« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Clinton Lawyer On Bush's Exec Privilege Claim: "There's Only One President At A Time"
So does that letter Newsweek obtained, sent January 16 by the Bush White House to Karl Rove's lawyer, instructing Rove not to respond to any subpoenas that might be issued, change the state of play as to whether Rove will end up testifying on the US Attorneys firings? After all, President Bush is now on the record claiming the right to assert executive privilege even after leaving office.
Not according to Neil Eggleston, who specialized in executive privilege issues for President Clinton's White House. Eggleston told TPMmuckraker that, since President Obama has already issued an executive order that appears to take the view that a former president can't assert executive privilege, he's unlikely to back Bush's claim. And assuming things then wind up in court, Eggleston said he'd be very surprised if a court sided with Bush, ruling that executive privilege can be asserted retroactively.
"Remember what Obama kept saying during the transition: 'There's only one president at a time?'" asked Eggleston. "This is one where I think a court's going to decide there's only one president at a time."
Eggleston told TPMmuckraker last week that Obama's order seemed designed to help gain access to Bush White House documents and testimony that Congress has been seeking, including on the US Attorney firings matter.
Josh
Zachary
While Bush was in the White House Republicans supported 'executive privilege' to a man. Now a Democrat is president so it is time for them to shoot holes in 'executive privilege'.
See how it works ? Pretty simple.
Republicans will be all in favor of subpoena-ing the pants off every person in the administration - the way they did it to Clinton's people.
While Bush was president, we were told to kneel and yield to the omnipotent Commander-in-Chief. Ask no questions !
Now the right-wing air waves will be filled with the good old black helicopters, world-government, Ruby Ridge anti-government blather.
Republicans will decide that fighting the current executive is far more important than defending the last one.
Of course they will apply sophistry to have it both ways if they can.
January 30, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that fails to take into account two things. First off this is a Democratic majority Congress, President Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress.
The other factor is that the Bush Administration was completely lawless. As this comes in to stronger and stronger focus there will be very little interest in trying to stick it to the Obama Administration on this playing field as it is a total loser for the Republicans.
January 30, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
When have Republicans AVOIDED being total losers?
January 30, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole point is to delay, delay, obstruct, and delay. It's been a successful strategy for the last eight years. I'm sure the former administration can drag things out for another two or four years. And then when they finally show up, they can't recall anything. How convenient.
January 30, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or have passed the statute of limitations for any crimes they might confess to. Except murder and kidnapping, which I guess they won't confess to.
January 30, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone know about statute of limitations where RICO is concerned? And while I'm asking, whether a Presidential Administration can be considered an "organization" under the language of the Act?
Tena? Anyone?
January 30, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlawful arrest is a form of kidnapping. Ergo the statute of limitations does not apply.
January 30, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've searched the Constitution and there is no mention of "executive privilege" anywhere but I'll play along and pretend it exists.
It's executive privilege, right? Not "Clinton's privilege" or "Obama's privilege". So it's part of the office.
As the article notes, there is only one President at a time. If that's so, and if the privilege goes with the office, isn't it up to the office-holder to decide what information is or is not privileged? Doesn't matter what the last one did or what the next one will do, only what the "one president at a time" does.
Clinton seemed to go along with Bush/Bush/Reagan, but it appears that Obama will not. Maybe that's why the Rs are so scared?
January 30, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's my question as well:
If EP is extraconstitutional in nature...
...then what's to stop a sitting President from removing EP on a case-by-case basis as he/she sees fit?
Imho: nothing.
Right?
January 30, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truman's OLC (I believe that was the Office responsible) made it up; the guy who wrote the opinion is now on record as saying it was the worst thing he ever did.
Ain't it fun watching the Losers Club grasping at straws, though?
January 31, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that has to be proven in the Siegelman case is that Rove was involved. He was hired to be the President's political advisor. He had no business whatsoever being involved in a criminal prosecution. If he was involved in any way, he is in big trouble. If he discussed it with the President, Siegelman has an even stronger case for a mistrial.
Moreover, the letter from Bush only asserts executive privilege in the discussions involving firings of U.S. attorneys. It does not reference the Siegelman case. So, even if the resolution of the executive privilege question drags on, Rove should have to testify immediately on the Siegelman case or be in contempt. The Bush administration is actually in a much weaker position re: Siegelman, not just on executive privilege, but also on its own exposure to criminal charges.
January 30, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Blago, Rove must be made an example.
Those politicians in Illinois who voted to impeach Blago, and are as guilty as Blago, might hesitate a bit now before they engage in pay to play.
Dirty politics, excuse the redundancy, will still go on. But it must have consequences.
And as far as criminal activities of the Bush administration go, from election fraud to politicization of justice, all paths lead to Rove.
January 30, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be nice to have some deterrence where pay-to-play is concerned.
If for no other reason, to give more honest pols an excuse to demur from beginning or continuing to observe the status quo.
January 30, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just don't let it wind up in one of those Bush appointed right-wing ideologues court and Judge..(like the U.S. Supreme Court)
January 30, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There's Only One President At A Time"
Bush may no longer be president however he is still the "Decider".
Decider privilage anyone?
January 30, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Republicans will be all in favor of subpoena-ing the pants off every person in the administration"
Being in favor doesn't mean you can do it. I may be wrong here, but I believe legislative subpoenas can only be issued by the heads of committees, not individual legislators and for now, and probably for quite some time, the Rs don't got none.
January 30, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update:
Committees make their own rules, so depending on the committee, subpoenas are either issued by the committee chair or by vote. Either way, same as above.
January 30, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove is hoping Obama will save him from his own arrogance. That's not going to happen. It's time for Rove to answer some questions. :)
January 30, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats are there EVERY time a REPUBLICAN whimpers to WIPE away the TEARS and make all these bad things go away. With people like Pelosi and Reid in charge Congers will let Rove(TURD BLODSSOM) walk Free. Obama is still letting the DECIDER (Bush) and crime family run his White House.
January 31, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feel free to cite, oh, something factual to support this wild-eyed mishmash.
January 31, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel somewhat the same . . . historically we open with great ideas and then totally cave in to the Republicans. I am aware we are attempting to run the country in a bipartisan manner but when you see the shenanigins (sp?) these Republicans pull it would seem we learn from experience. They are not intending to co-operate in anyway and are just playing a game to hear themselves talk. We gave them an honest chance, they blew it, it's time to change strategy and go for blood! Much work is needed to get our country back on track . . . Republicans are purposely slowing the wheels of progress.
January 31, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, really? I haven't read the entire Executive Order, but I have to disagree with TPM's analysis.
Based on the snippet that is offered, Obama's executive order does not say "a former president can't assert executive privilege." In fact, it seems to say just the opposite: a former president can assert the privelege, and his claim will be evaluated by the Justice Department in exactly the SAME manner that the Department will evaluate a claim by the current Administration.
My read is that a former President most certainly CAN assert executive privelege under the order, but the assertion will only stand if the merits of the asserted privelege pass muster with the Justice Department.
Thus, Rove's claim of executive privelege will be referred to the Justice Department, which will determine whether the underlying evidence merits the application of the privelege. If so, President Bush will have successfully "retroactively" applied executive privelege. If not, the Justice Department will issue an opinion to the judge recommending that he or she deny the motion to suppress and allow the evidence or testimony to enter.
Maybe what Eggleston and TPM are suggesting is that a former president cannot assert the privelege IF and WHEN the Justice Department has evaluated and rejected their claim pursuant to Obama's executive order. That, I can agree with. But the statement that a "former president can't assert the privelege" under Obama's order seems to fly in the face of the plain text of the order itself, which reads: "Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law."
January 31, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink