How can Shrub assume "executive privilege" would protect anyone (Rove) from prosecution?

[RiverStone]

No one is above the law eh?

Karl Rove has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys and whether those dismissals were politically motivated.

Under what circumstances could any president claim executive privilege as a firewall from potential abuse of power and/or criminal conduct?

President Obama has spoken frequently about greater transparency in our government; I'm sure We The People would agree!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. They can claim anything they want

Doesn't mean it's gonna fly.

[H2O Man]

2. Two reasons:

{1} There were discussions between the in-coming and out-going administrations on this very topic. Although full agreement was not reached, there will be greater "protection" of Bush-Cheney secrets than at any time in the past.

{2} In those areas where agreements were not reached, a conflict will be decided in the federal courts. On one hand, the US Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration on a significant number of issues. But, in the most important case -- the one that allows us to see their thinking in terms of administration secrets -- they allowed Cheney to not reveal who he met with, and what was discussed, in the infamous energy meetings.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. surely the American public has right to know

[H2O Man]

4. Right.

I certainly do not endorse or support the positions of the Bush-Cheney administration. I was merely answering the question asked in the OP. And the USSC has ruled, in a most important case, that the American public does not have the right to know.