Scorecard: Attorney Priviledge by President

Post Reply New Topic

Reagan = 3
Bush I = 1
Clinton = 14
Bush II = 6
Obama = 3 and still counting

Repubs = 10 Dems = 19

Question: Somebody seeing a pattern here? Who really has more to hide?

Longshanks

I see an outlier

How many of Clinton's fourteen were directly related to litigation or impeachment proceedings? There should be no question that even a sitting president is entitled to solicitor-client privilege over matters that are the subject of actual or legitimately threatened litigation.

Statistics are all well and good, provided that they are interepreted meaningfully.

As for your question about, "who really has more to hide," I suggest that you are being disingenuous. The act of claiming privilege is an entitlement of all parties in litigation, and is intended to accomplish and important public policy goal: the fair and impartial arbitration of disputes before tribunals.

Just as one should never drawn an inference from an accused's reliance on the right to remain silent, so to no inference should be drawn from a potential litigant's reliance on privilege.

Visagrunt, when it comes to disingenuousness, look in the mirror. You use that word a lot, and your remarks are, in many cases easily impeachable.

One of the first things that any 1st year law student learns is that the more executive priviledge is claimed, the more someone has to hide. It should be noted that not even Nixon claimed it as much as Clinton. Check your Congressional Quarterly. And maybe you should read up on Watergate, especially since it's a case that you libs so lovingly cherish. What you are indicating to me is what you have said in the past - that there should be a double - standard such that if you're a Democrat you should get away with murder, but if you're a Republican you should hang by the neck until dead.

If Bush were in Obama's place you'd be calling for his head - because you're a liberal and liberals are selective and self-serving. No need to admit it. You posts say it all. If you wish, I can start from when the priviledge was first used. You'll still find a two-to-one usage dems over repubs.

I study law from the viewpoint of a prosecutor. Yes I can argue defense too. I could do way better than your arguement - but what this is is Obamagate - or Holdergate - either way Brian Terry died for Obama's sins. And now it's time to hold the sinner himself accountable for his sins - and we're going to do just that!

Longshanks

And if I was shown this in a statistics class (besides what I stated earlier) it would be shown to not have a large enough sample to mean anything

There have been only two Democrats that have been president in the last 30 years, Clinton and Obama. You can't call anything an outlier when you only have 2 datapoints for Democrats in the past 30 years.

Fine. When I have the time I'll research executive priviledge and list EVERY President from Washington on up. That should end the dispute. Although, the fact that only 2 Dems use twice as much as all the Repubs still speaks louder than words!

Longshanks

Longshanks I was essentially agreeing with you, and pointing out the outlier comment was rather ridiculous.

A 1st year law student who doesn't pay attention and chooses to reinforce his biases might emerge believing that. But no reputable institution of higher learning would ever teach what is set out in your first sentence.

You cannot know that there is something to hide, because you have not seen the information. You can only infer. And inference is not evidence.

(Of course, Evidence was a second year course when I went to law school, so perhaps a little allowance for ignorance can be made.)



Would I? How can you know that?

I, for one, believe that there must be a balance between the public's right to know about information that is held by government, and the government's ability to receive confidential and impartial information from the public service for the purpose of decision making. My work routinely involves participating in the preparation of Memoranda to Cabinet and drafting Treasury Board submissions, and I take very seriously my obligation to maintain the secrecy of information that should not be publicly disclosed.

So while I will certainly criticize the Bush administration for relying on faulty information, I have never criticized them for taking decisions in confidence.



See, there's the difference. I studied law from the viewpoint of a lawyer. A lawyer's ethical obligations are hierarchical: first to the lawyer's own conscience, second to the law, and only third to the client. A prosecutor who prefer's the states interest to the law's interest is professionally misconducting himself just as much as the defender who prefer's the accused's interests to those of the law.

I see no difference. I only see the bias and prejudice that has appeared in your previous posts manifesting itself. You just won't admit it.

Obviously you are from a different state than I'm from and go to a school way different than mine. When you put your own interests before that of your client, it becomes a conflict of interest and then it's time to get out of the case - period! In my corner of the world, your conscience only dictates to you whether or not you represent the client at all and that you should do so both legally and ethically - (although it has been my observation that what I see as being ethical goes out the window once lawyers get their license). If not, you have no business practicing. After that, you represent your client legally and zealously - but HONESTLY. Obama should have remembered that before being forced to surrender his license in 2008 for lying - and I recall that Clinton lost his license for perjury.

But I also think that common sense should come into it - and yes, I think Obama is as guilty as hell. You don't have to agree with it. Whether you do or not is your perrogative. But Brian Terry's family suffered great loss as a result of a man who thinks he is above the law and is now being called on it. And I'll quote the beloved Rev. Wright on this one: "The chickens are coming home to roost!" I've worked on stuff more classified than what you do. And I've investigated for the DoD for four years - so I know a bunko game when I see it. A law enforcement sting like this in no way represents any vital threat to national security - and if it does, why has it not been adequately explained? However - when someone like a sitting president has alterior motives? Like - gun control, maybe? Give me a break. This guy has to go. Just like Nixon had to go. Just like Clinton should have gone. And don't tell me that your so altruistic as to not know that every lawyer is taught how to use the process to "obstruct - obstruct - obstruct" when they need to buy time - which is exactly what Obama is doing. This joker has something to hide - and it's time we found out what it is.

I'll end this post with a parting thought from Proverbs: A man's sins will be shouted from the rooftops."

Longshanks

And you can not call anything a pattern if you only have 2 datapoints too

Do your math: I have 29 points. 10 + 19 = 29 (unless of course, you're a liberal - then it can mean anything you want.)

Longshanks

So republicans do not EVER use something to mean what they want even if it is wrong? Don't make me site something you have done

And if you read what Inuyasha was referring to he said that I can not call anything an outlier with only 2 data points, which he was correct about. But that also means that there are not enough data points, which we were calling Democratic presidents (or presidents of both parties even), to see if there was a pattern.

I too have had statistics and as a federal investigator broke one of the biggest government fraud cases in history - so yes, I do know a little about what I'm doing. As I said in a previous post, I have begun research on ALL of the presidents - but so far it's not looking too honky - dory for the libs - although George Washington was the first president to invoke it - and even then only once in eight years. Yes, or course Republicans have lied - Lincoln did it a number of times. It's just, for some reason, Democrats do it more.

Longshanks

I never said you did not know what you were doing. (not saying I doubt your research) but please put links to your sources. I like statistics a lot. For example if you have hard 17 no matter what the dealer has your hand will overall lose you money

I have found past issues of the Congressional Quarterly, along with various articles of the Harvard and Yale Journals of Law, the American Law Reports, and the US Code Service to be of assistance.

Longshanks