Can the White House stop a FORMER aide from testifying?

[ck4829]

And if not, then couldn't trying to prevent one from testifying be construed to be an obstruction of justice?

[northzax]

1. potentially

executive priviledge can hold even if the person is no longer a White House employee.

[LSK]

2. what if that employee didnt work under an executive office?

:D

[ck4829]

3. Unless you're Bill Clinton

If I remember correctly, the SCOTUS ruled that if subpoenaed, then aides could testify.

Apparently, it's ok to show contempt of Congress when you are a Republican.

[northzax]

4. well, it all comes down...

to what the definition of executive priviledge is. in the Clinton case, it was claimed innappropriately, the court ruled (and should do the same here, if questioned about it, actually)

if EP is legitimate, you can prevent the unwilling testimony, if it's not, you can't prevent unwilling testimony.

[havocmom]

6. Also comes down to what the definition of 'stop' is.

Personally, I doubt there is anything they wouldn't do to cover their own asses. What is another body or three on the already hideous pile they are building for power and money?

[mmonk]

5. Let me check the "unitary executive" manuel.

[MiniMe]

7. Has Ashcroft stopped Sibel Edmonds from testifying?

I think that is your answer. If a person were going to voluntarily testify, a gag order would be issued.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. CONGRESS has never subpoenaed her

[MiniMe]

10. Good point. If they did, would the gag order apply?

I really don't know, I'm curious. All the people in the whitehouse are totally loyal to chimpy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Only one way to find out

I wonder what they are waiting for.

[valerief]

8. With enough anthrax, you can stop anyone. nt

[TygrBright]

11. geeeeeez, you people don't get it, do you? The White House can do ANYTHING IT WANTS to do...

...just ask Dicktator Cheney!

explanitorially,
Bright

[frogcycle]

13. as i understand it

"Executive privilege" is not anywhere defined in law. It is just a tradition.

I don't know that they could actually stop anyone from starting to blab if they wanted to. There may be nondisclosure clauses in contracts they signed, so they might be able to sue, maybe even get a court to issue a gag order. Then the person could blab anyway, and be subject to jail for contempt.

What the hell, reporters have gone to jail on principle. We need to find a former staffer who was truly disgusted and ready to be a martyr (and get filthy rich on the book deal). Somehow I think if someone broke silence, the flood of info might overwhelm any punitive actions that might be tried. The person should be more worried about being "disappeared" than about going to jail.

and I think "executive privilege" is SUPPOSED to protect private conversations that might include opinions, deliberations prior to a decision that might embarrass, etc. It is not supposed to put a "cone of silence" over everything that occurs in the White House.

What we have now is that so many bogus claims have been made under oath and otherwise, that they dare not answer "what dy is it?" for fear of self-contradiction.