But I think that they should do everything in their power, at this time, to avoid promoting the appearance of wrongdoing.
Likewise, "executive privalege" only cuts so far. Sometimes the courts rule that its application is valid and sometimes they do not. [For example: it is now apparantly necessary for secret service agents to act as informants on the president.] If it requires a special prosecutor to get at the info, then probably Cheney is forcing us to use a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.
Then again, if the requested information is so innocent, why would they go through this mess to protect it? Past presidents have in some cases come to a quiet aggreement with bodies requesting information, without causing a "constitutional crisis". Why make a federal case of it?
I do not agree with you that the request is frivolous.
Current Events » in reply to Cheney's refusal is based on the Constitutional separation of powers
I appreciate Cheney's arguement
The whole thread (25 posts)
- MCAULIFFE =E-ville (hot off the press)
- A lot of politicians are going to be really sorry they opened this can of worms...(may not be suitable for Raoul)
- Those pesky Chinese again
- I don't understand the story, I guess.
- Follow the story.
- Re: I don't understand the story, I guess.
- Re: Played right . . .