Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Congress has oversight responsibilities, Marener. When they request information from the White House then the White House should be providing that information. Executive privilege doesn't give the White House the right to hide what they're doing from Congress.That's not true at all.
If you think that the Executive Branch must obey every order from Congress, then you're saying that Congress is ABOVE the Executive.
And that can't be true either!
Because they're coequal branches.
Have you heard of executive privilege?
Which "specific" circumstances would those be, Marener?Actually Executive Privilege does mean the White House can ignore Congress in specific circumstances.
That's exactly what it does. Where were you in the Trump administration?Executive privilege doesn't give the White House the right to hide what they're doing from Congress.
Which "specific" circumstances would those be, Marener?
"The executive privileges may appropriately be treated as distinct, not only because of the different communications they protect, but also because the privileges appear to arise from different sources of law, with some more firmly established in judicial precedent than others. In short, the different privileges apply with different strengths and, in the congressional context, are balancedagainst Congress’s Article I powers differently. For example, courts have “traditionally shown the utmost deference” to presidential claims of a need to protect military or diplomatic secrets.5F22 The President’s more generalized interest in the confidentiality of his other communications, though arising implicitly from the Constitution, has not been “extended this high degree of deference.”23The other privileges have been given less weight, and must be assessed differently in the face of an exercise of Congress’s investigative powers. For example, when compared to the presidential communications privilege, the deliberative process privilege is more easily overcome by Congress and “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.”24 Its legal source also appears to be different from the presidential communications privilege, as it arises “primarily” from the common law,25 but may have a “constitutional dimension.”26 Least potent are those executive privileges that arise purely from the common law, 19 See Dep’t of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Protective Assertion of Executive Privilege Over Unredacted Mueller Report and Related Investigative Files, 43 Op. O.L.C. 374 (2019).20 See 8 Op. O.L.C. 101, 116 (reasoning that “[t]he scope of executive privilege includes several related areas”); 13 Op. O.L.C. 153, 154 (reasoning that “the executive branch's interest in keeping the information confidential” is “usually discussed in terms of "'executive privilege’”).21 See H. COMM. ON OVERSIGHT AND GOV’T REFORM, 110TH CONG., REP. ON PRESIDENT BUSH’S ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE SUBPOENA TO ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL B. MUKASEY 8 (Comm. Print 2008) (“The Attorney General's argument that the subpoena implicates the ‘law enforcement component’of executive privilege is equally flawed. There is no basis to support the proposition that a law enforcement privilege, particularly one applied to closed investigations, can shield from congressional scrutiny information that is important for addressing congressional oversight concerns. The Attorney General did not cite a single judicial decision recognizing this alleged privilege.”); H.R. REP. NO. 105-728, at 16 n. 43 (1998) (“As the D.C. Circuit has recently held, the doctrine of executive privilege which arises from the constitutional separation of powers applies only to decisionmaking of the President. Since the subject of the Committee’s subpoena is not one that does (or legally could) involve Presidential decisionmaking, no constitutional privilege could be invoked here.”) (citations omitted).22 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974).23 Id. at 711. 24 In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Given its broad scope, the deliberative process privilege is“the most frequent form of executive privilege raised.” Id. at 737. 25 In In re Sealed Case, the D.C. Circuit determined that “the deliberative process privilege is primarily a common law privilege,” but that “
Read the whole thing, don't rush. It's important.
See this specific point on page 4:
the law enforcement privilege, which protects the contents of open (and sometimes closed) law enforcement files, including communications related to investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking.
hahah ok...so you do think the Executive branch is above the law. Gotcha.It's exactly what it means. Law enforcement is part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. The powers are separated. These are the reasons that executive privilege exists.
Your ignorance is profound!
That's for the courts to decide.The fact of the matter is that Executive Privilege is something that applies differently depending on what is being shielded. Military secrets are given stronger protections but simple requests from Congress for information is NOT given that same level of protection.
Haha, okay. so you're a liar with no redeeming qualities.hahah ok...so you do think the Executive branch is above the law. Gotcha.
You believe in authoritarianism obviously....we went over this with your approval of the Xiden Admin Ministry of Truth and censorship...thanks for reminding us again today
This Administration uses "ongoing investigations" as the means to duck questions from the media and from Congress, Marener! It has very little to do with preserving the integrity of the law enforcement process! Look at how many times Karine Saint Pierre uses that dodge in any press conference she uses. It borders on farce.That's for the courts to decide.
The executive branch has a long history of refusing to disclose information regarding ongoing investigations to preserve the integrity of the law enforcement process.
This is not anything new.
Executive Privilege is not in the Constitution. You apparently have no idea what it says either.Haha, okay. so you're a liar with no redeeming qualities.
I believe in the constitution. You apparently have no idea what it says.
It has everything to do with protecting the integrity of the law enforcement process. Congressional Republicans are just digging for political dirt on Joe Biden. It's not really oversight.This Administration uses "ongoing investigations" as the means to duck questions from the media and from Congress, Marener! It has very little to do with preserving the integrity of the law enforcement process! Look at how many times Karine Saint Pierre uses that dodge in any press conference she uses. It borders on farce.
Neither is congressional oversight.Executive Privilege is not in the Constitution. You apparently have no idea what it says either.
what did I lie about? You clearly don't believe in the Consitution if you believe in the Xiden Truth Ministry, and believe the Xiden admin is above the law.Haha, okay. so you're a liar with no redeeming qualities.
I believe in the constitution. You apparently have no idea what it says.
Would one of those "purposes" be that it allows the DOJ to hide from Congress things that they are doing, Marener?It has everything to do with protecting the integrity of the law enforcement process. Congressional Republicans are just digging for political dirt on Joe Biden. It's not really oversight.
The fact remains that ongoing investigations are kept confidential for a variety of purposes and that's how it's supposed to be. The DoJ shouldn't be blabbing about every little thing. Especially considering that sometimes the DoJ doesn't prosecute people because they haven't broken the law. Surely you wouldn't want innocent people's private information spread all over the place?
This is a longstanding principle.
You constantly lie about what I've said.what did I lie about?
"Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature's authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the president, vice president, and other civil officers. Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent."Neither is congressional oversight.
Investigations can be compromised by the release of information. For example, if the DoJ has a source next to the suspect, disclosing that source may result in threats/intimidation or tip off the suspect to the presence of an investigation and what the government knows.Would one of those "purposes" be that it allows the DOJ to hide from Congress things that they are doing, Marener?
I haven't. Please give me an example.Why is it when what was going on at the Garland DOJ finally IS revealed it turns out to be something that's embarrassing to the DOJ? Or have you not noticed that?
