Invite Friends

Topic: US Politics

Results in this view: Y-suspicious 60% - Convince Me 20% - N-exec Privilege 20%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
  • 2
Anonymous-user
  • 3
Anonymous-user
by anon-6c90 Doesn't matter what the Dem's want, Executive Privilege prevails in that case.
Any subpoena will be quashed quite easily.
Especially as it's a "fishing expedition". As a "veteran State Department translator", she would have been duty bound to report anything "treasonous" to begin with.
Picture?type=square
By Daniel Spain If the subpoena comes from Mueller he works for neither of those branches because he was appointed by the Executive branch itself. Executive priviledge is not listed in the constitution period. So I think you can force someone to testify against the executive branch. If like you say executive privalage prevails why did Nixon use it? If I recall all of congress called for the action that was taken against nixon that forced him to resign rather than face inevitable impeachment of him.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Anonymous-user
by anon-6c90 "Nixon" was already outed because "Deep" "Throat" did their duty and blew the whistle. No one was "forced" to testify against him, either, were they?
As a point of fact, in his case, they would have been "co-defendants", and could simply plead the 5th.
Also, as a point of fact, no where in the Constitution does it say that Congress OR the Courts have the power to "compel" the Executive branch to answer. Remember, the balance of power makes them separate but "equal", none holding such direct sway over the other.
A subpoena from Mueller would have to show "probable cause", again, this is a "fishing" expedition. AND, an executive to executive branch subpoena would not even need a court to quash it.
At any time, as already done in this case, the President can refuse to answer, being the higher "Executive".
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Anonymous-user
by anon-6c90 By the way, Nixon used it because it worked for his purposes. "The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress. The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". "
Reply
  • | about 1M ago