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

[BackAgain]

You didn’t ask a basic question. You asked a monumentally complex question

Only for an ignorant simpleton like you.

Administrations have long claimed law enforcement privilege.

Ok. And?

There is basically no court precedent on this.

Wrong again. I’ve even cited some.

Until there is, you can’t claim it is or isn’t allowed. Your opinion doesn’t mean shit.

I can lead the jackass to water, but I cannot make you drink.

 

[Marener]

Wrong again. I’ve even cited some.

Nothing relevant to this issue.

 

[BackAgain]

Here is a complex set of questions which submoron-er will run away from.

1. Was Special Counsel Hur granted independence from the DOJ oversight (except as to the requirement to comply with proper DOJ policies and procedures)?

A yes or no will suffice.

2. If so, then on what basis could the AG (even at the behest of the President) decline a subpoena from Congress for the audiotape of Hur’s interview with the President ESPECIALLY after the transcript had already been released?

2b. Wouldn’t the attempted invocation of executive privilege on a basis of alleged “law enforcement” constitute “oversight?”

2c. I can defend such oversight on Constitutional grounds. I actually do. But, if you agree with me to that extent, then I suppose you’d have to concede that the special prosecutor isn’t really at all independent. Do you agree with that?

3. If the purported appointment of a special counsel doesn’t comply with the Constitution, do you agree or disagree that his appointment is void ab initio?

3b. If you agree, then aren’t you required to agree that the same applies to alleged special counsel Jack Smith?

3c. If the purported appointment of special counsel is void ab initio, then doesn’t that mean that every action undertaken by said special counsel is a legal nullity?

There are more related questions, but those will suffice (for the sake of some brevity) for now.

I fully expect you to duck and bob and weave and run away again.

 

[BackAgain]

Nothing relevant to this issue.

False. You coward.

 

[Marener]

False. You coward.

Name the case.

US v Nixon is not relevant.

 

[BackAgain]

Name the case.

US v Nixon is not relevant.

Wrong again.

 

[Nostra]

It’s so not unusual we have an example from just the last administration.

The problem for you is the lack of court rulings on the issue. Which means it’s a separation of powers issue and until the judiciary weighs in, executive privilege is what the executive says it is.

Your opinion doesn’t count for shit.

No stupid,what is covered by EP is clearly defined.

 

[BackAgain]

No stupid,what is covered by EP is clearly defined.

That includes the invocation of executive privilege for things like state secrets and law enforcement (which are all subject to court review meaning such claims are not immune from judicial review):

B. Legal Background: On Executive Privilege Generally and the Deference Due to the District Court​

Since the beginnings of our nation, executive officials have claimed a variety of privileges to resist disclosure of information the confidentiality of which they felt was crucial to fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch of our government. Courts ruled early that the executive had a right to withhold documents that might reveal military or state secrets. See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 6-8, 73 S.Ct. 528, 531-32, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953); Chicago Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111, 68 S.Ct. 431, 436, 92 L.Ed. 568(1948); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 106-107, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1875). The courts have also granted the executive a right to withhold the identity of government informers in some circumstances, see Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59-61, 77 S.Ct. 623, 627-28, 1 L.Ed.2d 639(1957), and a qualified right to withhold information related to pending investigations. See Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc.,738 F.2d 1336, 1341-43 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

In re Sealed Case (Espy), 116 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

This, too, will travel at Mach speeds far above the little pinhead of Moroner.

 

[BackAgain]

Moroner

In case you missed it:

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

You didn’t ask a basic question. You asked a monumentally complex question Only for an ignorant simpleton like you. 😎 Administrations have long claimed law enforcement privilege. Ok. And? There is basically no court precedent on this. Wrong again. I’ve even cited some. Until there...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Care4all]

POTATUS claims executive privilege over a recording of his voice, of which a transcript has already been provided.

Just the shit show we all knew Biden would be, and on that, he has not disappointed.

What legislative purpose is there for his voice vs the word for word legal transcripts of the conversation?

There has to be a legislative purpose.

 

[BackAgain]

What legislative purpose is there for his voice vs the word for word legal transcripts of the conversation?

There has to be a legislative purpose.

The legislative purpose is to investigate the Potato.

And the legislative purpose is a secondary question, anyway.

What possible valid basis does Potato have to invoke executive privilege over the tape made by special counsel as part of his investigation into Potato’s behavior? Again, the transcript is already out (assuming it’s even accurate which the audiotape might confirm or challenge).

 

[Marener]

No stupid,what is covered by EP is clearly defined.

Where?

 

[OKTexas]

It’s so not unusual we have an example from just the last administration.

The problem for you is the lack of court rulings on the issue. Which means it’s a separation of powers issue and until the judiciary weighs in, executive privilege is what the executive says it is.

Your opinion doesn’t count for shit.

Well, except for the fact the claim flies in the face of all court precedent. And Garland is well aware of that fact, or should be. Also, Garland should be looking for a new home in a nonextradition country. The current DOJ's decision to violate the law and not present the case to a grand jury, is not binding on the next DOJ.

2 U.S.C. § 194 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 2. The Congress § 194. Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action​

Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by FindLaw Staff
Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

Any questions?

.

 

[yidnar]

Certainly.

Even though it it struck down 50 years of precedent, I fully support it. I don't agree with it but I support it.

Was this supposed to be a gotcha question or something?

so you support something you don't agree with eh ? suuuure ...

 

[Marener]

Moroner

In case you missed it:

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

You didn’t ask a basic question. You asked a monumentally complex question Only for an ignorant simpleton like you. 😎 Administrations have long claimed law enforcement privilege. Ok. And? There is basically no court precedent on this. Wrong again. I’ve even cited some. Until there...

www.usmessageboard.com

Still waiting for you to cite a relevant precedent.

 

[Marener]

Any questions?

Presidential immunity.

 

[BackAgain]

Still waiting for you to cite a relevant precedent.

Still waiting for you to admit you got some.

Still waiting for you to be honest.

Still waiting for you to answer the questions I laid out just for you. You dishonest *****.

 

[Marener]

Still waiting for you to admit you got some.

Got some what? I’ve been consistent that there’s no precedent on the issue.

Still waiting for you to answer the questions I laid out just for you.

Asked and answered. You didn’t understand them.

 

[Catsnmeters]

so you support something you don't agree with eh ? suuuure ...

Yeah. I support the process.

A group made a law that violated the constitution. SCOTUS took the case; decided they would revoke 50 years of precedent and now abortion is not a constitutional right.

I don't agree with it but it was done IAW with our legal processes so I accept it.

Why does that seem so far fetched to you?

 

[yidnar]

Yeah. I support the process.

A group made a law that violated the constitution. SCOTUS took the case; decided they would revoke 50 years of precedent and now abortion is not a constitutional right.

I don't agree with it but it was done IAW with our legal processes so I accept it.

Why does that seem so far fetched to you?

most Americans support the process as long as it is viewed as fare ,evenhanded ,and on the level .. they left is attempting to weaponize the justice system for political gain .