Corzine says Katz emails are protected under Executive Privilege

The difference (3.25 / 4)

Bush is claiming executive privilege in response to the demands of the elected members of Congress. In other words, he is not accountable to the American people, who are represented by Congress.

Corzine is claiming executive privilege in response to the demands of the New Jersey Republican Party. In other words, he is not accountable to Tom Wilson.

I have no problem with this.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 03:56:51 AM UTC

So i'm trying to follow your logic (0.00 / 0)

You're saying that because it's Tom Wilson calling on Corzine to release records on behalf of the NJGOP rather than the Legislature asking on behalf of the people of New Jersey, it would be the same as Terry Mcauliffe asking for communications in 2003 on behalf of the DNC instead of the President defying Congress and the will of the people?  I'm not disagreeing, just trying to be clear on what the differences are.  Thanks

---

by: Jason Springer @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:22:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right (4.00 / 1)

Wilson is, by definition, a politically-motivated opponent of the Governor. His job is not to represent the interests of the people of New Jersey. His job is to get Republicans elected. His demand of these e-mails is designed to do that. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but his actions cannot be viewed out of that context.

It's entirely different for Congress to demand records from the White House, as the job of Congress is, first and foremost, to represent the interests of the people the members were elected to serve. It's a narrow distinction between politics and government, but an important one, none the less.

Our government has a well-established system of checks and balances. The executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch and both are accountable to the judicial branch. The Bush administration has already exhibited a frightening willingness to use extralegal means to avoid these checks and balances.

The problem with Bush is his abuse of power, not simply that he's claiming executive privilege.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:11:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So... (0.00 / 0)

if the Republicans were in power in our legislature, and they asked for the emails, you would agree Corzine would have to release them? Isn't it possible that Tom Wilson's interest and the public's interest coincide in this case?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:29:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, suppose it was Tom Kean asking for the emails? (0.00 / 0)

If Tom Kean asked for the emails, then you would support his position (since he's an elected state official) and ask that Gov. Corzine release the emails?

I'm just trying to understand the principle at work here.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:44:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (3.00 / 1)

I'm talking about the difference between Tom Wilson and the US Congress here, not Tom Wilson and Tom Kean. I'm also not justifying Corzine's invocation of executive privilege, but rather pointing out that it's a far more legitimate claim than Bush's, which appears to just be another case of abuse of power.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:22:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Committee vs. Individual (0.00 / 0)

In the Bush case it is not one member of Congress asking for the communications, but a committee tasked with overseeing the relevant part of the executive branch.  There was a full committee vote to authorize the subpoenas.

When the Democrats were not in control Henry Waxman asked for tons of info and got almost nothing.  That was within Bush's rights, because he doesn't have to respond to every individual member of Congress' request for sensitive docs.

The same is true here.  If Tom Kean Jr. convinced an oversight committee to vote to request the documents, then it is the authorized action of the legislature doing it. 

But neither Tom Kean Jr. nor Tom Wilson are authorized to speak or make requests for documents on behalf of the legislature.

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:52:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it's just Tom Wilson asking for the emails... (4.00 / 1)

then why invoke exective privilege?  Why not tell Tom Wilson no and leave it at that?

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:18:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Big difference (4.00 / 1)

Bush's communications are with high-ranking government officials; Corzine's is with an ex-girlfriend.

I can appreciate holding Democrats to the same standards as Republicans; however, it is simply not credible to compare Jon Corzine to George Bush on any level. 

George Bush and Dick Cheney  will stop at nothing to desecrate our Constitution and stomp on the rule of law in favor of deriving personal benefit for their party, loyalists, and bank accounts.  Jon Corzine has been accused of giving special treatment to a former girlfriend in labor negotiations, which has yet to be proven likely by any credible source.  The emails are private, personal, and could be only tangentially related to his job as Governor.  This is a Tom Wilson-Republican fishing expedition at its worst. 

The GOP is seeking to embarrass a Democratic leader by having private aspects of his personal life made public, despite the likelihood that nothing illegal occurred.  Sound familiar? 

Simply put, progressives should not tolerate this.

---

by: TJ Helm @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:27:32 AM UTC

Nto quite (4.00 / 2)

When Corzine claimed these communications were private between two individuals then the communication was between Corzine and his ex-girlfriend.

But when he claims executive privilege then he is acting in his role as Governor and you have to assume that Katz is acting in her role as CWA leader.  Executive privilege only protects communications as part of official duties, and not communications asking after a friend's kids.

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:48:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read the quote again: (0.00 / 0)

-The papers filed in Superior Court in Mercer County by the Attorney General's Office say "The contents of the requested e-mail exchanges are either entirely private, or contain exchanges of information ... that are protected from disclosure by the long-standing executive privilege." 

(Can someone tell me how to do one of the blue boxes?!?)

Therefore, his legal team is only exploring the use of executive privilege as an option at this point. He has not yet invoked executive privilege, and they continue to maintain that the communications are private.

Nevertheless, it is borderline absurd to compare Corzine to Bush. Regardless of the legal argument that Corzine's team relies on in order to keep the communications private, this is an inappropriate fishing expedition, and, as such, progressives should defend the governor.

---

by: TJ Helm @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:26:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simply by mentioning it ... (0.00 / 0)

he has done the same damage as invoking it.  The damage is not legal, but political.

We can split legal hairs and the like, but the problem is that he needs the support of the public to beat back the legislature, and this kind of thing hurts his ability to rally the public.

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:07:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

blockquotes... (0.00 / 0)

<_blockquote>blah blah<_/blockquote>

but remove the underscores

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:17:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks :) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: TJ Helm @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 13:33:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is a HUGE change (4.00 / 3)

Corzine was saying that there was nothing governmental about the communications before, so that no one had a right to see them.

Now he is using executive privilege, which means that there was an exchange about his actions leading the government.

More drip, drip, drip following the denial.  This is going to be a mess.

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:53:41 AM UTC

This is a mess because... (0.00 / 0)

Originally he said emails didn't exist. I still don't believe he was unaware private communications with Katz would be frowned upon, but I am starting to believe that he sort of thinks the rules don't apply to him.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 11:36:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once again... (4.00 / 4)

The coverup always looks worse than the initial misdeed.  Too bad politicians never seem to learn this.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:22:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scott Shields @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:38:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Has CWA 1034 intervened? (0.00 / 0)

I heard Katz convinced the Executive Board of Local 1034 to finance intervening in this lawsuit.  Can anyone confirm if they have intervened?

If that is true then members should all call Local 1034, at 609-530-0060, and express their outrage. 

If that is the case they should also contact each Executive Board member that agreed to fund intervention in the Tom Wilson lawsuit and share their feelings about their union dues being used in this manner.

The next election for officers and the Executive Board of Local 1034 is in the fall of 2008.  Lucky for Carla, her fellow officers and Board members it isn't in the fall of 2007.  Plenty of time for damage control for a politico like Carla. 

The last time 1034 had an election, she and her slate were unopposed.  I doubt that will happen in 2008.  That might explain her stated intention to run for re-election when she was interviewed by gossip columnist Cindy Adams of the NY Post.  She must be getting nervous about her re-election chances.

---

by: truthbetold @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 16:32:59 PM UTC