Executive Priveledge
 

....................

What do you think it is?

Here, I'll take the bait for you.

What do I think it is? I think it's murky, abused, subject to massive wim and interpretation, and not legally binding. However, I understand its advantages and neccesity in alot of cases.

I think the privelege is all about seperation of powers. COTUS has its powers, SCOTUS has its powers and POTUS has his.

You mean after he's retired, the president or whomever gets to have one secret service assasination hit on a person of his choice. Gratis, no questions asked? :lol:

Quote:

Misspelled?

:lol:

It's not mentioned in the Constitution so there shouldn't be any. It's a last ditch play of the president to try and hide information from the house and public most of the time I've heard the word.

Yeah, thats exactly what I was saying. It's not legally binding, and is vastly used to cover up things the administration in question would find damaging.

OK, then every Congressional staffer should be hauled into the DOJ or better yet the FBI (its against the law to lie to the FBI) and asked questions under oath and every Judicial page should be given the same treatment?

I'm willing to give those people privilege.


PS I'm going to make many spelling and grammatical errors. You will have to deal with it.

Are you referring to a specific case here? I thought Executive privilege applies only to actions directed at the President, such as Nixon's tapes, and Jeffersons letters? I don't think the actions/possessions of DOJ officials fall under the aegis of executive priviledge. I'm open to correction here..


I'll try to sleep tonight :)

You haven't said anything in this comment except your belief that executive privilege gives you the right to lie.

Please tell me where I said that.

Thats what I take this as.

Then you take it wrong.

You're really stretching it there, Brad. I don't think Exec Privilege goes that far.
You referring to something in particular, w_g?

Well, maybe a little.
The only time I have heard executive privilege invoked is when that information would be embarrassing to the president or vice president at the time, with the reasoning that it wasn't the information that was sensitive it was about setting a precedent in giving that information. The last I heard was in regards to the VP in 2002 in regard to energy policy. Enron anyone?
This is how the Supreme Court states it:
It's a way to avoid direct confrontation.

If they are suspected of wrongdoing, I don't see why not. The Presidents staffers even more so, because they carry powers often exceeding what seem to be rather mundane titles. The people, congress and the courts have the right to know if unethical or illegal activities are taking place at any level of government.

I agree. A governmental standstill would be good.

A dotted line. :88)

I'm with you on that one:D