The author asserts that he knows of no one in any high or low executive branch whose advice might be skewered by awareness that the advice might not be confidential. This is completely beside the point. In speaking to my priest or to my attorney, it does not matter what HIS comfort level is in this regard; what matters is MY comfort level. Only the assuredness of (nearly) absolute protection of confidentiality may permit me to reveal certain thoughts and machinations.
It is the author whose thoughts are 'wildly misplaced' in this argument.
The author argues that 'executive privilege is a concoction' immediately after stating that the President "has himself waived the privilege repeatedly"....well, which is it? If it is a 'concoction' then how can you justify this in part by ackowledging that the president has waived his right to this 'concoction'? This is one convoluted argument by the author.
The author states in part that a purpose of transparency is to deter folly. I do not believe that even the Founding Fathers presumed that they could prevent folly, and certainly did not have in mind, correct me if I am wrong, that transparency would do so. It might put some light on it, but it is, I suspect, well nigh impossible to prevent or deter folly among those we elect and who are appointed by those we elect.
The author states the Congress has a legitimate interest in airing facts so as to 'inform the public so that citizens can adjust their ...loyalites accordingly.' I thought that was what lobbyists and elections were for? I was not aware that an aspect of Congress' duties was to serve the interests of the majority party (as is logically dictated by the author's assumption) in such a way as to 'adjust loyalties' even, let's say, at the expense of the best interests of the nation. Again, if I am wrong, would someone would please point me to the place where it says that members of Congress have a duty to protect themselves and their respective parties in such a way or in any way at all, to the detriment, I should add, of executing the duties of which I AM aware.
The throw-out line that removal because of 'race or religion' would be unconstitutional seems like a watermelon in a strawberry patch...where does it even fit in? It does not. Someone is trying too hard. And advising that Congress can "deter (removals) by public embarrassment" is about as unreasonable a legal argument as I've ever heard. The author is out in the garden without a hoe.
I am, frankly, opposed to this administration and its ministrations. I am sickened by the lies and the cover-ups and the convolution and the stupidity and the blatant disregard for liberty and the American people.
Still, I think nearly anyone might have done a better job of arguing the salient points regarding this issue than the author.
I suspect the author is so completely wrapped up in his own dislike for the administration, or his love for his own words, that he fails to capture the essence of what is going on: while it seems clear the President has every right to decide who or who will not reside in certain places within the Justice Department (one might bring up equal opportunity, fairness, and ethical issues instead of the drivel the author uses in this regard) it is also clear that the American people have a right to know.
We have a right to know. If perjury and other illegal activities are involved because the President and his folks decided to keep us from knowing, then there is the duty to find those illegal activities and those who performed them, and then act against them. But let us not condemn the President or anyone else with the weak arguments of the author.
