Didn't we have this same situation a few years ago? Someone wanted to subpoena Bush's closest advisors, Bush argued that would not be in the best interest of the office of the president, the courts agreed, and that was it?
Why are we rehashing this? If there is no evidence of a crime, and there isn't, what the f**k is going on???? On 3/22/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > WillBo wrote: > > Executive Privilege covers whatever-the-hell the President wants it to > cover. > > > > That's certainly what Mr. Bush is claiming, but I wonder if that would > hold up in court. For example, let's say I'm an aide speaking with > the President about topic X. Topic X would be covered by exec priv. > > But let's say later I'm talking about how much the Viking's suck in > the bar. Under Bush's claim, that'd also be covered under exec priv. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2 Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:231140 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
