I don't believe that is what he is saying.
Hastert has a valid point. The White House claims "executive privilege" all the time when Congress asks for records.
Actually, no they don't "all the time." They seem to reserve it for instances in which the Executive is relying on others for information and cosultation, which they want to be freely offered. I have not seen the Executive successfully argue against a valid subpoena for discoverable evidence, i.e. the Nixon tapes. This Administration has never even tried such a thing.
Excuse me .. there is NO RECORD of President Bush EVER using "executive priviledge" - at least not that I know of. Clinton did it all the time - but I cannot remember a single time Bush has done that.
So if you have evidence .. bring it on!
"Hastert has a valid point. The White House claims "executive privilege" all the time when Congress asks for records."
No, he doesn't. This is apples and oranges
1. Congress is not tasked with enforcing the law. The executive branch is.
2. Congress has oversight, not controlling authority. That is why executive privilege exists.
3. Executive Privilege is limited to the office of the president and vice-president, not the entire executive branch.
The consitution spells out the protections from the executive branch afforded congressmen. They are NOT protected from felony prosecutions for criminal activity.