Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have a question about this that perhaps someone on here can
answer..Why would Hillary need executive privilege, she cannot be forced
to testify against her husband.
Sue
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legal scholars voiced skepticism and critics
saw Nixonian abuses Tuesday in the White House effort to use
executive privilege to shield aides from questions about conversations
with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
President Clinton himself refused to discuss the issue when asked about
it during his Africa trip. But sources familiar with the Monica Lewinsky
investigation back home said the administration was trying to claim the
privilege to prevent testimony related to discussions with the first
lady.
And scholars saw that attempt as a daring one.
``It's a bold claim and quite possibly a real stretch of the doctrine of
executive privilege,'' said Mark Rozell, a political science professor
at
American University and author of a book on executive privilege.
``This is a step too far,'' said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at
George
Washington University and a frequent litigator on constitutional
matters.
``The first lady is not the tsarina. ... It is difficult to see how the
first lady
can assert executive privilege when she is not an executive of this
government.''
Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson raised a comparison with
former President Nixon's failed effort to keep White House tapes
private during the Watergate investigation, accusing Clinton of
``putting
the nation through a constitutional crisis.''
Nicholson said the president's use of executive privilege was
``absolutely bogus, especially with regard to conversations his aides
had
with Hillary Rodham Clinton.''
Executive privilege is the legal doctrine that allows the president to
keep
talks with his aides confidential, a privilege traditionally limited to
matters
related to his official duties. The idea of applying the doctrine to
conversations involving the first lady has never been tested in court.
White House lawyers invoked executive privilege last week, seeking to
shield grand jury testimony by communications director Sidney
Blumenthal and longtime Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey. Starr has
suspected Blumenthal, a protege of Mrs. Clinton, of leaking information
to reporters about the conduct of his prosecutors.
Sources familiar with the investigation said the White House may point
to two court rulings in arguing that aides' conversations with Mrs.
Clinton should be shielded: one in which the first lady was considered a
government official as head of the 1993 health care task force and
another extending executive privilege to presidential advisers.
Prosecutors and attorneys for Clinton met for 90 minutes in closed
session Tuesday before Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson. They
declined to discuss the subject of the meeting.
In Africa, Clinton was asked whether claiming the privilege would risk
sending a signal that he has something to hide. He told reporters:
``That's a question that's being asked and answered back home by the
people who are responsible for (it) and I don't believe I should be
discussing that.''
``I haven't discussed it with the lawyers,'' Clinton said. ``I don't
know.
You should ask someone who does.''
Barbara Olson, a former federal prosecutor and one of the founders of
the conservative Independent Women's Forum, said the administration's
attempt to apply executive privilege in the Lewinsky case was a stalling
tactic that was certain to be rejected by the courts ultimately.
``Presidential dating habits'' don't fall within the bounds of
privileged
communications, she said.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized Clinton's move to claim
executive privilege for his aides and also Judge Johnson's decision to
keep the matter behind closed doors.
`The public should not be left in the dark as these vital issues about
our
system of government are debated and decided,'' said ACLU legal
director Steven Shapiro.
With the American people largely shrugging off the whole Lewinsky
matter, pollsters predicted little risk to Clinton in claiming executive
privilege, comparisons to Nixon notwithstanding.
``This question about executive privilege is very much a part of the ins
and outs of a story that the American public isn't tracking,'' said
Andrew
Kohut, director of Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Likewise, Democratic pollster Mark Mellman predicted the issue would
have ``zero effect'' on the president's public standing.
``People don't believe the ultimate objective here is the search for
truth
... so that tends to make less important the concept of executive
privilege,'' Mellman said.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
