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

[Nostra]

Nope.

Executive privilege in not well defined. It doesn’t exist in the constitution and there have been very few court cases to outline the parameters of what is and isn’t covered.

You’re completely wrong.

My multiple links prove it is well defined, and this shit doesn't fall under EP.

That's why you can't show how it does. All you can bleat is "it's whatever the Executive branch says it is"..