An endorsement to be the Senator in New Hampshire.
4 Likes
It’s basically derived from the constitutional duties of the President. The thought process is that, in order to carry out those duties, the President must be able to seek private advice and counsel. If those discussions were all subject to being made public or given to Congress, then the President would not receive full and truthful counsel, and would be hindered in his abilities to carry out his duties.
Naturally, Trump has decided that anything that mentions him or his relatives or russia or the trump org or the name of his favorite groundskeeper is subject to this…
4 Likes
And Congress, should they so decide, can choose to not recognize that privilege. The only actual cover government employees have to not answer Congressional questions is the Fifth Amendment.
4 Likes
So, it is in a sense in the law, a legal right of the Executive? Has, over the course of time, this right been defined via various rulings by courts? Or is it still whatever a President asserts it is, with each invocation having to be litigated if there is a dispute, because somehow it’s a right that previous court rulings are one-offs that don’t establish a precedent for future invocations? Have Executive Privilege assertions gone to court, and the court rules “This decision applies only to this litigation, and no future disputes”? Is the right, therefore, the same as it has always been, and for 230 years every damned time a dispute arises it has to be re-litigated, because previous rulings don’t hold sway? I’m trying to think of what Constitutional rights have been ruled on by courts that are one-offs, never to be cited as precedent for future cases. Even the 2nd Amendment has been defined by successive court rulings. Probably every Constitutional right has been defined beyond its text in the Constitution by later court rulings. But not Executive Privilege? It exists, but it is undefined?
Not even. It’s an implied privilege extended to the Executive, theoretically in order to prevent political inquisitions from chilling the honest counsel given to the President.
5 Likes
The notion of executive privilege sounds reasonable, but it presupposes that a President won’t use the privilege to conceal actual crimes. But then Trump.
4 Likes
Who or what defines the parameters of the privilege, or is it open to the interpretation and assertions of each individual President? Ergo, it is whatever the current President says it is? And if the parameters are so amorphous we’re virtually unable to put to paper what it even is, how does a court rule on disputes? What language do they derive their rulings from, on what basis do they decide something when the right isn’t even written down, it’s “implied”?
We’re getting into pretty much uncharted territory. Typically, these claims have stopped short of the courts, as either the requested materials are provided, the case becomes moot due to other events, or an agreement is worked out between the parties to provide certain materials that allow Congress to do their jobs…
Nobody has tried this full lock-out of every scrap of paper.
4 Likes
It depends on who the President is invoking privilege from, the judicial branch or the Legislative branch and it depends on whether it’s a deliberative process or an executive communication process. There is case law for judicial subpoenas of executive communication from Nixon’s near impeachment. There’s not case law for Congressional subpoenas.
Normally both presidents and congress are careful to negotiate terms and not to come to blows on this so that there’s not a bad ruling on either side. Trump is just refusing to comply. And of course, this is executive privilege.
Trump is claiming ‘constitutional privilege’ which doesn’t exist.
5 Likes
We know he’s loose with legal facts and concepts, so I’m willing to grant imprecise citations on his part. A poster above says Executive Privilege is an implied right derived from within the Constitution, so hence Trump’s assertion it’s a Constitutional privilege. Sort of correct, in a certain perspective, no?
2 Likes
The idea that this has just become normalized is terrifying. But don’t worry, all of these precedents will be reversed once a democrat is in the while house.
2 Likes
I’m moderately dense, but how is it possibly legal for a President to “block testimony” of ANYONE??
Isn’t that prima facie obstruction of justice right there? Why isn’t Congress just calling Trump’s bluff and have a few people immediately arrested for contempt of Congress (even if they get released quickly) just to prove they ain’t jacking around!?
4 Likes
It’s under Presidential Records at 44 US Code §§2201 et seq.
§2204 (a) Prior to the conclusion of a President’s term of office or last consecutive term of office, as the case may be, the President shall specify durations, not to exceed 12 years, for which access shall be restricted with respect to information, in a Presidential record, within one or more of the following categories:
(5) confidential communications requesting or submitting advice, between the President and the President’s advisers, or between such advisers;
§2201 (2) The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term—
(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President;
3 Likes
It’s clear they sent him to troll the committee. Expect full Trump world conspiracy theories, deflection and outright fabrications.
The good news is that it will provide a firm basis for holding Lewandowski in contempt if the Dems have the guts to do it
3 Likes
But that only covers after the presidency is over, to cover certain documents for a specified period of time. Nothing about what happens while the presidency is active.
2 Likes
It’s a bootstrap, but not implausible, argument to say being compelled to disclose confidential communications while in office negates the statutory privilege to protect those same records “prior to the conclusion of a President’s term of office.”
And now I’m off to the river for a little fly fishing.
5 Likes
And that would be fine, if those ‘subject’ to that privilege that doesn’t exist would ignore the so-called privilege. But they aren’t ignoring the privilege. They’re playing to Trump’s script and protecting him, even though there’s no standing to do so.
The question is, why? And the other question is, what level of prosecution for these witnesses is available?
1 Like
To not get fired.
1 Like
Can’t the House deputize D.C. police?
But these guys already are, aren’t they??
1 Like