I fought the law, and I won

[cyrano]

Can somebody with more experience in Constitutional Law explain to me why Executive Privelege or Separation of Powers is being invoked to escape being called upon to testify (under oath, God forbid) before a congressional inquiry?
I mean, if Clinton had refused to meet with Ken Starr during HummerGate, or refused to allow cabinet members to do so, claiming that it would be inappropriate, certain political parties would have crucified him.

Seriously. How is G-Bu playing this avoidance of having testimonies, obviously important and relevant testimonies, being given or being given in private and not under oath?
Does he have a rational platform to stand on here, or is he just being the Chimpanzee in Chief again?

Comments

[lil-m-moses.livejournal.com]

He's assisted by the "but but but it'll compromise national security!!!" claim. Clinton couldn't use that. =/

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

I concur, the National Security Escape Clause(tm), was initially invoked.

But I thought I heard yesterday that he had agreed to testify, albeit in a joint session with V.P. Cheney. (Insert your own joke here.) Is this perhaps in a closed session? Did he change his mind again?

[forkmonkey.livejournal.com]

Separation of Powers is a pretty valid excuse, actually. Presidential privilege enables the president to have advisors he can work with with some assurance of privacy. Just about every president in office has defended it as an important principle of government, as it keeps congress from calling the president to testify every third wednesday about whatever tickles their tiny little minds.

Allowing Condi to testify under oath is a waiver of presidential privilege, which, regardless of any waivers of precedent that might be offered on the part of congress, could be used as an argument in future situations that other advisors could be called to testify under oath in other circumstances. This weakens the presidency.

The thing is, Condi's been lobbying to testify, to give her side of the story, so it's not like they want to keep her quiet. So it's pretty logical to conclude that they're not trying to avoid testifying, despite Democratic efforts to depict otherwise.

I think what we're seeing here is a spinfest, rather than any sort of coverup.

[aberdeen.livejournal.com]

The part I don't get is: Why does it have to be Not under oath?

Are we saying it's okay if he lies to the investigative body? That seems odd. I don't have a real problem with the testifying in private, though I'd rather have it public. But why can't it be under oath?