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."
