Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WalleyB who wrote (7832)	2/20/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

The ever-supercilious ex-WH Counsel Jack Quinn was on PBS's News Hour last night arguing that executive privilege was much broader that it actually is. Quinn had the gall to correct C. Boyden Gray on the state of the law - yet Gray was correct! It never ceases to amaze how the Clintonistas can dissemble so unabashedly. Here's the NYT's lead editorial on the subject: February 20, 1998 Stretching the Privilege It remains unclear whether the White House will formally invoke executive privilege to shield important Presidential associates like Bruce Lindsey from having to answer certain questions regarding President Clinton's relationship with the former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But there are strong signals it may come to that. A formidable squad of 10 lawyers accompanied Mr. Lindsey to the Federal courthouse in Washington yesterday, where they conferred privately with prosecutors and the judge overseeing the grand jury before Mr. Lindsey began his second day of testimony. The White House has also retained outside counsel to represent the President should he choose to assert executive privilege. As Mr. Clinton's many lawyers must surely know, however, his chances of winning a fight with the Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, over the privilege issue are slim. Federal court rulings have consistently interpreted executive privilege to protect a fairly narrow band of official Presidential dealings, involving national security and other critical matters of governance. It is improbable that the Federal courts would now broaden that band to block important testimony in a pending criminal case, especially one where the conduct of the President and some of his most senior advisers is the very thing under investigation. Precisely which of Mr. Starr's many questions has provoked the White House to even think about asserting executive privilege is not clear. But so long as Mr. Starr and his team of prosecutors stick to the pertinent issues of possible perjury, suborning of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, and do not stray into protected deliberations concerning, say, military options in Iraq, they are merely doing their job. To assert executive privilege under such circumstances would stretch a vital constitutional protection beyond recognition. It would be in the nation's best interest for both parties to reach a reasonable compromise that keeps the investigation moving forward and avoids a diversionary court battle. Stonewalling by the White House under a flimsy cover of Presidential privilege can only prolong the public's agony in a tawdry case. nytimes.com