Presidential privilege

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 4:50 pm

Not the privilege of a person serving as president--but the privilege of the office. Until Carter, presidents were pretty much able to get away with keeping anything and everything they wanted to, private. Nixon unwillingly changed this with the Watergate tapes (not to mention all the other, far more unpleasant stuff that was on 'em).

But Carter, in an effort at greater transparency, actually encouraged the passage of the Presidential Papers Act. Basically, it states that if a matter isn't top secret due to natoinal interests, it can only be held from the public for 12 years, then released. This remained in effect and respected until this past November, when Dubbyah instructed all White House and Cabinet employees not to release any information to Congress, whether it referred to matters older than 12 years, or hardly top secret.

Fast forward to last week. **** Cheney, heavy investor in Enron, secured the hiring of several former Enron executives to the Cabinet after meeting with its chairman, a close friend of his. Asked to testify about matters relating to possible conflict of interest, Cheney refused, citing national interests.

Does the president have the right to keep private any of the conversations or documents of his employees, if it is felt that they may be important in a Congressional investigation? Where does the line exist between privilege, and abuse? On which side of the line is Cheney, and by inference, Bush?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:03 pm

No. I can’t see how meetings concerning energy policy could have anything to do with significant national secrets – at least not the kind of secrets that even congress can’t know about. If congressional panels investigation Enron and potential conflicts of interest want to see the meeting notes, they should be allowed. Bush’s recent Presidential Order is flagrant abuse of the powers of the office, and was no doubt orchestrated by Cheney et.al. for just this purpose.

Witch King · Post by **Witch King** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:08 pm

He's over the line. The relationship between the current administration and Enron is deeper, or rather broader, reaching than just Cheney as you know. At least seven top officials have had dealings for a long time, and more importantly recently, with Enron.

He's using the logic backwards- not revealing information has nothing to do with protecting the public interest at this point - in fact it is showing that he acted against it by NOT revealing it sooner. It is clear many officials knew what was going on- and I have no moral issue with them not revealing it earlier- but it is clearly against the law (as clear as those things can be).

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:27 pm

A question that has been rolling through my mind is bush's decision back in november precedented because of the foresight of enron's decline and it's ties to the administration. Perhaps it is going way out on a limb. The decision, i believe, came about because of info leaked to congress of our efforts in afghanistan and its potential conflict with those efforts. Is it possible the decision had a dual meaning.

**runs for cover**

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:35 pm

I think it rather ironic that the same people who castigated Bill Clinton for invoking executive privilege in some his various investigations are now saying that Dubya should be able protect certain documents and relationships. Didn't the Republicans compel Secret Service agents to testify about what they may or may not have known about Bill's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and thus possibly jeopardising the security of the President?

I personally do believe in executive privilege, and that some of the dealings the higher-ups in the government should be off limits to broad investigations (such as the one currently involving Enron and the one looking into the Lewinsky thing). However, the Republicans can't have it both ways. If Bill's buddies had to testify about things which should have been covered by executive privilege, then Dubya's buddies should, too.

On a related note, whether or not the Bush administration has done anything wrong, either legally or ethically, Dubya and Chaney have made a horrible mistake by letting the appearance of a cover-up show its face. Did they learn nothing from Clinton (how not to handle things)? Or Reagan (who immediately 'fessed up to selling guns for drugs and hostages in Nicaragua; after that, there was no more damage to control, the worse was out)?

Now the Democrats smell blood in the water and even though Dubya has very high approval numbers now, that could change drastically in the next ten months before elections. With a recession, deficit spending and a perception that the president cares more about Big Business than the average worker, the 90% approval rating Dubya has today could evaporate in a matter of weeks, especially if it looks like the country is in the midst of another presidential scandal and cover-up.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 10:31 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
On a related note, whether or not the Bush administration has done anything wrong, either legally or ethically, Dubya and Chaney have made a horrible mistake by letting the appearance of a cover-up show its face. Did they learn nothing from Clinton (how not to handle things)? Or Reagan (who immediately 'fessed up to selling guns for drugs and hostages in Nicaragua; after that, there was no more damage to control, the worse was out)?

Well said. But Bush, rightly or wrongly, has taken an adversarial position with Congress behind the scenes since he took office. He's already butted heads and lost a big battle: it was Bush's wanting to rub Vermont Senator Jeffords' face in it by not inviting the Senator to the signing of a law he'd been instrumental in advocating--all because Bush wanted Jeffords' vote on some nominations--that drove the Senator out of the party, and gave the Democrats the Senate. Bush does not appear to learn from his mistakes. At least, not yet.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 11:50 pm

I think that Dubya is surrounded by people stronger than he is. His advisors are mostly his father's friends; they're all older and more experienced. He's the new kid on the block, and in my opinion, started the last presidential race as a "throw-away" candidate. However, because of Gore running a botched campaign, Dubya was able to dictate the terms of the race, took advantage of a slumping economy, and found himself as the most powerful man on the face of the Earth.

Unfortunately, I think that Dubya and many of his advisors live in an 80s time warp where right-wing Republicans can impose their will on everyone, and he makes unilateral decisions based on his agenda, without concern about everyone else's. That's worked fine for him so far, and in a way the "war" on terrorism has helped him out; any attack on him or his policies can be branded "un-American", so Dubya has become more brazen.

Having said that (and in a way trying to bring myself back to the intent of fable's thread), when **** Cheney [ed.--He's the Veep; I can't help what his name is] says that he's refusing to turn over memos to the GAO because it sets a bad precedent and that the Congress has no jurisdiction or authority in that area, I believe him, and I also believe that he's right. It just so happens that not turning over those memos may get him out of a little bit of trouble, but that's what executive privilege is for.

Cheney's bigger problem is that there is lots of tape of lots of influential people (ie-Trent Lot, Dennis Hastert, **** Armey [ed--can't help that either], Phil Gramm, Tom DeLay, etc.) saying that certain things are not covered by executive privilege and those same things are what Cheney is holding. The GOP got burned over the last presidential scandal and if they don't play their cards right (and more carefully), they'll get burned by this one too.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Jan 30, 2002 11:58 pm

A few days ago I saw these numbers on CNN:

That 212 out of the 248 congressmen investigating Enron got donations from the company, and that all in all 3/4 of the house and 1/2 of the senate got contriburions from the company.

I wouldn't expcet an objective invetigation.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 12:02 am

In brief - I certainly think Cheney is over the line. I also think all democratic societies should strive for as open a flow of information to the public as possible. It seems like the definition of "secret due to national security" needs to become more clarified and detailed. If confidentiality priviliges should not be abused by individual politicians, I think a strict set of rules and a regulating, objective instance, is needed.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 12:23 am

Originally posted by Morlock
A few days ago I saw these numbers on CNN:

That 212 out of the 248 congressmen investigating Enron got donations from the company, and that all in all 3/4 of the house and 1/2 of the senate got contriburions from the company.

I wouldn't expcet an objective invetigation.

I think that the amount of money that was given in campaign contributions is less important than the influence Enron may or may not have had within the White House in determining national energy policy. I think Dubya got something like $400,000 from Enron over his entire political career, which is pocket change.

What is more disturbing are the close connections between Enron executives (ie-Phil Gramm's wife, Ralph Reed, etc.) and the Bush administration. On one hand, people will argue that politics is really a good 'ole boy's club and Dubya and his buddies are bringing their home-grown cronies in; it happens all the time, "You help me out and I'll get you an appointment in the administration." On the other, if the White House adopted an energy policy because of Enron's undue influence or some other "special" access, then we have a serious problem.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 7:47 am

The situation is similar in many ways to what i said in the Politics thread. In that i stated that the UK government are the only organisation that can fire the people who regulate them.

This whole situation smacks of the same abuse of power and/or confidence. How can a nations government be taken seriously when they could be funded by a third party interested only in their personal power, also not answerable to the American public.

McBane · Post by **McBane** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 12:57 pm

I think HLD is right on the mark.

It is amazing that Bush's administration thinks it is immune to an aggressive congressional inquiry. The democrats do smell blood, and will pursue this for the rest of Bush's reign.

The sad thing of all of this is that once again the US taxpayers get to pay some lawyers to chase the White House. It really angers me to think that Ken Starr racked up over $55 million chasing Clinton, and what became of it??? Now we will get to do it all over again.

This is compounded as I finished my 2001 taxes over the weekend and realized how much the government took (stole) from me last year.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 1:23 pm

Originally posted by McBane
The sad thing of all of this is that once again the US taxpayers get to pay some lawyers to chase the White House. It really angers me to think that Ken Starr racked up over $55 million chasing Clinton, and what became of it??? Now we will get to do it all over again.

The difference between Clinton and Bush/Cheney is that the former was literally trapped: he was supposedly being asked by Congress about his tax records, when they popped the question about extra-marital affairs. Bush/Cheney is a much clearer case involving issues of executive privilege and private influence, not involving entrapment. The Republicans launched an expensive manhunt on every aspect of Clinton's past in the hopes of digging up dirt. If a prosecutor is appointed now, there would be a much clearer focus to the case.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 1:56 pm

Originally posted by McBane
The democrats do smell blood, and will pursue this for the rest of Bush's reign.

I wish it were so. IMHO, the Democrats tend to play too nice when it comes to this sort of thing. Iran-Contra should have been a huge smudge on Reagan's presidency, but it is largely forgotten because it was not pursued as aggressively as it should have been. The Republicans yapped at Clinton's heals for 8 long years, but I don't see the Democrats willing to sink as low.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 2:26 pm

Part of Iran-Contra was that Reagan admitted everything he did wrong and the story never got any bigger. This is classic damage-control procedure, and if Clinton had done the same thing, he never would have been impeached.

The Democrats are a little smarter than the Republicans because they let the more extreme wings of the GOP go overboard and they end up self-destructing and marginalising themselves. If I were a Democratic strategist, I'd start showing tape of prominent Republicans getting on their high horses during the Clinton years and let them eat their words during this whole Enron mess.

They won't be as aggressive or confrontational, but I think that Dubya is in for some tough fights in the next couple of years that he probably won't win. Take for example, the current budget battle. Remember a couple of years ago when the government shut down because Congress couldn't pass a budget? Who got most of the blame? The Republican Congress.

Now, with a showdown over the budget, the disappearing surplus, and a slumping economy coming up, the cureall for the Democrats is to point at Dubya's tax cut and blame everything on him. They don't have to be angry or ugly about it, they just have to say, "Well before the tax cut, we had a balanced budget, now thanks to Dubya, we're back to deficit spending." That it. End of soundbyte. And what can the Republicans come back with? Nothing short enough that doesn't sound like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that no one wants to hear.

Rightly or wrongly, Dubya has given the Democrats lots of ammunition on a number of issues and I'd say he's going to spend the remainder of his presidency paying for it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Feb 01, 2002 11:28 pm

Latest word is that the Department of Justice has ordered the executive branch not to destroy any papers referring to Enron, and that Bush has replied with compliance. At the same time, the Congressional Comittee investigating this matter has announced that they are receiving absolutely no cooperation from Enron executives.

Both matters bring the smell of a Congressionally appointed Prosecutor that much closer.