Are republicans about to fall...because Bush cannot use executive privilege?

Question

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.

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?

P.S. to lethan -- its amazing the unaccountable world republicans want to live in.
They feel they have done everythign for 6 years with no accountability and oversight, so they think they will be allowed ot continue.

Heck, we had a balanced budget before bush came into office. We would have had a 5 trillion dollar budget surplus, yet now we have a 3 trillion dollar deficit.

way to go repubs.

Answer 1

Absolutely. The Bush Apologists are making fools of themselves. Their ignorant claims that Clinton did anything comparible to this are lies. Every President appoints a new staff when they are elected. That is not what Bush did. He fired them in order to stop investigations into Republicans.

That is why he fired Carol Lam, she successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham and was starting to go after Jerry Lewis.

This stinks of corruption, just like most of what this administration does.

It needs to be investigated vigorously.

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.

It is not a blanket immunity from having to testify at all. And as you (and several legal scholars) not, it would not apply if there were no confidential communications with the president.

It 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 subpoena power, federal courts favor compelling testimony in most cases. See U. S. v. Tobin, 195 F.Supp. 588 (DC.Cir. 1961)

Answer 3

I guess they never believed they would lose the House of Representatives and suddenly be held accountable for their actions. I don't care to be told " trust us " by the most secrative and dishonets adminstration in American history.

Answer 4

I do wonder why libs belive there is some crime here? Every president has fired those persons and bush dumping 8 is not like how Clinton dumped ALL of them including the ones invenstigating whitewater amazing the fairy tale world the libs live in.

Answer 5

they are already failing because bush cant lead. his ego wont allow him to listen to advice, and he wont admit to making mistakes. he is a recruiting tool for terrorists. he needs to vacation for the rest of his presidency.