The looming confrontation between the executive and legislatibve branches of government raises a question.?

Question

There is eery similarity (and this is meant in a very objective, non-political tone) to the watergate showdown and the showdown between Bush and Congress. I thought that the Supreme Court's ruling in watergate over the tapes limited executive privilege to matters of national security and a few other very selective instances. In any event, the court can review documents in camera (in secret out of public view) to determine the adequacy of any such claim. But in matters of wrongdoing or fraud, the presidential privilege doesn't apply, I thought. Does the administration have a legal leg to stand on here in light of that ruling? I would think that it would be required to abide by a congressional subpoena, per the Watergate ruling. Can anyone offer any meaningful insights?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court ruling may not appear here. The reason is that Congress doesn't have an arbitrary right to see documents covered by executiveprivilege--and the restriction is broader than you suggested. The documents in question don't have to do with allegations of criminal wrongdoing--so if it comes down to it, the Courts are likely to rule in Bush's favor on this one.

Its less clear if Bush can prevent Congress from putting Rove, Gonzalez, and others under oath.

But this is a no-win situation for Bush. Gonzalez is already a political casualty--and the White House is simply trying to contain the damage.

Answer 2

It really doen't matter - these things are almost never decided via such a formal process. Even if they have no leg to stand on, they have the right to argue it and buy time to work for some political resolution.

Answer 3

In my opinion, the difference here is the president didn't do anything wrong. He can fire these attorneys whenever he pleases. This is a witch hunt by the Democrats. Just another ploy to make the president look bad. They've been using this strategy very effectively.

Answer 4

there is no allegation of fraud or wrongdoing. there is no allegation that these people were fired b/c of an illegal purpose (i.e., religion, sex, etc).

This is a non-scandal, by the Dems, to get themselves on TV. The Dems SHOULD be holding hearings on how the terrorists are using KIDS in their bomb-cars now, and whether THAT entails loosening up the rules of engagement for the soldiers (let them be soldiers, not cops).

The end result of these hearings would be "the president fired these people because they couldn't get along." THAT is perfectly acceptable.

Answer 5

Seems to me that the self-serving Democratic party has
decided to sacrifice the nation in its effort to seize power.

Answer 6

1.http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=obstruction+of+justice&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73notes.html
2.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/politics/main1649648.shtml
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052400350.html
Charge PELOSI and HASTENT// It the LAW