[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Snow swallows own old words Snow swallows own old words Posted by Mark Silva at 10:10 am CDT "What kinds of conversations does executive privilege protect?…What are the limits on privilege?'' a newspaper columnist wrote in the spring of 1998 on a subject strangely familiar today. "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,'' the columnist wrote. "Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything.'' "Sounds like you're reading an old column of mine,'' Tony Snow, the Bush administration's press secretary, said today, readily recognizing his nine-year-old words read back to him at a morning press gaggle in which Snow was arguing for Bush's right to protect the internal deliberations of his White House staff. In March 1998, Snow wrote for the Detroit News, in which this column about a president's over-reaching assertions of executive privilege appeared. Today, he is press secretary for another president confronting an aggressive Congress. It's a different situation, Snow insisted today. With credit to Olivier Knox of Agence France-Presse for a deft piece of document research, here is a copy of the column that Snow published in the Detroit News on March 29, 1998: "From Day One, the chief challenge facing this White House has been to place maximum distance between Bill Clinton and his behavior. That strategy has succeeded, but only with the help of mighty assaults on our common sense. "In order to exonerate the chief, aides have made fantastic claims: that they lied to their personal diaries, that Velcro-brained lawyers couldn't recall crucial incidents, that files vanished or moved from one place to another as if by magic, that scores of people with nothing to gain from lying nevertheless perjured themselves, and that this contagion of amnesia, sloppiness and venality was just the gosh darnedest series of coincidences ever witnessed by man or beast. "The wall of separation between Mr. Clinton and his deeds remains strong because minions have stuck to their alibis. But now comes an episode in which the Man from Hope stands alone. It is his recent attempt to claim executive privilege for counselors Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Mr. Clinton can't blame his lawyers for this latest feint. He alone can assert the privilege. The maneuver places him at the heart of his administration's ongoing effort to use executive privilege as a way of concealing the truth about whether the president exposed himself. It is almost impossible to think of this as anything but a tactic to delay independent counsel Kenneth Starr long enough for James Carville and other red-ant assailants to nibble at Mr. Starr and pump as much venom as possible into the political system. "Consider the key issues: . "Is the first lady subject to privilege? "The White House argued during the health-care debacle that Mrs. Clinton wasn't a"special government employee" but just an outsider with superhuman endowments of civic virtue. "But a president can't use privilege to shield someone who doesn't work for him, so the White House must have reversed itself and declared Mrs. Clinton a bona fide official. Unfortunately, that is against the law. The so-called Kennedy rule, drafted after Robert Kennedy served as his brother's attorney general, prohibits presidents from hiring relatives in top positions. "Mrs. Clinton may be stronger and more influential today than ever before. But that still isn't good enough to qualify her as a candidate for coverage by executive privilege. . "What kinds of conversations does executive privilege protect? "The courts have said a president generally can shield communications that reveal fundamental deliberative processes. That includes communications between aides as they try to develop recommendations for their boss. "But protected conversations involve predictable categories: military, diplomatic or national security secrets or law-enforcement activities. Jurists haven't found a constitutional writ for protecting damage-control meetings involving allegations of infidelity. So unless Monica Lewinsky were secretly advising the president on nuclear proliferation or the tobacco deal, the assertion of privilege seems highly suspect. . "What are the limits on privilege? "Earlier in this administration, then-White House legal counsel Lloyd Cutler decreed that the White House never would assert privilege in the face of a criminal investigation. He merely was reiterating long-standing executive-branch policy along those lines. President Ronald Reagan didn't invoke privilege in Iran-contra, and neither did President George Bush. "But precedent is gone, and Mr. Clinton wants to protect conversations about a chubby intern from Hollywood. In so doing, he becomes the first president since Richard Nixon to use executive privilege in a criminal inquiry. "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.''
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
What's changed, Tony?
excellent question
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
After saying "the president has no recall of this incident," a reporter said, how can he claim executive privilege if he wasn't involved? Tony came back with "I'm not going to play junior detective with you." HAHAHAHA, the usual non-answer.
The questioner assumes Bush remembers the advice he is given.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Nothing. Same two party fraud. Ethics, principles, morality, and even logic- are all subjective to the likes of a hack like Snow and the ideologues who live and breath in the two party fraud atmosphere. What was wrong when a Dem did it is ok when a GOPER does it- any slight difference is siezed upon to explain the discrepency no matter how illogical or irrelevent. When A GOPER did it- it was bad- when a Dem does it- it is good. All the same crap. There aren't two people in DC who have enough personal honor to be objective in the application of their sense of right and wrong. The GOP were a bunch of traitors and surrender monkeys when a few of them tried to stop Clinton's bombing of Serbia. Now- the Dems- who are not even trying to stop the war in Iraq but merely dance around the issue with inane sound bits and votes on powerless meaningless resolutions - are the "Traitors" and Abettors or Terrorists. Its tiresome. I used to be shocked by the hypocrisy displayed by these hacks - but no longer. There is literally no lie these guys won't tell- no evil from their masters they won't defend (even sex with underage boys as a few GOPERS tried to float with the Folley thing). What would give me a heart attack is if one paid whore pundit or pol (other than Ron Paul) actually put honor and truth before his ideological allegiances.
Ewww. Jitters for a second.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||