If he didn’t do anything wrong.
1 Like
They don’t consider what’s come out so far to be a crime. I personally think it’s all his financial crimes (inflating value of properties to secure loans, misstating revenues to lower or eliminate taxes, taking Russian money for elections, etc) that he won’t be able to skate on (ref. Capone, Alphonse) so was somewhat surprised to see the Democrats moving things to the next step without even a single tug on that particular thread. Seems to be leaving chips on the table, hope they come around to it at some point…
2 Likes
But he does seem to have a lot of experience with “ho’s”, so might be able to fake it…
1 Like
Trump will not participate. He cannot say the process is rigged - but he will.
5 Likes
I did not know any of that. THANK YOU for some actual information.
4 Likes
Well, you know doing everything properly is a hoax and a sham.
4 Likes
"But of course he has to weigh that against the enormous catastrophic damage that would do to the doctrine of executive privilege that assures that when policy is being developed within the administration, those discussions are unfettered, are candid, are thinking outside of the box,” he added. “That’s why the doctrine of executive privilege exists.”
One man’s Executive Privilege is another man’s Conspiracy to Commit Espionage. Just sayin.'
2 Likes
So he thinks Bolton and Mulvaney should obey court orders? Whoppie-Do!
1 Like
General, the last major pronouncement on executive privilege was in US v Nixon, in Aug 1974, which ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes in the face of his claim of “absolute privilege.” In retrospect, that decision was a mixed bag, because the Court held that the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine ordinarily precludes one branch from prying into the decision-making details of another. The exception, leading to the decision in Nixon, was a criminal case, which is what the case was (Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator in the burglary).
It’s not clear that exception exists in the impeachment, and at the moment there are no other criminal cases pending involving the Ukraine, unless Lev and/or Igor want to defend against the charges in the SDNY by demanding the appearance of Mulvaney, Bolton, and (wow) Trump himself.
1 Like
To be clear, the Administration has not been exerted executive privilege in these matters. Instead they have been exerting a rather bizarre intepretation of “absolute privilege”, which doesn’t actually have any legal precedent in the manner in why they are using it.
(Absolute privilege is a defense in a defamation case. It’s used in cases like say, a reporter simply reporting on the legal proceedings that go against the plantiff…the reporter has an absolute privilege in such as case, and questions of malice don’t even come into play).
It has nothing to do with what the WH is claiming…which is, the Executive Branch is completely immune to any oversight or investigation by the Legislative Branch. No court is going to uphold that claim because (A) is overly broad (B) it directly contradicts the constitutional principles of Checks and Balances and © it has literally no basis in law anywhere.
The Courts have weighed in on numerous executive privilege claims, by Presidents on both sides, since the Nixon case. But yeah, its still pretty much a mixed bag. Largely because SCOTUS views (usually correctly) that these claims are essentially political skirmishes between Congress and the Executive Branch, and it prefers not go get dragged into those.
The basic premise has been that the Executive Branch must cooperate with Congress as much as it deems possible (providing memos, records, etc), but Congress must cooperate with the Executive Branch and recognize that there is a need for the President to seek unfettered advice in his decision making process. (So clear as mud).
The WH’s problem now, with claiming executive privilege, is they have been flying directly in the face…and publicly claiming that was their intent…by refusing to provide Congress with anything they request. That damages their inevitable claims to executive privilege, since they aren’t playing “by the rules”. Which is probably why we haven’t seen it claimed so far.
1 Like
Actually, David, the Nixon case characterized executive privilege as “absolute privilege;” that’s the term used in the opinion. What the Administration has been claiming, with absolutely no success, is “absolute immunity” from testifying, which is why they don’t even show up. That claim is going nowhere.
I believe the phrase used was “absolute executive privilege”. But the SCOTUS gave a unanimous ruling, 8-0, against Nixon’s argument. And I think the Trump team likes the phrase “absolute immunity”.
Nixon’s argument, and loss, is actually pretty analogous to the argument that Trump is putting forth so far, except Nixon argued that the Judicial Branch can’t “interfere” with the Executive Branch (basically a veiled attempt at re-litigating the issues in Madison vs Marbury.) Trump’s argument is that the Legislative Branch can’t “interfere” with the Executive. As such, his argument is even weaker, as the Constitution clearly provides for Congressional Oversight, and explicitly, impeachment. Madison v. Marbury has the uncomfortable position of being SCOTUS (in a very clever back handed manner) of essentially declaring itself the arbiter of the Constitution.
“Absolute privilege” however, is something different.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/absolute_privilege
There is the legal definition of the term, and how it is traditionally used.
OT, but check this:
Why Trump’s base won’t budge. Right on.