In 1998 Bill Clinton asserted executive privlege when his aides were called to testify in Monicagate.?

Question

Did he abuse the privlege? What do you think the courts held?

Answer 1

This has gone down as one of the most blatant abuses of executive privlege in history. The Courts held that executive privleges did not shield Clinton's aides from testifying to their bj related knowledge.

Answer 2

Do you understand the difference between an essentially private matter and the suborning of our constitution?
The difference between a bj and trying to keep the actions of a Vice President and classified documents secret from the same laws that the President himself has and does follow.
The difference between a moral flaw and rank disobedience to the oath of office a President is required to take?
If you do understand these things then you understand that Bush will lose in the courts...oh wait...he can't, hes packed them with equally corrupt people who value their party over their country.
The men and women Bush fired were his OWN appointees, they may have been fired because they didn't follow orders to only prosecute Democrats, and to ignore, or 'not pursue' matters detrimental to Republicans. Clinton fired people who were part of the last administration, the first Bush. Its what every president does when he takes office. Bush Two did the same and no one raised a fuss. It was only when he fired the ones HE hired that on supposed grounds of inefficiency or inability did some of them say " hey wait a minute, I'm a good Republican whats going on here?
Bush isn't protecting the country, he is claiming executive privilege in cases involving the firing of the federal attorneys, they had nothing to do with national security. A purely political thing. And please, don't tell me Clinton did it, Bush fired his own appointees his own picks, Clinton replace Bush Ones choices when he came into office as most presidents do. Particularly when of the opposition party.
Bush is also claiming the privilege in regards to the Plame affair, again political, no national security issues.
And finally Cheney, attempting to keep all things secret, even from government agencies charged with making sure secrets are kept.

Answer 3

A sitting President laying back in his desk chair with his pants down to his ankles in the Oval Office while a young woman 1/3 his age honks his horn is quite a personal action to say the least.

Whether he sprayed, dribbled or dabbed his brow during such an entertaining encounter and using a Presidential Executive action to block the testimony of aides is absolutely not a matter of protecting the nation (and such) of anyone other than himself.

Oh, that and not letting his wife or daughter find out about it even though Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers already beat Monica to the munch... errrr, I mean punch... Makes for a seedy move on an all too seedy President.

Answer 4

Clinton did abuse the privilege as this was in a personal nature and not him acting on behalf and as the president...
GW is being called on EXECUTIVE OFFICE decisions
There is a HUGE difference...but libs can not see it...
Nor do they look at the FACT Clinton fired 81 Lawyers 10 times the number GW fired for the same reasons
Next Clinton PARDONED 140 of his supporters...many had info on his and Hillery's part in Whitewater and missing docs.
GW COMMUTES the jail time of one and they are looking to "Investigate" him.
The GOP did not go after Clinton as the power to hire and fire lawyers is the SOLE choice of the Pres. and the power to commute or pardon if absolute unless quid pro quot can be proven...and that WAS more obvious with the money the pardoned persons had "donated" to Clinton's campaign rather than the supposed silence of GW's confidante
The

Answer 5

they wound up testifiing either way.

executive privlege only works if their is something secret - like things involving national security - that needs to be kept private. appearantly clinton couldn't prove they had secret covert knowledge that needed to be kept quiet or they wouldn't have testified.
as of now, bush hasn't shown proff that interviewing his people will risk national security.
thus the privlege is being abused

Answer 6

Executive privlege does not cover stains on a blue dress.

Answer 7

Almost every president has used executive privleges. What's your point?

Clinton used it to cover his rear just like Bush is doing it now.

Answer 8

The difference is that Clinton did testify himself. That's the difference. Bush won't even talk to congress let alone testify unless it is behind closed doors without taking an oath. BTW, they did testify. The Courts made them testify.

Answer 9

Clinton used executive privilege to cover his own @$$. President Bush is using EP to protect the country (not that I am a huge fan of Bush), but there are so many leaks of national security information--it is Bush's best defense against those who are 'aiding' our enemies.

Answer 10

The courts made them testify. And thus, the courts should follow precedent and make Bush's aides testify.