It concluded: The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual.
Ted Olson
You are being hysterical. The President has claimed executive privilege in this case. If the congress disagrees that executive privilege applies then they can take that to the courts. What would the point of a privilege be if the congress could still compel testimony or documents claimed under the privilege?
Agreed. The poster took the quote out of context, leaving out: “once the president has invoked executive privilege”
>> It concluded: The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual.
Ted Olson
You are being hysterical. The President has claimed executive privilege in this case. If the congress disagrees that executive privilege applies then they can take that to the courts. What would the point of a privilege be if the congress could still compel testimony or documents claimed under the privilege?<<
I try to never post and run - its just been bad circumstances today.
I do wish I’d phrased that initial post better.
But it seems to me there is a fundamental difference IF the article is accurate.
under President Reagan the justice department declined to pursue a contempt of congress prosecution. If the article were correct and President Bush was ordering the Justice department not to pursue a contempt of congress referral against him that would be different.
But its been many hours since then and I still have not have ten minutes to catch up so maybe I did read things wrong or there is new data etc. I’ll find out in the morning how stupid I was in that first post.