BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Gatewood, Feb 11, 2020.

  1. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was settled...during Watergate. The Supreme Court ruled that "executive privilege" is a limited power and cannot be used to cover up a crime or the investigation into a crime. This is why I would not be surprised if the Court ruled on the broader issue of executive privilege in terms of both foreign and domestic policy, using the McGahn case as the vehicle. Client-Attorney privilege would be a third privilege, similar to the 5th amendment and both open to use by any citizen. EP is limited to the President. Had the Democrats obtained two additional votes on the motion to allow witnesses, Bolton would have been deposed and his evidence presented at trial.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,056
    Likes Received:
    39,232
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it wasn't. In Watergate there were crimes involved and as you noted THE COURT ruled that it did not apply to discussions of criminal activity. It did not rule executive privilege did not exist. THAT is why Schiff should have gone to court. And attorney client privilege is NOT like asserting a 5th Amendment Right, stop with the canard. Had the Democrats been able to get a witness demand passed the same thing would have happened as would have happened in the House there is no difference that's a strawman. The Senate would have subpoenaed and the Executive would have asserted executive privilege and it would have gone to court.
     

Share This Page