If this matter doesn't qualify for coverage under executive privilege, does anything?

These columns have long supported the principle of "executive privilege," though we realize it is not a blanket prerogative: Both the Burger Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon and the Rehnquist Court in Clinton v. Jones upheld the principle that a President cannot use the claims of his office to protect himself from criminal or civil legal claims.

But there's little doubt that this or any other President has the right--we'd say the obligation--to protect the confidentiality of internal White House discussions, especially over Presidential appointments. If Congress can solicit any email concerning advice to the President, or haul any White House official before Congress, then executive branch deliberations will soon be an oxymoron.

Personally, I think the Administration should have told Congress to pound sand from the very beginning of this non-scandal. Prosecutors are Executive Branch appointees, and Congress has no role in interfering with such personnel decisions. Indeed, any attempt to take the authority over such positions from the Executive Branch reeks of the same sort of constitutional infirmity that afflicted the Tenure In Office Act used to impeach Andrew Johnson -- though whether or not the Democrats have enough respect for that document to tread lightly when there is political hay to be made is a doubtful proposition.

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.