Post a response to this discussion thread
Courtesy of Trent Lott and Tom DeLay:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/22/sunday.shows/
From the article:
+++"Surely they understand it's not going to be well- received," Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think it will damage (their) credibility. It looks like they are hiding something."
"Use of that is reserved just for national security or clearly national interest issues when there's a conversation between the president and his aides, but in this case, for instance, (White House aide) Sidney Blumenthal is not even an attorney. He can't even say there's an attorney-client relationship," Lott said.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," agreed, saying the prospect of executive privilege "gravely concerned" him.
"What have they got to hide if they're asking for executive privilege? Executive privilege is reserved for national security issues, not for personal conduct," the Texas Republican said. "The consequences that are coming out of this will be permanent consequences in denigrating the office of the presidency."+++
Interesting to notice that back then, the Republicans recognized "executive privilege" as a concept reserved for the President alone, not extending to the Vice President. I wonder where these two stalwart statesmen are now that it's one of their own using "executive privilege"? Trent? Tom?
If it's good for the goose, shouldn't it be good for the gander, too?
Post a response to this discussion thread