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

[Marener]

Ducking the actual question. Again.

I already answered. Your post is total nonsense. This is not an unusual claim of executive privilege.

 

[Independent thinker]

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/

I have another reason. The transcripts were released so they didn't claim executive privilege on that. How can you not claim executive privilege on the transcripts and then turn right around and claim it on the audio unless the two versions are different? And, if the two versions are different, doesn't that mean the transcripts are a lie?

 

[Nostra]

I already answered. Your post is total nonsense. This is not an unusual claim of executive privilege.

Tell us how EP applies, Simp.

Why can't you do that?

 

[Nostra]

I have another reason. The transcripts were released so they didn't claim executive privilege on that. How can you not claim executive privilege on the transcripts and then turn right around and claim it on the audio unless the two versions are different? And, if the two versions are different, doesn't that mean the transcripts are a lie?

Excellent point. Board Dimwingers will not have a coherent counter

 

[Marener]

Tell us how EP applies, Simp.

Why can't you do that?

You don’t know anything about executive privilege.

 

[Nostra]

You don’t know anything about executive privilege.

You have nothing

 

[BackAgain]

I already answered. Your post is total nonsense. This is not an unusual claim of executive privilege.

Liar.

 

[Marener]

Liar.

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.

 

[Billo_Really]

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/

Trump wasn't President when he withheld the documents.

 

[Marener]

The transcripts were released so they didn't claim executive privilege on that. How can you not claim executive privilege on the transcripts and then turn right around and claim it on the audio unless the two versions are different?

Because they can.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Wrong again.

The invocation of claimed Executive Privilege is justiciable.

Case law says so very clearly.

Once again, you’re got nothing.

 

[Marener]

Wrong again.

The invocation of claimed Executive Privilege is justiciable.

Case law says so very clearly.

Once again, you’re got nothing.

I never said it wasn't justiciable. You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Once again you have to make shit up to claim you’re winning an argument.

 

[BackAgain]

I never said it wasn't justiciable. You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Once again you have to make shit up to claim you’re winning an argument.

If you can’t communicate clearly (and you can’t and don’t), accept responsibility for yet another one of your many massive failings.

 

[Marener]

If you can’t communicate clearly (and you can’t and don’t), accept responsibility for yet another one of your many massive failings.

Always blaming everyone else like a true worthless piece of shit.

read it again, it’s 100% clear:
Which means it’s a separation of powers issue and until the judiciary weighs in, executive privilege is what the executive says it is

That clearly means that the judiciary CAN weigh in but hasn’t.

Dipshit.

 

[BackAgain]

Let’s clarify for the slow section of the class (goobers like submariner):

President A invokes executive privilege.

President B invokes executive privilege.

Without more specific information, how can any of us determine whether either of those invocations are valid?

The point is obvious. Each effort to invoke the privilege has to be assessed on its own merits or lack thereof.

 

[BackAgain]

Always blaming everyone else like a true worthless piece of shit.

read it again, it’s 100% clear:
Which means it’s a separation of powers issue and until the judiciary weighs in, executive privilege is what the executive says it is

That clearly means that the judiciary CAN weigh in but hasn’t.

Dipshit.

Your complete lack of clarity stands as testament to what you attempted to spew.

Sucks to be a perpetual fail as you always are.

 

[Marener]

Your complete lack of clarity stands as testament to what you attempted to spew.

Sucks to be a perpetual fail as you always are.

It’s clear to anyone with logic and comprehension.

I keep in mind that you don’t have these and next time pretend like I’m speaking to a child.

Okay, so the rules for the country don’t say anything about the boss having to keep secrets, but he totally does for a bunch of reasons! Now, since it’s not in the rules, the old rule maker people have to come up with the rules, but they couldn’t possibly sit down and write rules for every disagreement! <sad face>

So boss of the country says this what he thinks the rules are and if the other kids don’t like it, they need to go to the old rule makers and ask what the rule should be!

 

[j-mac]

Here’s a simple question, what is Garland afraid of in the tapes? And, either congress has oversight or they don’t, which one?

 

[BackAgain]

It’s clear to anyone with logic and comprehension.

There a no way you would know.

I keep in mind that you don’t have these and next time pretend like I’m speaking to a child.

Irony is massive.

Okay, so the rules for the country don’t say anything about the boss having to keep secrets, but he totally does for a bunch of reasons!

Now, since it’s not in the rules, the old rule maker people have to come up with the rules, but they couldn’t possibly sit down and write rules for every disagreement! <sad face>

You’re babbling again, Mr. retardo.

So boss of the country says this what he thinks the rules are and if the other kids don’t like it, they need to go to the old rule makers and ask what the rule should be!

You’re an imbecile.

But one thing is clear. You do like to run away from basic questions. We all know why, too. It’s because you don’t know diddly dog and you’re incapable of discovering the actual law on your own.

 

[Marener]

There a no way you would know.

Irony is massive.




You’re babbling again, Mr. retardo.

You’re an imbecile.

But one thing is clear. You do like to run away from basic questions. We all know why, too. It’s because you don’t know diddly dog and you’re incapable of discovering the actual law on your own.

You didn’t ask a basic question. You asked a monumentally complex question and have demonstrated you’re too stupid to understand the answer. Hell, you’re too stupid to understand your own question.

Administrations have long claimed law enforcement privilege. There is basically no court precedent on this. Until there is, you can’t claim it is or isn’t allowed. Your opinion doesn’t mean shit.