Leahy: Taylor’s Testimony ‘Undercuts’ White House Claims To Executive Privilege
Leahy: Taylor’s Testimony ‘Undercuts’ White House Claims To Executive Privilege
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.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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 “ACKNOWLEDGED ITS EXISTENCEâ€.”
No, since that makes no difference to my case, since you used neither phrase in post 27 and have never acknowledged that you were in error in that post. The problem stems from your failure to see the argument I’m actually making, as compared to the argument you’ve created out of whole cloth.
“Yours was a straw argument, and had neither substance nor cohesion.”
Oh, garbage. I laid it out in great detail in post 374. See the part in bold, in particular. Come back to me when you’re ready to deal with what I actually have written, as compared to something you’re just making up.
“I dissected it”
No, actually you didn’t. You have never, not once in this entire thread, actually dealt with the argument I’m making. Not once. You have never once responded to the language that the court used in 1998, affirming that “the subpoenaed testimony must be treated as presumptively privileged.” Clinton won on that issue, Bartlebee. This is simply a fact.
I’m not arguing about the outcome of either of the cases, Bartlebee, nor am I arguing that Bush will win if his case should come to trial. I’m simply arguing that your statement in post 27, that “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,” is false. Neither the 1974 court nor the 1998 court ruled that way. In fact, in both cases, they upheld the concept of executive privilege, even though both cases did not involve national security or international relations.
“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.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, that wasn’t your original statement! And it is not what I’ve been arguing about! That simply isn’t what you said in post 27. If that is what you had said, I’d have never bothered to reply, because that statement is correct.
“Thats fact and you can’t refute it.”
Since that isn’t what I’ve been arguing, I have no intention of refuting it.
“All you can say is ‘nuh uh’.”
Your inability to read what I’ve been writing is not my problem, Bartlebee. I’m absolutely amazed at your inability to grasp a quite simple and uncontroversial argument. You’re so determined to be proved “right” that you cannot even look at what you actually wrote in post 27 and defend those remarks. Instead, you’re defending something that you didn’t say in that post!
July 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pmROFL… Bartlebee, that wasn’t your original statement! And it is not what I’ve been arguing about! That simply isn’t what you said in post 27. If that is what you had said, I’d have never bothered to reply, because that statement is correct.
Comment by PaulBred — July 12, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Yes, it was my original argument you half baked twit.
Don’t put words in my mouth and don’t tell me what my argument was.
I stated right off stating that SCOTUS DEFINED the parameters of executive privilege and thats that.
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 — July 11, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
I stand behind that statement. I could have been more specific, but the sentiment is right. SCOTUS ruled that it cannot be used for a generalized right to confidentiality, citing private white house convesations, and thats something I’ve posted since the beginning.
That post number 27, my first post, was and is correct and so far, with all your books, you’ve yet to provide one example of where its not.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pmYour inability to read what I’ve been writing is not my problem,
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
No apparently your inability to read what youve been writing is your problem. Bartlebee said it correctly. Nixon was declined executive privilege. You said he wasn’t. You are wrong.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pmHes a troll bartlebee just let it go.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pmHey, maybe we’re finally getting somewhere, since Bartlebee seems to be finally coming down off his high horse and is actually coming closer to reading what I’ve been writing.
“This is a strawman argument and a very, very convoluted way of saying the Court ACKNOWLEDGED the EXISTENCE of executive privilege.”
No. The court went further than that. They didn’t just “acknowledge the existence” of executive privilege, they upheld the president’s use of executive privilege in cases that did not involve security or diplomacy.
“But to say they ‘agreed’ is a troll trick, to make the reader think they upheld Nixons right to invoke it in this case.”
LOL… And yet, Bartlebee, that is precisely what they did! They quite deliberately upheld both Nixon’s and Clinton’s use of executive privilege, acknowledging that in both of these cases, despite the fact that neither of the cases involved diplomacy and security, Nixon and Clinton were, in fact, entitled to claim executive privilege. That this claim was overridden by the other issue at hand does not mean that the courts did not rule in Nixon’s and Clinton’s favor on this. You do understand that courts have to resolve multiple issues in such cases, right?
“They did not.”
Yes, actually they did, quite specifically. See, for example, Ken Starr’s summation above. You have never dealt with this.
“They DISAGREED with Nixon that executive privilge was warranted”
No. They simply ruled that Nixon’s claim of executive privilege, which they upheld, was overridden by other factors, in this case the criminal case.
“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 “AGREEDâ€, thus subtly implying they supported Nixons right to invoke it in this instance, which they did not.”
Yes, they did, Bartlebee. You’re still confusing ruling on an issue with ruling on an outcome.
“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.”
Sigh… Not quite, Bartlebee. The court did not say that only those matters were protected by executive privilege. They said that those matters were presumptively protected by executive privilege. Other matters would be decided on a case by case basis.
“The court specifically identified those instances, and no further, citing the precedent of previous administrations already set.”
The “no further” statement is flatly incorrect. That is not what the court said, which is why the 1998 court ruled as it did.
“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.”
No. The 1998 court specifically upheld Clinton’s executive privilege.
“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.”
Nope. The 1998 court ruling supports my argument, Bartlebee.
“Another convoluted explanation for the fact that the Court DECLINED Nixons case.”
??? What on earth was convoluted about that? The court ruled in Nixon’s favor on the issue of executive privilege and against him on the issue of whether executive privilege outweighed the other factors.
“They did not rule that the claim “COULD BE OUTWEIGHED†they DENIED the claim in that example.”
No. You are, again, flatly incorrect.
“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.”
LOL… For the 100th time, I’m not going to cite an example to support an argument I’ve never made!
July 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pmYea I know. Now he’s trying to tell me what my own argument is because he knows he’s been proven wrong.
I am starting to grow weary of this rube.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm“Yes, it was my original argument you half baked twit.”
Sigh… No, Bartlebee, it wasn’t. That is not what you said in post 27.
“Don’t put words in my mouth and don’t tell me what my argument was”
I’m not, Bartlebee. I’m quoting post 27, as I’ve always quoted post 27.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm“Yea I know. Now he’s trying to tell me what my own argument is because he knows he’s been proven wrong.”
LOL… Bartlebee, you can read, right? Have you actually looked at post 27?
“I am starting to grow weary of this rube.”
LOL… “Starting?”
July 12th, 2007 at 12:35 pm“No apparently your inability to read what youve been writing is your problem.”
Sigh… Like Bartlebee, you’re equating two different things: the ruling on a particular issue and the ruling on an outcome.
“Bartlebee said it correctly.”
In post 27, he did not.
“Nixon was declined executive privilege. You said he wasn’t.”
That’s because he was not, in fact, denied executive privilege. On the issue of using executive privilege, both Nixon and Clinton won. On the other issue, of whether this privilege was outweighed by other factors, they both lost. Is this really so difficult? Bartlebee simply got it wrong in post 27.
“You are wrong.”
Nope. Sorry.
Com
July 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pmThey did not rule that the claim “COULD BE OUTWEIGHED†they DENIED the claim in that example.â€
No. You are, again, flatly incorrect.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
See? He just says, “Nuh uh, you’re wrong”.
I have posted from Wiki dozens of times showing where he is wrong, (not that we need wiki, its just quick) and he just says “nuh uh”.
Nixons claim was denied. Since it was the FIRST time SCOTUS had ruled on executive privilege, they DID include wording acknowledging the existence of executive privilege, but they DENIED NIXONS claim.
Thats just a matter of history, and Nixon LOST his case.
You’re an idiot and waste of keystrokes.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm“I stand behind that statement.”
Too bad, since it’s false.
“I could have been more specific”
No shit, Sherlock. Had you been more careful with your words, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“but the sentiment is right.”
No. Were the “sentiment” right, the court would have ruled in 1998 that Clinton was not entitled to a presumption of executive privilege in the conversations with his aides, and he would have lost on those grounds. However, the court ruled in his favor on this, which is why they had to then move on to the other issue, where Clinton ultimately lost. You still cannot bring yourself to deal with this argument, can you?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pmThat’s because he was not, in fact, denied executive privilege. On the issue of using executive privilege, both Nixon and Clinton won. On the other issue, of whether this privilege was outweighed by other factors, they both lost. Is this really so difficult? Bartlebee simply got it wrong in post 27.
“You are wrong.â€
Nope. Sorry.
Comment by PaulBullshit — July 12, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Listen to this convoluted Bullshit.
They LOST the case lamebrain.
Thats a matter of history.
Your first sentence is bullshit.
You are taking the fact that the court ACKNOWLEDGED the right of the executive to invoke exectutive privilege and turning it into a strawman argument.
They acknowledged that a president has a right to executive privilege.
There was no “other matter”. They DENIED Both Clinton and Nixons claim to it in BOTH examples, and nothing you say is going to change that.
Sorry, you’re wrong.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm“See? He just says, “Nuh uh, you’re wrong—
LOL… Bartlebee, I posted the 1998 decision that proved you wrong! You have never, not once, dealt with that.
“I have posted from Wiki dozens of times showing where he is wrong, (not that we need wiki, its just quick) and he just says “nuh uhâ€.”
LOL… Bartlebee, nothing I’ve posted contradicts the Wiki article. Not one word.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pmSorry you’re wrong. Clinton lost hist case and later made a deal with Ken Starrr. Its all a matter of history.
You are WRONG.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm“Listen to this convoluted Bullshit.”
Bartlebee, what is so convoluted about noting that both courts had to rule on two issues:
1. Could Clinton (and Nixon) invoke executive privilege in non-security and non-diplomacy scenarios?
2. Did that claim of executive privilege override the other issue, the need for the information they were trying to protect?
What on earth is convoluted about that??? They both won on the first issue and both lost on the second, thereby losing the case.
“They LOST the case lamebrain.”
LOL.. Bartlebee, I have never claimed otherwise!
July 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pmSee Bartles? I tried to warn ya. I’m sorry I opened my mouth too. He’s an idiot. He’s re-writing history and just changing his answers everytime. Now he’s saying Clinton won his case, when everyone knows he lost and his people were forced to testify, lol.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pmYou can’t argue with an idiot bartles who just makes up junk as he goes. All you can do is hit the iggy button and hope he goes back to surfin porn.
He is probably the dumbest troll I’ve ever met.
Or the smartest.
:|
July 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pm“Sorry you’re wrong.”
What was that you were saying about someone posting “nuh-uh, you’re wrong?”
“Clinton lost his case”
Sigh… I’ve never claimed otherwise, Bartlebee. Never. Why do you continue to pretend that I have?
The court considered two issues. Clinton won on the first and lost on the second, thereby losing the case. Can you tell me just what it is that you find so “convoluted” about this?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pm“and just changing his answers everytime.”
Oh, good grief. Can nobody on this thread actually read??? I’ve never changed my answers, not even once!
“Now he’s saying Clinton won his case”
LOL… Mike, I never said that Clinton won his case! Good grief! I said that there were two issues: Clinton won on the first and lost on the second, thereby losing the case. What on earth is so hard about this?
July 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pmFor goodness sake, people, this is what I’ve said in damn near every flipping post on this thread:
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, thereby losing their cases.
Why is this so fricking hard for some of you to grasp? I’ve never “changed my story,” I’ve never argued that Clinton and Nixon actually won, I’ve never argued that Bush will win, and there is nothing in those simple statements above that is in any way contradicted by anything anywhere!
July 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pmLOL.. Bartlebee, I have never claimed otherwise!
Comment by PaulLameBrain — July 12, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
But right before that the Lamebrain said…
However, the court ruled in his favor on this,
Comment by PaulLameBrain — July 12, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
The court “ACKNOWLEDGED the EXISTENCE” of EP, in the 1974 case.
Clinton didn’t “win” anything.
If you get a speeding ticket and go to court, and present a case that in an emergency you, as a private citizen, can speed to get to the hospital, and the court acknowledges that is correct, but shows you were not in an emergency situation, then you didn’t “WIN” anything.
The court simply acknowledged that that right “EXISTS”.
You didn’t win. You lost.
You’re just playing word games, troll.
Get a job.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThe fact that the court was willing to HEAR the claim of executive privilege doesn’t mean he won anything.
They simply HEARD the case, acknowledged the power exists, and then RULED AGAINST HIM USING IT.
Inbred.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pmLook, just do a simple Google search on “executive privilege.” Take a look at what those sources say and compare it to what Bartlebee said in post 27. Note how none of them will say what he said, not one that I have been able to find.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pm“The fact that the court was willing to HEAR the claim of executive privilege doesn’t mean he won anything.”
Oddly enough, I agree: simply hearing an argument is not the same thing as ruling on it.
“They simply HEARD the case, acknowledged the power exists”
No, Bartlebee, they upheld Clinton’s use of executive privilege. They quite specifically ruled on this issue. You’re still confusing ruling on an issue with ruling on an outcome.
“and then RULED AGAINST HIM USING IT.”
Clinton lost the case but not because he was not allowed to invoke executive privilege. He lost because that privilege, explicitly upheld by the court, was outweighed by the other factors in the case.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pmLook, just do a simple Google search on “executive privilege.†Take a look at what those sources say and compare it to what Bartlebee said in post 27. Note how none of them will say what he said, not one that I have been able to find.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
I have done that, as I imagine anyone bored enough on this sunny Thursday afternoon to read this never ending debate, has already done. And everything I have read says you are wrong and are just using words to try to conceal the fact that you got beaten about 275 comments ago.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pm“But right before that the Lamebrain said… However, the court ruled in his favor on this”
LOL… Bartlebee, the court ruled in favor of Clinton on the single issue of whether Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege was proper.” They agreed that it was, after which they ruled on the other issue, whether that privilege outweighed the other factors in the case. On that issue, Clinton lost, and so he lost the case. I’ve never claimed otherwise.
If what you had posted in post 27 were correct, Clinton would have lost on the first issue, the invocation of executive privilege, and the court would have never bothered to rule on the second.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:00 pmFine. Then then why not post some quote?
You say that everything discredits me. Post some quotes with the associated URL, and I’ll be happy to read them.
So far, you just talk, and post no references to support your claims.
300 comments and you post nothing but your opinion.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:00 pm“And everything I have read says you are wrong and are just using words to try to conceal the fact that you got beaten about 275 comments ago.”
LOL.. Go ahead, Mike. Point me to a source that says precisely the same thing that Bartlebee said in post 27. I can’t wait.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:00 pm“Fine. Then then why not post some quote?”
LOL… I already did, Bartlebee. See Ken Starr’s summation above.
“You say that everything discredits me.”
Sigh… No, I didn’t. I simply said that what you wrote in post 27 was incorrect.
“So far, you just talk, and post no references to support your claims.”
I’ve already posted, Bartlebee. You just don’t want to deal with them.
“”
LOL… Bartlebee, how is that in any way different from what you are doing?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pmIf what you had posted in post 27 were correct, Clinton would have lost on the first issue, the invocation of executive privilege, and the court would have never bothered to rule on the second.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Bullshit.
The court heard the case because he did invoke executive privilege. That doesn’t mean they “ruled that he could”.
They DENIED his claim to it . Period.
But feel free to post a few lines from one of your sites that says the court ruled in favor of his using executive privilege.
Hint: that wasn’t even at issue when Clinton invoked it. The 1974 ruling had ALREADY confirmed the right of a president to invoke it, and outlined parameters where he could.
In the 1998 case, Clinton invoked it, and the courts heard the case for it, and DENIED his right to use it and ordered his aides to testify.
I am sorry your tiny brain is too small to absorb that fact.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pmLOL.. Go ahead, Mike. Point me to a source that says precisely the same thing that Bartlebee said in post 27. I can’t wait.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Sure. Don’t want to keep you waiting. Here, you posted it.
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’ …
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Maybe you can argue that bartlesbee was overreaching with his statement that the ruling was “Unequivocal” , but like he said you are just claiming that with no proof to back it up. Anyone reading that decision above can clearly see the court ruled that unless there were military or diplomatic concerns, that the president doesn’t have a right to just claim confidentiality across the board. Hope you didn’t have to wait too long.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:10 pmBartlebee, maybe this will help. Below are two quotes of yours:
“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”
True. Absolutely no argument from me and there has never been any argument from me in this entire thread on that particular statement.
“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.”
False.
Do you really not see the difference between these two statements? The first is entirely accurate, the second is not, which is why Mike is going to fail when he looks for other sources that agree with that statement. The Wikipedia article you point to supports the first statement; it does not support the second. Both the 1974 and 1998 cases support the first statement; neither support the second.
You simply went too far in post 27, Bartlebee. It’s really as simple as that. And that is all that I’ve been saying on this entire thread!
July 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pmTrue. Absolutely no argument from me and there has never been any argument from me in this entire thread on that particular statement.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Thanks for finally admitting I was correct.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pmBecause thats what I have been saying since last night.
My first statement is supported by the fact that NEVER have there EVER been ANY further additions to the power granted by ANY court.
Also, that 1974 precedent was based on ALL PREVIOUS examples of the power being used. In ALL cases, the power was used WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS.
So the PRECEDENT WAS SET.
PRECEDENT junior, is something that holds firm in a court of law. In fact, precendent it can be argued “IS” law. At least until its overturned or modified.
Since this PRECEDENT was upheld by the 1974 ruling, and NO COURT SINCE has undertaken to add or take away from that ruling, it is my absolute contention that as of this time, that IS THE LAW, and that executive privilege cannot be used legally, unless in national security or international relations.
And you have not been able to cite ONE example that proves me wrong.
Something I have been asking you to do since early last night.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pmMike quoted the Supreme Court argument from 1974:
“Maybe you can argue that bartlesbee was overreaching with his statement that the ruling was ‘Unequivocal’exactly what I’ve been saying on this entire thread! Bartlebee didn’t just say that the ruling was unequivocal, though, he went further and said that:
Read that ruling again, Mike. Do you see anywhere in that ruling that the Supreme Court said what I highlighted in bold in Bartlebee’s text? If Bartlebee had been correct, the court in 1998 would never even have bothered to rule as to whether Starr’s need for the information outweighed Clinton’ affirmation of executive privilege. They would have simply noted that Clinton had no right to invoke executive privilege since the matters did not pertain to security or diplomacy. Slam dunk.
“but like he said you are just claiming that with no proof to back it up.”
Mike, I have the text you cited above and the text of the 1998 decision.
“Anyone reading that decision above can clearly see the court ruled that unless there were military or diplomatic concerns, that the president doesn’t have a right to just claim confidentiality across the board.”
This statement of yours is accurate. But that is not what Bartlebee wrote above. Your statement and his differ in a key respect and that difference is just not as trivial as Bartlebee pretends it is. That difference means the difference between a “slam dunk” case and a case in which the Supreme Court will have to perform precisely the same balancing act that they performed in 1974 and 1998. That is all I’m saying now and all that I’ve been saying in this entire fricking thread!
July 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm“Thanks for finally admitting I was correct.”
LOL… Since that isn’t what you said in post 27, I’m afraid your congratulations are premature. What you said in post 27 is still wrong, Bartlebee.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:21 pm“Because thats what I have been saying since last night.”
Regrettably, that is not what you said in post 27, and as recently as a short time ago, you said that you stand by your words in that post. And it is not what you say below.
“My first statement is supported by the fact that NEVER have there EVER been ANY further additions to the power granted by ANY court.”
Bartlebee, I agreed with that first statement, remember? I’ve never argued against it. Not once in this entire thread.
“Also, that 1974 precedent was based on ALL PREVIOUS examples of the power being used. In ALL cases, the power was used WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS.”
Which parameters, Bartlebee? If you’re again trying to claim that presidents cannot invoke executive privilege in cases that do not involve national security or diplomacy, that is simply not correct. The fact that the court has affirmed that such invocations can override other considerations is not the same thing as denying that no other invocations of executive privilege are valid. Do you really not see this? Saying “yes, they can do this” is not the same thing as saying, “no, they cannot do that.”
“So the PRECEDENT WAS SET.”
The 1974 case is absolutely the precedent. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say what you said it did in post 27.
“PRECEDENT junior, is something that holds firm in a court of law. In fact, precendent it can be argued “IS†law. At least until its overturned or modified.”
Which the Supreme Court can easily do, and which I’m rather worried about given the current makeup of the court, but that’s not really relevant since that’s not what I’m arguing about.
“Since this PRECEDENT was upheld by the 1974 ruling, and NO COURT SINCE has undertaken to add or take away from that ruling, it is my absolute contention that as of this time, that IS THE LAW, and that executive privilege cannot be used legally, unless in national security or international relations.”
Sigh… You see that part in bold, Bartlebee? That isn’t what the court said in 1974 and it isn’t what it said in 1998. That, and that alone, is the source of our disagreement.
“And you have not been able to cite ONE example that proves me wrong.”
1974 and 1998, Bartlebee, particularly the latter. Are you ready to respond to what the judge said in that case yet?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:28 pmI apologize for the formatting problems in post 420. I’m not going to repost, though, since it’s a long post and I think the meaning is still pretty clear.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:29 pmRead that ruling again, Mike. Do you see anywhere in that ruling that the Supreme Court said what I highlighted in bold in Bartlebee’s text?
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:19 pm\
I see what bartlebee is saying which you clearly do not. Bartlebee is saying that if the court didn’t give the president the power, and no other branch of government gave the president the power then the power doesn’t exist, at least not in the legal sense of the word. Why you cannot see that I do not know.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:30 pmBartlebee is saying that if the court didn’t give the president the power, and no other branch of government gave the president the power then the power doesn’t exist, at least not in the legal sense of the word.
Comment by Mike — July 12, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
EXACTLY!
Thank you Mike, for saying it in a way that maybe this putz can comprehend. You said it better than I apparently have.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:32 pmThe president might try to use the power, but he has no legal right beyond what has been defined by law, ruling, and precedents that were upheld.
And the Supreme Court defined the power in 1974, and so far, no court since has added any additional parameters to that power, meaning Bush is acting outside of the law.
PERIOD.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pmWhile you may not like my usage of the word “unequivocal”, in order to prove I am wrong, you would have to cite a case where some later court EXTENDED the powers beyond that of the 1974 court.
Since you can’t. you cannot refute my original point. That the powers were defined by the court, based on 198 years of precdent, and thats all there is too it.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pmBush is misusing executive privilege, based on the parameters defined by 231 years of precedent, and the defined parameters by the 1974 SCOTUS ruling.
End of story.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm“Bartlebee is saying that if the court didn’t give the president the power, and no other branch of government gave the president the power then the power doesn’t exist, at least not in the legal sense of the word.”
??? The courts have acknowledged that presidents do have this power! They did it in 1974 and they did it again in 1998. Look, here’s Starr’s summation again:
“the Court concluded that the subpoenaed testimony must be treated as presumptively privileged”
The court specifically acknowledged that Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege was proper, after which it then ruled on the other issue in the case, which went against Clinton and which caused him to lose the case. That doesn’t change the fact that the court specifically said that Clinton’s interactions with his aides, on issues not pertaining to security or diplomacy were presumptively privileged.
Again, if Bartlebee’s wording were correct, the court would never have bothered to even look at Starr’s request. Clinton was invoking executive privilege on matters not pertaining to security or diplomacy; according to Bartlebee the 1974 ruling prohibits this; Clinton loses in a slam dunk case.
But that isn’t what the 1974 court said, which is why the 1998 court ruled in Clinton’s favor on this single issue, even though he ultimately lost the case. His communications with his aides “were presumptively privileged,” even though they were not on issues pertaining to security or diplomacy. That Clinton lost on the other issue in the case, Starr’s need for that information, doesn’t change the fact that the 1998 court explicitly ruled that Clinton’s communications were presumptively privileged. The power does exist and it has been upheld by the courts. All the courts have said is that the power is not absolute. And if that is all that Bartlebee said, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“Why you cannot see that I do not know.”
Man, that’s what I’ve been saying to myself in this entire thread. I keep getting slammed for arguments I’ve never made!
July 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pm“Bush is misusing executive privilege, based on the parameters defined by 231 years of precedent, and the defined parameters by the 1974 SCOTUS ruling.”
Bartlebee, I’ve never argued against that. Again, if this is all you had said in post 27, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:48 pmAgain, if Bartlebee’s wording were correct, the court would never have bothered to even look at Starr’s request.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Bullshit.
Another red herring.
The Court determines the constitutionality and legality of an issue.
The court heard Clintons case to determine its legality, and whether it met with past cases, (precedent) and concluded that it did not.
Once more, if the power is not expressly granted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, the Congress or some other precedent upheld by law, then the power does not legally exist.
Which means that my statement that the courts ruled unequivocally stands correct.
In order to prove otherwise, you would have to cite an example where a later court overturned, overruled, or appened the original parameters outlined by the 1974 court, and supported by 198 years (at the time) of precedent.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pmThe power does exist and it has been upheld by the courts.
Comment by PaulBamess — July 12, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
I never said the power didn’t exist lamebrain.
Another one of your straw arguments.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm“While you may not like my usage of the word ‘unequivocal’,”
The word “unequivocal” isn’t really the problem. Here is what you wrote, Bartlebee:
See that part in bold, Bartlebee? That’s what we are arguing about. You could pull the word “unequivocal” out of there and the phrase would still be incorrect. The Supreme Court has made no such ruling, unequivocal or otherwise. They said that executive privilege could successfully be invoked in matters pertaining to diplomacy and national security, not that it could not be invoked for other matters. The 1998 court ruling directly contradicts your statement. Yes, Clinton lost, but not because he was invoking privilege on non-security and non-diplomacy matters.
“in order to prove I am wrong, you would have to cite a case where some later court EXTENDED the powers beyond that of the 1974 court.”
No, I don’t, Bartlebee, since that isn’t what we are arguing about, as I’ve said time and time again. Take another look at that phrase in bold, Bartlebee. That’s what we are arguing about!. Please stop trying to introduce other arguments, particularly arguments I’ve never made.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pmThe power does exist and it has been upheld by the courts. All the courts have said is that the power is not absolute.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Thats right pinhead.
And they did that by DEFINING SPECIFIC PARAMETERS based on (at the time) 198 years of presidential precedent.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm“I never said the power didn’t exist lamebrain.”
Bartlebee, did you even bother to read Mike’s post that I was responding to? Part of what he wrote was: “then the power doesn’t exist, at least not in the legal sense of the word.” I was simply pointing out that this point is irrelevant — the courts have already given the president this power. I was specifically responding to Mike, not to you, which is why I quoted him when I responded.
“Another one of your straw arguments.”
Nope. Just another failure on your part to read what I was responding to.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“And they did that by DEFINING SPECIFIC PARAMETERS based on (at the time) 198 years of presidential precedent.”
Yes and no, Bartlebee. They defined a couple of instances where it absolutely could successfully be invoked; they did not fully define parameters where it could not be invoked. And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. Can you really not see the distinction?
July 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pmNo, I don’t, Bartlebee, since that isn’t what we are arguing about, as I’ve said time and time again. Take another look at that phrase in bold, Bartlebee. That’s what we are arguing about!. Please stop trying to introduce other arguments, particularly arguments I’ve never made.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
We both looked at the phrase in bold. Once again I will tell you that you are wrong. You are changing your argument with every post. Bart said from the beginning that the law was defined by the court in 1974, and so far nothing you have said has proven otherwise although now you are trying to change his argument for him since you cant defeat it.
lol Bartles, you should just pack it in. This guy will never ever get it and clearly does not want to.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:01 pmYes and no, Bartlebee.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Another rock solid position from the king of waffle irons.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pm“The court heard Clintons case to determine its legality, and whether it met with past cases, (precedent) and concluded that it did not.”
Bartlebee, you still cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that the 1998 case involved a ruling on two issues: the issue of whether Clinton could invoke executive privilege, and the issue of whether that privilege outweighed Starr’s need for information. The court upheld Clinton on the first issue and upheld Starr on the second. Clinton lost and his aides testified.
“Once more, if the power is not expressly granted by the Constitution, the SCOTUS, the Congress or some other precedent upheld by law, then the power does not legally exist.”
Since the 1998 ruling explicitly declared that the power did, in fact, exist, I don’t see the relevance of this point.
“Which means that my statement that the courts ruled unequivocally stands correct.”
LOL.. Bartlebee, I’ve already told you that the word “unequivocal” is not the problem. It would really move this argument along if you’d actually read what I write.
“In order to prove otherwise, you would have to cite an example where a later court overturned, overruled, or appened the original parameters outlined by the 1974 court, and supported by 198 years (at the time) of precedent.”
For the 120th time, I’ve never argued otherwise. Not once. Is this really so difficult for you?
July 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pm“Another rock solid position from the king of waffle irons.”
And another non-response from someone who just will not read. Bartlebee, if you cannot address the issue, why are you participating in this discussion? What I wrote is quite simple, Bartlebee, and quite uncontroversial. Do you disagree with it?
July 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pmKatie, that you for reading my post (#184) and your advice. Are there any other blogs people can use where 2 steroid-using, testerone driven users can’t monopolize an entire spot for hours? I am sorry, but I read and post so I can perhaps get involved with some serious commentary on the issues. Maybe PaulB and Bartlebee can exchange email addresses or phone numbers and take this ridiculous rhetoric elsewhere.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pmThey defined a couple of instances where it absolutely could successfully be invoked; they did not fully define parameters where it could not be invoked.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
One more time for the historically and politically retarded.
In our government, our leaders do not get to “annoint” powers on themselves. They may from time to time act in such fashion, but those invented powers hold no legal authority of any kind.
If the power is NOT provided for by the legislature, the constitution or other ofifcal documents, the SCOTUS, Congress or some precedent upheld by law, then the power SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.
So by NOT defining specific parameters, the court effectively RULES OUT those parameters. The courts strict interpretation, based on 198 years of precedent, are ALL the powers the president has in these matters.
For their to be any further usage of the power, the court would have to rule BEYOND the 1974 ruling, which was based on 198 years of precedent.
They have not done that.
You can provide no examples of where they have done that.
Therefore, my original statement stands unchallanged.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pmWow… just wow… 437 posts and Bartlebee still has not figured out what we’re actually arguing about. Here it is again, Bartlebee:
That’s what we’re arguing about, Bartlebee, the part in bold above. It all boils down to that phrase, a phrase that is inaccurate and that is not supported by either the 1974 or the 1998 decision.
We’re not arguing about whether the 1974 case set the precedent (it did); we’re not arguing about Nixon and Clinton won or lost their cases (they lost); we’re not arguing whether subsequent cases expanded or changed the 1974 precedent (the 1998 case did not); we’re not arguing about whether Bush will win or lose, based on the precedents (he should lose); we’re not arguing about the word “unequivocal” (it’s irrelevant); we’re simply arguing about whether the 1974 precedent says what you claim it does (it doesn’t). That’s it, Bartlebee; that is the sole extent of the argument. Everything else you’ve been writing about is, to use your own phrase, a red herring.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pm“Are there any other blogs people can use where 2 steroid-using, testerone driven users can’t monopolize an entire spot for hours?”
Yup, this one, for the most part. This thread is very much the exception rather than the rule.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pmBartlebee, you still cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that the 1998 case involved a ruling on two issues: the issue of whether Clinton could invoke executive privilege, and the issue of whether that privilege outweighed Starr’s need for information. The court upheld Clinton on the first issue and upheld Starr on the second. Clinton lost and his aides testified.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
WRONG.
The idea of executive privilege had already been determined during the Jay Treaty, back when it was invoked by George Washington.
In 1974 the court addressed the issue for the first time, and acknowledged its existence and legality.
In 1998, the court undertook to decide whether the INSTANCE of it, that Clinton was invoking, was legal, in relation to previous cases and precedented usage of the power.
The court ruled it was NOT warranted based on those parameters, and DENIED Clinton the right to use it, and ordered his aides to testify.
You’re still just as wrong as you were last night, when you thought the SCOTUS ruled on Executive Privilege in 2004.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pmOne more time, I will “try” to explain it to you.
Here is the statement of mine you said you don’t agree with.
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 here’s where Mike explained it to you better than I did.
Bartlebee is saying that if the court didn’t give the president the power, and no other branch of government gave the president the power then the power doesn’t exist, at least not in the legal sense of the word.
Comment by Mike — July 12, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
So you see, that position is right. The court didn’t come out and say this is all you can do. They didn’t have to. When it comes to the President, unless the power is expressely given in the Constitution or other offical documents, the Congress or a Court, then the President simply does NOT have the power.
Thus, the 1974 SCOTUS, DID define where it could not be used, by defining where it could be.
Get a job.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:18 pm“In our government, our leaders do not get to ‘annoint’ powers on themselves.”
Irrelevant, since I’ve never claimed otherwise.
“They may from time to time act in such fashion, but those invented powers hold no legal authority of any kind.”
Irrelevant, since I’ve never claimed otherwise.
“If the power is NOT provided for by the legislature, the constitution or other ofifcal documents, the SCOTUS, Congress or some precedent upheld by law, then the power SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.”
Irrelevant, since a) I’ve never claimed otherwise, and b) the Supreme Court has explicitly upheld this power.
“So by NOT defining specific parameters, the court effectively RULES OUT those parameters.”
Irrelevant, since that is not what the 1974 court did. The 1974 decision explicitly supported the power of the president to declare executive privilege; they simply stated that it was not universal. Since the 1974 court did not explicitly rule out other invocations of executive privilege, the 1998 court ruled in Clinton’s favor on the issue of executive privilege, something that you still cannot bring yourself to deal with. Yes, yes, I know he lost the case. That still doesn’t change the fact that the court explicitly ruled that his non-security, non-diplomatic communications were, in fact, covered presumptively by executive privilege.
“The courts strict interpretation, based on 198 years of precedent, are ALL the powers the president has in these matters.”
That “strict interpretation” is simply not what you claim it was. The 1974 court explicitly did not rule out the invocation of executive privilege in other situations; they simply stated that executive privilege was not absolute.
“For their to be any further usage of the power, the court would have to rule BEYOND the 1974 ruling, which was based on 198 years of precedent.”
Irrelevant, since I’ve never claimed otherwise. I’ve simply pointed out that the 1974 ruling does not say what you claim it does.
“Therefore, my original statement stands unchallanged.”
No. The 1998 ruling explicitly argues against you.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWrong mr lamebrain.
One more time.
The 1974 SCOTUS, DID define where it could not be used, by defining where it could be.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:21 pmYou just admitted the president could not give himself powers.
You just admitted that if the power is not expresslly provided, that it doesn’t exist.
Therefore, by defining WHERE the power CAN be used, they also, by OMISSION, defined where it could NOT be used.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm“WRONG.”
No, Bartlebee, I’m not wrong, as Ken Starr’s summation shows. Simply shouting uh-uh is not a particularly convincing argument.
“The idea of executive privilege had already been determined during the Jay Treaty, back when it was invoked by George Washington.”
Irrelevant, since I’ve never claimed otherwise.
“In 1974 the court addressed the issue for the first time, and acknowledged its existence and legality.”
Irrelevant, since I’ve never claimed otherwise.
“In 1998, the court undertook to decide whether the INSTANCE of it, “that Clinton was invoking, was legal, in relation to previous cases and precedented usage of the power.”
No. They ruled on whether Clinton’s invocation of privilege was outweighed by other factors. At the same time, they explicitly ruled that those communications were, in fact, presumptively privileged.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pmWhen it comes to the office of President, if the power isn’t granted, it is not perceived and does not legally exist.
So by defining where it COULD be used, they also defined where it could NOT be used.
Which was anywhere other than what they allowed.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pmNo. They ruled on whether Clinton’s invocation of privilege was outweighed by other factors. At the same time, they explicitly ruled that those communications were, in fact, presumptively privileged.
Comment by PaulBonehead — July 12, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Wrong.
You’re just playing your little troll word games again.
They RULED AGAINST BILL CLINTONS USE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
PERIOD.
His aides were compelled to testify. Thats a matter of history.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhen the SCOTUS defined where it COULD be used, they also defined where it could NOT be used by OMISSION.
No writ.
No authority.
PERIOD.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pmThats one dumb troll Bart.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pm“Wrong mr lamebrain.”
Oh, that’s convincing.
“The 1974 SCOTUS, DID define where it could not be used, by defining where it could be.”
No, Bartlebee. You’re misreading the text of the decision, which is why you will find no other source agreeing with you. The Supreme Court deliberately left open the door to other invocations of executive privilege, which is why the 1998 court ruled as it did.
“You just admitted the president could not give himself powers.”
Bartlebee, I’ve never argued otherwise!
You just admitted that if the power is not expresslly provided, that it doesn’t exist.”
Bartlebee, I’ve never argued otherwise!
“Therefore, by defining WHERE the power CAN be used, they also, by OMISSION, defined where it could NOT be used.”
Except that the court deliberately did not shut the door on other invocations of executive privilege, which is why you cannot find any sources saying so.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pmAnd my position, has been and always will be, regardless of how a wimp like you tries to define it for me, is that SCOTUS DEFINED THE USE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN 1974, BASED ON 198 YEARS OF PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY.
And NOTHING you say can refute that.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pmExcept that the court deliberately did not shut the door on other invocations of executive privilege, which is why you cannot find any sources saying so.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Like someone told you in here last night, your argument is SPECULATIVE CRAP.
If a judge rules that you cannot use your handgun to shoot your wife in the head, he is not “LEAVING THE DOOR OPEN” for you to shoot her in the foot.
If the power is not given to the president, he doesn’t have it.
ANYTHING can be challanged in the SCOTUS IF they will hear the case.
That doesn’t mean any “doors were left open”.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pmWhen the SCOTUS defined where it COULD be used, they also defined where it could NOT be used by OMISSION.
Until some court comes along and changes that, THATS all she wrote.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pmAnd I am not “misreading the decision”.
I am not even basing that on the decision.
I am basing that on 231 years of American history and our democratice form of government.
Once the Supreme Court ruled on that issue, whether they liked it or not, they defined that issue with regards to the POTUS.
By defining what parameters COULD be used, they inherintly ruled out any others.
And so far, every court case since has upheld the 1974 parameters, and they consitute the “acid test” for Executive Privilege.
And the “acid test” that was used in arrviing at the 1974 decision, was merely 198 years of American presidential history.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pmIn order for their to be any other parameters, the SCOTUS would have to provide a NEW ruling, EXPANDING the 1974 definition of Executive Privilege.
And since they tossed it back to the lower courts in 2004, its clear they don’t want to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pmAnd by the way, they did not just rule where it couldn’t be used by omission.
They also clearly stated one prime example of where it could not be used.
A GENERAL NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY.
“on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality”
Supreme Court of the United States
July 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pmUS vs Nixon
1974
“And by the way, they did not just rule where it couldn’t be used by omission. They also clearly stated one prime example of where it could not be used. A GENERAL NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY.”
No, you are once again misreading the text and taking a quote out of context. Specifically, you’re still ignoring the text that precedes that. Here’s the full text:
See that part in bold, Bartlebee? That is part of the decision and you cannot take the subsequent part of that statement out without applying that modifier. They didn’t say that the president absolutely could not use a generalized claim of confidentiality; they said that such a generalized claim could not provide “an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes.” Presidents can, in fact, invoke executive privilege on the generalized claim of confidentiality, but that privilege is balanced against other issues, including the need for testimony in a criminal case. It’s a plain reading of the text, Bartleby, which is why you cannot find any authority agreeing with your interpretation.
The Nixon case, in particular, took exactly that route, since the court instructed the lower court to review each document. Those documents that were pertinent to the subpoena would be turned over, since the need for that information overruled the president’s privilege, while those documents that were not, were not, since the president’s privilege was paramount in those instances. This was regardless of whether those latter documents were related to security or diplomacy matters.
As I’ve already noted, repeatedly, this is precisely the standard that the 1998 court adhered to. The 1998 court ruled in favor of Clinton on the invocation of executive privilege, but against him on the issue of Starr’s need for that testimony. There was not, and is not, a complete prohibition of executive privilege on matters that do not pertain to security or diplomacy.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm“And my position, has been and always will be, regardless of how a wimp like you tries to define it for me, is that SCOTUS DEFINED THE USE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN 1974, BASED ON 198 YEARS OF PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, I have never argued otherwise! Unfortunately, that is not what you said in post 27.
“And NOTHING you say can refute that.”
Why on earth should I be asked to support a position I’ve never taken?
“Like someone told you in here last night, your argument is SPECULATIVE CRAP.”
Nope. I’ve already pointed you to the NPR and FindLaw discussions on this. There are others, as well. I’m reasonably confident that you cannot find a single source that agrees with your statements in post 27, Bartlebee. Care to prove me wrong?
“If a judge rules that you cannot use your handgun to shoot your wife in the head, he is not “LEAVING THE DOOR OPEN†for you to shoot her in the foot.”
Irrelevant, Bartlebee, since the court left open this door in both 1974 and 1998.
“If the power is not given to the president, he doesn’t have it.”
Irrelevant, since they did, in fact, give this power to the president.
“That doesn’t mean any “doors were left openâ€.”
Read the text, Bartlebee. They left the door open, which is why the 1998 court ruled as it did, something you have never been able to address.
“When the SCOTUS defined where it COULD be used, they also defined where it could NOT be used by OMISSION.”
We’ve been over this, Bartlebee. They deliberately left open the door. Your pretense that they did not is not supported by either the 1974 or the 1998 decisions.
“Until some court comes along and changes that, THATS all she wrote.”
The 1974 and 1998 courts have already defined this, Bartlebee, which is why Clinton won on this issue in 1998, while simultaneously losing the case.
“And I am not ‘misreading the decision’.”
Yes, actually, you are. You’re quoting out of context and ignoring what the decisions plainly say.
“I am not even basing that on the decision.”
LOL… Bartlebee, the decisions are the controlling authority, as you yourself have stated.
“I am basing that on 231 years of American history and our democratice form of government.”
ROFL… Good luck using that as a legal argument in your brief to the Supreme Court.
“Once the Supreme Court ruled on that issue, whether they liked it or not, they defined that issue with regards to the POTUS.”
Yup, which is why Clinton won on the issue of executive privilege, while simultaneously losing the case. The 1998 court followed the 1974 precedent.
“By defining what parameters COULD be used, they inherintly ruled out any others.”
Since they accepted that the president has the right to invoke executive privilege on non-security and non-political issues, it doesn’t really matter.
“And so far, every court case since has upheld the 1974 parameters”
Yup, which is why Clinton won on the issue of executive privilege, while simultaneously losing the case on other grounds.
“and they consitute the ‘acid test’ for Executive Privilege.”
Sorry, Bartlebee, but the 1998 Court explicitly did not use your definition of what the acid test should be; they used the 1974 Court’s definition — that the president has the right to invoke executive privilege, even on matters that do not pertain to national security or diplomacy, unless that privilege is overridden by other factors. It’s right there in the ruling, Bartlebee.
“And the ‘acid test’ that was used in arrviing at the 1974 decision, was merely 198 years of American presidential history.”
Too bad that they had a different reading of that history than you did, Bartlebee. I’ll take theirs, thanks.
“In order for their to be any other parameters, the SCOTUS would have to provide a NEW ruling, EXPANDING the 1974 definition of Executive Privilege.”
Nope. They provided for those other parameters in 1974, which is why Clinton won on the issue of executive privilege, even though it did not involve matters of national security or diplomacy, only to ultimately lose the case on other grounds.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pm“Thats one dumb troll Bart.”
LOL… And I had such high hopes for you, Mike. I see I gave you too much credit. So far, Bartlebee has completely ignored the 1998 decision, since he knows it completely discredits his case. Maybe you’d like to take a look at it?
Have you had a chance to look at other analyses of executive privilege, Mike? Can you find a single one that supports what Bartlebee wrote in post 27? I’ve found several that do not, and have pointed to two of them — NPR’s analysis and FindLaw’s analysis. Neither support Bartlebee.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pmRead this again, Bartlebee, since it completely undermines your case:
The Nixon case, in particular, took exactly that route, since the court instructed the lower court to review each document. Those documents that were pertinent to the subpoena would be turned over, since the need for that information overruled the president’s privilege, while those documents that were not, would not, since the president’s privilege was paramount in those instances. This was regardless of whether those latter documents were related to security or diplomacy matters.
The president has a right to invoke executive privilege on non-security and non-diplomacy issues, Bartlebee, so long as that privilege does not interfere with the process of gathering information for a criminal case. The court left open other ways in which they could limit this privilege, since they only used the criminal case as an example, not as a defining precedent. This is precisely what the 1998 court ruled, when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege, while at the same time agreeing that Starr’s need for information overruled that privilege.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:42 pmThey provided for those other parameters in 1974, which is why Clinton won on the issue of executive privilege, even though it did not involve matters of national security or diplomacy, only to ultimately lose the case on other grounds.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
WRONG.
Clinton didn’t “win” anything.
But feel free to provide the decision by the justices where they said he “won” something.
They ACKNOWLEDGED that executive privilege existed, nothing more.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWhich had already been acknowledged and defined by the 74 courts ruling.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pmIf I get stopped for speeding, and I tell the judge I have a drivers license, and the judge LOOKS up that license number, and sees that its suspended, I did not “WIN” anything by the mere fact he acknowledged that I had a license. The fact that the license was suspended means I would lose the case.
Just like you lost this debate, the first time you opened your mouth.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pmThe president has a right to invoke executive privilege on non-security and non-diplomacy issues, Bartlebee, so long as that privilege does not interfere with the process of gathering information for a criminal case.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Nope.
History proves you’re wrong.
So far, no court has ever granted any powers to the president beyond the already utilzed powers of executive privilege by former presidents, ALL of which, were for either military, security or international relations purposes.
The 74 court merely DEFINED these parameters, that if you knew anything about US History beyond your google capabilities, you would know thats all thats ever been successfully executed by the power prior to the Nixon case.
And since by you OWN admission, you admit that the President does not have any powers not expressely granted, you just proved my case.
And until the courts decide to expand the power by a new ruling, the president is limited to the parameters that have been adhered to by every successful execution of the power in US history.
Thanks for proving my case.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pmHere. Let me drive that last nail into your coffin a little deeper.
YOU SAID>
This is precisely what the 1998 court ruled, when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege,
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
This is a LIE. The court did NOT “uphold” Clintons invocation of executive privilege.
They DENIED it.
You claim I’m lying?
Lets take a look at the headlines from the WASHINGTON POST, to see if they “UPHELD” his invocation of executive privilege, or denied it.
LEAD STORY FROM WASHINGTON POST, MAY 6, 1998 (two days AFTER the ruling)
President Is Denied Executive Privilege
WASHINGTON POST
By Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A01
A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton’s assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation
July 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pmDENIED
Sorry. Formatting issues might make that confusing. Let me hit that nail one more time.
YOU SAID>
This is precisely what the 1998 court ruled, when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege,
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
This is a LIE. The court did NOT “uphold” Clintons invocation of executive privilege.
They DENIED it.
You claim I’m lying?
Lets take a look at the headlines from the WASHINGTON POST, to see if they “UPHELD” his invocation of executive privilege, or denied it.
LEAD STORY FROM WASHINGTON POST, MAY 6, 1998 (two days AFTER the ruling)
You lose.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWrite off the front page, the Washington Post says you’re an idiot.
And you’re wrong.
I’d try to help you look more stupid, but based on your pathetic recollection of history, you clearly don’t need my help.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pmAnd as for your ignorant claim that Clinton went on to win executive privilege, here is the CNN Headline from June, 1998.
Clinton Drops Executive Privilege Appeal
He didn’t win. He was DENIED executive privilege, and he was going to appeal, but instead dropped the claim, and made a deal with Ken Starr, just like I have stated about 40 times now.
You lose.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:39 pmDENIED
July 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pmYou said.
But HISTORY says…
DENIED.
Not “UPHELD”
DENIED
July 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm“WRONG. Clinton didn’t “win†anything.”
Yes, actually, he did, as I’ve already shown. He won on the issue of executive privilege, even as he went on to lose the case on other grounds.
“But feel free to provide the decision by the justices where they said he ‘won’ something.”
Already did. See Ken Starr’s summation above. You have never, not once, dealt with that, Bartlebee, since you know damn well it completely undermines your case.
“They ACKNOWLEDGED that executive privilege existed, nothing more.”
LOL… Bartlebee, they did more than that — they ruled that those conversations were presumptively privileged. That’s much stronger than “acknowledging that executive privilege exists.” They decided that those conversations, conversations that were unrelated to security or diplomacy, were, in fact, presumptively privileged, something you said that the courts had unequivocally ruled out. This directly contradicts your statement in post 27.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:53 pmCNN’s Also said you’re full of crap.
Here. Read it and learn.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Already did. See Ken Starr’s summation above. You have never, not once, dealt with that
Comment by a liar.
I already did deal with that a dozen times idiot. You are just making crap up as you go. He DROPPED the APPEAL you moron. He didn’t WIN anything. STARR STRUCK A DEAL.
Thats a matter of HISTORY.
Here, let me help you inbred, since moms homeschooling apparently sucked.
See inbred?
He didn’t win shit. He DROPPED the case, cut a deal with Starr, and went on to argue ATTORNEY CLIENT privilege, something COMPLETELY different from EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
YOU LOSE.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pmTHE INBRED SAID
Hewon the issue of executive privilege
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
BUT THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS
And then, after being DENIED, Clinton DROPPED the claim.
YOU LOSE.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:03 pmDeal with it.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm“Which had already been acknowledged and defined by the 74 courts ruling.”
Defined, not by your definition, Bartlebee, but by the court’s definition, which is why what you stated in post 27, and have repeated since, i wrong. And which is why you have not been able to identify a single legal analysis that agrees with what you wrote in post 27. Not one. Why is that, Bartlebee?
“If I get stopped for speeding, and I tell the judge I have a drivers license, and the judge LOOKS up that license number, and sees that its suspended, I did not “WIN†anything by the mere fact he acknowledged that I had a license.”
LOL… You really don’t understand, do you, Bartlebee? If the policeman in the case claimed that you did not have a driver’s license and the court ruled that you did, you have, indeed won something, even if you lose on the issue of speeding. That’s similar to what happened in both 1974 and 1998. The courts had multiple issues on which to rule, not just one.
“Just like you lost this debate, the first time you opened your mouth.”
LOL… So you keep claiming. But the fact that you still cannot bring yourself to address what the court said in 1998 is quite revealing, Bartlebee.
“Nope.”
Yup… Gee, this is fun.
“History proves you’re wrong.”
1974 and 1998 prove me right.
“So far, no court has ever granted any powers to the president beyond the already utilzed powers of executive privilege by former presidents, ALL of which, were for either military, security or international relations purposes.”
Sorry, Bartlebee, but you are flatly incorrect, since the courts in 1974 and 1998 did just that.
“The 74 court merely DEFINED these parameters,”
And explicitly noted that the president was entitled to claims of executive privilege in non-security cases; it’s just that those claims were not absolute. Which is why Clinton won on the issue of executive privilege, while losing the overall case.
“that if you knew anything about US History beyond your google capabilities, you would know thats all thats ever been successfully executed by the power prior to the Nixon case.”
LOL… That’s irrelevant, Bartleby. I’m going by the 1974 and 1998 cases. They control, not some nebulous “history”
“And since by you OWN admission, you admit that the President does not have any powers not expressely granted, you just proved my case.”
ROFL…. Since the court expressly granted the president those powers, reconfirmed in 1998, I’m afraid I did nothing of the kind. Still can’t deal with this, can you, Bartlebee?
“And until the courts decide to expand the power by a new ruling, the president is limited to the parameters that have been adhered to by every successful execution of the power in US history.”
No. He’s limited to the parameters set by the 1974 and 1998 precedents, Bartlebee, not by “US history.”
“Thanks for proving my case.”
LOL… Thanks for showing that you cannot deal with my arguments.
“Here. Let me drive that last nail into your coffin a little deeper.”
LOL…. Oh, I can’t wait…
“This is precisely what the 1998 court ruled, when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege,”
“This is a LIE. The court did NOT “uphold†Clintons invocation of executive privilege.”
Yes, in fact, they did. You still can’t deal with the fact that the court ruled on two issues, can you, Bartlebee? On the issue of invocation of executive privilege, Clinton won. The court ruled that he could, in fact, invoke executive privilege. On the issue of whether that privilege overruled Starr’s need for testimony, Clinton lost, and thus lost the case. This isn’t rocket science, Bartlebee.
“They DENIED it.”
Nope, they upheld it, even as Clinton lost the case.
“You claim I’m lying?”
Nope, just misguided and (probably deliberately) missing and/or evading the point.
“Lets take a look at the headlines from the WASHINGTON POST, to see if they “UPHELD†his invocation of executive privilege, or denied it.”
ROFL…. This is the best you can do, Bartlebee? Oh, my… you really have lost it. Come back when you’ve got some reasonable legal analysis that agrees with you and we can talk. Until this, this is just silly. Come back when you’re prepared to actually look at what the judge actually said in 1998, Bartlebee, something that you still have not done.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pmHere’s a free clue for you, Bartlebee. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the President is fully covered by the FOIA and has no protection at all. If you file a FOIA request for the deliberations that Bush has had with, say, Gonzalez, the President will challenge that request in court on the basis of executive privilege, regardless of whether the conversations involved security or diplomacy. Guess who will win?
July 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pmOf course, I can understand why you think you’ve won the debate, instead of losing.
After all, you think Clinton losing his case where he claimed executive privilege, was actually winning.
Up is down. Down is up. Black is white and in is out.
To a troll.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pmListen to the troll tap dance.
Fairy tales don’t cut it cheif, and I refuse to answer any more of your convoluted scenarios until you stop talking like a right wing troll, and acknowledge that you were WRONG about Bill Clinton WINNING his case, when in fact, he LOST.
He LOST the first time, and then, when it was clear he was going to lose the second, he DROPPED the case.
Thats a matter of record, and if you can’t accept that, then you are far too delusional for anyone to reason with.
Admit you are wrong, or kiss my ass.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pm“BUT THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS President Is DENIED Executive Privilege”
LOL… I find it interesting that you still cannot find a solid legal analysis that your interpretation is correct, Bartlebee. Not one. I’ve already posted the Findlaw and NPR analysis that show that you’re wrong.
Free clue for you: the Washington Post was reporting on the outcome, not on the nitty-gritty details. And they were using shorthand in so reporting, since the real story was that Clinton’s executive privilege claim was not invalidated, but rather was overruled by Starr’s need for data. Since that didn’t fit well into a pithy headline, the Post took the perfectly reasonable approach that they did. Alas, it doesn’t support you, nor does it contradict me.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:17 pmOk I cant believe I am doing this but I just have to speak up here. (You guys are hardcore committed). Paul. You are wrong. Just face it. Here. You just said this (emphasis added) “He WON the issue of executive privilege”. Bartlebee had already posted this right off the cover of the Washington Post- “President Is DENIED Executive Privilege”. If you can’t admit that this then he is right and you must be a troll or just a pretty stupid guy because anyone can see that you are making claims about things that are just not true.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:17 pmHe’s just desperately tap dancing Mike, trying to find some way to save face.
Last night, early into the debate, I busted him claiming there was a 2004 SCOTUS ruling that never actually occured. SCOTUS tossed he case back to the lower court.
Now he claims Clinton WON his executive privilege claim, when everyone with a brain and over 10 years old knows, he LOST.
The HEADLINES from that case, SAY HE LOST. I am almost 50 years old, and I was well aware that he lost BEFORE I had to go look up the headlines for this uneducated halfwit.
He talks smug, but he is just a fool of the worst kind.
A fool too foolish to admit when he’s beaten.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pmHere, one more time.
PAUL B SAID
BUT THE HEADLINES FROM THAT CASE SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE
You lose paul.
Deal with it.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:24 pm“Of course, I can understand why you think you’ve won the debate, instead of losing.”
LOL… Is it really about “winning” with you, Bartlebee? No wonder you’re having so much trouble admitting you were wrong.
“After all, you think Clinton losing his case where he claimed executive privilege, was actually winning.”
Nope. Nice bit of dishonesty, though. You still cannot bring yourself to admit that the court ruled on more than one issue in 1998, can you, Bartlebee? Why is that? Clinton won on the issue of executive privilege; he lost on the issue of whether that privilege overruled Starr’s need for information.
“Up is down. Down is up. Black is white and in is out.”
ROFL… I know you’re having trouble understanding the “convoluted” nature of the case, Bartlebee, but it’s really quite simple. Your failure to understand is not my problem.
“To a troll.”
Or an idiot.
“Fairy tales don’t cut it cheif, and I refuse to answer any more of your convoluted scenarios”
ROFLMAO… You haven’t addressed a single of my scenarios, convoluted or otherwise, in this entire thread, Bartlebee. I’m not even remotely surprised to see you duck this one, as well. Too bad you can’t support your case or find a single analysis that does.
“until you stop talking like a right wing troll, and acknowledge that you were WRONG about Bill Clinton WINNING his case, when in fact, he LOST.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, I never, not once in this entire thread, claimed that Clinton won the case. Never. There were two issues: the court ruled in Clinton’s favor on one, and against him on the other. This isn’t rocket science, Bartlebee. Why are you having so much trouble?
“He LOST the first time”
He lost on the issue of whether Starr’s need for information overruled his claim of executive privilege; he won on the issue of whether he could claim executive privilege.
“Thats a matter of record, and if you can’t accept that, then you are far too delusional for anyone to reason with.”
ROFL… Since I have never claimed that Clinton won his case, I’m afraid that the delusion is entirely on your own side. Why are you pretending I did make this claim, Bartlebee?
“Admit you are wrong, or kiss my ass.”
LOL… Sorry, Bartlebee, but I decline to do either. Still waiting for you to post a link to legal analysis that supports your claims, Bartlebee, and still waiting for you to deal with what the judge actually said in 1998.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:25 pmThis is what our idiot troll PaulB calls, “WINNING”.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
July 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pmYou know, I might have been wrong in calling you a right wing troll though Paul.
:|
Even they aren’t as stupid as you appear to be.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:33 pm“Paul. You are wrong. Just face it.”
Sorry, but I’m not. You’re just not understanding precisely what I’m arguing.
“Here. You just said this (emphasis added) “He WON the issue of executive privilege—
Mike, there were two issues that the judge in that case ruled on, not one. You’re making the same mistake that Bartlebee continues to make — assuming that the only thing the judge ruled on was the final outcome. But that’s not the way such things work, which is why Bartlebee’s analysis is crap and why his most recent arguments are meaningless.
The two issues were:
1. Could Clinton claim executive privilege at all? If Bartlebee is correct, this is a slam dunk no. These were not matters of national security, nor of diplomacy. By Bartlebee’s analysis, the court would have to rule against Clinton on this issue alone, without even dealing with the issue of Starr’s need for information, since Bartlebee continues to claim that the courts have specifically ruled out any claim of executive privilege that is not security or diplomacy.
The court didn’t. The court specifically ruled that these conversations were presumptively covered by executive privilege. I’ve repeatedly posted the analysis that shows this, an analysis that Bartlebee has never addressed, since he knows it blows his case out of the water.
With the first issue resolved in Clinton’s favor, the court then tackled the second issue:
2. Assuming that these conversations were covered by executive privilege, did that privilege outweight Starr’s need for the information? On this issue, Clinton lost and, hence, lost the case. But the court explicitly ruled that these conversations were, in fact, presumptively privileged even though they had nothing to do with national security or diplomacy. Bartlebee is simply wrong in his assertions and he’s been wrong all along.
“ Bartlebee had already posted this right off the cover of the Washington Post- ‘President Is DENIED Executive Privilege’”
See my comments above. The Post was reporting the outcome of the case, not each individual ruling that made up that outcome. That’s why you have to go to other sources, including the ruling itself, to see all of the details.
“If you can’t admit that this then he is right and you must be a troll or just a pretty stupid guy because anyone can see that you are making claims about things that are just not true.”
Sorry, but this is not correct. I have never denied that Clinton lost the case, but that is not the same thing as stating that the court ruled he had no executive privilege in these matters. In fact, as I’ve already noted, the court ruled the opposite, which is why Bartlebee hasn’t been able to come up with a single legal analysis to support his claims. Sorry, but a Post headline doesn’t cut it.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:37 pm“He’s just desperately tap dancing Mike, trying to find some way to save face.”
Nope, just showing that you cannot face my points. Still waiting for you to address that 1998 ruling, Bartlebee. Not a Post headline; the ruling itself. You have not because you can not.
“Last night, early into the debate, I busted him claiming there was a 2004 SCOTUS ruling that never actually occured. SCOTUS tossed he case back to the lower court.”
Um, Bartlebee, I admitted the error, remember? It’s interesting, though, that you continue to claim that the court didn’t make a ruling. They did; their ruling was to remand it to the lower courts. That absolutely is a ruling, Bartlebee, complete with all of the legal trimmings.
“Now he claims Clinton WON his executive privilege claim, when everyone with a brain and over 10 years old knows, he LOST.”
LOL… Still can’t deal with the fact that the judge ruled on more than one issue in 1998, can you, Bartlebee? Still trying to pretend that I’ve denied that Clinton won the case when you know I never have?
“The HEADLINES from that case, SAY HE LOST.”
ROFL… Oh, my … And this is the legal analysis I’m supposed to trust??? A headline?!
“I am almost 50 years old, and I was well aware that he lost BEFORE I had to go look up the headlines for this uneducated halfwit.”
ROFL… Pot. Kettle. Black. Bartlebee, I never, not once, claimed that Clinton won the case. Never.
“He talks smug, but he is just a fool of the worst kind.”
I like you too, Bartlebee.
“A fool too foolish to admit when he’s beaten.”
If you ever manage to beat me, Bartlebee, I’ll be sure to acknowledge it.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm“This is what our idiot troll PaulB calls, ‘WINNING’.”
No, actually, it isn’t, Bartlebee, as you well know. Out of curiosity, why are you lying about what I’ve written?
You still cannot bring yourself to admit that the court ruled on more than one issue in 1998, Bartlebee. Why is that? Clinton won on one issue, that the conversations were covered by executive privilege, and lost on the other, that Starr’s needs for the testimony outweighed the privilege. Hence, his aides had to testify and he lost the case.
The case, Bartlebee, not the issue. On the issue of executive privilege, the court ruled in his favor, agreeing that those conversations were presumptively privileged.
And to bring this all back to Bush, this precise chain of events is likely to happen to Bush — the court will agree, in most of the cases, that the conversations are privileged. They will then weigh Congress’s need for the information and balance this need against the claim of privilege to reach final conclusion. But they absolutely will not, slam-dunk, rule that these conversations are not covered by executive privilege, which would render the second issue moot. If all goes by precedent, they will rule in Bush’s favor on the first issue and against him on the second, which means that Bush will lose.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:48 pmAnother multi page book full of “nu uhs” and nothing more.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pmJuly 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
So lets see Paul, the guy who writes a book everytime because he must bury his answers so people won’t bother to read his bullshit.
Lets see. You said.
Hmmm….
You say…
“when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege.”
But the LA TIMES says…
Hmmmmm.
a federal judge has rejected President Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege
So you say they UPHELD HIS INVOCATION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILGE
And the LA TIMES says they REJECTED HIS INVOCATION of executive privilege.
:|
Hmmmmmmm who should I go with,…. the times, or a ignorant troll who by his own admission had to google the events….. hmmmmmmm
Tough decision….
July 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pmHmmmmm
Paul says….
when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege.
But the LA TIMES says….
a federal judge has rejected President Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege
:|
hmmmmm…. what to do…….
July 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pmYou still cannot bring yourself to admit that the court ruled on more than one issue in 1998, Bartlebee. Why is that?
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Because it never happened bonehead, thats why.
The court didn’t rule on something that had already been established by the FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Executive privilege was already accepted and thats why the court has never taken on whether or not he clause exists, they simply ruled on “WHAT CONSTITUTES” executive privilege, and in both cases that you cited, Clinton and Nixon, any idiot with a 3rd grade education knows they ruled AGAINST THEM.
The court didn’t rule IF it was a law, just if Clinton and Nixon were invoking it within parameters set by precedent.
Which they weren’t. Which is why both Clinton, and Nixon, LOST.
Idiot.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:13 pm“Hmmmmm Paul says…. when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege.”
No, Bartlebee. Ken Starr said it. The 1998 Court said it. You still cannot bring yourself to admit that there was a ruling on an individual issue as well as a ruling on the case. Why is that, Bartlebee?
“But the LA TIMES says…. a federal judge has rejected President Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege”
LOL… And against Ken Starr and the 1998 court, you provide … a headline.
Still cannot bring yourself to admit that the court ruled on two issues, can you, Bartlebee? Why is that?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:14 pmAnd you said…
when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege.
But the LA TIMES says….
a federal judge has rejected President Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege
So they, along with CNN and the Washington Post, just got it wrong, and you, who had to google an event from a few years ago, know better about events that took place less than 10 years ago.
They just don’t understand the meaning of the word “WON”, right?
:|
Gosh… you must be real smart….
July 12th, 2007 at 6:17 pmNo, Bartlebee. Ken Starr said it.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Idiot. Ken Starr was a special prosecutor.
He cannot offer a ruling.
LMAO
July 12th, 2007 at 6:19 pm“Because it never happened bonehead, thats why.”
ROFLMAO… Finally! Bartlebee finally actually debates this and what does he do? Gets it completely and totally wrong! Read the Starr synopsis, Bartlebee. Read the actual case!
“The court didn’t rule on something that had already been established by the FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.”
Yes, they did, Bartlebee, just as the 1974 court did. The court first has to establish that there is a presumption of privilege. If no such presumption exists, Clinton loses, regardless of any other issue involved in the case. The court explicitly ruled — ruled, Bartlebee — that Clinton did, in fact, have a presumption of privilege in the case. Settling that, the court was free to move on to the remaining issues, including the issue that finally settled the case. This is not debatable, Bartlebee. Your assertion is flatly incorrect.
“Executive privilege was already accepted”
You really don’t understand legal issues at all, do you? The court still had to formally rule and they did so.
Moreover, this completely undercuts your case, since you asserted that the 1974 court ruled that “Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.” If this statement were true, then executive privilege in this case would not be “already accepted.”
“and thats why the court has never taken on whether or not he clause exists, they simply ruled on “WHAT CONSTITUTES†executive privilege, and in both cases that you cited, Clinton and Nixon, any idiot with a 3rd grade education knows they ruled AGAINST THEM.”
No. Sorry, Bartlebee, but no. Your statement in bold above is flatly incorrect. They did not rule on “what constitutes executive privilege,” they ruled on two things: 1) were these conversations privileged? and 2) did that privilege overrule the need for the information being protected. Nixon and Clinton both won on the first issue — the conversations were, in fact, privileged. Nixon and Clinton lost on the second issue — the need for the information overruled privilege.
“The court didn’t rule IF it was a law, just if Clinton and Nixon were invoking it within parameters set by precedent.”
Executive privilege isn’t a “law,” Bartlebee, so the courts couldn’t have ruled on that even if they wanted to. It’s a right implicit in the Constitution. And you’re still not getting it. The courts first had to rule whether the conversations were even covered by executive privilege. If they were not, the case is over and there is no need to go any further. In both cases, the courts decided that the conversations were covered by executive privilege, even though they did not involve security or diplomacy.
With that out of the way, the courts then moved on to decide whether the need for the information outweighed the privilege. On this issue, Clinton and Nixon both lost. But the courts in both cases explicitly ruled that the conversations were, in fact, privileged, even as they ruled against them on the other issues.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:26 pm“Idiot. Ken Starr was a special prosecutor.”
LOL… Idiot, Ken Starr summarized the case in his brief to the Supreme Court. I quoted from that brief above. Do you still want to argue with him?
“He cannot offer a ruling.”
Nor did I say he did, Bartlebee. Your failure to read is not my problem.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:27 pmLOL… And against Ken Starr and the 1998 court, you provide … a headline.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
No Beaver.
I provided THREE headlines.
One from the WASHINGTON POST.
One from CNN.
One from the LA TIMES.
All three headlines came out within days of the ruling.
But everyone here is supposed to believe you, and a so called decision that you cannot post, but just keep alluding to, over the headlines of three of the most well known well respected news sources in the country, particularly the Washington Post.
Lol.
Sure skippy. And you “won” this debate too. (won in PaulB speak = LOST).
July 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm“So they, along with CNN and the Washington Post, just got it wrong”
Nope, you’re comparing apples to oranges, Bartlebee, as you well know. Why are you bothering to do that? Those news agencies reported the outcome of the case, not the ruling on the individual issues involved. But of course you know this and you just want to play silly games.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pmKen Starr was the prosecutor in the case you inbred hack.
His opinion has no authority. Only the court can offer a ruling.
ANd they did.
They ruled AGAINST what you said they ruled for.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm“I provided THREE headlines.”
ROFL… Oh my … okay, well that certainly trumps Ken Starr and the 1998 court. They must have decided the issues differently since three newspaper headlines said so! LOL…
“All three headlines came out within days of the ruling.”
LOL… And all three headlines reported the outcome of the case, not the ruling on the individual issues involved. But you already know this and just want to play silly games.
“But everyone here is supposed to believe you”
No, they’re supposed to believe Ken Starr and the 1998 court.
“and a so called decision that you cannot post, but just keep alluding to”
LOL… It’s available online, Bartlebee. Since it’s critical to the discussion, I’m surprised you haven’t read it. Well, no, scratch that. I’m not surprised.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:32 pmExecutive privilege isn’t a “law,†Bartlebee, so the courts couldn’t have ruled on that even if they wanted to.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
It was PRECEDENT.
I didn’t say law, I said it was PRECEDENT. Precedent however has been argued in court to constitute law, as decisions are based on precedent.
And they did rule on what CONSTITUTES executive privilege with REGARDS to those cases.
You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:34 pmLOL… It’s available online, Bartlebee.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
In other words folks, he CAN’T post ANY excerpts from it, because he knows his straw argument will fall apart.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:35 pm“Ken Starr was the prosecutor in the case you inbred hack.”
Yes, Bartlebee, he was. Did you have a point to make?
“His opinion has no authority.”
LOL… Bartlebee, the brief he filed with the Supreme Court summarized the decisions made by the lower court. Are you claiming that Starr filed an inaccurate brief? LOL…
“Only the court can offer a ruling.”
Why yes, Bartlebee, you’re right.
“ANd they did.”
Why yes, Bartlebee, they did.
“They ruled AGAINST what you said they ruled for.”
Why no, Bartlebee, they didn’t. You still cannot bring yourself to admit that the court ruled on more than one issue. Why is that? On the issue of whether those conversations were privileged, Clinton won. On the issue of whether that privilege outweighed Starr’s need for the testimony, Clinton lost. This isn’t rocket science, Bartlebee; why are you having so much trouble with this?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:36 pmAnd I have read it you twit.
Which is why I know it does not support your claim.
Nor does the PRESS.
But you know better then everyone….. up is down, down is up, losing is winning.
What a good troll you make.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:36 pm“In other words folks, he CAN’T post ANY excerpts from it, because he knows his straw argument will fall apart.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, just what do you think Starr’s brief was, if not “excerpts from it?”
July 12th, 2007 at 6:37 pmWhy no, Bartlebee, they didn’t. You still cannot bring yourself to admit that the court ruled on more than one issue.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Put up or shut up punk.
You can’t prove it because it didnt’ happen.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:37 pm“And I have read it you twit.”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, I don’t think you have.
“Which is why I know it does not support your claim.”
Yes, Bartlebee, it does.
“Nor does the PRESS.”
The press reported on the outcome, Bartlebee, not the individual rulings that made up that outcome. but then you already knew this and were just playing silly little games.
“But you know better then everyone…..”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, just better than you.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pmQuit running your mouth and post the summary or a quote from the ruling where you claim they upheld Clintons “invocation of executive privilege”.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:39 pmJuly 12th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
“Quit running your mouth and post the summary or a quote from the ruling where you claim they upheld Clintons ‘invocation of executive privilege’.”
Already did, Bartlebee. The conversations were “presumptively privileged” even though they did not refer to matters of national security or diplomacy. The court then went on to consider whether such privilege outweighed Starr’s need for the information. On the latter matter, Clinton lost and, hence, lost the case. Is this too difficult for you, Bartlebee?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pmLets see. You said.
This is precisely what the 1998 court ruled, when they upheld Clinton on his invocation of executive privilege.
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
But the LA TIMES says…
You are thus refuted.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pm“Judge Rejects Clinton’s Bid for Executive Privilege”
LOL… More headlines, Bartlebee? You still can’t admit that there is a difference between the outcome of a case and the individual issues ruled on in the case, can you? Why is that?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:48 pmAlready did,
Comment by PaulB — July 12, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
No, you didn’t.
You keep SAYING you posted it.
You write BOOKS of your OWN opinions, WARPING history and inventing history.
But if you did post it, then simply post it again. I am not searching through 500 comments to find it, as no one else will either. (what you’re counting on, to be sure).
So quit saying “I already posted it”, and POST it.
If you can.
I’m betting you can’t, and you’ll just come back running your big fat mouth, some more.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:48 pmHeadlines are historical records you inbred hick.
Or didn’t you know that?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:49 pm“But the LA TIMES says…”
LOL… Bartlebee, haven’t you figured out by now that I can play silly games as long as you can?
When you’re prepared to accept the difference between a case’s outcome and its issues, and when you’re prepared to take another look at Ken Starr’s brief, we might have a profitable discussion. Until then, I’ll just keep playing your silly games. I’m having fun, Bartlebee; how about you?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:50 pmQuit running your mouth.
Quit telling us how you’ve “already proved yourself”, and PROVE IT.
I HAVE PROVEN from the headlines and news articles as that CLINTON lost, and so did NIXON.
Quit running your fat mouth and show us something that proves me wrong.
Not your inbred opinion.
FACT.
QUOTES.
ANY HISTORICAL RECORD to disprove me.
But you can’t. Because I’m right, and you’re full of garbage.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:51 pm“No, you didn’t”
Yes, I did. Half a dozen times by now, including post 530.
“You keep SAYING you posted it.”
That’s because I did, Bartlebee. Your failure to read is not my problem.
“You write BOOKS of your OWN opinions, WARPING history and inventing history.”
LOL… I haven’t warped or invented a single piece of data, Bartlebee, other than the single error I’ve already admitted to.
“I’m betting you can’t, and you’ll just come back running your big fat mouth, some”
And, as usual, Bartlebee, you’re wrong.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pmFirst, I can go for weeks pal if I so choose.
Second, I have posted from the WASHINGTON POST.
THE LA TIMES.
AND CNN.
ALL REFUTING your OPINION.
You have posted NOTHING other than YOUR OPINION.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pmSee.
You can’t prove it.
Just OPINION.
Thats ALL You got.
I posted PROOF.
You posted OPINON and LIES.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:55 pmPROVE ME WRONG.
Here. I’ll prove you wrong again.
ou said.
But HISTORY says…
DENIED.
Not “UPHELD”
DENIED
July 12th, 2007 at 6:56 pmYou said.
BUT HISTORY SHOWS US
July 12th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“First, I can go for weeks pal if I so choose.”
LOL… Bartlebee, are you sure you’re 50? Most people have gained a little maturity by then. In any case, the comments section will be closed well before “weeks” go by.
“Second, I have posted from the WASHINGTON POST. THE LA TIMES. AND CNN. ALL REFUTING your OPINION.”
Nope, none of them did, since you still refuse to understand that there is a difference between the outcome of the case and the individual rulings that go into that outcome.
“You have posted NOTHING other than YOUR OPINION.”
The Starr summary, the 1998 case itself, and the 1974 court case support my view, Bartlebee. I haven’t posted the 1998 case, but it’s readily available online. Feel free to peruse it and point out to Ken Starr where he’s wrong.
“I posted PROOF.”
Proof of your inability to understand legal issues, Bartlebee? Yup.
“You posted OPINON and LIES.”
Nope, not a single lie, Bartlebee, which is why you can’t back up that assertion any more than you can back any of your others.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:00 pmWho’s right.
PaulB the inbred troll who doesn’t remember history from 9 years ago?
Or every newspaper and pundit in the country???
July 12th, 2007 at 7:00 pmYou said.
BUT HISTORY SHOWS US
WRONG AGAIN TROLL
July 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pm“PROVE ME WRONG.”
LOL… Bartlebee, the normal course of events is that you have to prove that you are right. You have never backed up the assertions you made in post 27. Not once in this entire thread.
“Here. I’ll prove you wrong again.”
LOL… No, Bartlebee, you won’t. You’ll just “prove” that you don’t understand the difference between the outcome of a case and the individual rulings that make up that outcome. I’ve already posted Starr’s summary half a dozen times now, Bartlebee. Feel free to take it up with him.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:02 pmBart. At the risk of being yelled at might I suggest this troll is just playing you? Clearly you have proven him wrong 100 times over. He looks right at the headlines from the day and claims that they are false or mistaken. He scoffs at respected news sources implying that he knows better and yet when called on to produce one single quote or reference that supports anything he is saying he just stalls for time. In other words bart old buddy, he is a troll and not a very good one at that. If he had some evidence to refute you bud I think he would have shown it by now. Besides. Everyone remembers the Clinton\Starr case it happened just a few years back like you said. Who does he think he is fooling? Ignore the fool. He will get the last word but that word like everything he has been saying will just make him look as stupid as he clearly is.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:05 pmKen Starrs summary is not a ruling dickwad. He’s one side in a case.
The COURT says you are wrong. Everyone says you are wrong.
Only you think you are right.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pmYou stupidly said.
BUT HISTORY SHOWS US
July 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
So which is it? Did the COURT, (NOT KEN STARR) UPHOLD his INVOCATION of executive privilege, or did the court REJECT it?
WHICH IS IT?
If you say UPHELD, you had better be able to produce more than the PLAINTIFFS argument in the case Matlock.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:07 pmThe IDIOT named PAULB said.
BUT RECORDED HISTORY SHOWS US
July 12th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Here mook.
Here’s a fourth reference from history to prove you are wrong.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:10 pmLOL
July 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pmGee.
If they “UPHELD” his “INVOCATION” of executive privilege like YOU claim, you’d think SOMEONE would have written, SOMETHING on it, SOMEWHERE, right?
Funny.
Guess they’re not all as smart as you, huh troll?
BAWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
July 12th, 2007 at 7:14 pmA STARR INVESTIGATION UPDATE
May 6, 1998
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript
PBS
——————————————————————————–
President Clinton’s claim of executive privilege has been denied. ——————————————————————————–
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has rejected President Clinton’s efforts to shield two top aides from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky matter, denying the president’s claim of executive privilege
July 12th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDENIED.
Just like your wife keeps telling you.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:19 pmDENIED
You said “UPHELD”.
You said “ALLOWED”.
You said “WON”.
But HISTORY says DENIED
July 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pmA STARR INVESTIGATION UPDATE
May 6, 1998
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript
PBS
——————————————————————————–
President Clinton’s claim of executive privilege has been denied.——————————————————————————-
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has rejected President Clinton’s efforts to shield two top aides from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky matter, denying the president’s claim of executive privilege
PBS.ORG
July 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pmJuly 12th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Gee Paul.
I’m having a hard time finding any news articles about that landmark ruling where they “upheld” Clintons right to invoke executive privilege you claim occured.
In fact, every major news source in the country says the exact opposite occured.
:|
Perplexing.
Perhaps you could post one of the articles from that landmark ruling that never occured?
We’d all love to see it after 500 comments.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:12 pmBut I’ll keep looking little buddy.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:15 pmOh yea. You don’t recognize newspapers and news agencies as actual information. Ok. How about from the Starr Report, that you keep crying about? Lets take a look at what they had to say about whether or not “Clinton WON on his invocation of executive privilege”
Here. From the Starr Report.
:|
Wow.
They seem to agree with the newspapers. Imagine that.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:32 pmAnd me.
:P
Go figger
July 12th, 2007 at 9:03 pm:\
Gee little buddy.
I’m having a hard time finding any documentation whatsoever to support these historically
challanged claims of yours.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to post at least one of those news articles, court records quotes, or summaries from the courts or the star report, hell give us a quote from Rush Limbaugh… something…. instead of just claiming you already did like you’ve been doing for a day now.
Because right now, ALL the evidence on the board says you are wrong, and Clinton did not win, but instead was DENIED executive privilege, just like I’ve been saying all along.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:30 pmBecause so far, CNN, MSNBC, KNIGHT RIDDER,TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE, The NEW YORK TIMES, The LA TIMES, The WASHINGTON POST, PBS and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer as well as hundreds of smaller papers and news services too numerous to mention, plus the Ken Starr report itself, says that Clintons claim to executive privilege, was DENIED.
Not “UPHELD”
Not “ALLOWED”
Not “WON”
…as you stated.
But DENIED.
DENIED
Just like I told you.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:36 pmCrud, forgot to close the damn link. By the way, Bartlebee, I already know that you’re not going to browse the links I referred you to, so there’s no need to engage in your usual drama queen behavior, drawing yourself up in high dudgeon. But hey, if that’s what you want, go for it.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:30 pmScrew your links troll.
POST something that supports your bullcrap claim that Clinton WON ON THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE issue, or admit defeat and shut the hell up.
I’m not letting you off the hook troll. Your words will haunt you until like the slimeball you are, you just crawl away.
Until then, I’m your huckleberry.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:32 pmSomething more from the 1974 case, Bartlebee. Note that, once again, the Court was deferential to a claim of Presidential confidentiality. The only “acid test” here is “the fair administration of justice,” not diplomacy or security. Nixon lost, but he did not lose all executive privilege. Those documents that were not relevant to “the fair administration of justice” were returned “under seal” to their “lawful custodian.” Hmm… that sounds a lot like general executive privilege to me, Bartlebee.
It is therefore necessary in the public interest to afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice. The need for confidentiality even as to idle conversations with associates in which casual reference might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen is too obvious to call for further treatment. We have no doubt that the District Judge will at all times accord to Presidential records [a] high degree of deference …, and will discharge his responsibility to see to that until released to the Special Prosecutor no in camera material is revealed to anyone. This burden applies with even greater force to excised material; once the decision is made to excise, the material is restored to its privileged status and should be returned under seal to its lawful custodian.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:34 pmPost ONE thing that defies the dozen articles and quotes I’ve posted PROVING his executive privilege claim was DENIED.
You can’t. You’ve more than a day and over 500 comments to do it.
But you can’t.
Instead you got nothing but bs running out your troll mouth.
PUT UP
OR SHUT UP
July 12th, 2007 at 10:34 pmI didn’t ask for your OPINION troll.
I asked you to put ONE peice of evidence up that supports your claims that CLINTON WON on the executive priivilege claims, which I have MORE than PROVEN HE LOST ON.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:36 pm564 comments, an entire day later, and you’re still can’t produce ONE SIMPLE quote,.
Instead you post endless rhetoric.
TROLL.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:37 pmNow note what the District Court wrote in 2004, in the Cheney case, relying on the precedents in the 1974 and 1998 cases:
Note what the “acid test” is — whether the information is required for criminal proceedings, not whether the information is related to security or diplomacy. At the District Court level, relying on the 1974 and 1998 cases, Cheney won. Scalia and Thomas, at the time, voted to uphold this ruling.
All of this information is readily available, Bartlebee, but since you are determined to remain stubbornly ignorant, you will never read it or understand it. Your loss.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:39 pmThats Ken Starrs rhetoric. I said post something that PROVES CLINTON WON on the issue of EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
I didn’t ask whether anyone ACKNOWLEDGED that executive privilege exists.
I said BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS THAT CLINTON WON.
What court ruling do you cite?
What judge are you quoting?
What news headline can you repost, that shows Bill Clinton WON his case for executive privilege?
Like you stated.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pmDon’t change the subject troll.
You answer my question.
YOU said the following.
And thats a lie.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:44 pmMore data showing why Bartlebee’s comments in post 27 were wrong. This time, from NPR:
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 12th, 2007 at 10:44 pmMore data showing why Bartlebee’s comments in post 27 were wrong. This time, from FindLaw.com:
Although claims of executive privilege have been made since the administration of George Washington, the law remains remarkably unclear, partly because the relevant actors have usually tried to avoid a direct confrontation if possible. Thus, who prevails in the current controversy may turn out to be less a matter of what the law is, than of who blinks first: Congress (acting through Comptroller General Walker), the Administration, or the courts.
…
Presidents often assert executive privilege even if the information or documents sought are not matters of national security. They argue that some degree of confidentiality is necessary for the Executive Branch to function effectively. Key advisers will hesitate to speak frankly if they must worry that what they say will eventually become a matter of public record.
The Supreme Court considered this argument in the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon. A grand jury convened by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski issued a subpoena to President Nixon requiring that he produce Oval Office tapes and various written records relevant to the criminal case against members of Nixon’s Administration. Nixon resisted on grounds of executive privilege.
The Court recognized “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.” It noted that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.”
Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court’s decision, Nixon complied with the order. Four days after that, he resigned.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:45 pm“Don’t change the subject troll.”
ROFL… Bartlebee, the subject has always been what you wrote in post 27. That’s the source of our disagreement. You’ve been desperately trying to change the subject ever since, since you know damn well that what you wrote was false.
“You answer my question.”
Already have, Bartlebee. And answered it again in post 588. Think you’ll read it this time? Nah…
July 12th, 2007 at 10:48 pmPAUL B said.
So CNN, MSNBC, KNIGHT RIDDER,TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE, The NEW YORK TIMES, The LA TIMES, The WASHINGTON POST PBS and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and every other news service and newspaper in the country, all got it wrong about Clinton losing on the executive privilege claim, because you say they’re wrong. He won on the executive privilege claim, even though every peice of documented information we posses, says he was denied.
And to boot, the actual Starr Report that you keep screaming about, also got it wrong. It too states clearly and summarily and “unequivocally” that Clintons claim of executive privilege was denied, and subsequently, he didn’t win anything else like you said, but instead, dropped the claim, like I so eloquently stated about 20 times already.
But every newspaper, news agency, news show, and even the Starr Report itself, ALL got it wrong, and Clinton was not denied on the executive privilege issue, as you have so clearly stated at least 3 times now.
Clinton WON on the executive privilege issue, not lost, simply because YOU say so.
:|
And you’re not a troll.
Wow.
You must be really smart.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:49 pm“And to boot, the actual Starr Report that you keep screaming about, also got it wrong.”
LOL… Not the “Starr Report,” for the tenth time, Bartlebee, the Starr brief to the Supreme Court. Do pay attention, Bartlebee. It’s no wonder you can’t learn if you’re so determined to avoid reading anything.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:53 pmPost 588, Bartlebee. There, that should be short enough that you can actually read it. TTFN, sweetheart.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:53 pmYea.
Just one problem genius.
You said that in post number 579.
Post 588 is sometime in the future.
So I assume what you meant to say, is sometime in the future, when you figure out how to unscrew your head from your ass, you’ll post an answer for me in post number 588?
Ok troll. Crawl off and sulk. I’ll be here to prove you’re wrong anytime you feel like re-writing history.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:57 pmThe troll said, then tried to cover up, the following 3 statements.
Hmmm. You claim she ruled for him.
:|
But the Offical report to the court indicates the exact opposite.
How do you account for that, TROLL?
July 12th, 2007 at 11:03 pmDENIED.
Not WON, like the TROLL said.
DENIED.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:07 pmHow do you account for that troll?
July 12th, 2007 at 11:10 pmThe troll said, then tried to cover up, the following 3 statements.
BUT THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OFFICAL REPORT SAID:
Wow.
That is exactly the opposite of what you said.
How do you account for that?
:|
Please account for that.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:15 pmYou say he won.
But all the records say the Court ruled AGAINST him.
:\
So I guess its all in the meaning of the word “WIN”, right?
To you “WINNING” is actually LOSING.
:D THATS IT!
Now I get it mr Troll. Thanks for being so smart.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pmOk, I lied troll. I don’t get it.
Please explain without posting the entire ruling, how Clinton WON on the issue of executive privilege, when the court documents state his claim was REJECTED on the issue of executive privilege.
Please mr troll. Please explain how that can be.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pmHere, I’ll help you again.
The troll said, then tried to cover up, the following 3 statements.
BUT THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OFFICAL REPORT SAID:
Please help us see, by instead of posting the entire ruling, simply point to a line or two that RULES that Clinton WINS on executive privilege.
Like you claim he did.
We want to believe you sooooo bad mr troll, but all the documentation seems to indicate that you are somewhat of a liar.
Please show us where you are not.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:28 pmAgain?
Ok. I’ll help you some more.
The troll said, then tried to cover up, the following 3 statements.
BUT THE OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL OFFICAL REPORT SAID:
July 12th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
With regards to executive privilege
You say he was UPHELD
You say his claim was ALLOWED
You say he WON on executive privilege.
Your words. Not mine.
:|
But practically every major newspaper, news show and news agency, in the nation, including CNN, MSNBC, KNIGHT RIDDER,TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE, The NEW YORK TIMES, The LA TIMES, The WASHINGTON POST, PBS (*The Public Broadcasting System) and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Wolf Blitzer and even the OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, says he was DENIED.
DENIED.
Not UPHELD, like you claim.
Not ALLOWED like you claim.
Not WON, like you claim.
:|
July 12th, 2007 at 11:37 pmDENIED
RULED AGAINST.
Not FOR.
AGAINST.
Please help us see how ruling against, in your fairytale world, means she ruled for it.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:42 pmBut wait, you said he WON!
Whats up with that mr troll?
July 12th, 2007 at 11:45 pmThe court records say the exact opposite.
What gives?
July 12th, 2007 at 11:46 pmPAUL TROLL SAYS
(emphais added)
But the OFFICAL COURT RECORDS says:
I mean, thats literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said.
:D
The EXACT opposite, lol.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:52 pmMan, Bartlebee, you beat the crap out of that troll! Nice work :D
July 13th, 2007 at 2:06 amThanks Jane.
Just doing my civic duty.
:D
July 13th, 2007 at 10:23 amAnd it only took 600 comments and a day and a half out of my life to do it.
:|
I need my head examined.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:29 amSo now, I think I’ve earned the right to summarize my original declaration.
George W Bush, does not have the authority to invoke executive privilege, because to date, no invocation of executive privilege that does not involve military or national security issues, or international relations, has been upheld by any court, anywhere, at anytime.
Executive privilege has only been successfully invoked for national security related issues and international relations.
Washington was the first, invoking the privilege to argue against providing documentation with regards to the Jay Treaty, which encompassed international relations. Washington argued that the only the Senate has a role in ratifying treaties, and essentially won, providing the documents only to the Senate, and not the lower house.
Jefferson next invoked it for the Aaron Burr trial, arguing public safety. The court overruled that argument, and Jefferson was compelled to turn over his notes and letters regarding Burr.
Dwight Eisenhower next invoked it, to refuse to hand over notes from meetings with the Army, which falls under the guise of National Security.
Nixon next invoked it, trying to conceal records and audio tapes from the Watergate special prosecutor. The court, while acknowledging the need for such a clause, was unwilling to move beyond the precedent already set by previous uses of the law, and cited that there was no allowance for “general confidentiality” nor was there any ties to the acid test of national security, or international relations, and Nixons claim was struck down, and the tapes were played (mysteriously missing 18 minutes)
Next it was invoked by Clinton, who invoked it to try to keep his aides from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The court struck down Clintons claim, citing the earlier 1974 ruling and its defining parameters, and Clintons aides were ordered to testify. Later, Clinton tried to invoke it again with regards to his OWN testimony, and ended up keeping it out of court, striking a deal with Ken Starr outlining the circumstances under which he would testify.
In other words, precedent has been absolutely consistent with regards to the court, and exectuive privilege, and until a future court, EXPANDS the role of executive privilege and how the president may use it, the 1974 SCOTUS ruling is considered to be the “De-Facto” standard in the proper use of the authority, based on 198 years of documented presidential precedent.
In other words, George W Bush, will LOSE on the matter of Executive Privilege, just like Bill Clinton did a mere 9 years ago.
I rest my case.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:02 amFederal Judges are not part of Law Enforcement. So how could law enforcement be corrupted, if it would be the removal of Federal Judges that are part of the judicial system, rather than the enforcement which would be police officers and federal agents.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pmFederal Judges are not part of Law Enforcement. So how could law enforcement be corrupted, if it would be the removal of Federal Judges that are part of the judicial system
Comment by metonic — July 13, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
You must be a friend of Pauls.
This case is not about removing “Federal Judges” from the bench.
The case is about Federal “Prosecutors”, US Attorneys.
Not Judges.
Prosecutors.
Which are a critical component of the Justice Dept.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pmSee, its easy to understand when you use the correct words.
:D
July 13th, 2007 at 7:14 pmActually Bart,
July 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pmSanchez’s ruling on Mier’s supposed Exec Priv is case in point. It is the JUDGES that grant Exec Priv, not the President who wishes to wield it at everything.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/miers-subpoena-letter/?resultpage=3&
July 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
It makes no sense to debate these particular details. Legally – and overall – this Bush-Trash is a conspiracy in its highest form. All of those aiding and abetting in this conspiracy would be held criminally accountable if Bush and Cronies were forced to answer and follow the rule of law. Certainly, the run-of-the-mill citizen would be held accountable and appropriately punished for unheard-of actions as those undertaken by Bush and his tethered, Teflon-Soaked Pals.
If anything – it is even MORE important that Bush and Pals be forced to follow the rule of law since they are the ones supposedly at the top and capable of capturing the public’s attention through the use of the media. I am sure most would agree that – since Bush illegally installed himself in office – there has been a distinct downturn in the morals and ethics displayed by citizens of this country – both collectively and individually.
In that regard, immediate steps should be taken to impeach both Bush and Cheney. Once impeached, both should be charged with and tried for myriad crimes. Amongst those charges would be the now run-of-the-mill obstruction, racketeering, perjury, corruption, prolific human rights violations, theft of billions of dollars of tax-payer money to promote a so-called war based upon false representations and concealment, and – last but certainly not least – WAR CRIMES.
What Goes Around Comes Around? Or could it justifiably be called A SYSTEM Of NATURAL JUSTICE? I believe that Bush and Pals will eventually be rightly rewarded no matter what we do or don’t do. Given the significance of what the Bushites have done, I also believe that it is our absolute duty – as human beings and citizens of this country – to help them attain their JUST REWARDS as expeditiously as possible. In other words, we need the masses to ORGANIZE, RISE UP and SPEAK.
These DANGEROUS people are deciding the future for ourselves, our children, and our children’s children. Collective, URGENT MEANS are necessary in order to affectively undermine and obstruct the alternative MEANS Dangerous People Use To GET WHAT THEY WANT. Sitting around and academically discussing these issues will not work with these irrational, immoral, lacking-in-scruples lunatics who forced their way into office. No matter what we say – when we SIT we are only SUCKING IT UP. With these people, the only way to fight their actions is through ACTIONS of our own.
FOUR WHITE PILLARS
July 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIt makes no sense to debate these particular details
Comment by firewire121615 — July 14, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
You know thanks for that. I only spent 2 days and 600 comments proving to a moron that Bush doesn’t have a legal case to stand on in invocing executive privilege.
In fact, our debate was based on exactly the issues that will be debated in depth within the congress and the courts over the coming months.
Our debate was timely, informational and right on topic.
What makes no sense is to come in lazily after a 2 day comprehensive debate on the issue, and try and shoot down other peoples hard work.
THAT makes no sense at all.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:51 pmPosted respectfully To 603 BARTLEBEE
Please – there is no need to get confrontational about it. For the past 7 years I have rigorously debated the many issues stemming from this administration in numerous academic forums. I am on your side and in total agreement with everything you said. Furthermore, being of academic background, I have always preferred that issues get decided through healthy, strong debate. Clinton surrounded himself with high academic achievers and listened intently to and acted on what those people had to say. This current administration is far different. They do not appreciate nor do they understand any type of logic or reasoning. Strongly situated persusive arguments have little merit in their eyes. Nothing – absolutely nothing – diverts their attention from that which they have declared to be true. It is mind-boggling, but it’s true – and very, very sick.
How could any of us – myself included – expect anything different out of this crowd? Let’s just look at a couple of instances firmly established in Bush’s history. Bush wasn’t elected on the first go-around (and the concealed fake-felon issue made that election both horrifying and laughable at the same time) yet he came away acting as though he had a mandate. During the second go-around Bush & Co. apparently felt that the only way he could get re-elected was to falsely paralyze the citizens of this country with the worst kind of fear imaginable. If asked right now Bush would simply claim that winning the second election through the use of false representations was a perfectly justifiable act since he was only acting on God’s Will and God willed him to undermine the truth. This argument can be made for most all of his ill-founded twilight-zone claims. Instilling fear into people in order to gain votes to ensure personal gain is nothing other than sick, sick, sick.
Those unfortunate individuals who are part of this administration have chosen to keep their tiny little minds in tiny little boxes to the point that they are unmoved by reality. To date, Bush remains unremorseful about all the harm and devastation spawning directly from actions undertaken under his watch. This is the mark of a sociopath. Sociopaths just don’t give a sh– about anything they do or anything they do that causes harm. He and his Pals won’t listen to reason – in fact, REFUSE to listen to reason. Moreover, the more Bush is questioned, it seems the more firmly he becomes entrenched in his own private, unreasonable sicko tiny-box world.
How do you debate issues with a person who lives by irrational, unfounded, ungrounded rules? How do you debate someone who believes that we are all wrong and that he is right? How do you debate someone who believes senseless, obvious falsehoods to be true? How do you debate someone who listens to the little voices in his head? How do you debate someone who believes in either of two extremes but in nothing else; i.e., dead or alive and/or black or white? How do you debate someone who claims to be an elected official but ignores the people he claims elected him? In the case of Cheney – how do you debate someone who claims executive privilege to avoid production of anything and everything but never engaged in those activities necessary to claim that privilege? It’s true that something can’t both be and not be and the same time – but this administration is trying its hardest to defy this physical reality! Like it or not – debating Bush or, taken collectively, his administration – would be akin to debating air (although I haven’t tried to debate air – I just don’t think it would be a good use of my time).
In closing I just want to reiterate that I am in full agreement with you and I applaud your efforts. Only recently I, too, was heavily involved in many similar debates. I truly wish that the many wrongs could be changed for the better by virtue of mututal decisions arrived at through serious debate. I don’t see that happening as long as you have a few of these squirrely, tiny minds floating around. Those tiny little minds just refuse to listen and/or budge. I see them as dangerous people who consistently exhibit irrational behavior. You cannot reason with these individuals. Taken collectively, all the wise men in the world would fail when trying to persuade those installed in power to part ways from their own private truths.
I make these arguments from my own personal experiences. These arguments provide the foundation for my claim that collective action is the only way to affect change within such an administration – a sociopathic administration, if you will.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:43 amHow do you debate issues with a person who lives by irrational, unfounded, ungrounded rules? How do you debate someone who believes that we are all wrong and that he is right? How do you debate someone who believes senseless, obvious falsehoods to be true?
Comment by firewire121615 — July 15, 2007 @ 1:43 am
How?
Like I just did. Thats how.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:19 amJust hand them their ass.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:20 amFunny.
Long after I closed this debate at post number 600, hand this troll his ass on a stroller, in comes a so called “ally” to encourage me to not debate any more trolls.
:|
I didn’t realize cleaning the clocks of the RNC trolls was so damaging to our cause.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:23 amBut thanks for burying my debate with your 30 paragraph lecture to me on how to show the trolls my ass.
With friends like you…
July 15th, 2007 at 2:24 amGo ahead and post another rambling lecture covering the history of the left wing talking points, along with a few more pleas for me to not engage the trolls and beat them any more, and a long winded explanation of how I am misjudging you, and I think you’ll have his humilation safely tucked away beneath the warm and fuzzy folds of your mindnumbingly irrelevant erratta.
Heckuvajob.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:28 amCause God knows we wouldn’t want a thread to actually end on topic.
Instead we need more whiney wormy so called allies to crawl in on their belly’s pleading for people to not debate the right wing bloggers on the actual topic of the thread.
God knows no one wants that.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:43 amNews flash skippy.
If you’re not gonna suit up then get the hell off the field.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:43 amNow if you don’t mind, I’ll close on topic.
The Bush administration cannot claim exectutive privilege, because to date, no authority to claim executive privilege beyond the need for national security or intnernational relations has been delegated to the President.
Precedent defines the role of executive privilege, which was defined in the 1974 Watergate SCOTUS ruling on the clause. Bush does not have the authority therefore, and therefore will be forced to drop the claim and play ball.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:47 amJuly 15th, 2007 at 2:48 am