Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.
|
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.
