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

[Catsnmeters]

most Americans support the process as long as it is viewed as fare ,evenhanded ,and on the level .. they left is attempting to weaponize the justice system for political gain .

That's odd after acting shocked that I do.

Regardless, "views" are just thots and feelings.

Perhaps you have an example?

Like if Biden told his DoJ...“just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen,” then yeah, that would be attempting to weaponize the justice system.

Do you have something like that?

 

[Billiejeens]

You don’t have historical precedent.

Listen, simp.

Unless your claim is that you support (or supported) the Trump attempt to invoke Executive Privilege, then you need to reject Potato’s obviously baseless attempt to involving here.

Not all invocations or attempts to invoke Executive Privilege are equal.

Hurry back with more of your empty rhetoric.

Biden is a Democrat
You may be forgetting that part.

 

[Billiejeens]

You don’t know anything about executive privilege.

Democrat Executives should have it.
Republican Executives should not.

Easy Peasy.

 

[BackAgain]

Got some what? I’ve been consistent that there’s no precedent on the issue.

Toddle off. You’re either playing obtuse or you’re even dumber than you’ve come across so far.

That’s hard to even believe.

Asked and answered. You didn’t understand them.

So, as I expected, you’ve chosen to bob and weave and run away.

 

[Marener]

So, as I expected, you’ve chosen to bob and weave and run away.

I’ve explained it several times.

It’s called law enforcement privilege.

Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to Congressional Demands for Law Enforcement Files

www.justice.gov

It is the policy of the Executive Branch to decline to provide committees of Congress with access to or copies of law enforcement files, or materials in investigative files whose disclosure might adversely affect a pending enforcement action, overall enforcement policy, or the rights of individuals.

Congressional assurance of confidentiality cannot overcome concern over the integrity of law enforcement files, not only because of concern over potential public distribution of the documents by Congress, but because of the importance of preventing direct congressional influence on investigations in progress.

It is the constitutional responsibility of the Executive to determine whether and when materials in law enforcement files may be distributed publicly, and this responsibility cannot and will not be delegated to Congress.

 

[OKTexas]

What legislative purpose is there for his voice vs the word for word legal transcripts of the conversation?

There has to be a legislative purpose.

First it allows them to verify the transcripts are accurate. The xiden admin has a documented habit of altering transcripts to make the walking mushroom sound more coherent. Also you can't judge attitude and inflection in a transcript. A lot can be learned from hearing the spoken word. And the legislative purpose it to beef up laws on the handling of classified documents.

.

 

[BackAgain]

I’ve explained it several times.

It’s called law enforcement privilege.

Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to Congressional Demands for Law Enforcement Files

www.justice.gov

It is the policy of the Executive Branch to decline to provide committees of Congress with access to or copies of law enforcement files, or materials in investigative files whose disclosure might adversely affect a pending enforcement action, overall enforcement policy, or the rights of individuals.

Congressional assurance of confidentiality cannot overcome concern over the integrity of law enforcement files, not only because of concern over potential public distribution of the documents by Congress, but because of the importance of preventing direct congressional influence on investigations in progress.

It is the constitutional responsibility of the Executive to determine whether and when materials in law enforcement files may be distributed publicly, and this responsibility cannot and will not be delegated to Congress.

I’ve rebutted it.

You just didn’t read it or you didn’t understand it or you’re just being dishonest about it. No surprise either or any way.

 

[OKTexas]

Where?

Try reading the case law, troll.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Presidential immunity.

Irrelevant at this time, the prosecutor said xiden is too feeble and senile to be prosecuted. The case has been closed. Of course the next DOJ may not see it that way.

.

 

[Marener]

Here is a complex set of questions which submoron-er will run away from.

1. Was Special Counsel Hur granted independence from the DOJ oversight (except as to the requirement to comply with proper DOJ policies and procedures)?

A yes or no will suffice.

2. If so, then on what basis could the AG (even at the behest of the President) decline a subpoena from Congress for the audiotape of Hur’s interview with the President ESPECIALLY after the transcript had already been released?

2b. Wouldn’t the attempted invocation of executive privilege on a basis of alleged “law enforcement” constitute “oversight?”

2c. I can defend such oversight on Constitutional grounds. I actually do. But, if you agree with me to that extent, then I suppose you’d have to concede that the special prosecutor isn’t really at all independent. Do you agree with that?

3. If the purported appointment of a special counsel doesn’t comply with the Constitution, do you agree or disagree that his appointment is void ab initio?

3b. If you agree, then aren’t you required to agree that the same applies to alleged special counsel Jack Smith?

3c. If the purported appointment of special counsel is void ab initio, then doesn’t that mean that every action undertaken by said special counsel is a legal nullity?

There are more related questions, but those will suffice (for the sake of some brevity) for now.

I fully expect you to duck and bob and weave and run away again.

The answer to question 1 is no.

The rest of the questions are irrelevant.

 

[Marener]

You just didn’t read it

I must have missed it. What post was it?

 

[Marener]

Irrelevant at this time, the prosecutor said xiden is too feeble and senile to be prosecuted. The case has been closed. Of course the next DOJ may not see it that way.

.

The next DoJ may well prosecute Biden. It wouldn’t shock me.

But your last post wasn’t about prosecuting Biden, but prosecuting Garland because he did not comply with the Congressional subpoena. That’s idiotic. No one would ever prosecute a member of the administration for claiming executive privilege.

 

[Marener]

Try reading the case law, troll.

.

It’s extremely spotty and incomplete.

 

[OKTexas]

I’ve explained it several times.

It’s called law enforcement privilege.

Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to Congressional Demands for Law Enforcement Files

www.justice.gov

It is the policy of the Executive Branch to decline to provide committees of Congress with access to or copies of law enforcement files, or materials in investigative files whose disclosure might adversely affect a pending enforcement action, overall enforcement policy, or the rights of individuals.

Congressional assurance of confidentiality cannot overcome concern over the integrity of law enforcement files, not only because of concern over potential public distribution of the documents by Congress, but because of the importance of preventing direct congressional influence on investigations in progress.

It is the constitutional responsibility of the Executive to determine whether and when materials in law enforcement files may be distributed publicly, and this responsibility cannot and will not be delegated to Congress.

Irrelevant, all persons involved are already known and the investigation is closed.

.

 

[BackAgain]

The answer to question 1 is no.

The rest of the questions are irrelevant.

I knew you’d duck and Bob and run away. I predicted it.

Naturally, I was right.

And, also, yiur one answer is wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

I must have missed it. What post was it?

lol. Coward.

 

[OKTexas]

The next DoJ may well prosecute Biden. It wouldn’t shock me.

But your last post wasn’t about prosecuting Biden, but prosecuting Garland because he did not comply with the Congressional subpoena. That’s idiotic. No one would ever prosecute a member of the administration for claiming executive privilege.

I can think of a number of presidential advisors that have been prosecuted and sentenced that would disagree.

And both xiden and Garland have exposure.

Also keep in mind, the next president can waive any privilege claims of a former president or AG. You can thank xiden for that.

.

 

[OKTexas]

It’s extremely spotty and incomplete.

Wrong again commie, it's pretty comprehensive of what can be claimed as privileged. And being questioned by a prosecutor ain't included.

.

 

[Marener]

lol. Coward.

Not really. I'm open to debate, I just not sure which post you're talking about.

A coward would be afraid to debate, which is what you're doing here.

 

[Marener]

I knew you’d duck and Bob and run away. I predicted it.

Naturally, I was right.

And, also, yiur one answer is wrong.

The rest of the questions are predicated on the first question. You have an incorrect belief about how the special counsel works. They remain a part of the DoJ and has oversight by the AG, who has direct oversight by the president. The AG can overrule any decision made by the Special Counsel.

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

www.law.cornell.edu

This is also irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether they can or can't claim executive privilege.