A federal judge just expedited Trump's case of "Executive Privilege" to November 4th. This is fast.

[kpete]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. judge will consider on Nov. 4 former President Donald Trump's claim of executive privilege in response to a document request from a congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump on Monday sued the Jan. 6 Select Committee, alleging members made an illegal request for his White House records as part of their investigation.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Trump asserted that materials sought by the House of Representatives committee are covered by a legal doctrine known as executive privilege, which protects the confidentiality of some White House communications.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was designated by random assignment to hear the lawsuit, on Friday signed off an agreement by Trump and the committee to expedite the case for a Nov. 4 oral argument.

Link to tweet

?s=20
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-sets-nov-4-hearing-170036522.html

[11 Bravo]

1. Before anyone asks, she was nominated by President Obama.

[Tomconroy]

3. I don't think Trump will get a warm welcome in her courtroom.

[Alpeduez21]

4. If Biden has waived the claim of executive privledge,

as the person in charge of that, how can this case have any merit?

[onenote]

8. Because the Supreme Court has held and Congress has legislated

that a former president has standing to express his/her support or opposition to the release of communications from their presidency.

From Nixon v GSA:

"it is argued, such claims may be asserted only by incumbents who are presently responsible to the American people for their action. We reject the argument that only an incumbent President may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former President, may also be heard to assert them."

The Court went on to say:"we think that the Solicitor General states the sounder view, and we adopt it:

"This Court held in United States v. Nixon . . . that the privilege is necessary to provide the confidentiality required for the President's conduct of office. Unless he can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends. The confidentiality necessary to this exchange cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President's tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President's tenure."

Ultimately, as that case makes clear, where the incumbent president disagrees with the former president, the incumbent's views as to whether the privilege is appropriate are entitled to great weight. But it simply is wrong -- clearly -- to say that Trump cannot assert executive privilege. The courts may (and should) reject that claim, but not on the grounds that he has no standing to make it.

[Alpeduez21]

9. Thank you very much.n/t

[Orrex]

12. Makes sense

I used to work at Burger King, and I still have the power to tell them how to cook their fries.

[onenote]

13. Imagine the following scenario

Last edited Sat Oct 23, 2021, 01:34 AM - Edit history (2)

It's 2020. Trump decides to direct the release of confidential communications between Obama and Biden in an effort to politically embarrass and hurt Biden's election prospects.

Would you have been ok with Obama having no way to object to the release of those communications?

PS: You didn't have the power to tell them how to make their fries when you worked there.

[Orrex]

16. Did that happen?

Then I am unmoved by your hypothetical, not least because Trump would happily release that information regardless of any court orders to the contrary, nor would he allow himself to be constrained by another executive's privilege. And, it must be noted, he would face absolutely no negative consequences for doing so.

The entire pretense of executive privilege depends, at its root, on the expectation that the executive will act in good faith.

Since a series of Republicans have shown clearly that they do not act in good faith, it is foolish to coddle their abuse of the privilege simply in the hope that such coddling will protect against further abuse.

[onenote]

5. Not a surprise since both sides agreed to it in advance.

[BlueIdaho]

6. No reason to prolong this shit show

TFG doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Might as well clear the decks and move on to the main event.

[rso]

7. Judge

Unless the Judge issues a “Stay” pending appeal, the documents will continue to flow into the Committee.

[gab13by13]

10. This will go to the SC,

so don't hold your breath.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. This will piss off TFG

Link to tweet

[onenote]

15. Since the expedited schedule was agreed to by Trump

it appears that this is a rather silly tweet.