2007-08-13 08:43:39 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Two of the people Bush used executive privilege with were private citizens at the time. Both Harriet E. Miers and Sara M. Taylor were private citizens at the time of their subpoena to testify before congress. So yes, he can technically use executive privilege to stop certain information from getting out even if the person in question is an ex-cabinet member and now a private citizen.
However, two people who did not show up for the testimony before congress were cited with contempt of congress. So he would have to show even if he did not give any answers.
It is also important to note on executive privilege that it is meant as a means to stop information that could hurt national security from getting out, not a means by which the president can stop an investigation into allegations of misconduct. This was seen most recently when the courts ruled against Clinton and had him turn over documents during the Lewinsky scandal.
2007-08-13 09:01:47 · answer #1 · answered by Memnoch 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The executive privilege doesn't protect Rove; it never has.
What it protects is White House communications involving the president such that national security or other highly confidential matter is involved.
2007-08-13 16:07:55 · answer #2 · answered by Molly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The privilege belongs to & is exercised by the President; not Rove.
2007-08-13 17:47:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure Bush, with Cheney still behind him, will think of some way to prevent Rove from testifying.
2007-08-13 15:49:17 · answer #4 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only covering the duties he preformed for the President. He is covered from that until a court orders him to talk.
2007-08-13 15:53:42 · answer #5 · answered by Chris 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Forever, if the President so desires.
2007-08-13 15:48:28 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋