A president’s [tag]executive privilege[/tag] power is complicated and nuanced, and I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert. But I think the political world is about to hear quite a bit more about the principle, what it means, and whether it should apply to the [tag]prosecutor[/tag] [tag]purge[/tag] scandal.
Executive privilege protects confidential deliberations within the executive branch in some circumstances, even in the face of a [tag]subpoena[/tag] from the courts or from Congress. It is meant to ensure that the president receives candid advice from aides, without fear that they will be hauled before Congress or a grand jury to explain themselves….
But even though the legal concept has been in use for more than 200 years, its scope remains largely unsettled. One reason is that clashes between the executive branch and Congress over the privilege, while not uncommon, seldom result in an impasse or find their way into the courts. They are, probably fittingly, worked out through political accommodation.
“What usually breaks the deadlock,” Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law at the Library of Congress, wrote in 2004 in “The Politics of Executive Privilege,” “is a political decision: the determination of lawmakers to use the coercive tools available to them, and political calculations by the executive branch whether a continued standoff risks heavy and intolerable losses for the president.”
A political compromise, at this point, appears unlikely. Congressional Dems want information; the [tag]White House[/tag] is reluctant to share it. The impasse offers little in the way of middle ground, and [tag]Bush[/tag] and his aides appear anxious to bring the matter to court.
How strong is the executive privilege claim in this case? Not very. For one thing, the scandal has nothing to do with “military, diplomatic or national security secrets,” where the Supreme Court says executive privilege is strongest. For another, the Bush administration has already disclosed thousands of pages of documents on the subject, and in some cases, partial disclosure can waive the privilege.
And from a purely political perspective, it hardly helps the White House that the Bush gang used to have an entirely different opinion of executive privilege when Clinton was in office.
Consider this gem from Tony Snow in 1998, which Glenn Greenwald uncovered:
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Well said, Tony. Now let’s apply the same standards to your boss.