Is there any type of "Executive Privilege" for ex-Presidents? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 07:12:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Is there any type of "Executive Privilege" for ex-Presidents? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is there any type of "Executive Privilege" for ex-Presidents?  (Read 1045 times)
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


« on: October 14, 2021, 06:20:29 AM »
« edited: October 14, 2021, 06:24:28 AM by StateBoiler »

It should apply to ex-presidents in some regard. Otherwise, you're just going to get score-settling trials once someone leaves office just to make the former president look bad. To pull an example, it's easy to imagine Republicans take power in Congress in 2017 they drag Ben Rhodes and company to be called to testify on the Iran nuclear deal.

The Democrats here though are likely going to do what they should have done the first time with Trump's first impeachment trial. Someone is not going to comply with a congressional subpoena: that's contempt of Congress and have them arrested.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2021, 07:55:46 AM »
« Edited: October 18, 2021, 07:59:37 AM by StateBoiler »

Asking because Trump is citing this now while trying to keep documents from being released to the January 6 Commission and prevent his former aides from being subpoenaed to testify.

Sounds like nonsense to me. The Justice Department has also hinted of this continues they'll being charges against aides who refuse subpoenas.

The one assertion that sticks out the most to me in all of this is the one that relates to Bannon. Trump is claiming that his privilege somehow extends to a random person who wasn't even an employee of the executive branch at the time, an approach which no previous President has even attempted to assert, let alone an approach that any court has ever actually upheld.

This is what I never understood about Giuliani in again, the 1st impeachment. He was never an executive branch employee, so if called to testify by Congress he had no executive privilege to fall back on. He was clearly neck-deep in the Ukraine stuff, so why wasn't he called in?

The Democrats were very limited in what they did, scoring a lot of own goals in my opinion. The only thing I can think of is they intentionally did not want to strengthen their case against Trump to the point that when Republicans control Congress they don't use the precedent Democrats set against them. Which again shows they never had any real consideration to actively removing him from office, meaning it was all a waste of time.

I forget his name now but there was one guy that was called to Congress to testify but Trump told him not to, so filed a suit and asked a court "who should he listen to?" which is an absolutely valid thing to do there. Pelosi pulls his subpoena for the case to be declared moot. If you're a person that does not care about partisan bullsh**t, what a bullsh**t move that shows you either don't believe in your case or want to retain the power of executive privilege for underlying employees when your party holds the presidency. When Pelosi withdrew the subpoena in response, if I was any one of the other people that was subpoena'd and did not show up, I would've immediately filed the same case because she demonstrated her vulnerability. What's the worst that could've happened, Pelosi would withdraw my subpoena making me no longer potentially in contempt of Congress?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.