CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Department of Injustice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Department of Injustice - Page 2

post #51 of 70
3/21/07 at 5:59pm
Well then hell, all he has to do is claim that Miers was in the room every time he talked to Rove about this and he's home free.
Reply
post #52 of 70
3/21/07 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Well then hell, all he has to do is claim that Miers was in the room every time he talked to Rove about this and he's home free.
Just the opposite, actually. Having a third party in the room often nullifies attorney-client privilege. An exception to that would be if Miers is considered to be the attorney for the Bush Administration, which would include Rove, and not just the attorney for Bush.
Reply
post #53 of 70
3/21/07 at 6:11pm
Isn't she White House counsel, not Presidential counsel? I hate to try to pull a civics lesson out of The West Wing, but I remember the White House counsel on the show covering everyone, not just POTUS.

Regardless whether Meirs is subpoenaed, they're going to go after Rove. In a way, this mirrors Clinton somewhat -- keep trying and trying and trying and finally get him for something. Except that in Bill's case it was a blowjob and in this case it's a gross misuse of political power.
Reply
post #54 of 70
3/21/07 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Isn't she White House counsel, not Presidential counsel? I hate to try to pull a civics lesson out of The West Wing, but I remember the White House counsel on the show covering everyone, not just POTUS.
Yeah, you're right. I hadn't looked up her title. She was White House counsel until January of this year. That would certainly seem to cover conversations with the deputy chief of staff during her term as WH counsel.
Reply
post #55 of 70
3/21/07 at 6:33pm
Time has a little write-up explaining a bit about executive privilege.
Reply
post #56 of 70
3/21/07 at 6:38pm
Thread Starter 
Oh man, this thing has taken off. I've steeped in midterm papers and haven't been following along as closely as I would have liked. The comparisons to Nixon's scandals are spot on. I'm eager to see how this plays out.

jonvoight's car, thanks for the link. It's quite informative.
Reply
post #57 of 70
3/22/07 at 4:16pm
A post on dailykos brought up 2 interesting facts:

Its likely Abu Gonzales lied to Congress after taking an oath.
Executive privilege does not necessarily apply to communication between the Justice Department and White House Staff.
Reply
post #58 of 70
3/22/07 at 5:19pm
Hey, Richard, not to play "Everything I Know About Professional Politics I Learned From West Wing," but I think there's a line in the whole MS scandal about White House Counsel and members of the executive branch not sharing attorney-client privileges, and thus being subject to subpoena.
Reply
post #59 of 70
3/23/07 at 1:27am
John Dean (former White House counsel) brought a good point I hadn't heard before on Countdown. Executive Privelege only applies to conversations with the president. As the president does not recall being involved with any of these conversations, executive privelege is irrelevant.
Reply
post #60 of 70
3/23/07 at 3:28pm
Well then unless Bush was involved, they can have lots of fun with the staff.
Reply
post #61 of 70
3/23/07 at 11:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk
John Dean (former White House counsel) brought a good point I hadn't heard before on Countdown. Executive Privelege only applies to conversations with the president. As the president does not recall being involved with any of these conversations, executive privelege is irrelevant.
Yeah, Tony Snow kind of screwed the pooch on that one during one of the press gaggles.
Reply
post #62 of 70
3/24/07 at 1:07am
Usually I find Glenn Beck to be only mildly irritating, but he has been trying to divert attention from this story with such nonsense as "We should focus on Iraq"

Keep trying to pull the wool over the eyes.
Reply
post #63 of 70
3/26/07 at 6:01pm
Gonzales aide Monica Goodling to invoke Fifth Amendment during testimony for totally overblown non-criminal firing inquiry.
Reply
post #64 of 70
3/26/07 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd
overblown non-criminal firing inquiry.
Right. Overblown.
Reply
post #65 of 70
3/26/07 at 6:38pm
I think he was being sarcastic.

But damn... if you take the Fifth... under this particular fact pattern, you got something to hide.
Reply
post #66 of 70
3/26/07 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
Right. Overblown.
Sarcasm. Believe me, TPM probably gets 25% of its daily hits just from my refresh button.
Reply
post #67 of 70
3/26/07 at 8:02pm
Ah, didn't realize. My bad. I read the post quickly and didn't stop to think too much about it.
Reply
post #68 of 70
3/29/07 at 2:47pm
Also, if Rove's emails all came from his RNC email account, how in any way, does that fall under the umbrella of executive privilege?
Reply
post #69 of 70
3/29/07 at 5:13pm
During today's testimony, Sampson admitted that he suggested firing Patrick Fitzgerald, though he "doesn't know why" and may have done it "just to get a reaction." Later on, the following longshot question from Schumer:

Q: Did Karl Rove have anything to do with your suggestion that Fitzgerald be fired?

*long pause*

A: I don't remember.


Oooooooooh.
Reply
post #70 of 70
4/5/07 at 1:26am
I started another thread. Boo hiss!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Department of Injustice