Glenn Greenwald, as is his wont, digs deeply:
it is crystal clear (just as it was when Bill Clinton sought to invoke "executive privilege" to resist Grand Jury subpoenas to his aides -- Sidney Blumenthal, Bruce Lindsay and Hillary -- in the Lewinsky investigation -- that the narrowly-construed doctrine of executive privilege does not shield the communications here. When the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974) rejected Nixon's invocation of that privilege in his attempt to resist a Grand Jury Subpoena, this is how they defined its scope (emphasis added):The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.Similar reasoning was invoked by Judge Norma Johnson Holloway in her decision denying Clinton's attempt to rely on this privilege to resist Ken Starr's subpoenas.
But that isn't even the best part. Not even nearly.
Here, for the record, is what no less than Tony Snow had to say about Executive Privilege back in 1998:
Tony Snow - Op-Ed - Dallas Morning News, March 29, 1998(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge"):
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.
That's just the first of many quotes Greenwald has found in just a few short hours.
Karma. Don't cross her. She will always collect on what she is owed. Always.
UPDATE: ThinkProgress adds the following:
According to the Congressional Research Service, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors:
Harold Ickes, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff - 7/28/94George Stephanopoulos, Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy - 8/4/94
John Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary - 8/5/94
Bruce R. Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President - 1/16/96
Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs - 9/11/97
Beth Nolan, Counsel to the President - 5/4/00
In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, Bush allowed only one of his closest advisers, then-Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to appear in front of Congress. He has also refused three invitations from Congress for his aides to testify, a first since President Richard Nixon in 1972. Clinton did not refuse any.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
