Could the persecution of Bill Clinton be a good thing? Aides CAN testify.

ck4829

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:23 AM
Original message

Could the persecution of Bill Clinton be a good thing? Aides CAN testify.

Bush says aides are under Executive Privilege, but the Persecutors of Bill Clinton didn't let that stop them when he was President.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first President since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a Federal judge ruled Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jim__

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message

1. Do you think the current SC would hestitate to overturn their own ruling?

Vote one way when it's Clinton, and the exact opposite when it's bush? I mean in bush v Gore, they did declare their own decision not a valid precedent, essentially admitting that it was pure bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MiniMe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:33 AM
Response to Original message

2. It did establish precident, the problem is that * will claim national security

Everything has changed since 911, etc. So while it may help that the aides testified, the subject of the testimony is completely different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #2

6. Allow me to translate: "Everything has changed since 911" really means...

"It's not illegal when WE do it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MiniMe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. Perfect answer, I love it

I believe that Nixon used that defense too, when the President does it, its not ilegal. He got shot down on that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dhalgren

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message

3. Of course aides CAN testify; Bush just says no.

What part of "no" do you not understand? Bush is not bound by precedent, by law, or by any power. He can, does, and will do whatever he chooses. Has someone not been paying attention? Who will make Bush's aides or staff testify, if Bush says no? Let me know when you find out who will make them testify. TIA :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AndyA

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #3

5. Which is exactly why Congress needs to start impeachment proceedings against

Bush's sorry ass.

The politics would change dramatically if this happened. No one would believe executive privilege then, they'd just think Bush was covering up his crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mz Pip

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:38 AM
Response to Original message

4. Clinton's aids could testify

Bush's won't have to. I'd put money on it. Because it's war time. OR because it would undermine Bush's presidency. Or it would be a waste of time since they'll all just lie anyway.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dhalgren

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. Bush is no more of a "war President" than Nixon was...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ellenfl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #4

10. or because any judge that decides will be bush appointed. eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mz Pip

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. Bush appointed judges

who believe in the imperial presidency - though I don't think that's really the official term. That's what it is, though. Imperial president. Bunnypants can do what he wants, whenever he wants, as can his VP, aids.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

On the Road

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message

9. They Also Established the Precedent

that when a president receives legal advice from a government lawyer, it is not protected by attorney-client privilege. Horrible decision, but it might come back to haunt Bush.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ellenfl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. one can only hope . . . but not hold breath. eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dhalgren

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-21-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #9

13. Such precedents only work if the President respects the power of Congress,

Bush doesn't. Conyers was asking the pitiful question, today, of McNulty, if the DoJ would act on behave of Congress in executing contempt charges against Administration members who ignored subpoenas. McNulty said he didn't know. Can you believe that? The number two man in the Justice Department tells the Head of the Justice Committee that he doesn't know whether the Justice Department will enforce the law or not! This is where we are. This is how things work. Congress can enforce nothing, without an Executive branch that at least has some members willing to uphold the law and the Constitution. I haven't seen any of these types in the Executive branch lately...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 14th 2024, 10:45 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.