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

[Nostra]

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/

 

[excalibur]

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.

 

[Nostra]

Pretty sure the leftist posters are feverishly contacting their handlers for some talking points on this.......

 

[Nostra]

More for the Bidenista Cultists to chew on..................

Legal challenges have established two general categories of executive privilege: presidential communications and deliberative process.

The presidential communications privilege applies to communications involving the president or his staff that immediately pertain to the president's decision-making process. The idea, according to Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University, and author of a book on executive privilege, is that "the president should have the right to candid advice without fear of public disclosure."

Deliberative process involves a broader scope of executive branch activity: discussions involving White House staff or within other agencies on legal or policy decisions that don't necessarily involve the president or his immediate advisers. Again, the argument is that government officials need to feel like they can talk honestly. The deliberative process privilege, Rozell says, is generally easier to challenge than a claim of presidential communications privilege.

The Facts Behind Obama’s Executive Privilege Claim

President Obama has invoked executive privilege to keep documents from Congress about botched Operation Fast and Furious. Just what is executive privilege, and what might happen next?

www.propublica.org

 

[MarathonMike]

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/

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.

 

[excalibur]

... I wonder if he would have done less damage as a Supreme Court justice.

No.

 

[Catsnmeters]

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/

Will probably go to SCOTUS.

Yawn...

Let me know in a couple years how it turned out.

 

[Nostra]

Will probably go to SCOTUS.

Yawn...

Let me know in a couple years how it turned out.

yet another Dimtard that has to admit it is nothing but a stall tactic.

Thanks for stopping by, Simp.

 

[Catsnmeters]

yet another Dimtard that has to admit it is nothing but a stall tactic.

Thanks for stopping by, Simp.

Another troll post.

Have a good day.

 

[Nostra]

Another troll post.

Have a good day.

 

[Nostra]

Hey folks, please note that to this point there has been no challenge on the facts of my OP.

NONE.

 

[Crepitus]

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

For starters Garland didn't claim it.

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

 

[yidnar]

Will probably go to SCOTUS.

Yawn...

Let me know in a couple years how it turned out.

as long as the truth is concealed till after the election eh commie ?

 

[Catsnmeters]

as long as the truth is concealed till after the election eh commie ?

No.

It just the legal process.

Sorry you hate it.

 

[yidnar]

No.

It just the legal process.

Sorry you hate it.

 

[Catsnmeters]

View attachment 962602

It isn't the legal process or you just like cope meme?

 

[yidnar]

It isn't the legal process or you just like cope meme?

oh it may be the part of the process but you don't want the truth revealed until after the election .. if the SC took it up and ruled against Garland you and your lying Marxist gender confused cult would screech foul at the top of your effeminate emotional lungs .

 

[Catsnmeters]

oh it may be the part of the process but you don't want the truth revealed until after the election ..

What truth?

if the SC took it up and ruled against Garland you and your lying Marxist gender confused cult would screech foul at the top of your effeminate emotional lungs .

I would support any legal decision made.

Will you?

 

[yidnar]

What truth?


I would support any legal decision made.

Will you?

so you support all legal decisions eh ? do you support ROE Vs Wade being struck down by the SC ?

 

[Catsnmeters]

so you support all legal decisions eh ? do you support ROE Vs Wade being struck down by the SC ?

View attachment 962610

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?