Bush is gone, but he's still claiming "executive privilege"??

[Thomas Veil]

A Long-Lived Privilege? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240/page/1)
Bush lawyer directs Rove not to talk to Congress—once again
By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration.

On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove—even after he leaves office.

A nearly identical letter was also sent by Fielding the day before to a lawyer for former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition with the House Judiciary Committee. That letter reasserted the White House position that Miers has "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress about anything she did while she worked at the White House—a far-reaching claim that is being vigorously disputed by lawyers for the House of Representatives in court.

The letters set the stage for what is likely to be a highly contentious legal and political battle over an unresolved issue: whether a former president can assert "executive privilege"—and therefore prevent his aides from testifying before Congress—even after his term has expired.

"To my knowledge, these [letters] are unprecedented," said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in executive privilege issues. "I'm aware of no sitting president that has tried to give an insurance policy to a former employee in regard to post-administration testimony." Shane likened the letter to Rove as an attempt to give his former aide a 'get-out-of-contempt-free card.'"I can't express what I'm feeling about this.

Is it possible to be dumbfounded and not really surprised at the same time?

[NT1440]

Well, ex presidents do have alot of priviledges. They can get daily CIA intelligence briefings if they choose. I also think they get secret service protection for life.

Edit: just finished reading it. WTF is this ********!?

This is dirty politics at its finest.

[jonbravo77]

I can't express what I'm feeling about this.

Is it possible to be dumbfounded and not really surprised at the same time?

Yes it is, because you are not the only one..

[NT1440]

Its obvious he's hiding things, I just cant wait to hear the scope of them. Unfortunately I don't think Obama wants to go after him.

[jonbravo77]

Well, ex presidents do have alot of priviledges. They can get daily CIA intelligence briefings if they choose. I also think they get secret service protection for life.

Nope, 10 years... But since Bush really pissed a lot of ppl off, they will make the exception more than likely

In 1994, Congress amended the post-presidency protection rules, deciding to offer Secret Service protection for only 10 years after a president leaves office. Specific threats can spark exceptions to the 10-year rule.

Link to article. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061218/ai_n16895839)

[NT1440]

Nope, 10 years...



Link to article. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061218/ai_n16895839)

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg

Thanks.

What other things do they get, besides the title "Mr. President"

[rdowns]

Thanks.

What other things do they get, besides the title "Mr. President"



Pension Info

Presidential Pension Information

The retirement benefits received by former Presidents include a pension, Secret Service protection, and reimbursements for staff, travel, mail, and office expenses.

The Presidential pension is not a fixed amount, rather it matches the current salary of Cabinet members (or Executive Level I personnel), which is $191,300/year as of March, 2008 .

[Rodimus Prime]

It sounds like he is using executive priviege over times while he was in office. AKA he still has the right to use those on any matter dealing with him during his time in office.

This is to prevent things like what congress and lets face it the dems are going to want to do the 2nd he is gone. Same would be true in the revise was true (bush being a Dem and the rep having control) it all politics.

[mactastic]

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes before Republicans who are supporting Bush's claims to executive privilege are calling for top Obama staffers to testify before Congress.

I'm sure we all know that they will have no problem being for executive privilege before they are against it.

[NT1440]

It sounds like he is using executive priviege over times while he was in office. AKA he still has the right to use those on any matter dealing with him during his time in office.

This is to prevent things like what congress and lets face it the dems are going to want to do the 2nd he is gone. Same would be true in the revise was true (bush being a Dem and the rep having control) it all politics.
So the president has the ability to cover his ass basically? Even if he's done illegal things hes keeping us from knowing about them.

[Rodimus Prime]

So the president has the ability to cover his ass basically? Even if he's done illegal things hes keeping us from knowing about them.

pretty much. that and prevent his dirty laundry from being aired.
I bet if you dig in to lets say Clinton presidency I bet you could find lot of questionable things that we the public never knew about and executive privileges covered it up. Same goes for after Obama leaves office.

Bush is also taking a lot of heat because he was had the lowest disapproval on record so people just want to dig up dirt about him. Weather or not what he did was legal.

[leekohler]

pretty much. that and prevent his dirty laundry from being aired.
I bet if you dig in to lets say Clinton presidency I bet you could find lot of questionable things that we the public never knew about and executive privileges covered it up. Same goes for after Obama leaves office.

Bush is also taking a lot of heat because he was had the lowest disapproval on record so people just want to dig up dirt about him. Weather or not what he did was legal.

We already know that he violated international law. He also broke the law with his domestic surveillance BS. Do you really think he did nothing else?

BTW- the Clinton presidency was raked over the coals. But Clinton isn't the point- Bush is. Quit deflecting. It's not OK if someone else did it too.

[Rodimus Prime]

We already know that he violated international law. He also broke the law with his domestic surveillance BS. Do you really think he did nothing else?

BTW- the Clinton presidency was raked over the coals. But Clinton isn't the point- Bush is. Quit deflecting. It's not OK if someone else did it too.

and the end of the day it will fall under executive privilege and nothing really can be done after that. instead this will turn into a huge waste of time and money like the entire impeachment process of Clinton.

[NT1440]

and the end of the day it will fall under executive privilege and nothing really can be done after that. instead this will turn into a huge waste of time and money like the entire impeachment process of Clinton.

Its not impeachment that could happen. Assuming he doesnt weasel his way out he or more likely whoever the scapegoat will be could actually serve jailtime.

[Macaddicttt]

Wait, doesn't executive privilege exist so that presidents can receive candid advice from their advisers, so that advisers don't have to hold their tongue around the president? How does it matter whatsoever if Bush gets candid advice anymore? I'm sure that the courts will force Rove to obey the subpoenas.

[leekohler]

and the end of the day it will fall under executive privilege and nothing really can be done after that. instead this will turn into a huge waste of time and money like the entire impeachment process of Clinton.

No, he won't. And it wouldn't be a waste of time. They got nothing on Clinton but a lie about a BJ. We already know of some illegal things Bush did. How much more do you think there is?

[Thomas Veil]

I wonder...if Rove basically thumbs his nose at Conyers, does Conyers have the cajones to call for him to be forcibly brought before Congress?

[iPhil]

I also think they get secret service protection for life.




The last 2 people will be that lifetime security detail is Fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton and Fmr Sen. / Sec. of State (Currently) Hillary Clinton

Info. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#Protection_of_former_Presidents_and_First_Ladies) and Look @ 3rd point of Authorization (http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/protection.shtml)



Nope, 10 years... But since Bush really pissed a lot of ppl off, they will make the exception more than likely



Link to article. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061218/ai_n16895839)



The only people that can change US Secret Service detail term is Congress not Fmr Presidents....

[mactastic]

pretty much. that and prevent his dirty laundry from being aired.
I bet if you dig in to lets say Clinton presidency I bet you could find lot of questionable things that we the public never knew about and executive privileges covered it up. Same goes for after Obama leaves office.

Bush is also taking a lot of heat because he was had the lowest disapproval on record so people just want to dig up dirt about him. Weather or not what he did was legal.
So let's dig into Clinton's presidency too. The question isn't a partisan one. The question is whether Americans are better served if a POTUS is permitted to "prevent his dirty laundry from being aired". If there's effin dirty laundry (aka, criminal behavior), let's have it aired; I don't care what party shat the bed.

[mrkramer]

It sounds like he is using executive priviege over times while he was in office. AKA he still has the right to use those on any matter dealing with him during his time in office.

That is what it looks like to me too. and if the courts have decided that he could use executive priveliege while in office as long as he is only trying to use it now for things that happened while he was in office there shouldn't be a problem with it.

[Queso]

Unfortunately I don't think Obama wants to go after him.
It's not up to Obama, it's up to Pelosi.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Democrats havent held Bush and his team of draft dodgers accountable for anything they have done. They with their tail between their legs seem to have given Bush everything he and the republicans wanted that past 8 years including a false war, a destroyed economy and no accountability for anyone in govt.

[NT1440]

It's not up to Obama, it's up to Pelosi.

What I meant is he's already said he has not interest in dealing with the past, and hopefully doesnt pressure the dems to stand down.

[iAthena]

I wonder...if Rove basically thumbs his nose at Conyers, does Conyers have the cajones to call for him to be forcibly brought before Congress?

Would a couple hours of, "I don't recollect that conversation," really serve any purpose? There's no one in congress that's going to force Rove to discuss private conversations he held with the President regardless of what they say or do.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, as I recall, a number of Watergate white collar crooks who "couldn't recall that conversation" went to jail.

[MacNut]

Well, as I recall, a number of Watergate white collar crooks who "couldn't recall that conversation" went to jail.Wasn't there also taped evidence that proved their guilt.

[CalBoy]

It sounds like he is using executive priviege over times while he was in office. AKA he still has the right to use those on any matter dealing with him during his time in office.

No, the executive privilege is not indefinite. When the US Supreme Court acknowledged Nixon's claim of executive privilege, they accepted it only under the notion that the information itself was sensitive to national security or some other relevant crisis/situation.

Bush can try to make the claim that something he discussed with Rove is still pertinent to national security, but a judge can decide that for himself in camera just like the original 8 Supreme Court justices did in 1974.

Given that the information is probably stale by that point, Rove will likely have to testify, likely under immunity, because he can simply use the 5th Amendment at will in such a situation.

This is to prevent things like what congress and lets face it the dems are going to want to do the 2nd he is gone. Same would be true in the revise was true (bush being a Dem and the rep having control) it all politics.

It's hardly politics. This is clearly at attempt to keep Rove quiet about something Bush doesn't want released. Pelosi and Reid have made it clear that they're not going to go after the previous administration at this time. Instead, this seems to be an attempt to cut historians out of the process and keep the previous administration's record of being one of the most clandestine and secretive in history.

That is what it looks like to me too. and if the courts have decided that he could use executive priveliege while in office as long as he is only trying to use it now for things that happened while he was in office there shouldn't be a problem with it.

There is a problem with it. If the information no longer has security implications, then executive privilege no longer applies.

In order for information to be kept secret, there must be a compelling state interest involved. Nixon learned this the first time not with Watergate and his Supreme Court case, but against the New York Times (and of course the Washington Post as well) in New York Times v US. The Pentagon Papers were still an embarrassment for the Presidency at the time, but they had no national security implications, and that's why the information could not be kept secret. The same rules apply to Bush now.