Trump Plans To Avoid Subpoenas By Invoking A Privilege He Doesn't Have

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

[elleng]

1. of course

[Thomas Hurt]

2. should have been dictator privilege...

[Claustrum]

3. Is this correct though?

I mean, lets say the republican go after Obama or Clinton for something they did in their terms. Then Obama or Clinton can't claim executive privilege for any conversations they made during his term? That just doesn't seem right to me because those conversations happened during Trump/Obama/Clinton's term, even though the probe is after they become ex-president.


I am not saying Trump isn't overreaching and waving the "executive privilege" like a magic wand. He certainly did it wrong when he asserted that privilege with Don Jr (which Don Jr wasn't employed by the executive branch, thus no privilege). I am simply saying that it makes sense in some instance for an ex-president to use "executive privilege" for conversations or things they did during their term.

[dchill]

5. Executive privilege does not cover criminal activity.

Or Steve Bannon, for that matter.

[Claustrum]

6. But that's not the argument some and the person in the video is making.

They are saying Trump is out of office, thus no longer an "executive", so no "executive privilege" for Trump, which isn't right. Trump is well within his right to claim "executive privilege" as an ex-president if he applied it correctly. Though, like everything Trump did and does, he is applying it wrong. But that doesn't the video presenters point correct.

[dchill]

7. My understanding is that executive privilege extends...

...to the current executive.

[Claustrum]

9. So are you saying former president can't apply executive privilege if there is a probe for thing and

conversations they did/had during his/her term? That just doesn't seem right to me. Executive privilege should apply to an ex-president for conversations/things they did during their term if said president applied it correctly.

Once again, I am not disagreeing with the premise/conclusion of the video. I am simply disagreeing or unsure about the support/rational.

[dchill]

13. It would seem to be a privilege, not an absolute right.

So if it is inappropriately applied, the privilege probably should be revoked. Ergo, Trump. This is just my take on what I've observed today.

[dchill]

8. Most presidents have extended executive privilege...

... properly applied by former presidents.

[Justice matters.]

10. EPs are moot if they're invoked to cover up conspiracies to overturn the results of elections

or any other criminal activity for that matter.

Any Executive Official who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution cannot use EPs as a get-out-of-jail-free card after it was shown (re: The Senate Judiciary Committee's report in this case) that he/she breached that oath.

[Claustrum]

11. Once again, I clearly understand Trump is using it wrong.

But that's not the point the video is making. It is saying an ex-president no longer has the executive power to claim executive privilege for things/conversations they had during their term. That seems to be the wrong rational for me.

And if we say we are fact based, then we shouldn't give light to these videos that has the wrong rational, or at least it should be corrected. If the rational is wrong, it is as wrong as the disinformation that's circulated in RW circle. And we shouldn't spread it too even though the conclusion is correct.

[Justice matters.]

12. The point the video is making is a fact: TFG can't invoke any EP. Only Biden can.

And Biden said he won't. What's next is the courts will decide the outcome, as clearly stated at the end of the video.

There's nothing wrong with the video (I see no RW talking point in it).

[PoliticAverse]

15. See...

Executive Privilege and Former Presidents: Constitutional Principles and Current Application
Congressional Research Service
September 20, 2021

(.pdf) https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/LSB10642.pdf

[dchill]

4. Also, a pardon in every pocket? Just guessing?

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Invoking executive privilege to protect crimes against the State would be a bridge too far

I could see it invoked to protect revelations that would harm the public, like a military operation gone wrong, or in foreign policy deliberations about or with other countries, or about domestic policies about which parties disagree. But about advice or strategy for seditious acts to overturn the very foundation of elected representative government? No. That is using the public tool of executive privilege, which is designed to protect the State and the country from harm and turmoil, for the private interest of one of the parties or its former head. It's a get-out-of-jail free card to protect an attempt to invalidate the collective will of the American People as expressed by their head count in a free and fair election - a democracy.