Claim of Executive privelege admits wrongdoing

Jonathan Turley was speaking on MSNBC about the logic of the claim that Rove and the White House have put forward. His aruement was that this claim of executive priv. was ridiculous because it would include everything, and make the job of oversight of the executive impossible.

However, turned on its head, it is an admission of wrongdoing as it specifically applies to areas in which the party claiming it (in this case pigface) advised the White House in his "official" capacity.. Accepting this logic, we have to assume that Rove advised the white house on matters which are the subject of the subpoena. In this case it was at the least ethically wrong for the white house to be involved in the matters which are the subject of the subpoena - more likely ciminally wrongdoing was involved - Certainly they are not claiming that Rove was advising the white house on matters which it was improper for it to be involved in. :sarcasm:

So, is the Bush White House tacitly admitting that they were officially involved in the Seigleman affair? Should not this be added to Kucinich's articles of impeachment?

Because I've used it before.

it is the equivalent of a client in a civil case settling because of the nuisance factor. and besides, it is a plea in a case, not a claim of privalege.

A prialege is a rule of evidence that allows someone to not testify because of some reason that is deemed to be of societal interest, like confidences between a doctor and patient or a husband and wife. I have had cases where the latter was used to the detriment of my client. But in those cases, it is a general privalege. In this instance it was claimed specifically for those confidences which were in the course of his official capacity and that relate to the subject of the subpoena. That is fine for things that are clearly within his official capacity, like energy policy, etc., but when did it become the business of the white house to be oficially involved in political matters that are merely of state concern.

By allowing it's use in this case, the white house is tacitly admitting that they were involved or that at the very least they saw it as their oficial business.

That's pretty much viewed as an admission of guilt without ever saying anything.

in the matter before the court. Besides, it is a Constitutional right and not a privalege as I outlined in my earlier post.

You should be proclaiming your innocence from every mountain top. It's kinda like there is no real right way to react to a detective telling you about your wife or husband being murdered. If you don't cry they suspect you. If you do cry they suspect you. When you have someone that is overly suspicious you can never do anything right. Everything you do that they believe is wrong just ads to the suspicion.