What is Executive Priviledge and does it apply to current AG situation?

Question

Everyone defending this administration and the attorney General says the president himself was never informed or is not involved in this.....so how can conversations or discussions or communications between 2 parties with the president not involved be argued as Executive priviledge when President or Vice President is not involved?

Does Bush realize how dumb his arguement is???

executive privilege defined as:
The theoretical right of a President and other top officials of the executive branch to withhold information from Congress and the courts.

Attorney general is part of the judicial branch, is he not?
Rove and the others are merely advisors to the president -- so, where is the actual executive privilege come into play???

Cara -- you defined it, but didnt respond as to how it does or doesnt apply to this situation?
Have I stumped all the repubs here??

Answer 1

the real question should be: "WHY would bush WANT to invoke executive privledge? What is he trying to hide?"

Answer 2

Executive Privilege protects specific confidential communications to/from the President that are deemed necessary for the president to be able to perform his job.

So, as you (and many legal scholars) have noted, if there were no conversations with the president on the issue, then executive privilege doesn't apply.

Executive Privilege was first recognized by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) under federal rules of procedure. In Gravel v. US, the Court noted that "executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime". 408 U.S. 606 (1972). There have been 24 other cases decided by the Supreme Court that address and define it limits.

Most recently, the Court commented that "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power not to be lightly invoked. " Cheney v. US Dist.Ct for DC, 542 U.S. 367 (2004). And in Rubin v. United States, the Court commented that testimony and documents may be compelled, "unless those conversations clearly fall within the bounds of 'executive privilege,' the bounds of which are unclear." 525 U.S. 990 (1998).

And where executive privilege is in conflict with Congressional subpoena power, federal courts favor compelling the witness to appear in most cases. See U. S. v. Tobin, 195 F.Supp. 588 (DC.Cir. 1961)

So, even if executive privilege does apply, it would only allow the aides to refuse to answer specific questions, just like any other type of confidential communications privilege. It's not blanket immunity from having to appear and testify.

Answer 3

Executive Priviledge is only applicable in times of war and regarding cases of national security. This AG case is a criminal investigation and falls under no category that would allow the claim of Executive Priviledge.