Yeah, any sense of reasonableness goes out the window when they start saying this garbage:
The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability. So what we’ve said is we’re going to reach out to you – we’ll give you every communication between the White House, the Justice Department, the Congress, anybody on the outside, any kind of communication that would indicate any kind of activity outside, and at the same time, we’ll make available to you any of the officiels you want to talk to …knowing full well that anything they said is still subject to legal scrutiny, and the members of Congress know that.
In 1792, the House conducted a major investigation by appointing a committee
to inquire into the heavy military losses suffered by the troops of Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair to Indian tribes. The committee was empowered “to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.” According to the account of Thomas Jefferson, President Washington convened his Cabinet to consider the House request. The Cabinet considered and agreed,first, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries. Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse those, the disclosure of which would injure the public: consequently were to exercise a discretion. Fourth, that neither the committee nor the House had a right to call on the Head of a Department, who and whose papers were under the President alone; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to move the House to address the President.
The Cabinet concluded that “there was not a paper which might not be properly
produced.” The House committee examined papers furnished by the executive
branch, listened to explanations from department heads and other witnesses, and received a written statement from General St. Clair. The general principle of executive privilege had been established because the President could refuse papers “the disclosure of which would injure the public.” The injury had to be to the public, not to the President or his associates.
This administration has consistently flaunted the law and conflated its interest with the nations.
As the principle has stood, communication between Gonzalez and the President is probably covered under executive privilege, but none of the discussions between subordinates.
Typically this has been a tension not between parties, but between branches. How perverted the system has become over the last 6 years is exemplified by the notion this is a partisan issue. The damage to the Republic is great when the executive assumes he is the sovereign and not a portion of the sovereign.
…But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that “the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.”…The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts…. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense. …The [evidentiary] privileges are designed to protect weighty and legitimate competing interests… [and] are not lightly created nor expansively construed for they are in derogation of the search for truth.