*Biden Sent The Goons To Mar-Largo*

[BackAgain]

The first reason is that a former executive has NO executive privilege against the current executive.

That’s not the reason.

The only president to ever consider the possibility was Nixon, which should tell you something. SCOTUS told him that’s not a rational use of executive privilege.

Also not exactly a correct statement of the SCOTUS decision.

The second reason is that executive privilege doesn’t protect presidents from criminal investigation.

That isn’t a true statement of law. If it is invoked at all, it might well insulate people in the Administration from prosecution. But that isn’t supposed to be the basis for invokingnit.

Again, Nixon tried that and SCOTUS told him that’s not rational.

Again, your attempted restatement of the case is incorrect.

While it is (and properly should be) true that an invocation of Executive Privilege can be defeated sometimes, it is also true that it shouldn’t be treated lightly or dismissively.

Although the Trump effort may or may not be a proper attempt to invoke Executive Privilege, the decision is supposed to be reached based on proper consideration of the facts and the law in each case.

 

[Clipper]

Cite a case or two.

Maybe. Maybe not. (Off hand, I presume it won’t be recognized. And in this instance, it is probably the right call to reject it.)

Clap, your opinion still means absolutely nothing. You are, after all, a hopeless hack and totally retarded.

I'm looking forward to Trump the orange hack having his ass handed back to him again in his latest charade to stall Pence from sealing his fate.

 

[jc456]

It’s in Nixon vs GSA. I already showed you.

And I already told you it was a trial, and why. Fk, even provided you the language

 

[jc456]

Also not exactly a correct statement of the SCOTUS decision

Correct, needs to be related to a trial. I gave them that language

 

[BackAgain]

Nothing baseless about it. I already showed you how the archivist approached it, noting that Nixon vs GSA was a SCOTUS decision that explicitly said executive privilege claims from a former president can’t be used against a current president.

No. In fact, I am the one who made reference to the Nixon and GSA case.

And what the SCOTUS said was that it is an open question.

As a matter of legal principal, of course, whether or not the current President cares to accept the prior President’s claim, the proper purpose for the Privilege is often the same: it could undermine a President’s ability to obtain candid advice from his advisors if such advice could later be used against the advisor. This is why they expect it to be privileged.

I understand that ignorant lummoxes such as you can’t entertain the possibility that an invocation of Executive Privilege by a former President (of your opposition Party) might be made in good faith and based on valid principles. But that doesn’t change the actual analysis.

 

[Marener]

That’s not the reason.

Also not exactly a correct statement of the SCOTUS decision.

That isn’t a true statement of law. If it is invoked at all, it might well insulate people in the Administration from prosecution. But that isn’t supposed to be the basis for invokingnit.

Again, your attempted restatement of the case is incorrect.

While it is (and properly should be) true that an invocation of Executive Privilege can be defeated sometimes, it is also true that it shouldn’t be treated lightly or dismissively.

Although the Trump effort may or may not be a proper attempt to invoke Executive Privilege, the decision is supposed to be reached based on proper consideration of the facts and the law in each case.

There is no law for executive privilege. It’s a doctrine established by court decisions.

There are no circumstances in which a former president has ever been able to claim executive privilege against a current president. The one time it was tried, it failed.

That’s the reason.

It’s even more true that care should be taken when asserting executive privilege. Trump was fond of using this claim anytime he wanted to protect his own ass, which is not what the doctrine is intended for.

You’re fond of claiming I’m wrong, but not fond of explaining why.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm looking forward to Trump the orange hack having his ass handed back to him again in his latest charade to stall Pence from sealing his fate.

Nobody cares what a retard like you looks forward to.

 

[BackAgain]

There is no law for executive privilege. It’s a doctrine established by court decisions.

There is an entire body of law on Executive Privilege. It isn’t statutory. But I don’t recall seeing anyone claim that it was statutory.

There are no circumstances in which a former president has ever been able to claim executive privilege against a current president.

Gibberish.

The one time it was tried, it failed.

Not exactly.

That’s the reason.

No.

It’s even more true that care should be taken when asserting executive privilege.

Ah. One point we agree upon.

Trump was fond of using this claim anytime he wanted to protect his own ass, which is not what the doctrine is intended for.

I don’t know that he was “fond” of any such thing. Neither do you.

You’re fond of claiming I’m wrong, but not fond of explaining why.

False. I have patiently explained how and why you’re wrong several times. You’re just unwilling to see or to listen.

 

[jc456]

There is no law for executive privilege. It’s a doctrine established by court decisions.

There are no circumstances in which a former president has ever been able to claim executive privilege against a current president. The one time it was tried, it failed.

That’s the reason.

It’s even more true that care should be taken when asserting executive privilege. Trump was fond of using this claim anytime he wanted to protect his own ass, which is not what the doctrine is intended for.

You’re fond of claiming I’m wrong, but not fond of explaining why.

And yet you still haven’t presented your evidence to agree with you. Why?

 

[Marener]

No. In fact, I am the one who made reference to the Nixon and GSA case.

And what the SCOTUS said was that it is an open question.

The archivist brought up Nixon vs GSA. You’re getting the main point wrong, in that although there may be circumstances when a former president can claim executive privilege, they definitely can’t claim it against the current president, which is why Nixon lost the case.

As a matter of legal principal, of course, whether or not the current President cares to accept the prior President’s claim, the proper purpose for the Privilege is often the same: it could undermine a President’s ability to obtain candid advice from his advisors if such advice could later be used against the advisor. This is why they expect it to be privileged.

I understand that ignorant lummoxes such as you can’t entertain the possibility that an invocation of Executive Privilege by a former President (of your opposition Party) might be made in good faith and based on valid principles. But that doesn’t change the actual analysis.

You haven’t offered an actual analysis as to how this was a good faith attempt to claim execute privilege.

 

[Marener]

False. I have patiently explained how and why you’re wrong several times. You’re just unwilling to see or to listen.

These are not explanations.

No.

Not exactly.

Gibberish.

 

[BackAgain]

The archivist brought up Nixon vs GSA.

I was the one who brought that up in this thread, you imbecile.

You’re getting the main point wrong, in that although there may be circumstances when a former president can claim executive privilege, they definitely can’t claim it against the current president, which is why Nixon lost the case.

Also false. Instead, the claim was weighed by the Court and only then rejected on its particular merits. Even attorney client privilege can sometimes yield.

You haven’t offered an actual analysis as to how this was a good faith attempt to claim execute privilege.

You mean “executive” privilege. And I haven’t claimed that this attempted invocation is either made in good faith or not.

 

[bripat9643]

How?

How stupid are you? Who sent the FBI to raid Mar a Lago?

 

[Marener]

I was the one who brought that up in this thread, you imbecile.

The archivist brought it up in their letter to Corocon. You’re not original.

Also false. Instead, the claim was weighed by the Court and only then rejected on its particular merits. Even attorney client privilege can sometimes yield.

The court held that the current president should never be subject to the whims of past presidents. It makes no sense that a current executive wouldn’t be allowed to review the information from past executives.

This is what the archivist wrote to Corocon:
To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Id. at 447-48. In Nixon v. GSA, the Court rejected former President Nixon’s argument that a statute requiring that Presidential records from his term in office be maintained in the custody of, and screened by, NARA’s predecessor agency—a “very limited intrusion by personnel in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns”—would “impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers.” Id. at 451; see also id. at 455 (rejecting the claim). The Court specifically noted that an “incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations.” Id. at 452; see also id. at 441-46 (emphasizing, in the course of rejecting a separation-of-powers challenge to a provision of a federal statute governing the disposition of former President Nixon’s tape recordings, papers, and other historical materials “within the Executive Branch,” where the “employees of that branch [would] have access to the materials only ‘for lawful Government use,’” that “[t]he Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch”; and concluding that “nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch”).

Of course, if Trump wanted to challenge this, he had plenty of opportunity to. NARA gave him a month to do so. He chose not to.

You mean “executive” privilege. And I haven’t claimed that this attempted invocation is either made in good faith or not.

There’s no rational basis other than to stifle an investigation into his handling of the information. It’s trying to cover his ass.

 

[BackAgain]

The archivist brought it up in their letter to Corocon. You’re not original.

No shit asswipe. But you studiously miss the point. You claimed you brought up the Nixon case. I was merely correcting your false claim.

The court held that the current president should never be subject to the whims of past presidents. It makes no sense that a current executive wouldn’t be allowed to review the information from past executives.

Your attempted restatement of case holdings lack support.

This is what the archivist wrote to Corocon:
To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Id. at 447-48. In Nixon v. GSA, the Court rejected former President Nixon’s argument that a statute requiring that Presidential records from his term in office be maintained in the custody of, and screened by, NARA’s predecessor agency—a “very limited intrusion by personnel in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns”—would “impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers.” Id. at 451; see also id. at 455 (rejecting the claim). The Court specifically noted that an “incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations.” Id. at 452; see also id. at 441-46 (emphasizing, in the course of rejecting a separation-of-powers challenge to a provision of a federal statute governing the disposition of former President Nixon’s tape recordings, papers, and other historical materials “within the Executive Branch,” where the “employees of that branch [would] have access to the materials only ‘for lawful Government use,’” that “[t]he Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch”; and concluding that “nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch”).

You intentionally buried the lede. We all know why. You’re a bit too disingenuous to actually admit that — up until now — you had misstated what the Court had said.

Of course, if Trump wanted to challenge this, he had plenty of opportunity to. NARA gave him a month to do so. He chose not to.

Nonsense. It was an ongoing matter. As it was still undergoing negotiations, DOJ improperly pounced. A mere magistrate judge authorized the use of a search warrant. Quite disgraceful.

There’s no rational basis other than to stifle an investigation into his handling of the information. It’s trying to cover his ass.

What you’re trying to assert as a fact is actually just a statement of your preconceived mere opinion.

 

[jc456]

The archivist brought up Nixon vs GSA. You’re getting the main point wrong, in that although there may be circumstances when a former president can claim executive privilege, they definitely can’t claim it against the current president, which is why Nixon lost the case.

You haven’t offered an actual analysis as to how this was a good faith attempt to claim execute privilege.

Still wrong. Been wrong and nothing you can post to change fact

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Thanks to Marener who is being attacked (failingly) by the stooges. Trump has no executive power or exemption out of office on his own merit as a former President. The conclusive evidence has presented several time. When that evidene is ignored or set aside, you know the trolls are out.

 

[jc456]

That’s not the reason.

Also not exactly a correct statement of the SCOTUS decision.

That isn’t a true statement of law. If it is invoked at all, it might well insulate people in the Administration from prosecution. But that isn’t supposed to be the basis for invokingnit.

Again, your attempted restatement of the case is incorrect.

While it is (and properly should be) true that an invocation of Executive Privilege can be defeated sometimes, it is also true that it shouldn’t be treated lightly or dismissively.

Although the Trump effort may or may not be a proper attempt to invoke Executive Privilege, the decision is supposed to be reached based on proper consideration of the facts and the law in each case.

There’s no crime

 

[jc456]

Thanks to Marener who is being attacked (failingly) by the stooges. Trump has no executive power or exemption out of office on his own merit as a former President. The conclusive evidence has presented several time. When that evidene is ignored or set aside, you know the trolls are out.

And yet you still avoid posting the definition

 

[BackAgain]

Thanks to Marener who is being attacked (failingly) by the stooges. Trump has no executive power or exemption out of office on his own merit as a former President. The conclusive evidence has presented several time. When that evidene is ignored or set aside, you know the trolls are out.

John Edgar Retarded Horses seems to believe that disagreement with him or with Sub-Marener constitutes “trolling.”

Conclusion:

J. Edgar Retarded Horses is a real pussy.