Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
3. No, it doesn't.
Fri Sep 24, 2021, 05:13 PM
Sep 2021

There is a difference between a person having STANDING to bring a defense based on a privilege in court and the defense actually being accepted.

In this instance, former presidents have the RIGHT to invoke executive privilege over communications they engaged in as president. But it is up to the court to determine whether the particular communication at issue falls within the privilege's protection.

Trump, as a former president, has the standing to assert executive privilege in this case. But the communications at issue are unlikely to qualify as privileged, given a variety of factors, including the fact that they involve criminal activity unrelated to the duties of a president and they were engaged in with people who were not on his staff at the time of the communications. He also has to show that the communications are so sensitive and important that revelation of them can negatively impact the country - that's where Biden comes in. By refraining from joining Trump in the invocation of the privilege, he's essentially saying that disclosing that communication won't cause any damage and that's going to be given considerable weight since he's the person currently responsible for the well-being of the country.

I hope that makes sense - it's both complicated and also very simple and logical.

I guess this would be true even if the evidence is requested as part of a criminal investigation? wcmagumba Sep 2021 #1
No, it doesn't. StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #3
Okay, thanks for a great explanation, I'm not a lawyer but it sounds as though drumphy wcmagumba Sep 2021 #9
Glad to explain it - I know it's confusing. Even skilled lawyers are getting it wrong StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #12
Executive Privilege and Former Presidents: Constitutional Principles and Current Application PoliticAverse Sep 2021 #2
Thanks for posting this. From your link: StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #6
The key point I got from that document was... PoliticAverse Sep 2021 #10
Yes, I totally agree with that StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #11
It also says that is is the applied in the constitutional functions of a president Bev54 Sep 2021 #13
Yes - that's one of the reasons I think his attempt to claim executive privilege will fail StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #14
heard to assert doesnt mean they will actually get it IMO. nt msongs Sep 2021 #4
Exactly StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #7
I think people really under estimate how much power a former President still wields fescuerescue Sep 2021 #5
Possibly StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #8
Thanks for explanation Midnightwalk Sep 2021 #15
And the "heard to assert" fits with the rule that Trump has 60 days now to make this claim. pnwmom Sep 2021 #16
Kick StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #17
The current POTUS gets to make the decision on Executive Privilege LetMyPeopleVote Sep 2021 #18
Barbara McQuade is wrong.The decision is not solely up to Biden. StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #19
Biden White House leans toward releasing information about Trump and Jan. 6 attack, setting off lega LetMyPeopleVote Sep 2021 #20
You're missing the point StarfishSaver Sep 2021 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Several legal pundits are...»Reply #3