Quote :

"President Is Denied Executive Privilege By Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A01 A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday. In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton's interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said. The decision made Clinton the first president to take a claim of executive privilege to court and lose since the dramatic Watergate showdown in 1974, when the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Richard M. Nixon to turn over the secret Oval Office tapes that ultimately led to his resignation. Clinton's case also seems headed for the high court as sources indicated that the White House likely will appeal. Johnson's ruling could amount to a significant political as well as legal setback for Clinton, lending ammunition to Republican critics, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who have charged that Clinton is trying, in Nixonian fashion, to impede Starr's investigation with invalid privilege claims. Clinton invoked both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to prevent Starr from asking deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey, communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal and other top officials about conversations regarding the Lewinsky case. According to the lawyers, Johnson also dismissed the attorney-client privilege claim on the grounds that Clinton could not use government-paid White House lawyers to aid his defense in a criminal probe. The executive privilege dispute has been one of many legal hurdles erected in Starr's path as he investigates whether Clinton lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky and asked her to do so as well. But Starr has won a string of victories in recent weeks. Johnson has also sided with Starr by ordering Lewinsky's first attorney to comply with a subpoena and by rejecting the former White House intern's claim of a binding immunity agreement with prosecutors. Word of the decision overshadowed other important developments yesterday in Starr's multi-faceted investigation into the Clinton White House. A day after charging former Clinton business partner Susan McDougal with criminal contempt and obstruction, the Little Rock grand jury that has been investigating Whitewater for 4 1/2 years disbanded without issuing more indictments. While the White House took that as a hopeful sign that the long-running Whitewater investigation is nearing its end without producing charges against the president or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, officials were careful not to read too much into it, at least publicly. Indeed, a parallel Washington grand jury can still take testimony or issue indictments and Starr's spokesman suggested that he still could impanel a new Little Rock grand jury. Johnson's executive privilege ruling came as prosecutors yesterday infused new energy into their Lewinsky grand jury investigation, bringing back one of the central players in that saga, Clinton confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr., to testify. Another key witness, presidential secretary Betty Currie, is slated to return today. Jordan, a prominent Washington attorney, arranged job interviews in New York for Lewinsky at Currie's request and found a lawyer to help Lewinsky draft an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton in the now-dismissed Paula Jones case. But Jordan has denied that he was trying to encourage her to lie. "Today, as twice before, I answered all the questions completely, truthfully and honestly and to the best of my ability," Jordan said as he left federal court after his third appearance before the grand jury. A Jordan associate said prosecutors yesterday asked him about the timing and substance of telephone calls he made to the president, as well as calls he made to various prospective employers on Lewinsky's behalf in December and January. Many of the questions went over ground covered in previous appearances, but Jordan was told he will have to return again. In another legal judgment related to the investigation, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District yesterday upheld Johnson's decision to keep secret the hearings related to executive privilege and other disputes. Citing grand jury confidentiality rules, a three-judge panel unanimously rejected a motion filed by news organizations, including The Washington Post, seeking access to the proceedings. The continued secrecy surrounding the dispute over executive privilege has meant that both sides have not publicly explained their arguments in a high-stakes constitutional struggle, just as the White House and Starr's office offered no official comment on Johnson's ruling. While presidents have claimed a form of executive privilege to shield their internal deliberations since George Washington, the Nixon ruling in 1974 was the seminal case establishing that such a privilege exists and setting the broad parameters of White House secrecy for the modern era. At the time, Nixon was defying special prosecutors seeking Oval Office tapes that implicated him in the Watergate coverup. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that the president does have a right to confidentiality, particularly in national security or law enforcement situations, but that it must be balanced against the need for disclosure. In Nixon's case, the court judged that the interests of the Watergate probe outweighed the privilege. Two weeks later, Nixon resigned. ..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698.htm
doh

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 5:30:24 PM

Quote :

"Wednesday, May 6, 1998"

7/13/2007 5:39:10 PM

Quote :

"President Clinton "

7/13/2007 5:48:13 PM

hmm

at least 2 people don't understand this thread

7/13/2007 5:58:27 PM

let me help you out...

Quote :

"Bush Invokes Executive Privilege By LAURIE KELLMAN 07.09.07, 10:13 AM E President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers. It offered once more to make the pair available for private, off-the-record interviews on any role the White House might have played in the firings of several U.S. attorneys. In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege. This is a breaking news update. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressmen returning from their Independence Day break are ready for battle with the White House, with Democrats decrying President Bush's commutation of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence and fighting Bush's latest claim of executive privilege. Both events occurred around Congress' vacation, inflaming an intense battle between Democrats and Bush over his use of executive power. There was relatively high tension on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue as majority Democrats - and increasing numbers of Republicans - challenged Bush's Iraq war policy. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said Monday there had been "a steady erosion for the president's policy" in Congress because of the "tremendous loss of life among our troops" in June and "the failure of the Iraqi government to pursue the political reforms that are necessary to quell the sectarian violence." Meanwhile, several Democratic-run investigations are playing out this week as they head toward contempt of Congress citations and, if neither side yields, federal court: _Monday is the deadline for the White House to explain why Bush is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for e-mails and other documents on his aides' involvement in the firings of eight federal prosecutors last winter. The White House is not expected to comply with the deadline. _In a pair of hearings Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will look at Bush's commutation last week of Libby's prison sentence for obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hear from former White House political director Sara Taylor about the prosecutor firings, according to Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. _The next day, the House panel is expected to turn to the prosecutor firings and has scheduled testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. It's unclear whether she will appear. On Iraq, Democrats expect to resume legislative challenges to Bush's policy on the war as the Senate this week takes up a major defense spending bill. The administration has been concerned about an escalation of Iraqi war fervor. So much so that Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled a four-nation South American tour this week to work with the White House on Iraq policy. Collins is among the Senate Republicans seeking to see U.S. troops departing Iraq by early 2008. Bush's strategy for a short-term troop increase to stabilize Baghdad and certain parts of Iraq has not been successful, she said. "The president argued that we needed to undertake the surge in order to give the Iraq government the time, the space to pursue the political reforms," Collins said on CNN. "That hasn't happened. Instead it has been our troops who are making the sacrifice, who are bearing the burden, and that's why you see a real change in support for the Iraq strategy." In Baghdad Monday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state. He said the U.S. has a responsibility to build Iraqi forces so that they can take over the country's security. But he also told reporters that the Iraqis "understand the huge pressure that will increase more and more in the United States" ahead of a September report to Congress by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and military commander Gen. David Petraeus. The weeklong Fourth of July break did not cool disputes between Congress and the White House. In fact, Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence teed up a new project for Democratic investigators. Leahy and others said they suspect that Bush commuted Libby's sentence to keep Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff from revealing internal White House discussions. So they are talking to the prosecutor in the CIA case, Patrick Fitzgerald, about testifying before Congress, several senators said Sunday. "I think you may very well see Mr. Fitzgerald before the Senate Judiciary Committee," Leahy said on CNN's "Late Edition." Through White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Bush declared executive privilege on the documents subpoenaed by the committees. He argued that releasing them would damage the confidential nature of advice given the president. The Judiciary Committee chairmen demanded that the White House explain the decision more fully by Monday. The Washington Post (nyse: WPO - news - people ), citing unidentified sources, reported Sunday that Fielding was expected to tell lawmakers that he already has provided the legal basis for the executive privilege claims and does not intend to hand over the documentation sought. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on Leahy's committee, defended the White House. "There comes a point where the White House has to say, 'Hey, look there are certain confidential things in the White House that we're not going to share with Congress, just like there are certain confidential things in Congress that we're not going to share with the White House,'" Hatch, R-Utah, said on CBS (nyse: CBS - news - people )' "Face the Nation." Both Leahy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., have said they would move toward holding those named in the subpoenas in contempt of Congress if they do not comply. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed "

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/09/ap3894292.html

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 5:58:38 PM

first I was like

then I was like

now I'm like





[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2007 6:03:26 PM

Quote :

"In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton's interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said."

so which judge denied bush executive privilege

7/13/2007 6:16:43 PM

did you miss my picture, i think you must have

7/13/2007 6:19:24 PM

when the judge says he cant do it, make the thread then

7/13/2007 6:24:17 PM

if he waits to make the thread after the fact then there will be no discussion about whether they should or shouldn't act on precedent...

7/13/2007 6:29:50 PM

doesnt seem like precedence when clinton was denied, unless you think the precedence is simply that a president should never be able to use executive privilege

7/13/2007 6:31:24 PM

can someone draw a picture of the word precedent going over his head

7/13/2007 6:33:45 PM

once again your hatred for bush has clouded your judgement, no big surprise

7/13/2007 6:34:12 PM

haha

"once again"

who said i said i had an opinion of or ever mentioned the president?

7/13/2007 6:37:31 PM

my bad, i figured you could do a better job of explaining what you were trying to say instead of just making some type of smug cryptic comments based on what you personally think this 3 paragraph blurb might possibly be

7/13/2007 6:40:12 PM

the intent of this thread was to provoke discussion of the current debate surrounding the use of executive priviledge by the president of the united states of america.

the original posted article was meant to inform that there has been an instance in the past (a precedent) where the president of the united states of america has been denied executive priviledge

maybe the original poster is trying to say "if it happened to bill, then it should happen to george"

or maybe he's trying to ask "if it's happened to bill, should it happen to george?"

or maybe he's just trying to confuse you by asking you to read between the lines and that's not an ability you have refined yet

7/13/2007 6:49:04 PM

You know, it was cooler out there today. It must have been the point rushing so fast over TreeTwista's head, that it cooled the planet, reversing man caused global warming in the process.

7/13/2007 6:49:19 PM

this probably would have been a decent thread with some good discussion

but then treetwista posted

7/13/2007 6:51:32 PM

in twistas (partial) defense, the"BREAKING" title of the thread combined with the rhetorical "joke" of posting a 9 year old court judgement, rather invites the GWB Fanboys to come out and troll.

but that doesnt explain how any sane person could still support the current President or any of his assorted outrageous claims.

its a good article to bring up, and definitely relevant. i'm very interested to see how this plays out.




[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 7:02 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2007 6:59:54 PM

just using satire or sarcasm does not encourage trolling

my picture might have encouraged trolling... but come on treetwista is in the thread so trolling would have ensued regardless

7/13/2007 7:02:39 PM

Quote :

"this probably would have been a decent thread with some good discussion but then treetwista posted"

That's true for so many threads.

7/13/2007 7:02:58 PM

Quote :

"maybe the original poster is trying to say "if it happened to bill, then it should happen to george""

/thread

also yall are pretty sad if your weak mind lets a few posts by me "ruin a thread"

Quote :

"this thread invites the GWB Fanboys haters to come out and troll agree on how much they hate Bush."

Quote :

"but come on treetwista guth is in the thread so trolling constantly and blindly bashing bush would have ensued regardless"

7/13/2007 7:03:00 PM

yeah, he does kind of suck like that. ignoring is really the only way to deal with it, although I admit sometimes the stupid is hard to ignore.

hell, sometimes his comments are so stupid i think he's serious.

7/13/2007 7:04:45 PM

Quote :

"once again your hatred for bush has clouded your judgement, no big surprise"

everybody reads a few paragraphs and thinks to themselves "omg i hate george bush so much" and i point out that you dont know any of the details and yall are like "omg here comes treetwista to ruin a thread"

btw you do know that George Washington used executive privilege dont you?

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 7:05:39 PM

^^ but usually, i think he's just doing what trolls do. and doing it pretty well.





[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2007 7:07:35 PM

http://tinyurl.com/2blwj5
no constant bush bashing that i can find

and the first time washington claimed executive privileges he lost and ended up turning everything over

the time he was successful was about some documents related to treaty negotiations that the house wanted but the senate controls treaty negotiations.

7/13/2007 7:17:15 PM

Who knows if Bush really has executive privilege on any given item. I sure don't, I'd say read the constitution, but who actually reads it as it stands anyways? Ultimately, pragmatically the power here lies with the courts, not necessarily common sense or even the constitution. So TreeTwista10 is on point when he points out that some judge has not countered GWB's claim of executive privilege yet.

Anyway, the reason GWB and co. are doing it is the same reason that Clinton did it back in the day. It is to buy time, half of the inquiries or more are just political fishing expiditions so if they can be delayed past the point of political expedience then they problem goes away, or maybe can be pardoned at the last day. I think that's the strategy here. Its pretty stupid to get in some big argument about what the boundaries or exact definition of executive privilege is, nobody knows, nobody will ever no because its a dynamic court dependent quantity.

that's my take.

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2007 11:12:42 PM

Quote :

"I'd say read the constitution"

alright, sure. point me to the part about executive privilege

7/14/2007 6:19:39 AM

^sure as soon as you point out the part about surrendering email records.

7/14/2007 10:25:31 PM

^^as soon as you point me to congressional oversight

7/14/2007 10:29:46 PM

Quote :

"So TreeTwista10 is on point when he points out that some judge has not countered GWB's claim of executive privilege yet."

A judge has ruled about executive privilege in a virtually identical case. Also, why is the military being so secretive about the Tillman death? I can't imagine any classified secrets that would be revealed surrounding his death, let the public know.

7/14/2007 11:54:09 PM

^^,^^^ im not the one making a claim that something is expressed in the constitution. i, apparently unlike you, understand some things are just accepted or implicit (im not arguing that executive privilege doesn't have its place)

but nice backpedal edit

7/14/2007 11:58:05 PM

^ of course MOST things are understood as implicit in the constitution. This is why judges can make up stuff as they go along these days, sure they quote some previous cases blah blah blah but when you get right down to it they are just twisting it to suite their own personal or political preferences.

Again GWB is fighting in court because on certain counts he probably has legal standing (depending on the whim of the courts) and in other cases they just need to buy time to keep the democrats from finding stuff out they don't need to know.

7/15/2007 1:43:45 AM

Quote :

"they just need to buy time to keep the democrats public from finding stuff out they don't need want them to know."

7/15/2007 10:45:57 AM

WOOSH!

7/16/2007 8:38:25 AM

Quote :

"they just need to buy time to keep the democrats public from finding stuff out they don't need want them to know."

7/16/2007 11:20:38 AM

Quote :

"they just need to buy time to keep the democrats from finding stuff out they don't need to know."

7/16/2007 1:21:49 PM

^ tool

7/16/2007 2:53:10 PM

^nicely done. so bitter.

I'm wondering why the thread title says breaking...?

[Edited on July 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM. Reason : are you really 34, thats freakin hilarious]

7/16/2007 11:03:34 PM

are you really a frat fag? thats freakin hilarious

7/16/2007 11:26:35 PM

A 34 yr old resorting to name calling, it doesn't get much better.

7/17/2007 1:17:41 PM