Sessions and the Reagan Defense

[radical right]

You're not following the conversation too well, that was in response that Sessions didn't answer questions when he was a senator. I asked for an example where Sessions claimed privilege when he was a senator. Also it appears you haven't read the link at post #62.


.

Sessions claimed executive priviledge so he wouldn't have to answer a question about the people who work for him.

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. That would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to --

Did you notice the switch from DOJ people, to the white house?

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry Cupcake the AG for Cheeto NEVER said that? Weird right? It's WHAT'S discussed which MIGHT be privileged not what Sessions did


When you have to invent a new form of privilege to duck questions at a Congressional investigation, 'winning'??


BTW, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED AT THE TIME HE WAS SENATOR, NOT AG

"There is no legally binding basis for refusing to answer questions unrelated to an ongoing investigation unless the President is invoking executive privilege," William Yeomans, a 26-year veteran of the Justice Department and fellow at American University Law School, told CNN."That privilege is not absolute -- it can be overcome by a sufficient interest. DOJ traditionally does not discuss ongoing investigations in public, but ultimately must answer questions unless executive privilege is properly invoked and upheld."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.



The 9 experts who rejected Sessions's "executive privilege" argument

Asha Rangappa, Associate Dean, Yale Law School
I believe Heinrich is 100% right in this case. First, executive privilege, if it even applies in this case, can only be invoked by the president, as it attaches to his office. Sessions cannot “preemptively” invoke it on the president’s behalf. Second, I’m not sure what DOJ policy has to do with this. DOJ policy is an internal executive branch regulation. It doesn’t provide a legal shield against testifying in Congress when it is conducting an investigation as part of its oversight function.



...Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan


...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said. Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

This was your claim snowflake, back it up.

BTW, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED AT THE TIME HE WAS SENATOR, NOT AG

Or you can just admit it was a lie.


.

AGAIN CUPCAKE




Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan

...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said.

Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.






Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of Georgia


Taking the hearing as a whole, the attorney general seemed unclear on whether there existed a written policy not to answer questions in these circumstances. When Sen. [Kamala] Harris asked him if the policy were in writing, he said, “I think so.”

That said, I would expect that executive branch officials take care not to reveal, in public settings, conversations they wish to keep confidential. In the Nixon case in 1974, the Supreme Court acknowledged that presidents may have a generalized interest in maintaining such confidentiality. But it is not absolute.

If Senators were to seek to compel an answer — rather than asking for a voluntary answer, as was the case today — that would put the matter squarely in the executive’s court. If the president then refused to permit the question to be answered, via invocation of executive privilege, a court would have to determine whether the conversation implicated a privilege.

If so, the court then would decide whether the interests underlying that privilege outweigh, or not, Congress’s interest in obtaining the answer. This is the procedure that the court established as a constitutional matter, and it would prevail over any policy statement.



Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton University

I am not familiar with any DOJ policy that would prevent Sessions from discussing those conversations in this context, and such policies would have little weight in Congress regardless. I do think the administration has a reasonable basis for asserting privilege regarding the deliberations between the president and his closest advisers, and then it would be a question for Congress to answer as to whether it is willing to respect that assertion of privilege or would want to try to sanction the administration and coerce compliance. The oddity here is just the fact that Sessions tried to leave the issue unsettled when it was clear the senators were expecting him to be more forthcoming in light of Comey's testimony and Sessions's willingness to testify at all.

I think Sessions's stance on this is best read as a threat of asserting executive privilege, or to use a less bellicose image, a trial balloon. He left himself an opening to come back and answer the questions later, in person or in writing, but he tested the waters to see how hard the Senate is willing to push on this. If they push, then the administration could decide to up the ante and assert privilege, and then see how the Senate responds. If the Senate does not push, then the administration can simply let it go for now. Rather than forcing the White House and the Senate into an immediate impasse, Sessions tried to leave room for future negotiations and compromise.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

 

[radical right]

Wouldn't the president have to initiate any discussions about pardons? Why would DOJ be discussing pardons if it weren't brought up to them?

.

NOPE. Jared Kutchner could have called the DOJ on his own accord, just like he tried to set up a secret back channel with the russians on his own.

 

[OKTexas]

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.



The 9 experts who rejected Sessions's "executive privilege" argument

Asha Rangappa, Associate Dean, Yale Law School
I believe Heinrich is 100% right in this case. First, executive privilege, if it even applies in this case, can only be invoked by the president, as it attaches to his office. Sessions cannot “preemptively” invoke it on the president’s behalf. Second, I’m not sure what DOJ policy has to do with this. DOJ policy is an internal executive branch regulation. It doesn’t provide a legal shield against testifying in Congress when it is conducting an investigation as part of its oversight function.



...Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan


...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said. Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

This was your claim snowflake, back it up.

BTW, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED AT THE TIME HE WAS SENATOR, NOT AG

Or you can just admit it was a lie.


.

AGAIN CUPCAKE




Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan

...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said.

Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.






Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of Georgia


Taking the hearing as a whole, the attorney general seemed unclear on whether there existed a written policy not to answer questions in these circumstances. When Sen. [Kamala] Harris asked him if the policy were in writing, he said, “I think so.”

That said, I would expect that executive branch officials take care not to reveal, in public settings, conversations they wish to keep confidential. In the Nixon case in 1974, the Supreme Court acknowledged that presidents may have a generalized interest in maintaining such confidentiality. But it is not absolute.

If Senators were to seek to compel an answer — rather than asking for a voluntary answer, as was the case today — that would put the matter squarely in the executive’s court. If the president then refused to permit the question to be answered, via invocation of executive privilege, a court would have to determine whether the conversation implicated a privilege.

If so, the court then would decide whether the interests underlying that privilege outweigh, or not, Congress’s interest in obtaining the answer. This is the procedure that the court established as a constitutional matter, and it would prevail over any policy statement.



Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton University

I am not familiar with any DOJ policy that would prevent Sessions from discussing those conversations in this context, and such policies would have little weight in Congress regardless. I do think the administration has a reasonable basis for asserting privilege regarding the deliberations between the president and his closest advisers, and then it would be a question for Congress to answer as to whether it is willing to respect that assertion of privilege or would want to try to sanction the administration and coerce compliance. The oddity here is just the fact that Sessions tried to leave the issue unsettled when it was clear the senators were expecting him to be more forthcoming in light of Comey's testimony and Sessions's willingness to testify at all.

I think Sessions's stance on this is best read as a threat of asserting executive privilege, or to use a less bellicose image, a trial balloon. He left himself an opening to come back and answer the questions later, in person or in writing, but he tested the waters to see how hard the Senate is willing to push on this. If they push, then the administration could decide to up the ante and assert privilege, and then see how the Senate responds. If the Senate does not push, then the administration can simply let it go for now. Rather than forcing the White House and the Senate into an immediate impasse, Sessions tried to leave room for future negotiations and compromise.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

The selective outrage on the left is hilarious, two intel officials exerted the same privilege about conversations with the president and all we heard was crickets until Sessions does it, with justification. I can quote legal experts that agree with Sessions, but I won't bother because hacks like you have no interest in discussions.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Wouldn't the president have to initiate any discussions about pardons? Why would DOJ be discussing pardons if it weren't brought up to them?

.

NOPE. Jared Kutchner could have called the DOJ on his own accord, just like he tried to set up a secret back channel with the russians on his own.

Get back to me when you have evidence he did and wasn't representing the president IF he did.


.

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.



The 9 experts who rejected Sessions's "executive privilege" argument

Asha Rangappa, Associate Dean, Yale Law School
I believe Heinrich is 100% right in this case. First, executive privilege, if it even applies in this case, can only be invoked by the president, as it attaches to his office. Sessions cannot “preemptively” invoke it on the president’s behalf. Second, I’m not sure what DOJ policy has to do with this. DOJ policy is an internal executive branch regulation. It doesn’t provide a legal shield against testifying in Congress when it is conducting an investigation as part of its oversight function.



...Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan


...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said. Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

This was your claim snowflake, back it up.

BTW, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED AT THE TIME HE WAS SENATOR, NOT AG

Or you can just admit it was a lie.


.

AGAIN CUPCAKE




Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan

...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said.

Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.






Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of Georgia


Taking the hearing as a whole, the attorney general seemed unclear on whether there existed a written policy not to answer questions in these circumstances. When Sen. [Kamala] Harris asked him if the policy were in writing, he said, “I think so.”

That said, I would expect that executive branch officials take care not to reveal, in public settings, conversations they wish to keep confidential. In the Nixon case in 1974, the Supreme Court acknowledged that presidents may have a generalized interest in maintaining such confidentiality. But it is not absolute.

If Senators were to seek to compel an answer — rather than asking for a voluntary answer, as was the case today — that would put the matter squarely in the executive’s court. If the president then refused to permit the question to be answered, via invocation of executive privilege, a court would have to determine whether the conversation implicated a privilege.

If so, the court then would decide whether the interests underlying that privilege outweigh, or not, Congress’s interest in obtaining the answer. This is the procedure that the court established as a constitutional matter, and it would prevail over any policy statement.



Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton University

I am not familiar with any DOJ policy that would prevent Sessions from discussing those conversations in this context, and such policies would have little weight in Congress regardless. I do think the administration has a reasonable basis for asserting privilege regarding the deliberations between the president and his closest advisers, and then it would be a question for Congress to answer as to whether it is willing to respect that assertion of privilege or would want to try to sanction the administration and coerce compliance. The oddity here is just the fact that Sessions tried to leave the issue unsettled when it was clear the senators were expecting him to be more forthcoming in light of Comey's testimony and Sessions's willingness to testify at all.

I think Sessions's stance on this is best read as a threat of asserting executive privilege, or to use a less bellicose image, a trial balloon. He left himself an opening to come back and answer the questions later, in person or in writing, but he tested the waters to see how hard the Senate is willing to push on this. If they push, then the administration could decide to up the ante and assert privilege, and then see how the Senate responds. If the Senate does not push, then the administration can simply let it go for now. Rather than forcing the White House and the Senate into an immediate impasse, Sessions tried to leave room for future negotiations and compromise.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

The selective outrage on the left is hilarious, two intel officials exerted the same privilege about conversations with the president and all we heard was crickets until Sessions does it, with justification. I can quote legal experts that agree with Sessions, but I won't bother because hacks like you have no interest in discussions.


.

CRICKETS CUPCAKE?


Democrats furious at evasive answers at hearing

(CNN)Senate Democrats grew increasingly incredulous and visibly frustrated Wednesday with intelligence chiefs testifying at a hearing after Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers repeatedly said they would not discuss their private conversations with President Donald Trump.



http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/russia-hearing-democrats-response/index.html

 

[radical right]

NOPE. Jared Kutchner could have called the DOJ on his own accord, just like he tried to set up a secret back channel with the russians on his own.

Get back to me when you have evidence he did and wasn't representing the president IF he did.


.

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

Warner asked about water cooler conversations at the DOJ

There is no executive privilege there.

 

[bripat9643]

"I don't recall", "I can't remember", "I don't believe so", ad nausea

COVER UP IN SPADES

Reagan also used "I don't know", just like Sessions.

I don't think Nixon or Reagan used "I don't want to" though and so far, all of the trump minions have used that.

And Sessions contradicted himself, just like trump has.

A bunch of crooks.


.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

We know what site you clowns get this from....the demofag underground, don't you guys ever think of anything new by yourselfs?

Give it up. All of your posts on this thread are a defense of a public official, the lead LE officer in the nation, who claims he can't remember, can't recall and is under oath to tell the truth.

Clinton's, I didn't have sex with that women and Session's I don't recall meeting with Russians, oh yeah, maybe I did but ... are lies of a much different type. There are lies and damn lies and the distinction is clear to an honest observer, which you Bear are not.

Yeah, they are lies of a much different type: Clinton is a Democrat, and Trump is a Republican. That's the difference.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually Session's memory was pretty good. The democrat strategy is to "take the 5th", invoke "executive privilege" or refuse to testify and risk contempt of congress like Obama's A.G.

Maybe Democrats are smarter, know the law and use it to their advantage; maybe they respect the Constitution and the rights and privileges written to provide the division of power among the three parts of government.

You're serious?

 

[bripat9643]

NOPE. Jared Kutchner could have called the DOJ on his own accord, just like he tried to set up a secret back channel with the russians on his own.

Get back to me when you have evidence he did and wasn't representing the president IF he did.


.

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

Warner asked about water cooler conversations at the DOJ

There is no executive privilege there.

Really? Says who? It seems to me that conversations between the Presidents cabinet about what they have discussed with the President is also privileged.

 

[bripat9643]

Clinton couldn't remember who she sent an email to 5 years ago.

Sessions couldn't remember meeting with the Russian ambassador or Trump a few months back.

It's totally the same thing. Well, only if you're a treason-defending conservative liar.

The funny thing is that the treason defenders actually think anyone outside of their cult is falling for their phony-equivalence big lie.

RW horseshit ... anything or anyone Trump related, hit the Clinton/Obama auto-deflect button, and start making shit up .. the more inane, the better.


Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

and the Clintons punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Hillary? Of course not.

 

[eddiew]

Clinton couldn't remember who she sent an email to 5 years ago.

Sessions couldn't remember meeting with the Russian ambassador or Trump a few months back.

It's totally the same thing. Well, only if you're a treason-defending conservative liar.

The funny thing is that the treason defenders actually think anyone outside of their cult is falling for their phony-equivalence big lie.

RW horseshit ... anything or anyone Trump related, hit the Clinton/Obama auto-deflect button, and start making shit up .. the more inane, the better.


Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

and the Clintons punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Hillary? Of course not.

Bri Thank god Thought you died in Va today

 

[bripat9643]

Clinton couldn't remember who she sent an email to 5 years ago.

Sessions couldn't remember meeting with the Russian ambassador or Trump a few months back.

It's totally the same thing. Well, only if you're a treason-defending conservative liar.

The funny thing is that the treason defenders actually think anyone outside of their cult is falling for their phony-equivalence big lie.

RW horseshit ... anything or anyone Trump related, hit the Clinton/Obama auto-deflect button, and start making shit up .. the more inane, the better.


Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

and the Clintons punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Or President, like Bill and wannabee Hillary, or Secretary of State?

Every time one of you fools bring up Sessions, you're putting your foot in your mouth

No, you are the one bringing up President Clinton and HRC - yet you've never offered and evidence of wrong doing. Lots of allegations, but no indictments should have put the matter to rest.

But being a good fascist, you support the principle of guilty until proven innocent, and would be very pleased to see she and he incarcerated as the witch hunts continued.

No dare call you an American!

What evidence to you have that Trump is guilty of any wrong doing? . . . . . . . .

Oh yeah that's right, you got none. Apparently you believe in guilty until proven innocent.

It kills me that your hypocrisy is so blatant. Someone could push your face in shit and you wouldn't smell it.

 

[OKTexas]

NOPE. Jared Kutchner could have called the DOJ on his own accord, just like he tried to set up a secret back channel with the russians on his own.

Get back to me when you have evidence he did and wasn't representing the president IF he did.


.

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

Warner asked about water cooler conversations at the DOJ

There is no executive privilege there.

So he was just asking a hypothetical question? How many people have you seen in congressional hearing refuse to address hypothetical situations? 10-20-30.......


.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure no problem.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

Google can be your friend.

Any questions?


.

YOU DO UNDERSTAND TED OLSEN WAS DISCUSSING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHICH WASN'T INVOKED RIGHT CUPCAKE?

Last paragraph:


"While the foregoing discussion should prove helpful in providing a framework for analysis of potential claims of privilege, we would caution that the applicability of any privilege to a given set of circumstances will almost always involve a judgment of competing values. While the Attorney General or the client must decide initially whether to assert the privilege, the task of resolving conflicts arising out of such competing values, in the final analysis, is one that is reserved to the courts.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/08/31/op-olc-v006-p0481_0.pdf

"

Wrong answer, there's a difference between a privileged conversation between an attorney acting as a legal advisor and his client and executive privilege. It covers constitutional privilege and executive privilege and an AGs authority to assert attorney client privilege.

Attorney General re: The Constitutional Privilege for Executive Branch Deliberations: The Dispute with a House Subcommittee over Documents Concerning Gasoline Conservation Fee” (Jan. 18, 1981) (hereafter Hannon Memorandum); Rehnquist Testimony, supra.8 It is premised on the need to discuss confidential matters which arise within the Executive Branch and to assist the President in the discharge of his constitutional powers and duties, by ensuring discussion that is free-flowing and frank, unencumbered by fear of disclosure or intrusion by the public or the other branches of government. The President and those who assist him require candid advice on the wide range of issues which confront the Executive, and such candid advice may not be forthcoming if Cabinet advisers or their aides must anticipate disclosure of the advice rendered by them and the potential public or legislative criticism which might result therefrom.


.

Sorry Cupcake the AG for Cheeto NEVER said that? Weird right? It's WHAT'S discussed which MIGHT be privileged not what Sessions did


When you have to invent a new form of privilege to duck questions at a Congressional investigation, 'winning'??


BTW, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED AT THE TIME HE WAS SENATOR, NOT AG

"There is no legally binding basis for refusing to answer questions unrelated to an ongoing investigation unless the President is invoking executive privilege," William Yeomans, a 26-year veteran of the Justice Department and fellow at American University Law School, told CNN."That privilege is not absolute -- it can be overcome by a sufficient interest. DOJ traditionally does not discuss ongoing investigations in public, but ultimately must answer questions unless executive privilege is properly invoked and upheld."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

No, that's the real world. Leftwing world is where Comey can pick and choose which questions to answer or claim the information is classified.

 

[bripat9643]

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

I thought executive privilege was a claim to be made by the executive (aka the president) who in this case didn't envoke it. So Sessions refused to answer because he was preserving a right the president didn't exercise.

What next? When the FBI wants to question somebody, Sessions will end the interview to preserve the suspects 5th amendment rights. Even if he wants to talk.

So if Sessions has a conversation with the President, Turmp can choose not to discuss it, but Congress can ask Sessions whatever they like about it?

You are a special kind of stupid. Left wingers are willing to believe anything, no matter how stupid and obviously wrong, if it advances their agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

McCarthyite asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong answer, there's a difference between a privileged conversation between an attorney acting as a legal advisor and his client and executive privilege. It covers constitutional privilege and executive privilege and an AGs authority to assert attorney client privilege.

Attorney General re: The Constitutional Privilege for Executive Branch Deliberations: The Dispute with a House Subcommittee over Documents Concerning Gasoline Conservation Fee” (Jan. 18, 1981) (hereafter Hannon Memorandum); Rehnquist Testimony, supra.8 It is premised on the need to discuss confidential matters which arise within the Executive Branch and to assist the President in the discharge of his constitutional powers and duties, by ensuring discussion that is free-flowing and frank, unencumbered by fear of disclosure or intrusion by the public or the other branches of government. The President and those who assist him require candid advice on the wide range of issues which confront the Executive, and such candid advice may not be forthcoming if Cabinet advisers or their aides must anticipate disclosure of the advice rendered by them and the potential public or legislative criticism which might result therefrom.


.

Sorry Cupcake the AG for Cheeto NEVER said that? Weird right? It's WHAT'S discussed which MIGHT be privileged not what Sessions did


When you have to invent a new form of privilege to duck questions at a Congressional investigation, 'winning'??


BTW, THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED AT THE TIME HE WAS SENATOR, NOT AG

"There is no legally binding basis for refusing to answer questions unrelated to an ongoing investigation unless the President is invoking executive privilege," William Yeomans, a 26-year veteran of the Justice Department and fellow at American University Law School, told CNN."That privilege is not absolute -- it can be overcome by a sufficient interest. DOJ traditionally does not discuss ongoing investigations in public, but ultimately must answer questions unless executive privilege is properly invoked and upheld."

So now your trying to move the goal posts. I answered a question relating to the AGs conversations with the president.

Now feel free to quote the question and answer he claimed privilege on when he was a senator.


.

Sorry, I forget in right wing world Session can choose which questions he answers when it deals with privilege Session invoked with Cheeto

So you have no example, meaning you're a liar.


.

Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.



The 9 experts who rejected Sessions's "executive privilege" argument

Asha Rangappa, Associate Dean, Yale Law School
I believe Heinrich is 100% right in this case. First, executive privilege, if it even applies in this case, can only be invoked by the president, as it attaches to his office. Sessions cannot “preemptively” invoke it on the president’s behalf. Second, I’m not sure what DOJ policy has to do with this. DOJ policy is an internal executive branch regulation. It doesn’t provide a legal shield against testifying in Congress when it is conducting an investigation as part of its oversight function.



...Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan


...One last point. Sessions spoke in detail about the reasons he had for recommending Comey's removal — all of which related to Comey's conduct before the election — and he said that he told the president what he thought on that issue. But when Sen. [Angus] King asked him if the president discussed the Russia investigation with him in the context of the discussion of firing Comey, Sessions said he couldn't discuss those communications with the president because they were confidential and the president might want to claim a privilege.

When privileges apply they attach to both sides of a discussion — what Sessions said to Trump as well as what Trump said to Sessions. If you talk about one part of a potentially privileged conversation — the words you yourself spoke — you've waived any privilege you might be entitled to raise for to the entire communication, including what the other person said. Short version: In a normal court proceeding, by the time Sessions refused to discuss what Trump may have said about the Russia investigation he had already waived any privilege he could raise about any part of that discussion.


Sessions: I can’t discuss conversations with the president. 9 legal experts: Yes, you can.

Leftwing toadies.

 

[bripat9643]

You're not following the conversation too well, that was in response that Sessions didn't answer questions when he was a senator. I asked for an example where Sessions claimed privilege when he was a senator. Also it appears you haven't read the link at post #62.


.

Sessions claimed executive priviledge so he wouldn't have to answer a question about the people who work for him.

WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. That would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to --

Did you notice the switch from DOJ people, to the white house?

Yeah, that's kind of the point of Executive privilege. Your claim is like complaining that someone invoked the 5th Amendment so he wouldn't have to incriminate himself.

Say, do you think those commies who took the 5th during the McCarthy hearings were guilty?

 

[eddiew]

RW horseshit ... anything or anyone Trump related, hit the Clinton/Obama auto-deflect button, and start making shit up .. the more inane, the better.


Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

Trump punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else.

and the Clintons punkd' the simpletons so the think they can punk everyone else

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Should we ever allow someone with such a poor memory and organizational skills - bordering on dementia, even, to hold a high government office, such as attorney general?

Or President, like Bill and wannabee Hillary, or Secretary of State?

Every time one of you fools bring up Sessions, you're putting your foot in your mouth

No, you are the one bringing up President Clinton and HRC - yet you've never offered and evidence of wrong doing. Lots of allegations, but no indictments should have put the matter to rest.

But being a good fascist, you support the principle of guilty until proven innocent, and would be very pleased to see she and he incarcerated as the witch hunts continued.

No dare call you an American!

What evidence to you have that Trump is guilty of any wrong doing? . . . . . . . .

Oh yeah that's right, you got none. Apparently you believe in guilty until proven innocent.

It kills me that your hypocrisy is so blatant. Someone could push your face in shit and you wouldn't smell it.

Look you puke AH You think a guy like Meuller whose been thru the wars would have nothing to go on ???
then you're as stupid as the rest of your repub nitwits