Here is why Garland's claim of "executive privilege" is wrong.

[Marener]

Biden's testimony in an investigation into his stealing of classified documents is in no way related to him taking advice from his advisors on policy. The doctrine of executive privilege exists so a President can get advice from staff etc on policy issues without that advice going public.

Also, in no way was his theft of classified documents while Senator and VP part of his "duties of the presidency".

Game. Set. Match.





The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.1 Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege,2 the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.3

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-1/ALDE_00013377/

There’s more to executive privilege than what is contained in your link.

 

[Nostra]

For starters Garland didn't claim it.

I'm not even gonna bother with the rest of the drivel.

Tell the class how it applies, Simp.

Try a coherent post for once.

 

[Nostra]

There’s more to executive privilege than what is contained in your link.

Like what? Be specific and show us how his testimony regarding his crimes of stealing classified documents is covered.

GO!

 

[Nostra]

Anyone else notice the Dimtards have ZERO links to back up their “Nuh-uh’ defense?

 

[BackAgain]

Doncha just love our Attorney General "Moderate Merrick" Garland? Jeezus sometimes I wonder if he would have done less damage as a Supreme Court justice.

No. He’d be even worse.

 

[Marener]

Like what? Be specific and show us how his testimony regarding his crimes of stealing classified documents is covered.

GO!

Same reason Trump claimed executive privilege for the documents from the Mueller investigation.

 

[Billiejeens]

Biden's testimony in an investigation into his stealing of classified documents is in no way related to him taking advice from his advisors on policy. The doctrine of executive privilege exists so a President can get advice from staff etc on policy issues without that advice going public.

Also, in no way was his theft of classified documents while Senator and VP part of his "duties of the presidency".

Game. Set. Match.





The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.1 Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege,2 the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.3

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-1/ALDE_00013377/

Hate to break it to you but,
Democrats are not currently subject to being held accountable to US law.

 

[BackAgain]

Same reason Trump claimed executive privilege for the documents from the Mueller investigation.

So. You’ve still got nothing.

 

[Marener]

So. You’ve still got nothing.

I have historical precedent.

 

[BackAgain]

I have historical precedent.

No. You’ve got nothing. It shows

 

[Marener]

No. You’ve got nothing. It shows

How is historical precedent nothing? That’s most of the basis for executive privilege.

 

[BackAgain]

How is historical precedent nothing? That’s most of the basis for executive privilege.

You don’t have historical precedent.

Listen, simp.

Unless your claim is that you support (or supported) the Trump attempt to invoke Executive Privilege, then you need to reject Potato’s obviously baseless attempt to involving here.

Not all invocations or attempts to invoke Executive Privilege are equal.

Hurry back with more of your empty rhetoric.

 

[Marener]

You don’t have historical precedent.

Listen, simp.

Unless your claim is that you support (or supported) the Trump attempt to invoke Executive Privilege, then you need to reject Potato’s obviously baseless attempt to involving here.

Not all invocations or attempts to invoke Executive Privilege are equal.

Hurry back with more of your empty rhetoric.

The classic double standard. It’s okay when Trump does it.

 

[Marener]

It’s called law enforcement privilege.

Defining Executive Privileges

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[BackAgain]

The classic double standard. It’s okay when Trump does it.

No. I just exposed your double standard.

You cannot equate the Trump attempt to invoke Executive Privilege with the absolutely and obviously baseless effort by Potato to try it under these circumstances.

And we all know that’s why you’re flailing so badly here.

Trinity you *****. Man up. Give it a try.

In what universe and under what recognized legitimate standard can Potato pretend that there is any valid basis to attempt to invoke Executive Privilege over the audio tapes of a special prosecutor’s interview of Potato — especially when the transcripts have already been disclosed?

Go.

 

[Marener]

You cannot equate the Trump attempt to invoke Executive Privilege with the absolutely and obviously baseless effort by Potato to try it under these circumstances.

Why can’t I? What’s so different about when Trump did it?

 

[jc456]

Biden's testimony in an investigation into his stealing of classified documents is in no way related to him taking advice from his advisors on policy. The doctrine of executive privilege exists so a President can get advice from staff etc on policy issues without that advice going public.

Also, in no way was his theft of classified documents while Senator and VP part of his "duties of the presidency".

Game. Set. Match.





The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.1 Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege,2 the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.3

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-1/ALDE_00013377/

Double standard, if trump’s perfect call was allowed to be heard, so is creepy’s audio

 

[BackAgain]

Why can’t I? What’s so different about when Trump did it?

Ducking the actual question. Again.

Start with something simple.

Using your clearest understanding of what the legal bases are for a President to even seek to invoke Executive Privilege, feel free to explain how any such basis applies to the Hur audiotape — especially given that the transcript already been shared.

Also, it isn’t presidential advice. It was a q. and A.

It also isn’t a matter of anything over which the President had any authority. It was the HUR investigation. And supposedly, Hur was independent of outside control.

Of course, AG Garland seems predisposed to appoint special prosecutors outside the bounds of the Code of Federal Regulations.

For example:

28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel​

(a) …. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.

28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

www.law.cornell.edu

Neither Hur nor Smith qualified under that rule. But, why would an attorney general of the United States be bound by the CFR? Rules and official codes are for other people. You know. The little people.

As for the independence of an appointed special counsel there’s also this:

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.
Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.

So why would the President seek to control what the AG You brained via that investigation? Why would the AG acquiesce in it?

Unless, maybe, the Constitution itself trumps the CFR. And, if that’s the case, then the argument that the special counsels are unconstitutional has a lot more weight.

I wonder how the SCOTUS might view that argument?

 

[Hellokitty]

Biden's testimony in an investigation into his stealing of classified documents is in no way related to him taking advice from his advisors on policy. The doctrine of executive privilege exists so a President can get advice from staff etc on policy issues without that advice going public.

Also, in no way was his theft of classified documents while Senator and VP part of his "duties of the presidency".

Game. Set. Match.





The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.1 Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege,2 the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.3

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-1/ALDE_00013377/

Who else was present during the interview and who did the transcription? Have they been brought in to testify, along with EVERYONE who has listened to the audio?
I seem to remember TRUMP release the recording of his phone call with Zelenski, it was a perfect call so why would he not.
What are they hiding? Release the tapes Joe!

 

[OKTexas]

Biden's testimony in an investigation into his stealing of classified documents is in no way related to him taking advice from his advisors on policy. The doctrine of executive privilege exists so a President can get advice from staff etc on policy issues without that advice going public.

Also, in no way was his theft of classified documents while Senator and VP part of his "duties of the presidency".

Game. Set. Match.





The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.1 Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege,2 the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.3

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-1/ALDE_00013377/

Seems I made that same argument when they made that ridiculous claim. This was the latest from June 5.

Garland knows full well that xiden can't claim executive privilege when speaking to a prosecutor investigating him. Garland's refusal to provide the subpoenaed materials base on the false claim of executive privilege makes him the one playing politics and making things contentious, not the committee. Executive privilege is reserved for conversations between the president and his trusted advisors. Of course the commiecrats on the committee will never admit these facts.

.