"What is an executive interest?"

Is that the claim now? The materials I communicated are Executive branch materials, which I communicated outside the legal requirements for handling such materials, in violation of the Hatch Act, are protected by a permutation of Executive Privilege called "executive interest"?

"A subpoena is a demand for documents, testimony, or information that has the force of law. One basis for resisting a subpoena is that the information it seeks is "privileged," that is, exempt from disclosure under most circumstances."

Yes.

"Usually to be privileged information cannot have been disclosed to persons outside the sphere of the privilege."

This is where matters can get sticky. But keep in mind that Clinton's assertions not only of Executive Privilege, but also of attorney-client privilege, were rejected by the courts. (Those who thus successfully narrowed Executive Privilege as a legitimate claim were the Republicans who now support Cheney's deranged claim that the Executive Privilege has been unconstitutionally narrowed?)

"There is some argument, albeit an exceedingly weak one, that having lodged documents with the RNC has not waived any claim of executive privilege the President may have in the materials.

I don't know what that argument is. Care to try to make it? -- convincingly or otherwise.

"But "executive interest" as a basis for withholding the information is nonsense."

This is simply a change in words in order to change the nature of the "legal" issue, thus "require" a court to rule on the matter. I doubt there has ever been a claim of "executive interest" as substitute for or qualification -- or evasion -- of Executive Privilege. I don't see it withstanding COngressional scrutiny -- especially as the entity making the claim has no such protections under existing law. (If Bushit authorizes a printing of money, and one of those bills lands in my pocket, does that mean Bushit has an "executive interest" in it, therefore the authority to pick my pocket?)

"The mere fact that someone, other than the person under subpoena, has an "interest" in the documents is simply not a valid legal ground for failing to comply."

Not so fast. If the documents were authored, or otherwise "owned" by the person making the claim concerning the documents, that person does have an interest in them, and in their disposition. That raises the question as to the kind of documents -- personal, or governmental? Nixon spent millions, over many years, litigating his claim to ownership of documents generated when he was president. He ultimately lost, the simple principle being: the taxpawyer funded the office, paid your salary, and the documents were generated as part of the job, thus were paid for by the people, and thus belogn to the people.

"The RNC's lawyers are simply making this up out of thin air..."

More likely Cheney-Addington are making it up, and the RNC is kissing his ass. Cheney found an extremist right-wing lawyer willing to clothe his criminal assertions in "legal-sounding" terms; but that doesn't change the fact that Addington is a political hack who (as does Miers, Gonzales, etc.) subordinates the rule of law to politics. The only reason Cheney-Addington have got away with this horseshit is by keeping it secret; once their pseudo-law becomes publc, it is refuted by laughter from all across the political spectrum.

As concerns the RNC's position on the issue: its very first response to Congress, in April, was cooperative, even announcing that they had found some of the emails that had been said to have been destroyed; shortly, that changed. But the RNC has already opened the door by having provided documents (which were apparently non-responsive, according to the person speaking for the RNC) against any claim that only those which are responsive to the subpoena are protected by the twisted Executive Privilege claim.

None of this behavior is all that new; Nixon was more artful in his claims, but his didn't withstand judicial scrutiny. 'Course, then there weren't Federalist Society members Roberts and Alito on the Court with the intent of helping shred the Constitution.

-- jdmf Friday, July 13, 2007 08:24 PM

...the RNC is essentially claiming that it is part of the executive branch of the US government, and, thus, is able to claim that documents in its possession are subject to executive privilege.

Just how silly can they get? When a document leaves the executive branch, it is no longer subject to executive privilege.

What have you got against Gated Communities pal? Picky, picky...

I mean, how else will the lawn care people find something left to cut and preen if there are no neighborhoods left to preen? The walls will ensure green lawns (or is it "lines") and orderly, neat areas to pile corpses. What more could an Iraqi want or need?

I also agree with the notion that it is too bad that Salon takes the weekend off. I guess it's better than a whole month. Especially if the Salon staff were to be blown-up, rounded-up (only those between the age of 14-50 of course), or tortured while they were away vacationing. But I digress. Back to the need for green lawns and a smiley, contented, insect-free Iraqi citizenry.

Impeach these cynical, surreal bastards. The rest is just a waste of time.

This astonishing story is all over CNN this afternoon:

Al Maliki says U.S. troops can "leave any time they want."

One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.

One of al-Maliki's close advisers, Shiite lawmaker Hassan al-Suneid, bristled over the American pressure, telling The Associated Press that "the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He said the U.S. is committing human rights violations, building walls between Sunni and Shiia neighborhoods.

But his most damning remarks were for Bush's bragging that, "We don't negotiate with terrorists."

Al Maliki objected strongly to U.S. troops arming Sunni militia men and bribing them to go after Al Qaeda.

"These are gangs of killers," he said.

Some derisive comments were also aimed at Gen. David Petraeus, who he said works along a "purely American vision."

"There are disagreements that the strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaeda in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," al-Suneid said.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi lawmakers are heading off to Europe and more pleasant and peaceful surroundings for their summer holiday while U.S. soldiers continue to bleed in sand.

If Al Maliki says the troops can leave whenever they want, maybe August would be the best time to pull out and leave all of these miserable duplicitous hypocrites and liars to their fate.