Bad news for the conservatives when the dems are overjoyed that the rebubs are moving forward with this lawsuit.
Wasn't the whole Lewinsky mess a result of Bill Clinton being subpoenaed and testifying before a grand jury? But beyond that, even if Obama is not on the stand, you could call members of his administration. That said, it's unclear if the House even has standing to file the suit, so it may not even get that far. Separate from that, there's nothing that allows a President to just shut down any criminal investigation or lawsuit, as far as I know.
Yeah, that is why I remember this. He could have just said screw this I am pulling executive privilege.
I'm not sure the exact rules on it, but executive privilege definitely has limits. I know it's used a lot for national security reasons, but not sure what else. Nixon tried it for Watergate and got completely overruled by the Supreme Court. Clinton also tried it and failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#Clinton_administration The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first President since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a Federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.[8] Later, Clinton exercised a form of negotiated executive privilege when he agreed to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear. Declaring that "absolutely no one is above the law", Starr said such a privilege "must give way" and evidence "must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation.
My guess is Starr is full of crap and Clinton didn't use it because of the political repercussions which I really don't understand. It obviously gives leverage so I think presidents should just say f u.
You have to keep in mind that impeachment is far more political than legal. Further Congressional investigations are under the purview of Congress and not the Executive Branch. A sitting president can choose to not cooperate based on Executive privilege but can't just shut down an investigation. Congress can also go ahead and impeach a President for choosing not to cooperate whether they invoke Executive Privilege or not.
On the main topic this is a complete waste of time and nothing more than red meat to get the Republican base to turn out for the midterms.
I assume you are referring to Clinton v Jones. The answer is no. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1853
Every thing from the web site problems to the paper work as reported by medical professionals and administrators. Too many glitches in both. The practical implications weren't properly thought through in the rush to pass a massive bill.
The website glitches were fixed within months and had literally zero permanent effect. The fear was that website delays would cause enrollments to be below targets - instead they exceeded the target. I'm not sure what unspecified paperwork problems you're referring to here.I don't think it's relevant because according to all of the key metrics, like enrollment, # of uninsured, - it is succeeding. And it's ironic to claim that the single most debated, studied bill in terms of CRS research, hours of debate, years spent pending on the floor or in committee, sheer length etc was "rushed through congress" On what do you base this assessment?
Using the website mess as an example of things that can never be fixed and thus must be repealed seems really strange, given that it was fixed in months and only will be better this next go-around. "Paperwork" seems also like a quite vague unfixable problem, especially given that Obamacare is active and seems to be working OK.
Single payer is less popular now than it would have been under Clinton. Unlike other public services, hospital visits and treatment have an experiential and social component that based on one's cash outlay can be as stratified as housing, education or other more elective consumption experiences. It's not even as much a complaint about redistribution or "punishing people for 'doing all the right things'" as it is economically or sociologically isolated subsets of the middle class expressing anxiety of sharing hospital waiting rooms and services with types of people they can typically avoid in less clinical or bureaucratic experiences. Separately, however, there are also arguments against single payer systems regarding deficit spending and nationalizing profitable private services which, given the last fifteen years of man-made recessions and debt expansion have that much more weight.
Since the dissolution of the OIC probably so, but if it's big and close enough he'll probably have to Bud Adams his next three AGs and convince the Joint Chiefs he won't have all of Congress bayoneted or some ****.
