during their term.
Since a few posters and video claimed that ex-president cannot use executive privilege for conversations during his/her term, I personally disagree with the rational even though I think Trump is using the executive privilege wrong. I've asked a few times if my assumption is correct but got no direct answer. I went to do some digging on google. The answer seem to be a gray one, at least it is not tested in court yet. Here is an article from lawfare:
The article seem to suggest it hasn't been tested in court yet but it appears that ex-president can in fact claim executive privilege for conversations during his/her term (unlike some people's on DU and youtube's argument). Here are some relevant points from the article.
In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order that gave former presidents the absolute right to assert executive privilege over their records and preclude their release by the archivist, who is now charged with maintaining presidential records.
After establishing that the privilege continues to cover the information after the president leaves office, the court in GSA assumed that the former president had some ability to assert executive privilege over that material, but it never explained why. Nor is the question an easy one. There is considerable weight to the argument that only the current president has the authority to assert executive privilege because the privilege itself derives from Article II of the Constitution and the separation of powers. A former president has no constitutional authority.
Here is another one that specifically says ex-president can claim executive privilege if he applied it correctly:
Who can claim executive privilege?
Either the sitting president or a former president during whose term an allegedly privileged document was created may assert executive privilege.
Is this article correct?
I am simply raising this issue because the last thing I want is someone using the wrong rational and easily disputed by a Trumpist and then get ignored even though the premise/conclusion is correct.
Just heard on MSNBC that the republican panel said if there is fraud for the current democratic bill, it will be bad and would destroy the credibility of the bill. They are the same people who praise the PPP program breathlessly. We saw there were frauds where people were charged by using the fund for a boat or a new car. Why is it ok for the PPP program to have fraud but suddenly when it's a democratic bill and it is unacceptable to have any fraud?
PS. I am not saying there will be fraud for the current bill.
I guess Facebook can finally die now that they pissed democrats off months/years ago and the Trumpers now.
Would they be swore in at the same time?
Profile InformationGender: Male
Current location: New York
Member since: Fri Mar 6, 2020, 04:33 PM
Number of posts: 4,845