I see two different shapes, as I conceptualize the forms for executive privilege that are all over the news. The first shape is a block of Swiss cheese and the second is pyramid floating in the air.
The deliberative process privilege allows the government to withhold information such as advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations that form the basis for a governmental decisions or policy, so that fresh ideas from public servants will not be limited by fear of later public scrutiny. It does not extend to purely factual material. The withheld material must be "predecisional," meaning generated before the agency using the material adopted the policy or made a decision.
The deliberative process privilege is “conditional,” meaning that it can be overcome by a showing of need, which the court will examine on a case by case basis by considering “the relevance of the evidence,” “the availability of other evidence,” “the seriousness of the litigation,” “the role of the government,” and the “possibility of future timidity by government employees.” The Court routinely pierces the privilege where the information may shed light on government misconduct, because the purpose in shielding internal government deliberations to promote a public's interest in honest, effective government does not exist.
A block Swiss cheese is the right shape for deliberative process privilege. It is full of holes, melts when it gets hot and you can have it for lunch.
The presidential communications privilege provides a President and those who assist him the freedom to explore alternatives in shaping policies and making decisions in a way that may be unwilling, except to express themselves privately. This privilege is conditional as well, as former President Nixon learned the hard way. It may be pierced in a lowly civil action that alleges conspiracy among high officers of government to deny a class of citizens their constitutional rights AND (a big "and") where there has been sufficient evidentiary substantiation to avoid the inference that the demand reflects mere harassment. Where a litigant has carried this burden, the Court will conduct an in camera review, Judge's eyes only, and consider any argument by the President that the disclosure should be narrowed, before ordering the disclosure. Thus, the presidential communications privilege crumbles when used as a shield against credible claims of misconduct.
The presidential comunications privilege covers factual information, to serve its underlying interest to ensure that presidential advisers provide knowledgeable and candid advice, which would be chilled, if public scrutiny included disclosing "what was known when." It likewise extends downward from the President to his advisors and to those from whom they “solicited and received” information, because advisers must rely on staff to investigate an issue, and formulate the advice to be given to the President. It applies, however, only to information that served to advise the President, and not, I would presume, to communications between Clinton staffers that pried "W" keys off keyboards just before they left the White House. So much like the translation of annuit coeptis on the Great Seal, presidential privilege applies where, “He favors our undertakings.”
The presidential communications privilege is like a stone pyramid floating in the air. It is tough to crack and you can’t figure out what’s keeping it up there.
Here, as far as I can tell, the Obama Administration decided to invoke decisional process privilege. As far as timing, the full house will need to vote whether to find Attorney General Holder in contempt. Next, the House will need to refer the case to the U.S. attorney for a criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. The U.S. Attorney will likely decline the case because the administration invoked privilege. The House may then file a civil suit to enforce the subpoena.
The District Court will then begin its ad hoc process of slicing the Swiss cheese, to see where the holes fall and what information gets through. This will take time. As I see it, more time than before next November. So Fast and Furious will amble off to the Courts, where the Justice Department can litigate, and delay and pour as much cold water on this as they can.

6 comments:
I must admit that once the ball gets rolling in this direction, it's hard to stop and any half-hearted attempt to either stop-it or step out of the way or even slow it, will get the actor smushed.
Usually it's the republicans that hear the claim, find the evidence, "test the Wind" and then get the ball rolling, only to get lilly-livered when it comes to seeing it through.
I always thought the media shaped how the Repubs handled Clinton. The issue wasn't spoo on a dress, it was whether the actions of the POTUS compromised national security. I don't believe it did, but we'll never know,because the media shaped the offense into a rubber phallus rather than a scalpel.
The difference with Fast & Furious is that there is a body and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon is traceable to a clandestine government program.
The media is already busy attempting to shape public opinon: "Partisan", "gun issue" etc...
The media will do its best that this case is nothing more than a tantrum from the gun lobby. They will dress it in red-neck clothing and will be hard pressed to devote attentiont to the body.
Repubs need to keep repeating the facts in the news now that they have got the ball rolling. If they step away or slow it down, the media will smush them with "we told ya so" even though it ain't so.
The dems walk a tightrope here. If they let the media run wild with a counter issue in an attempt to blur the facts, they will get steamrolled. Of course this assumes some kind of legal proceeding begins to take shape.
The NY TIMES is an awful rag and has proven it with their several mealy-mouthed attempts to shape this as something other than the worst government offense where an US Citizen was murdered.
oh, and the chees is a great analogy, but I believe we are looking at a lofty floating pyramid. Bricks don't fly for long though. It takes a lot of hot air and helping hands to keep it afloat. Nixon didn't have that luxury, and I'm not sure BHO does.
Thanx Frith..I suspect BHO figures he is re-electable unless there is a "nuke" somewhere in his closet..This could be that but if he sweeps it piece by piece for the next 18 months he is in and what the hell.Does Issa have any other avenues to keep this in the headlines that doesnt appear as a witchhunt? I dont know.
I think this is where it could be turned to the family and say they can really push from a human emotional story and that might have some traction...
As I have said before BHO has an outer teflon coating... Shit just falls off of him..It helps when > half the electorate just want their handout..However humans when given enough rope will always hang themselves.. Even Teflon Man.
Ikaika..........spoo on a dress!! excellent...where is she now...?
I have to thank Freep for posting this about Holder (a history lesson)
http://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2012/06/21/eric_holders_contempt_didnt_start_last_week
Back on April 23rd, 2000 Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano had a few questions for (then Deputy) Attorney General Eric Holder. Here they are thanks to The Media Research Center :
Napolitano : Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy (Elian Gonzalez)?
Holder : Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.
Napolitano : You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.
Holder : We didn’t need an order.
Napolitano : Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?
Holder : [Silence]
Napolitano : The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge…Unprecedented in American history.”
Holder : “He was not taken at the point of a gun.”
Napolitano : “We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun.”
Holder : “They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively…”
WOW!!!...Has BHO assembled the SS with the backing of the media and left.Is this 1930 again? So they can take a kid at gunpoint but they want us to surrender ours ... Aint no way......nice find Ikaika
Post a Comment