Why wont anyone defend against bush not being able to use executive privilege now???

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?

Have we caught bush and his croonies finally????

I love it when people like Cora will quote facts but not take a stand one way or the other.

Answer 1

Republicans don't have a very good hand to play these days and Bush is only fanning the flames of what is now a huge problem for the GOP. Wonder how he feels being in a lose/lose scenery. This president's wish to invoke executive privilege makes me remember Nixon. What Bush forgets is he is an employee of ALL the American people; not just the ones loyal to him personally.

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

Bush is still in office so tell me what justice is this?