REPUBLICANS AGAINST EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

Many Republican polticians oppose the use of executive privilege, or at least they used to. Here is a sampling of what they have had to say about this in the past:


SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT):. The exposure of this abuse was delayed because, in our opinion, the White House stonewalled Chairman Clinger behind the cloak of executive privilege until it faced a possible contempt charge.

“We've asked for documents time after time; executive privilege is commonly asserted. When we really get tough about it, they then give up on executive privilege, and they'll dump documents on us right the evening before the hearings -- documents that should have been given a long time ago to both the House and the Senate committee.”

SEN. TRENT LOTT:
As a -- as a general proposition, I think when the White House uses -- tries to use executive privilege or attorney-client, you know, arguments, to not supply information and to answer questions, that that's a very weak defense.

SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER:
And I believe that if that information is not forthcoming, that under the facts of this case, it cannot be shielded by executive privilege. And it may well be that we're going to find in this context a confrontation between congressional oversight and executive privilege, as we have seen in some cases in the past, and the judicial decision suggests that the congressional oversight is paramount and of tremendous importance.

SEN. MITCH MCCOLLUM:
“I don't think there's any question the president has abused executive privilege here because it can only be used to protect official functions. And in case after case, from Bruce Lindsey all the way through the witnesses who were called before the grand jury who were White House aides were not asserting executive privilege to protect the government official business they were asserting it in order to protect and keep private matters that concern the personal conduct of the president in the matters we've been discussing here.”

SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT (R-MO): I have some real reservations about the president's aggressive use of various privileges. He has repeatedly invoked the executive privilege in judicial proceedings…

SEN. FRED THOMPSON:
“We have seen what appears to be a grudging release of information in dribs and drabs and seemingly only when forced to. We've seen the broadest claims of executive privilege and attorney/client privilege in history. We understand the nature of that game, and we will not play it..”

“On the other hand, the privilege does not extend to wrongdoing and it does not extend to any or all information that might prove embarrassing to the president or others. Although it has not been court-tested, Senator Sam Irvin, the chairman of the Watergate Committee, always took the position that matters that were purely political were not covered by executive privilege when confronted with a legitimate executive need.
What the courts have held is that when it is based only on the broad claim of public interest and confidentiality, executive privilege may be outweighed by other considerations. In other instances, claims of executive privilege are strongest when invoked in the areas of military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.” <1/28/97>

Rep. WILLIAM ZELIFF, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Government Reform and Oversight: I'm very surprised and disappointed to find out that they've claimed executive privilege and I guess we're just going to have to go on from here. But it doesn't make for a good partnership.

REP. BENJAMIN GILLMAN
It's interesting that while the administration has declassified some 5,847 documents pertaining to Guatemala, it's declassified only 21 pertaining to Haiti. These documents that are here this morning illustrate a stark double standard. Moreover, the president has made an extraordinary use of his executive privilege to block a careful scrutiny of about 50 essential documents by this committee, and to those who may say that our investigation is politics, I would point out that our committee does have an important oversight responsibility to discharge on behalf of the American people.

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR. CHAIRMAN HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
”So you know we most recently, we now have a claim of executive privilege over documents that also might be helpful to us in making that assessment, I believe Mr. Chairman, that we had a memo from, this was a letter to Mr. Quinn from, I mean to Mr. Chairman Zeliff from Mr. Quinn, in which he claims executive privilege over a document that might be very helpful to our examination.”

“The Counsel's office made extraordinary efforts -- including having the President claim Executive Privilege over Billy Dale's FBI file -- to keep it from this Committee. It was not until the morning of a scheduled floor vote on contempt that the White House finally produced this file. Why did it take an extraordinary threat of jailing the White House Counsel to produce Billy Dale's file?”

“And after reviewing these documents, it is clear -- and I think it will be clear to you -- that most of these documents are not subject to any reasonable reading of executive privilege doctrine, which is limited and has been ever since President Reagan sort of outlined the policy which the Clinton administration said that they were going to follow. And that policy was that they would not claim executive privilege over documents unless they related to a matter of extreme national security or related directly to the policy-making, decision-making process of the White House, and in no event, whether national security or not, would they claim executive privilege for documents where there was a suggestion of wrong-doing, where there was a possibility of criminal conduct.
And in these documents, I think as you review them you'll -- I hope and I think you'll agree with me that there is no possible basis on which the document of executive privilege, which has existed from President Reagan's time, is valid.,,,
Well, in terms of compromising it, I think the thing that was interesting to me -- the issue I'm raising here is that there was a real effort on the part of the White House to prepare the minority members -- to obstruct or obscure or muddy the waters with regard to all of the people who were being questioned at our hearings and in the depositions.
The other issue really is, though, how in God's name could they claim executive privilege over this kind of -- these kinds of documents? which have nothing to do with decision-making. They have nothing to do with national security. And indeed, in fact, some of the documents do suggest wrongdoing.”

“President Clinton has engaged in an unprecedented misuse of the executive power, use of executive privilege, and obstruction of numerous investigations into the travel office matter.“

“I think it would be very helpful at this point and I would again call upon the president to be responsive to the request we have out there to produce the 2,000 documents or at least to negotiate on those matters, I mean, and they have so far refused to negotiate with us on the grounds that, unless I pull back on the contempt resolution, which I'm not prepared to do, they're not prepared to talk to us. So I'm very hopeful that, as a result of this, there would be a recognition that, number one, they have probably invoked executive privilege inappropriately. I mean, a lot of the documents that they originally invoked, which Attorney General Reno said didn't rise to the level of executive privilege, clearly did not. And we have serious questions about whether the ones they're still holding rise to that level.”

“If the records on Billy Dale were - were subject to Executive Privilege, that's a very broad description of what is Executive Privilege. So I think that they have probably withheld the documents that are of most interest to my committee, and so we are continuing - I wrote a letter to the President today, saying that I could not accept the blanket kind of claim of Executive Privilege over these 2,000 documents. They are probably the most interesting ones to my committee in terms of completing this investigation.”

REP. SHAYS:
It's the same kind of definitive statement that when he went after the--the Republicans for having concern about how Billy Dale was treated and ultimately apologized to him. It's the same kind of definitive statement that was made when we wanted to hold the White House in contempt because they were using executive privilege not to give us this data. And when we finally got some of it, we got 400--a list of 400 people whose FBI files were requested by the White House after they no longer worked in the White House.

Rep. STEVEN SCHIFF (R-NM):
“The fact of the matter is that these documents not only were not revealed by the White House - which you'd think they would have done if this was an innocent bureaucratic mistake - but we had to pry them loose against their claim of executive privilege, which is normally a national security reason to keep things from Congress.”

NEWT GINGRICH:
“In the republic, by definition, we are all subordinate to the law. That means you can't claim executive privilege for frivolous reasons. It means you can't abuse the law. It means you can't abuse power. It means you can't suborn witnesses. It means you can't bribe people.’

DAN BURTON : The committee has not received all subpoenaed records and the White House counsel has indicated that the president will be asserting executive privilege over an unspecified amount of documents. The American people have a right to know.”

KENNETH STARR:“White House attorneys are in a different category. They represent the government and ultimately, they represent "we the people." “7

HALEY BARBOUR
“You know, this is an administration, whether it's the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administrator's memos about Clinton's failed drug policy and the danger it poses to the country, they cover that up under executive privilege…”

"Bill Clinton can try to run from criticism of his drug policies by invoking executive privilege, but he can't hide the consequences of his utter failure in the war on drugs -- it's all too plain in the lives of the skyrocketing number of teenagers who've fallen prey to drugs on his watch This is the Pentagon Papers of the War on Drugs."

“Clinton is claiming executive privilege to keep Congress and the country from learning conclusively that he knew his drug policy was failing and that he cared so little about the drug crisis that he didn't change course.

It is always different when the shoe is on the other foot.

use their words to defeat them

As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as executive privilege. I held that proposition during the Watergate investigations and hearings, when I was a student majoring in political science at San Francisco State University. There is no constitutional basis for executive privilege. It is not mentioned in the Constitution and there is nothing in the Constitution that remotely implies that the president has any such privilege.

Even though I regarded the investigations into President Clinton's affairs to be largely a witch hunt, I did not believe that Clinton had any basis to deny Congress any requested documents. Also, in my view, Paula Jones had the right to take him to court. The fact he was a sitting president was not an excuse. After all, I saw nothing wrong with indicting a sitting president in 1974 for serious crimes.

Between indicing a sitting president for serious crimes and civil lawsuits.

The president, no matter who, shouldn't have to be distracted with civil lawsuits while in office, as people will come up with all types of crazy things to sue him/her for and essentially tie up the country while doing it.

HOWEVER, the Statute of limitations on such actions should be frozen while the president is in office, so that they can't escape potential liability while in office.

In the absence of that, he is no different than you or I.

Nixon's claim that the president is immune from prosecution was simply ludicrous, but the bluff was good enough to save him from indictment. There is some documentation to the effect that Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski had to get the Grand Jury to back down after it returned an indictment against Nixon on the same day it returned indictments against Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, LaRue and Mardian. Jaworski didn't want the case complicated with the pre-trial motions Nixon's attorneys were sure to make.

Legislative guidelines concerning testimony and documents from the executive branch should also be legislated, but barring that the president has the right and privilege to fully cooperate with congressional investigators and provide them with anything they need. Any work on legislating guidelines should wait until Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are safely out of office.

:)

We could use some more Blue Meanies in Congress right about now.

:toast:

Thanks for the thread Blue Meany

hypocrites supreme.

Politicians' position on the balance of powers between the legislative and executive branches has always been a matter of partisanship, not ideology. Whichever power controls the presidency wants a broad reading of executive privilege, whichever party controls Congress wants a narrow one. And a given pol's position on the matter might change with the next election. On the whole, Dems are no less guilty of this than Pubs. Why would they be? There might be ideological aspects to, say, the question of federal power vs. state autonomy; but, WRT to the balance of power within the federal government, neither party favors a strong executive or a weak executive as a matter of principle.

:hi:

Let's see some "bi-partisan" action.

Specter is the worst offender, with his rant against and vote for suspending habeus corpus. He knows what's right and does wrong anyways.

citizens, the neo-cons believe laws should be used to oppress people.

Most of the laws passed in this nation have been used not to protect people, but rather bring the heavy hand of government down upon us. Going back to the Alien & Sedition Act, presidents have sought increased freedom in how they administer the nation's affairs...only in the last century has the grab for power, and the gain of such power come about to a great degree. Reagan did much to open the doors to abuse, but it is bush that has taken this nation down a road that we should not be forging. He wishes to establish a Royal aspect to the presidency, taking the office above what was ever intended, and the previous GOP congress' did much to advance his power grabbing.

As near as I can figure, bush has not once, kept his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, in fact he has gone to the edge to dismantle our very core of government. He has committed treason for this alone. He should be tried as a traitor to the Document that keeps this nation alive and vibrant.

Congress needs to reign in the power that the executive branch now possesses, the very life of the nation as we know it is at stake. If there is one ray of hope on the horizon, it is that the destruction of the neo-con agenda is well on it's way, and the GOP has been destroyed as it survives now by bush and his miscreants.