Is it just about bashing-Bush or has anyone done any research on Presidential use of "Executive Privilege"?

Question

If you are interested in honestly understanding the issue and its role in the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II Administrations, follow the link:

www.law.duke.edu/adminlaw/execpriv.pdf

Sorry!

http://www.law.duke.edu/adminlaw/execpriv.pdf

J: I commend you on your research. But I need a source indicating that the hearings regarding the U.S. Attorney's are a "criminal investigation".

Answer 1

If you look at the way the executive privilege has been used, it has been abused. Executive privilege has been used to protect confidential military or diplomatic operations or to protect the private discussions and debates of the president with close aides. However, the courts have ruled that the President does not have absolute privilege. In cases where there are criminal charges being brought up against the President the courts have declined to support executive privilege. For example, the cases of Clinton and Nixon. The case against Bush is whether or not those attorneys fired were done so lawfully. They are doing a criminal investigation on the attorneys, and essentially investigating if criminal activity has been committed. So, therefore the use of Executive Privilege shouldn't apply in this case.


While it is true that the attorneys serve the President and can be fired for things such as job performance, however it is against the law to fire them based on political reasons. Which is what they are trying to get to the bottom. John Conyers and Linda Sanchez are the ones responsible for starting the investigations. They are asking questions about the firings, and whether or not there were any breaking of the laws. Below is the link to where you can read the letter:

http://judiciary.house.gov/
Click on:

US Attorney hearing follow up letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding.

I have also added a few more links below.

On a separate note, could Kevin A give me information about wikipedia being an Arab financed website. I use wikipedia not for doing research but as a starting point to get information. If this is true I will discontinue doing it.

Answer 2

No. The president, and all that have sworn the oath, are envisioned to act lawfully. The president has extensive powers, a number of which the Congress at cases, seeks to constrain, and specific might, have been it not for government Privilege. As Commander in chief, the president can act with out Congressional approval to start up strikes in keeping with presidential looking, a checklist pointing out some intelligence records and a reason for action. some have faith such government orders enable the president "to do something". some activities calimed to be risk-free by using government privilege incorporate White homestead coverage mindset conferences, such because of fact the vice chairman's potential mindset conferences together with his advisors. warring parties have demanded launch of assembly coaching, on the thought discussions amounted to collusion or some othe unlawful interest.

Answer 3

Somebody need to tell j that wickpeckers is not doing research. That's an Arab financed site.

Answer 4

Honey, they won't bother to read it. Most of 'em have such an irrational hatred of Bush that they can no longer see reason.

Answer 5

cmon, isnt this a bit too obvious...its naked raw bush bashing. exec privelege is perfectly legal and not designed for every liberal extremists whim. the reason for defending this is obvious. the contstitution need not be rewritten every time the pelosi ites get a hangnail...its getting more than a bit ridiculous.

Answer 6

why would anybody give bush the benefit of the doubt at this point?