll. I can spot them from 100 blogs away
July 11th, 2007 at 11:14 pmNo, sorry Willy. I can barely keep up with the trolls in this one.
And speaking of trolls, PaulB, you keep on calling up down and down up.
You keep saying the courts upheld executive decision when in fact it was struck down as everyone knows, and if they don’t, can look it up on any number of online sources.
Keep acting like a troll, and tossing in a couple of feel good posts to fool the masses. But as long as I see a liar, I see a troll.
And I see you.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pmI wish. Lord knows we have sufficient reason to impeach Gonzalez, Cheney, and Bush, all at once. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the votes in the Senate to do so.
If the movement to impeach gets rolling then the votes will come. “Build the case and they will come.”
I keep going back and forth on this issue. On the one hand, impeachment investigations would blow away the issue of executive privilege and all of the stonewalling we’ve endured thus far.
Why?
It would also mean that the various members of the Bush administration would have to be a lot more concerned about making false statements than they have been thus far. Man, I’m salivating over finally seeing all of that crap they’ve been trying to hide.
I truly do not see you as a patriot. Your arguments sewing the seeds of defense are too permeable and enabling of the party you claim you wish to see brought to justice.
Unfortunately, though, I’m not sure the public is ready to go along, the Republicans and the Bush administration will cry foul and an all-too-willing media will go along with them, and there’s no guarantee that it will make it out of the House absent a real smoking gun. And every guarantee that the Senate will not vote to convict.
More undermining.
I still come down on the side of investigate, investigate, investigate, and drill in on everything you find. If you find enough, the public will be on board. And once you have that, you have a far better chance realistically and politically of making it happen.
Comment by PaulB
I think you misspelled it, it should have read:
July 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pmI still come down on the side of obsficate, obsficate, obsfiscate. and mince everything you find. If you find enough, the public will be bored. And once you have that, you have a fat chance of realistically and politically of making it happen.
i love my damn dog
July 11th, 2007 at 11:16 pmBut prove me wrong.
Show us ONE case where the Executive decision was upheld by the courts, any courts, beyond the scope of the 1974 decision.
WELL???
July 11th, 2007 at 11:16 pmCome on.
How long does it take. Show us ONE case.
Just one where the courts upheld Executive Decision beyond the scope of the 1974 case.
Just one.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:19 pmWELL????
July 11th, 2007 at 11:19 pmDon’t give us one of your long winded cut and paste mindnumbingly dumb errata craps.
Give us one simple answer.
Name one instance where executive decision was authorized by the courts, outside of the 1974 boundaries.
We’re waiting.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:21 pmthe odds are 5-4 that bushco wins with the supremes.they have been gaming the judicial branch for years.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:22 pmBy the way, for a better discussion of executive privilege, see this thread over at Balkinization. There are several details on both sides of this debate that I didn’t know. Among other things, Marty Lederman is claiming that Harriet Miers may be guilty of a felony if she refuses to even show up to testify tomorrow.
Two posts that highlight the disagreement:
————————–
No, Bart, executive privilege does not shield all executive branch deliberations short of criminal wrongdoing. Rather, executive privilege is a qualified privilege that applies to the deliberative process and can be outweighed by a criminal INVESTIGATION. The Supreme Court in Nixon did not require proof that Nixon or his aides had committed crimes; the mere existence of a grand jury subpoena was held sufficient.
Thus, to win his privilege claim, Bush would have to show that (1) there are deliberations covered by the privilege (which would seem to be inconsistent with his claim that he wasn’t involved and the firings were all done by lower-level aides), and that (2) the congressional subpoena is distinguishable from the grand jury subpoena (a very complicated question).
But neither prong is dependent on there being criminal conduct. It is well established by over 200 years of history that Congress has the power to conduct oversight of the executive branch for purposes such as passing future legislation, investigating unethical as well as illegal conduct, etc. Now maybe, in the face of a properly asserted executive privilege claim, this power will be held to be insufficient to override the claim of privilege, but it doesn’t have anything to do with whether a crime has been committed.
———————–
You may want to actually read the Supreme Court decision in Nixon. The Supremes instructed the criminal court to review the demanded materials in camera and only forward those materials which were relevant to criminal charges to the prosecutor with great deference to the President.
Consequently, the Congress can hardly point to this decision as precedent for arguing as you do that executive privilege can be overcome merely by a congressional request for testimony.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:23 pmCome on Paul.
We don’t need a book.
Just name ONE instance where the courts extended any power of executice decision beyond the 1974 decision.
We are still waiting.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:24 pmFU Paul.
I PROMISE you I am not even going to read that bullshit.
You’ve wasted enough of my time.
I asked you for ONE INSTANCE, just ONE, where the courts permitted EP outside of the 1974 ruling.
And you can’t provide it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:25 pmThats because they haven’t .
So shove your book up your ass.
Show me ONE instance where the courts permitted any authority beyond the 1974 ruling.
JUST ONE.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:26 pm“And speaking of trolls, PaulB, you keep on calling up down and down up.”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, I don’t, which is why your attempts to prove otherwise have been so amusing. My posts have been very consistent from the very beginning.
“You keep saying the courts upheld executive decision when in fact it was struck down as everyone knows, and if they don’t, can look it up on any number of online sources.”
I think the phrase you were looking for is “executive privilege,” not “executive design.” I’ve been very clear on this, but let’s walk through it again, shall we? We’ll use the 1998 case.
1. Clinton claimed executive privilege covered the conversations in question.
2. The judge agreed that those conversation were, in fact, covered by executive privilege. I’ve quoted Ken Starr’s summation above.
3. The judge then examined the other side of the case, the need for the information from those conversations to be included in the court case that was currently playing out.
4. The judge ruled that the need for the information outweighed executive privilege.
5. Clinton lost and his aides subsequently testified.
It really isn’t difficult, Bartlebee. In 1974 and 1998, the courts agreed with the concept of executive privilege, and not just in diplomatic and security cases. They went on to rule, though, that this claim could be outweighed by other factors, including the need for information in criminal investigations.
“Keep acting like a troll, and tossing in a couple of feel good posts to fool the masses. But as long as I see a liar, I see a troll.”
LOL… Since you have yet to identify a single “lie” I’ve told, forgive me if I take this as seriously as your other claims.
“And I see you.”
Whatever.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:30 pm“FU Paul.”
I like you, too, Bartlebee.
“I PROMISE you I am not even going to read that bullshit.”
Your loss. It was pointed to approvingly by Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.com. Obviously, he’s a troll, too, right?
“You’ve wasted enough of my time.”
Well, no, I haven’t. You chose to waste your time.
“I asked you for ONE INSTANCE, just ONE, where the courts permitted EP outside of the 1974 ruling.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:33 pmI promise you you’re wasting keystrokes you inbred halfwit.
I am not reading your books of bullshit.
I asked you 10 times now for ONE LINE, showing ONE CASE where the executive privilege was outlined. Just ONE CASE.
ONE EXAMPLE.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:34 pmI won’t read your posts if there is more than 3 lines in it.
Dig it dumbass?
I have no idea what you just said, because I refuse to read any more of your bs.
Give me ONE example, or blow me.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:34 pm“Thats because they haven’t.”
LOL… Nor have I ever, not once, claimed that they did, which is why you haven’t quoted me in these silly replies of yours. You can’t find a single post of mine where I ever even remotely made this claim.
“So shove your book up your ass.”
Um, just what book is that, exactly?
“Show me ONE instance where the courts permitted any authority beyond the 1974 ruling.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:35 pmI won’t read your posts if there is more than 3 lines in it.
Dig it dumbass?
I have no idea what you just said, because I refuse to read any more of your bs.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:35 pmGive me one example.
Just ONE.
One line, showing one single case where EP was permitted beyond the scope of the 1974 case.
Just ONE EXAMPLE.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:36 pm“I won’t read your posts if there is more than 3 lines in it.”
That’s certainly your privilege, Bartlebee.
“Dig it dumbass?”
Bartlebee, do you really think I care? Alas, I fear that I must disillusion you.
“I have no idea what you just said, because I refuse to read any more of your bs.”
LOL… That says far more about you than it does about me, Bartlebee. Love the whole drama queen thing, though.
“Give me ONE example, or blow me.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:36 pmYour posts are not being read. You are wasting keystrokes.
Until you post one example I refuse to read any more of your brainfarts.
One example dickhead.
Just one.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:37 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH?
July 11th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
“Give me one example.”
Bartlebee, is silly little games all you have left? I’ve told you where we disagree. Anytime you want to discuss what I actually wrote, I’ll be right here.
“One line, showing one single case where EP was permitted beyond the scope of the 1974 case.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
Oh, and Bartlebee? I can play silly games as long as you can, if that’s what you really want.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:38 pm“Your posts are not being read.”
That’s your prerogative.
“You are wasting keystrokes.”
That’s my prerogative.
“Until you post one example I refuse to read any more of your brainfarts.”
Are you also going to hold your breath until you turn blue? It will be just as effective.
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:39 pmSorry, not reading that one either you troll.
Until you post one line, with one example showing one instance of EP, I will not read ONE word of your bullshit.
Get it?
Not one word.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:40 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH?????
July 11th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
See.
I know you can’t.
You’ll write book after book of endless bullshit but you run from the challange to provide one single example of when EP was upheld beyond the parameters outlined by the 1974 decision.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:43 pm“INBRED PAUL SAID — In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege”
Yes, I did, Bartlebee, a comment that is 100% correct, nor have you been able to show that it is not.
“BUT THE TRUTH?”
The truth is precisely what I wrote, Bartlebee, as I’ve already noted repeatedly above. I can play silly games as long as you want, Bartlebee. Any time you want to stop playing silly games and have a serious discussion, I’ll be right here.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:43 pmOne line showing one decision beyond the scope of the 1974 definitive parameters.
And you can’t do it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:43 pm“See. I know you can’t.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, why on earth should I provide an example to support something that I never claimed?!
“You’ll write book after book of endless bullshit but you run from the challange to provide one single example of when EP was upheld beyond the parameters outlined by the 1974 decision.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:44 pmAsk your troll butt buddies.
They’ll tell you.
I haven’t even gotten warmed up.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:45 pm“Sorry, not reading that one either you troll.”
ROFL… Man, I’m absolutely loving this. I have to admit that it’s rare to find someone so childish.
“Until you post one line, with one example showing one instance of EP, I will not read ONE word of your bullshit.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
“Get it? Not one word.”
ROFL… Um, Bartlebee, do you really think I care? I think this act you’re putting on is hilarious.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:46 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH??????
The truth is Executive privilege was DENIED in BOTH of these cases.
DENIED
NOT “ALLOWED”, as paul the bullshitter claims.
DENIED!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
“Ask your troll butt buddies.”
If I ever find any, Bartlebee, I’ll be sure to ask them.
“They’ll tell you. I haven’t even gotten warmed up.”
Um, well, actually Bartlebee, you’re not only warmed up, you’re overdone. But I’m loving the silly games you’re playing since you’re basically acknowledging defeat.
“One line showing one decision beyond the scope of the 1974 definitive parameters.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:49 pmAnd until the little bullshitter admits he’s wrong, I won’t be reading anything he has to say, other than to call him to task.
No fancy right wing arguments. No convoluted up is down and down is up scenarios.
Until he can provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE, of a case where any court vested further latitude for executive privilege beyond the parameters of the 74 decision, I won’t read a word this mook posts.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:50 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulBullshit Artist — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH???
The truth is Executive privilege was DENIED in BOTH of these cases.
DENIED
NOT “ALLOWEDâ€, as paul the bullshitter claims.
DENIED!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
“INBRED PAUL SAID — In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege”
Yes, Bartlebee, I did, a claim I have supported and continue to stand by. Nor have you ever been able to contradict this.
“BUT THE TRUTH??????”
The truth is precisely what I wrote, Bartlebee, as I’ve already noted repeatedly above. I can play silly games as long as you want, Bartlebee. Any time you want to stop playing silly games and have a serious discussion, I’ll be right here.
“The truth is Executive privilege was DENIED in BOTH of these cases.”
Nope, executive privilege was recognized in both cases, and was overruled by the importance of the other factors in the case. My claims have been, and continue to be, 100% accurate. Sorry if this bothers you.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:51 pmThe truth is Executive privilege was DENIED in BOTH of these cases.
DENIED
NOT “ALLOWEDâ€, as paul the bullshitter claims.
DENIED!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“And until the little bullshitter admits he’s wrong, I won’t be reading anything he has to say, other than to call him to task.”
ROFLMAO…. Bartlebee, dear, if you’re not reading what I’m writing, then you won’t know that I’ve admitted I’m wrong, now will you? Ah, well, no worries, since I’m not wrong.
“No fancy right wing arguments. No convoluted up is down and down is up scenarios.”
Bartlebee, my arguments were neither “fancy” nor “convoluted.” That you found them to be so says far more about you than it does about me, just as do the childish games you’re playing.
“Until he can provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE, of a case where any court vested further latitude for executive privilege beyond the parameters of the 74 decision, I won’t read a word this mook posts.”
Since that is not now and never was my point, I will continue to decline, as I’ve declined before. You have the five assertions of yours I disagree with, Bartlebee. When you’re prepared to discuss those, instead of claims I never made, we might be able to have a conversation. You never have bothered to read what I write, though, so I’m not holding my breath. You were wrong, Bartlebee; deal with it.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“The truth is Executive privilege was DENIED in BOTH of these cases.”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, it wasn’t. It was specifically supported in both cases.
“DENIED NOT “ALLOWEDâ€, as paul the bullshitter claims.”
Sorry, Bartlebee, but my claims are accurate, as I’ve noted above in posts that you have no answer for. I do so love your childishness, though, as though stamping your feet and shaking your widdle fists somehow makes your argument more compelling.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:55 pmINBRED PAUL SAID
In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
BUT THE TRUTH??????
July 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
“INBRED PAUL SAID — In both 1998 and 1974, the courts specifically allowed for executive privilege”
Yes, I did, Bartlebee, a statement that was 100% accurate, nor have you been able to contradict it, despite literally dozens of posts.
“BUT THE TRUTH??????”
The truth is what I wrote, Bartlebee.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:58 pmThe truth, Bartlebee:
1. Clinton claimed executive privilege covered the conversations in question.
2. The judge agreed that those conversation were, in fact, covered by executive privilege. I’ve quoted Ken Starr’s summation above.
3. The judge then examined the other side of the case, the need for the information from those conversations to be included in the court case that was currently playing out.
4. The judge ruled that the need for the information outweighed executive privilege.
5. Clinton lost and his aides subsequently testified.
It really isn’t difficult, Bartlebee. In 1974 and 1998, the courts agreed with the concept of executive privilege, and not just in diplomatic and security cases. They went on to rule, though, that this claim could be outweighed by other factors, including the need for information in criminal investigations.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am“inbred halfwit”? “shaking you widdle fists”?
wow. I wonder what the two of you would do with a serious topic.
Like Cheeze flavored condums!patent pending
July 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am“If the movement to impeach gets rolling then the votes will come. ‘Build the case and they will come.’”
I agree with that. But that case has to be built tighter than it currently is.
I had written: “I keep going back and forth on this issue. On the one hand, impeachment investigations would blow away the issue of executive privilege and all of the stonewalling we’ve endured thus far”
You replied: “Why?”
Because impeachment proceedings absolutely beyond all question override any claim of executive privilege.
“I truly do not see you as a patriot.”
That’s your privilege, although I would argue that just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are not patriotic.
“Your arguments sewing the seeds of defense are too permeable and enabling of the party you claim you wish to see brought to justice.”
Sigh… Those are precisely the arguments that they will use. We need to acknowledge them and address them.
“More undermining.”
No. Just reality. The Senate will not vote to convict Bush as matters stand now. And the public is not yet ready for this, although the numbers are growing. I like sticking with reality, even when it doesn’t go the way I want.
“I think you misspelled it”
Nope. I said what I meant and meant what I said.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:04 am“‘inbred halfwit’? ’shaking you widdle fists’?”
LOL… I liked the latter one, obviously. What else can I say about someone who has so transparently lost it and who has nothing left but silly games? I’m just responding in kind, since the thread is pretty much dead.
“wow. I wonder what the two of you would do with a serious topic.”
Despite the childishness on this thread, this is absolutely a serious topic. I would not be here and would not be responding as I do if I did not believe this.
“Like Cheeze flavored condums!patent pending”
I wouldn’t surprised to find these already available.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:07 amI’ve wasted all the time I am going to waste on a peice of shit like you troll.
Tell your fairytales to the wind.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:07 am“I’ve wasted all the time I am going to waste on a peice of shit like you troll.”
LOL… So you’ve said … repeatedly. I don’t take this assertion any more seriously than I do your others.
“Tell your fairytales to the wind”
Since you haven’t been able to address any of my “fairytales” [sic] and haven’t even been able to figure out just what it is I’ve been talking about, forgive me if I don’t take this comment seriously, either.
TTFN, Bartlebee. It’s going to be interesting to watch what happens when you run into me on other threads and are forced to agree with what I write. Think your head will explode?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:12 amI leave you guys without adult supervision for one minute and you trash the place.
Go to bed, both of you without any Skittles! Don’t look at me that way!
July 12th, 2007 at 12:13 am“I leave you guys without adult supervision for one minute and you trash the place.”
LOL… Aw, I’m sorry.
“Go to bed, both of you without any Skittles!”
No SKITTLES???!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
“Don’t look at me that way!”
Sob… sniff… Big ol’ meanie…
July 12th, 2007 at 12:15 amnight boys. play nice
July 12th, 2007 at 12:16 amGood night, willy. Alas, I fear that Bartlebee will never “play nice” with me. It’s going to be interesting to watch when he sees me on other threads and realizes that we actually agree on most issues. I think the cognitive dissonance will cause him some harm.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:19 amThat was nice Willy.
I am debating a guy who just keeps saying over and over, nuh uh, without backing anything up.
My argument was clear from the beginning.
Bush is not legal in using the Executive Privilege clause based on the parameters outlined in the 1974 SCOTUS ruling.
This smug cocksucker just repeated over and over that Executive Privilege was “upheld”, when in fact, it was denied to both presidents on those terms.
I never said they did not “RECOGNIZE” the authority of executive privilege.
I never said they did not “ACKNOWLEDGE” the existence of executive privilege.
I said they DENIED it in both cases this clown quoted.
He keeps saying they “UPHELD” it in his smug arrogant way, which is a subtle way of implying it was approved in those cases. It was not.
It was DENIED, to both Nixon in the 1974 case, and to Clinton in the 1998 case (and anyone reading this, god forbid, DON”T TAKE our word for it, LOOK IT UP, its there in black and white. You can start with Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege and see for yourself how in both cases EP was denied to the President invoking it) , and that is just a simple fact of documented history.
I stand by my argument, that the SCOTUS defined parameters of executive privilege constitute precedent, and to date, not one single court has ruled any further powers to a president, than were outlined by that precedent.
Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
July 12th, 2007 at 12:31 amGreat job, Senator Leahy. Your questions are professional, straight to the point, and exactly the questions that must be asked of this blatantly corrupt administration. I suspect that this investigation, like all the others, will be stonewalled by administration officials. The only way we’ll ever get to the heart of the administration’s corruption is through impeachment.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:38 amSee in #319 you write:
July 12th, 2007 at 12:42 am“executive privilege was recognized.”
Now that to me means the same as someone claiming the light is green, because every color we perceive contains evey color, except for the color which we perceive which is missing. But in effect the light was RED.
The prez says everything that could shine a bad light on him is covered un EP, that does not mean it is so, and as the courts have found, they have limited the usage of EP. It is not so much what he wishes to share, it turns out that what MUST be shared trumps the EP claim. He can make EP claims all he wants, his shoe size, Laura’s bra cup size, but the reality is, is it truly exclusionary under EP, and that is where the courts render judgement, not the prez making far fethced EP claims.
“That was nice Willy.”
It was, wasn’t it? I knew you couldn’t keep your word, though, just as you won’t be able to not repond to this post.
“I am debating a guy who just keeps saying over and over, nuh uh, without backing anything up.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, I fear that is precisely your behavior on this thread. I’ve backed up my assertions on the five statements of yours I disagree with. You have yet to deal with them. Any time you’re ready, I’ll be right here.
“My argument was clear from the beginning.”
Yup. Clear and wrong.
“Bush is not legal in using the Executive Privilege clause based on the parameters outlined in the 1974 SCOTUS ruling.”
And had you said that, we wouldn’t have had a disagreement, but that isn’t what you said in post 27.
“This smug cocksucker just repeated over and over that Executive Privilege was “upheldâ€, when in fact, it was denied to both presidents on those terms.”
LOL… Interesting that so many of your taunts are gay-themed. Why is that, Bartlebee? Oh, and for the record, of course the courts upheld the concept of executive privilege. They just declared that it was overruled in those two specific instances by the need for the information that the president was trying to protect. I’ve even provided Ken Starr’s summation of precisely what the judge said, something you have never responded to.
“I never said they did not “RECOGNIZE†the authority of executive privilege.”
Bartlebee, this is what you said in post 27:
False.
False.
False.
“I never said they did not “ACKNOWLEDGE†the existence of executive privilege.”
Since that isn’t the source of our disagreement, it hardly matters. You really should learn to read what I actually write, you know.
“I said they DENIED it in both cases this clown quoted.”
Nope. You’re still using the wrong language.
“He keeps saying they “UPHELD†it in his smug arrogant way, which is a subtle way of implying it was approved in those cases. It was not.”
LOL… Bartlebee, everything I’ve written about those cases has been 100% accurate. You, on the other hand…
“It was DENIED, to both Nixon in the 1974 case, and to Clinton in the 1998 case (and anyone reading this, god forbid, DONâ€T TAKE our word for it, LOOK IT UP, its there in black and white. You can start with Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege and see for yourself how in both cases EP was denied to the President invoking it) , and that is just a simple fact of documented history.”
LOL… Bartlebee, since I’m not disputing any of this, I have no idea why you continue to harp on it.
“I stand by my argument, that the SCOTUS defined parameters of executive privilege constitute precedent, and to date, not one single court has ruled any further powers to a president, than were outlined by that precedent.”
Since I never disagreed with that argument and since that isn’t what you wrote in post 27, forgive me if I don’t take this assertion any more seriously than I do your others.
“Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.”
I concur. Look it up. Alas, Bartlebee’s assertions in post 27 were wrong. He’s never been able to bring himself to deal with that and has thus concocted an argument out of whole cloth and has been having a discussion with himself rather than with me for pretty much this entire thread.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:46 amSorry, willy, I tried, but alas, dear little Bartlebee climbed out of bed and insisted on playing again. I’ll do better in another thread.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:54 amNo. Those statements of mine were accurate.
You’re simply stating “False” with no supporting documentation is just moot.
You’ve been proven wrong.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:03 amI stand by my argument, that the SCOTUS defined parameters of executive privilege constitute precedent, and to date, not one single court has ruled any further powers to a president, than were outlined by that precedent.
Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:05 amI’ll do better in another thread.
Comment by PaulBullshitArtist — July 12, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Only if no one else is in it.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:09 am“… has thus concocted an argument out of whole cloth and has been having a discussion with himself rather than with me for pretty much this entire thread.
Comment by PaulB
So then what have you been bullshitting about?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:16 amHmm… let’s take a look at the kind of discourse that Bartlebee likes:
Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced… This has been fun, but it’s time to mosey along. See you in the funny papers.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:17 amWell, thats a long debate for sure and a lot to read but I have to go with the Bart dudes position (even though he sounds like an assh@le) and say that after reading Wiki that its clear the supreme court did set the precedent that the later courts followed. I mean thats pretty clear right?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:17 amGee thanks Urko…. I think.
:|
Actually, I am an assh$$#$ but I’m still right.
Which is why Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor will ultimately be forced to testify, or they will strike a deal of some sort.
Watch.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:19 am“No. Those statements of mine were accurate.”
LOL… I thought you weren’t going to read any of my posts, Bartlebee?Sorry, but you are once again wrong, which is why you haven’t been able to defend them.
“You’re simply stating “False†with no supporting documentation is just moot.”
The supporting documentation is above, Bartlebee, in great detail. You’ve never rebutted, preferring instead to argue with a point I never made.
“You’ve been proven wrong.”
Nope, sorry.
“I stand by my argument, that the SCOTUS defined parameters of executive privilege constitute precedent, and to date, not one single court has ruled any further powers to a president, than were outlined by that precedent.”
Since I’ve never argued otherwise, I’m not sure why you think that taking such a stand is so important, Bartlebee. I’m over here, remember? Any time you want to engage what I actually wrote, I’ll be right here.
“Don’t take my word for it. Look it up.”
I concur.
“Only if no one else is in it.”
LOL… I can’t wait to see Bartlebee’s reaction to my posts in the other threads. Free clue, Bartlebee, I have posts in quite a few on the first two pages.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:21 am“Actually, I am an assh$$#$ but I’m still right.”
Nope, Urko’s making the same mistake you are and that willy initially did — failing to grasp the argument I’m actually making and focusing on an argument I never made.
“Which is why Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor will ultimately be forced to testify, or they will strike a deal of some sort.”
Not any time soon, that’s for sure. Bush will string this out for as along as he can, and that’s a damn long time.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:23 amNope.
You’re wrong.
You’ve been wrong all along ding dong.
Add that to your list.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:24 amStare Decesis is dead, so all bets are off the table. That is why they took Impeachment off the table too.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:24 amThe law has been put asunder from this most evil of villans occupying this administration.
THEY ARE TRULY THE ENEMY WITHIN WARNED OF, AND SWORN TO BE PROTECTED FROM BY THE MILITARY. HELLLO, PEOPLE WITH GUNS AND HANDCUFFS, THE ENEMY IS AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. PLEASE ARREST THEM.
HELLOOOOO!!!!
Im not making any mistake Paul I just dont think you are making any sense. You say I cant grasp your argument but I am not even sure if you know what your arguing about. I read the wiki link he posted and it says your wrong sorry dude.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:27 am“Nope.”
ROFL… Yeah, that’s a convincing argument.
“You’re wrong.”
And another.
“You’ve been wrong all along ding dong.”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, I haven’t, which is why you’ve never been able to deal with those five provably false statements of yours and the arguments I’ve actually been making.
“Add that to your list.”
Whatever you say, Bartlebee.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:27 amYou’re right about that General. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
He called a loss a win, which is the sure sign of a troll.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:28 amHe’s a troll, thats obvious.
I could smell him when he crawled in.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:30 amI’m not sure who’s right and who’s wrong but one things certain. You can’t use executive privilege unless its for security of the homeland or international relations. Its been that way for years.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:33 am“Im not making any mistake Paul”
Yes, actually you are.
“I just dont think you are making any sense.”
That’s because you’re making the same mistake that Bartlebee is.
“You say I cant grasp your argument”
No, not that you can’t, but that you haven’t. You’ve accepted the framing that Bartlebee is trying to impose, and referring to arguments I’m not even making! My specific problem is with post 27 above. Bartlebee is simply wrong about how far the courts have gone in their rulings on executive privilege.
“but I am not even sure if you know what your arguing about.”
I do, actually. Look at the five statements of Bartlebee’s that I cite above, repeatedly. It is those specific statements, and no others, that I disagree with. The rest of the argument here exists solely in Bartlebee’s head.
“I read the wiki link he posted and it says your wrong sorry dude.”
No. Bartlebee has been trying to claim that the courts have ruled that executive privilege only applies in cases of diplomacy and national security and that this is the “acid test” that the court uses. That’s specifically what he said in post 27 above, the post that caught my attention. He’s wrong and the Wikipedia link he points to doesn’t back up his assertion.
The court in the Clinton case, specifically acknowledged that Clinton’s claim to executive privilege was valid. I’ve cited Ken Starr’s summation of the case above. What the judge then did was rule that that claim was overruled by the need for the information that Clinton was trying to protect.
Bartlebee has been trying to claim that the courts have ruled that Clinton couldn’t claim executive privilege in a non-diplomatic, non-security case. That’s not true. The court specifically ruled that he could. However, as was true in 1974, that claim was overruled by the other, stronger claim.
It’s a small point, but an important one, and Bartlebee is simply wrong. The Wikipedia article does not support his assertions in post 27.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:34 am“I’m not sure who’s right and who’s wrong but one things certain. You can’t use executive privilege unless its for security of the homeland or international relations. Its been that way for years.”
LOL… Um, that’s precisely the argument we’re having and yes, actually you can, as you can see if you look at what the courts actually said in 1974 and 1998.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:36 amFrank.
I’d explain to you why you are correct, and why that makes me correct, but I “frankly” (lol) am too bored with the topic and too tired.
But you’re right, which is why I am also right.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:36 am“You’re right about that General. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
ROFL… Yes, Bartlebee, I do, unfortunately for you.
“He called a loss a win, which is the sure sign of a troll.”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, I didn’t, which is why you haven’t been able to point to any citations where I claimed this.
“He’s a troll, thats obvious.”
ROFL… I can’t wait to run into you on other threads, Bartlebee, just to watch your head explode.
“I could smell him when he crawled in.”
LOL… Whatever you say. Of course, this is contradicted by your earlier posts above.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:37 am“I’d explain to you why you are correct, and why that makes me correct, but I “frankly†(lol) am too bored with the topic and too tired.”
LOL… So you’ve said, repeatedly, and yet here you are.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:38 amI did look at the decisions. I read the link the other guy put up. It said that the court declined to allow Nixon to use executive privilege. Now I’m not sure if that means hes riight and I refuse to take sides in your ridiculous debate but I know that the president can’t use it unless it meets requirements that they stated and those are homeland security and overseas relations. I know its been that way for a long time.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:41 amFor the latecomers, here’s the post that supports my point. This was from Ken Starr, in a summation he filed with the Supreme Court:
Note the part in bold. Bartlebee claimed in post 27 that the courts couldn’t do this, that executive privilege could not be claimed in cases that did not affect diplomacy or security. The courts in 1974 and 1998 disagreed. Clinton could, in fact, claim executive privilege.
Now Bartlebee constantly pretends that I stop there. That I somehow claim that Clinton won. Of course he didn’t, nor have I ever pretended otherwise. I’m simply pointing out that what Bartlebee said in post 27 is flatly incorrect. Starr further went on to say, describing the lower court’s thinking:
Clinton lost, but on the grounds that his claim of executive privilege was outweighed by the “showing of need” by Starr. That’s what I’ve been saying from the very beginning. Bartlebee can’t deal with this argument so he’s been trying to pretend I’ve been saying something I haven’t.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:43 amI know you both sound like people with issues and I know that you just accused him of being here yet I can’t help but notice so are you after saying several posts above that you were finished. So I know you really just want trouble and I know I don’t so I know I’m out of here and you can continue to act as stupid as your friend.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:45 amHere’s the Cliff Notes version:
1. Clinton claimed executive privilege covered the conversations in question.
2. The judge agreed that those conversation were, in fact, covered by executive privilege. I’ve quoted Ken Starr’s summation above.
3. The judge then examined the other side of the case, the need for the information from those conversations to be included in the court case that was currently playing out.
4. The judge ruled that the need for the information outweighed executive privilege.
5. Clinton lost and his aides subsequently testified.
In 1974 and 1998, the courts agreed with the concept of executive privilege, and not just in diplomatic and security cases. They went on to rule, though, that this claim could be outweighed by other factors, including the need for information in criminal investigations.
On these grounds, Bush should, and I hope will, lose, not on the grounds that he’s claiming executive privilege for non-diplomacy, non-security communication. Note that nothing I’ve said here contradicts Wikipedia. It does, however, contradict what Bartlebee wrote in post 27, which has been my whole point for this entire thread.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:45 amLEAHY AND CONYERS MUST BE FORCED TO LEAVE OFFICE!!!
July 12th, 2007 at 1:48 amThey have wasted too much time and money hunting witches.
“I did look at the decisions.”
Not the results, Frank, the actual words. Bartlebee and I agree on the results, even though he continues to claim otherwise.
“I read the link the other guy put up.”
Nothing in that link contradicts anything I’ve written, despite Bartlebee’s claim otherwise.
“It said that the court declined to allow Nixon to use executive privilege.”
Yes, but the reasoning they used is not what you claimed and what Bartlebee claimed. It is that reasoning that is the source of our disagreement, even though Bartlebee can’t seem to grasp this.
“Now I’m not sure if that means hes riight and I refuse to take sides in your ridiculous debate”
LOL… You already have, Frank, but that’s fine.
“but I know that the president can’t use it unless it meets requirements that they stated and those are homeland security and overseas relations.”
Sorry, Frank, but you, like Bartlebee, are wrong. That’s simply not what these rulings say, which is why Bartlebee is flailing.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:49 am“LEAHY AND CONYERS MUST BE FORCED TO LEAVE OFFICE!!!”
Really, dear? And just how are you prepared to do that?
“They have wasted too much time and money hunting witches.”
And they’ve found some, too… whodathunkit?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:51 amSp you just admitted that Bartbee was right, and Clinton lost. Thats all I see him saying. So thanks. Now I know which one of you idiots was right. Thanks. Goodnight.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:51 amThe court in the Clinton case, specifically acknowledged that Clinton’s claim to executive privilege was valid. I’ve cited Ken Starr’s summation of the case above. What the judge then did was rule that that claim was overruled by the need for the information that Clinton was trying to protect.
Again, just because EP was “valid” means nothing since its use was overruled. Hello, the second act “overruling” negates the first “claiming EP.”
July 12th, 2007 at 1:52 amWhat is so hard here PaulB?
I have the right to say the sky is green, but the courts overrule me, that does not negate my right to keep saying it, but it does negate the truth to the sky being green.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:54 amDo not feed the trolls…the all have shit for brains and they are bottom dwelling, knuckle dragging, troglodyte morons….the proud 26% who will defend their thugs in their crime family until the end of time. Crime is good as long as it is being done by those with (R) after their names. Let them all die from being ignored…they are worthless scum.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:55 am“Sp you just admitted that Bartbee was right, and Clinton lost.”
LOL… Is that really all you read? Of course Clinton lost. I have never, not once in this entire thread, pretended otherwise. Bartlebee is simply lying when he claims that I have.
“Thats all I see him saying.”
Didn’t look at anything he wrote or I wrote or at post 27, did you?
“So thanks.”
Anytime.
“Now I know which one of you idiots was right.”
No, you don’t, sadly. Another person who simply cannot read. Anyone else?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:56 amJudge:
Yes Mr Prez we know you have the right and authority to say our discusions are exluded under EP, but…
We rule that they are NOT exlcuded due to their being a greater need for the information to pursue criminal charges.
Shrub can jump up and down all he wants, but the precedent has been set. The question is that which I posed. Will Stare Decesis be upheld by the Supremes?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:56 am“Do not feed the trolls”
Sounds good to me. If I find a troll on this thread, I’ll be sure to pass him by.
It doesn’t really matter on this thread, anyway; it’s been dead for some time, ever since Bartlebee decided he liked silly games better than actual discussion. He never has figured out what I’m actually arguing about.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:57 amFive provably false statements, Bartlebee. Any time you want to actually address the arguments I’m actually making, they’re right there on this thread. Since you cannot, though, I’m quite confident you will continue to pound on an argument I never made. I’m equally confident that this will make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Good night, everyone.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:58 amI thought you said he was having aconversation with himself?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:59 amSo again, who’s horse have you been bludgeoning to death?
Now we know who the troll is Kasinca. Youre right and I should not feed him. He was wrong, and is claiming everyone including the biggest online reference site wikipedia and the offical court records are wrong and only he is right. He is obviously a troll of some kind. Anyway my wife is nagging me and I can’t stay up lol. Goodnight people and don’t feed this crazy troll.
ff
July 12th, 2007 at 2:03 amThe only thing you’ve proven TrollPaul, is that you’re wrong, and you don’t know your history.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:04 amHe knows he’s wrong BARTLEBEE. :) Why do you think he kept changing his position and making it into such a stretch? Its the tactic of the right wing and you should’nt let him play you like that. I never feed them I just hit the ignore button and they just go away. You should try it sometime.
xoxo
July 12th, 2007 at 2:22 amDecided to check in one last time before bed. Loved the comments, though, particularly the ones that indicate that some of you really cannot read. I have never, not once, changed my argument, nor has Bartlebee been able to counter my argument, mostly because he insists on pretending that I’ve made an argument I never made.
Let’s go through this in a little more detail, using the Clinton case as an example.
1. Clinton claimed executive privilege covered the conversations in question. Everyone agreed so far, right?
2. The court ruled that those conversation were, in fact, covered by executive privilege. I’ve quoted Ken Starr’s summation above, with the money phrase: “the Court concluded that the subpoenaed testimony must be treated as presumptively privileged.” Anyone want to argue with Ken Starr?
This is the heart of the argument, not the argument that Bartlebee has been pretending I’m making. If Bartlebee were correct in what he wrote in post 27, the court would have ruled against Clinton on this issue. Clinton admitted that these conversations did not cover security or diplomacy; hence, by Bartlebee’s claim, Clinton should lose. Slam dunk, game over.
Unfortunately for Bartlebee, he’s wrong, something that he has not been able to deal with on this entire thread. The court ruled in favor of Clinton on this issue — the conversations were presumptively covered by executive privilege. The ruling is quite clear and Bartlebee’s post 27 is flatly incorrect. Where Bartlebee seems to be confused is the distinction between ruling on an issue and ruling on a case.
This was not the only issue under contention in this case, of course. The other issue under consideration was whether Starr’s need for testimony from Clinton’s aides overruled Clinton’s claim of executive privilege. On this claim, Clinton lost, which meant that he lost the case. On the issue of executive privilege, Clinton won. On the issue of whether his aides had to testify, Clinton lost. I have never, not once, claimed otherwise. Bartlebee, on the other hand, cannot seem to come to grips with the undeniable fact that Clinton won on the issue of executive privilege.
This is precisely what I’ve been saying in every single post on this thread. There is not one single post anywhere on this thread that I’ve said anything else. And nothing in that Wikipedia article that Bartlebee is so fond of contradicts one word of this analysis. Nothing. This is why Bartlebee hasn’t been able to debunk anything I’ve written and why he’s been playing elaborate games pretending I’ve made an argument that I never made.
The reason this is important is that precisely the same thing will happen with the Bush case. If Bartlebee were correct in what he wrote in post 27, the court would rule against Bush solely on the basis that these conversations were not related to security or diplomacy (although it’s entirely possible that Bush will try to pull a fast one and claim that some of them were related to national security — it won’t be the first time he’s played games like that). Again, if Bartlebee were correct in post 27, this is a slam dunk case. Bush loses; game over.
As I’ve already noted, though, he’s wrong. The court is likely to rule in favor of the Bush administration on many of these claims of executive privilege (see below for why he may lose on at least one), just as the earlier court ruled in favor of Clinton on this issue.
Just as was true with Clinton, though, this will not be the only issue in contention. The court will then need to consider whether Congress’s need for this information overrules Bush’s executive privilege. On that issue, Bush should lose, but it’s not nearly the slam dunk that Bartlebee has pretended it is, particularly with Roberts and Alito joining Scalia and Thomas. If those four vote as I fear, they only need one more justice to give Bush a victory. As I noted above, it won’t be the first time the Supreme Court has handed Bush an unwarranted victory.
Bush’s lawyers are aware of this; Congressional lawyers are aware of this. They both know it’s not a slam dunk just because the conversations were not about diplomacy or security. The court will balance the competing claims and reach a decision in the matter, just as they did in 1974 and just as they did in 1998. If all goes well, Bush will lose. But there’s enough wiggle room here that Bartlebee’s confidence about a “slam dunk” case is simply unwarranted.
So go ahead, guys, show me a single line of this post that’s incorrect. Show me a single line that’s contradicted by the Wikipedia article. Show me a single line that is in any way different than anything I’ve been saying on this entire thread. Show me where I said that Clinton won the case. Show me where I said that Bush will win his case. Show me where I said that Wikipedia was wrong. Show me where I said that the court records were wrong. Bring it on.
Consistently in this entire thread, I’ve said one thing and one thing only: Bartlebee was wrong in his assertions in post 27. I’ve backed up that claim using facts that Bartlebee has simply not been able to deal with.
(For the record, the reason that Bush may lose on a claim of executive privilege on at least one of these cases is that, as was noted in the post that started this thread, Ms. Taylor stuck her foot in her mouth by claiming that she never discussed any of this with the president. If that’s the case, then Bush loses and that likely is a slam dunk. He can’t reasonably claim executive privilege for conversations he was never privy to, not without distorting the concept of executive privilege beyond all reasonable limits. That’s not to say he won’t try, but I don’t think much of his chances for success.)
July 12th, 2007 at 4:10 amOh, and Judi, since I’m not a troll nor a member of the right wing, I’m afraid that anti-troll tactics don’t do much good. I’ve posted at this site sporadically for a couple of months, at TAPPED for a year or two, and at WashingtonMonthly.com for several years. They know me well, there, and would laugh at the idea that I’m a troll of any kind, much less a rightwing troll. If you really want to see me in full troll mode, check out the original Vitter thread, where I had a lot of fun playing with Conservatron, a genuine troll.
It’s interesting that so many of you have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who disagrees with you. That, I think, is what Bartlebee’s problem has been from the very beginning. He simply cannot believe that that is the only argument I’ve been making, so he has to invent arguments that I’ve never made so that I’ll fit neatly into the little box he wants to put me on. As I said, I can’t wait to see him read my posts on the other threads here. It should be interesting watching his head explode.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:16 amDear Senator Leahy,
So what are you going to do?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:05 amDont feed the TROLLS
July 12th, 2007 at 9:17 amI could care less what you post or where. As for my “head exploding, don’t hold your breath skippy.
Maybe the reason people saw you as a troll is because you acted like one in here, by spending 300 posts trying to convince people that your blatant ignorance of the US vs Nixon case, where Executive Privilege was DENIED to president Nixon, as any school kid knows, that you tried to claim it was “allowed”.
I think the problem stems from your lack of english skill, in not understanding the difference between “allowed” and “ACKNOWLEDGED ITS EXISTENCE”.
Yours was a straw argument, and had neither substance nor cohesion.
I dissected it, which made you stay here for 300 posts trying to make up for being busted in not knowing the SCOTUS didn’t rule in 2004 either way, but tossed it back to the lower court.
Either way, you argued against my original statement, that SCOTUS defined the parameters of Executive Privilege in the 1974 case, and to this day has never added to that definition, nor has any other lower court.
Thats fact and you can’t refute it.
All you can say is “nuh uh”.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:00 amMore of the same.
Gonzales skated. Lurita Doan skated. Goodling skated. Taylor skated. Meirs won’t even testify.
Nothing will happen. ‘Harsh words’ will be spoken. No censure, no finding of contempt. No impeachment for Gonzo or Doan.
Meanwhile, Congress is losing the war.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/71623/8083
July 12th, 2007 at 10:26 amSorry, Frank, but you, like Bartlebee, are wrong. That’s simply not what these rulings say, which is why Bartlebee is flailing.
Comment by PaulB
Well that might sound good but until like bartlebee said you show us one example of where the courts gave the president any power to use exectutive privilege beyond what was written in the 1974 case with nixon, then you have proven nothing and it is you who are mistaken. I really am not taking sides with bartlebee because I would have let it drop a long time ago if I were him. Id have made my points in a few posts and moved on and not let you hog the thread for 300 some posts. But what he was saying was right with regards to the uses of executive privilege and you have been unable to honor his challange and show us one place where the court let a president use it in a way not defined in the nixon case. Anyway thats all I have to say. I should not even have come back in here as I ususally dont believe in feeding trolls which I think you really are. Just maybe a very clever one.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:28 am“Well that might sound good but until like bartlebee said you show us one example of where the courts gave the president any power to use exectutive privilege beyond what was written in the 1974 case with nixon”
Frank, I never, not once in this entire thread, made that claim! Why am I being asked to support something that I never said? Have you really not noticed that Bartlebee has never actually quoted me saying this?
“then you have proven nothing and it is you who are mistaken.”
No. I proved what I set out to prove, using the court’s own language.
“I really am not taking sides with bartlebee because I would have let it drop a long time ago if I were him.”
So would I, but Bartlebee is one of those folks who simply cannot let things go.
“Id have made my points in a few posts and moved on and not let you hog the thread for 300 some posts.”
LOL… Um, I’d say that Bartlebee has done his share of “hogging,” wouldn’t you?
“But what he was saying was right with regards to the uses of executive privilege”
No. What he said in post 27 above was flatly incorrect.
“and you have been unable to honor his challange and show us one place where the court let a president use it in a way not defined in the nixon case.”
That’s because I never, not once, made this claim! Again, why am I being asked to support a claim I never made?
July 12th, 2007 at 11:57 amIn 1974 and 1998, the courts agreed with the concept of executive privilege, and not just in diplomatic and security cases. They went on to rule, though, that this claim could be outweighed by other factors, including the need for information in criminal investigations.
On these grounds, Bush should, and I hope will, lose, not on the grounds that he’s claiming executive privilege for non-diplomacy, non-security communication. Note that nothing I’ve said here contradicts Wikipedia. It does, however, contradict what Bartlebee wrote in post 27, which has been my whole point for this entire thread.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:45 am
Lets examine what Paul who claims to not be a troll is saying.
In 1974 and 1998, the courts agreed with the concept of executive privilege,
This is a strawman argument and a very, very convoluted way of saying the Court ACKNOWLEDGED the EXISTENCE of executive privilege.
But to say they “agreed” is a troll trick, to make the reader think they upheld Nixons right to invoke it in this case.
They did not.
They DISAGREED with Nixon that executive privilge was warranted, and ordered his aides to testify, which is now a matter of famous history (we all remember the testimonies on the radio).
No one ever argued that the court did not acknowledge the EXISTENCE of executive privilege, in fact I repeatedly pointed out it was the first time SCOTUS sat on the issue, and recognized it. But paul continues with his strawman argument, claiming that the court “AGREED”, thus subtly implying they supported Nixons right to invoke it in this instance, which they did not.
They DECLINED it.
Then they DEFINED examples which were permissable for a president to invoke executive privilege. These were based on the historical uses of the privilege by former presidents, all of these former uses, being for either international diplomacy, or national security related issues.
The court specifically identified those instances, and no further, citing the precedent of previous administrations already set.
So irregardless of Pauls convoluted strawman argument, or claims that Executive Privilege has been upheld for purposes beyond those defined by past presidents examples, or the 1974 examples of proper usage of the power, he has been unable to provide one single example of where executive privilege was invoked outside of those parameters.
He can argue if he wants that there “MIGHT” be other circumstances where a president can invoke the power, but that is just SPECULATION, and nothing more.
To date, no uses of executive privilege by a president have been ruled permissable by any court, upper or lower, and he can’t cite one case where it was.
He can argue that I was too absolute in my interpretation of the courts ruling, but he can’t cite a precedent that proves I was. Its just his opinion.
They went on to rule, though, that this claim could be outweighed by other factors, including the need for information in criminal investigations.
Another convoluted explanation for the fact that the Court DECLINED Nixons case.
They did not rule that the claim “COULD BE OUTWEIGHED” they DENIED the claim in that example. Notice no where did I say they denied executive privilege exists. Thats his strawman argument. I never said that. I said they denied Nixon and Clinton both the right to use it.
The fact that Clinton “worked a deal” with Ken Starr later to testify with restrictions had NOTHING to do with the fact that SCOTUS declined to expand the power beyond the 1974 decision, nor did the lower court.
No ruling has ever given any president any more power than the 1974 decision outlined, or the precedent set by past presidents all the way back to George Washington and the Jay Treaty, and he cannot cite ONE example of where it has.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pmCorrection; (before the troll bases another 300 posts on it)
To date, no uses of executive privilege by a president have been ruled permissable by any court, upper or lower, and he can’t cite one case where it was.
Should read
To date, no uses of executive privilege BEYOND the 1974 ruling or past precedent examples by a president have been ruled permissable by any court, upper or lower, and he can’t cite one case where it was.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:08 pmNo. What he said in post 27 above was flatly incorrect.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 11:57 am
What I said in post 27 was provocative, but it was not incorrect.
So far, you have yet to provide one example of where the courts granted any further usage of the power than those outlined in the 1974 ruling, or demonstrated through past precedent.
History is clear. Every president prior to the 1974 case used the power ONLY in issues dealing with national security or international treaty.
And in 1974 the courts recognized this, and used it in their ruling to provide examples of acceptable use of the power.
But once again, instead of writing a book, or playing troll tricks, why don’t you simply cite ONE example where the courts authorized a president, to use the power, beyond the scope of national security or international relations?
Why can’t you simply cite ONE example of where this was done?
I know why.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pmWell I don’t mind taking sides. He’s right paul.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pmYou keep arguing something that no one else can see. Your argument doesn’t make sense. Are you saying Nixon was allowed to use executive privilege in 1974? Is that your argument? And if thats not your argument then what is? Because no one here can tell what the hell you are saying and everyone knows Richard Nixon was denied his use of executive privilege during the watergate trials.
“I could care less what you post or where.”
I like you too, Bartlebee.
“As for my “head exploding, don’t hold your breath skippy.”
We’ll see. I’m just curious as to how long it will take before you finally admit that you’ve been dead wrong about me.
“Maybe the reason people saw you as a troll is because you acted like one in here”
Bartlebee, everything I’ve done on this thread you’ve been guilty of yourself. Does that make you a troll? Can you point to a single “rightwing” statement of mine anywhere on this thread?
“by spending 300 posts trying to convince people that your blatant ignorance of the US vs Nixon case, where Executive Privilege was DENIED to president Nixon, as any school kid knows, that you tried to claim it was “allowedâ€.”
Sigh… Bartlebee, you still don’t get it. Both the Nixon case and the Clinton cases revolved around two issues:
1. Were Nixon and Clinton entitled to claim executive privilege?
2. Assuming they were, should that claim be overridden by the need for the information they were trying to protect?
Nixon and Clinton won on the first issue and lost on the second issue. The courts, in both cases, agreed with Nixon and Clinton that the conversations were covered by executive privilege. It’s just that that privilege was overruled by the other issue under discussion. You’ve never dealt with this, not once in this entire thread, even though I’ve shown you the language in both cases. Your claim that executive privilege can not be invoked in cases that do not involve diplomacy and security is simply false. It absolutely can. That doesn’t mean the president wins; it just means that the court has recognized his right to invoke executive privilege.
“I think the problem stems from your lack of english skill, in not understanding the difference between “allowed†and “ACKNOWLEDGE