Reply #64: Excellent post. Well-constructed and well-reasoned. Bravo.

[TahitiNut]

:thumbsup:

I'm perplexed at the 'reasoning' that, absent other substantive considerations, Congressional access to organizational (job-related) communications between members of the White House staff would have a "chilling effect" on the President's ability to obtain the "best possible" advice and information on matters of state.
(1) It presumes that the advisory and informative role of Congress is arbitrarily and uniformly of less value.
(2) It presumes that any or all such "chilled" input is valuable even though it, like a vampire, runs from the partial sunlight of Congressional review.
(3) It's a purported 'privilege' that no other citizen enjoys (and thus cannot delegate). Indeed, those who claim both 'privilege' and the absence of a citizen's 'privacy' right seem to be so immersed in "l'etat c'est moi" thinking that it's an abomination they're even in government roles, imho.


Clearly, the mere fact that Smirk has claimed to be willing to grant Congressional access to these people for the purposes of disclosing such communications seems to contradict his resort to privilege.