Throwing Rice
 

Sure. You're assuming she's an officer with authority, though. Since she's not even a cabinet officer, I doubt she rises to "officer" level, even if your analogy is apt.

Throwing Rice
 

If an attorney discloses privileged information about the company's toxic product, it does not waive privilege as to other subject matters, such as teh corporation's criminal accounting. Selective-disclosure waiver generally applies to other privileged matters of the same subject matter.

Throwing Rice
 

Okay, I'm (slowly) getting this. Can you tell I've never had to litigate this issue?

Throwing Rice
 

Dunno. You got a better idea? Is a sitting president allowed to escape the unforeseen consequences of his officers' conduct on the ground he has not personally ratified it? We live in a nation of laws, not men, yadda yadda.

It's my analysis that an executive official acting within the course and scope of her authority can do things that bind the President to a particular in a subsequent legal proceeding (such as the enforcement of a subpoena). That does not seem a controversial statement. Maybe the NSA is just an advisor, and maybe this means Rice can't bind the President; I don't know the answer to that. I also can't remember the reason we're arguing about this, so I'm at a disadvantage here. However, the President does things by having his policies executed by officers who answer to him. When they execute those policies, the President does not have a Constitutional Power of Takebacks.

Throwing Rice
 

Let's all go review Sarbanes-Oxley and then return to discuss.

BR(seriously. I think the "up the ladder"/"noisy withdrawal" requirements, at least insofar as they reflect changing general expectations of advisor and/or organizational accountability, might be enlightening re: Rice & Clark)C

Throwing Rice
 

Maybe my television's broken, but it looked to me like Rice is a spokesperson of the administration. There's a special rule for the effect of the statements of a person specifically authorized to speak on behalf of another.

Throwing Rice
 

Does any of this matter?

This next comes up during the Kerry Administration, when the Republican's form a special committee on the shortage of pine rails for running people out of town and want testimony from Sec'y of the Environment Nader on why he permitted Moose to invade the National Forests, ruining them for loggers. Nader says, no, you can't just call a member of the executive before your cruddy committee.

The Committee says: Remember Condi Rice!

Who cares about the rest of the details.

Throwing Rice
 

Seems to me that if you're going to draw some reasonably principled line, it ought to be this:

1) The person has to be within the "executive" group, however defined (presumably top-level advisors)

2) The person receiving the advice holds the right to waive the privilege.

The point of the privilege is to ensure that the executive obtains advice free from concerns that it will be made public. The underling providing the advice should not be in a position to waive this interest on behalf of the executive.

So, if Condi Rice is giving advice to the president, he must authorize her to reveal any of the information for which he asserts E.P.

Throwing Rice
 

If this is your criteria, you're on the wrong board.

Throwing Rice
 

As I said, I've questioned whether your analogy to the corporate form, in which all officers are deemed to be agents for the company, and therefore capable of unilaterally waiving the company's claims of privilege, apply directly to the executive branch. You're assuming that Rice is a general agent for Bush and therefore all of her actions are deemed authorized by him. I don't think that's a fair assumption in the political, as opposed to corporate, world.

Those wacky Treasury Secretaries strike again!
 

Treasury Secretary John Snow says outsourcing of American jobs, a hot issue in the presidential campaign, can help make the economy stronger.

Speaking of authorized spokespeople, how long before the Administration tells Secty Sgtclub to shut the fuck up and go back to his Internet message board?

Those wacky Treasury Secretaries strike again!
 

Curious: are you disputing the truth of what he's saying, or commenting on the advisability of broadcasting that particular truth to an unknowning public?

Throwing Rice
 

The whole question is a red herring. Waiver of privelge in a discovery context applies when one has acted in a way to not rely upon the privelege to with hold something you must otherwise produce under the rules of civil Procedure. That is, you had an exception to do something you otherwise had to do, but you gave it up.

Executive privelege doesn't exist in the sense that attorney-client/doctor-patient priveleges exist. Executive privelege is essentially the President saying, "hey, seperation of powers, you can't tell me what to do."

It is not an exception to having to do something, its saying I don't have to do it. Here, Bush is essentially bowing to a perception of the public's demand. If the same facts came up again, he could claim executive privelelge all over again. The "promise" not to use it is a face saver to explain refusing then agreeing.

Let's Play Silly-Gism!
 

In a classic dispaly of logic (learned, no doubt, at the finest schools), Snow says:

"It's part of trade... It's one aspect of trade, and there can't be any doubt about the fact that trade makes the economy stronger."

Okay, let's see who can come up with the silliest statement based on this same logical structure!

Here's my first shot:

[Making idiotic statements] is part of [being a Cabinet Secretary]... It's one aspect of [being a Cabinet Secretary], and there can't be any doubt about the fact that [being a Cabinet Secretary] makes [my resume] stronger.

Those wacky Treasury Secretaries strike again!
 

I told you they read this board.