Posted on 06/14/2017 1:26:38 AM PDT by zencycler
Here is the relevant excerpt related to Sessions' correct assertion that he did not have to answer questions about confidential presidential conversations (unless pursuant to a subpoena in a case involving criminal charges, I believe):
============================================================
"...While the considerations that support the concept and assertion of executive privilege apply to any congressional request for information, the privilege itself need not be claimed formally vis-à-vis Congress except in response to a lawful subpoena; in responding to a congressional request for information, the executive branch is not necessarily bound by the limits of executive privilege.
Executive privilege is constitutionally based. To be sure, the Constitution nowhere expressly states that the President, or the executive branch generally, enjoys a privilege against disclosing information requested by the courts, the public, or the legislative branch. The existence of such a privilege, however, is a necessary corollary of the executive function vested in the President by Article II of the Constitution.1 It has been asserted by numerous Presidents from the earliest days of our Nation, and it was explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court...".
(Excerpt) Read more at justice.gov ...
An important piece of the puzzle.
Most important takeaway (to me)
“Congressional investigation is usually sweeping; its issues are seldom narrowly defined,and the inquiry is not restricted by the rules of evidence.
Finally, when Congress is investigating, it is by its own account often in an adversarial position to the executive branch and initiating action to override judgments made by the executive branch. This increases the likelihood that
candid advice from executive branch advisers will be taken out of context or misconstrued. For all these reasons,the constitutional privilege that protects executive branch deliberations against judicial subpoenas must also apply, perhaps even with greater force, to Congress’ demands for information.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explicitly held that the privilege protects presidential communications against congressional demands. During the Watergate investigation, the Court of Appeals rejected a Senate committee’s efforts to obtain tape recordings of conversations in President Nixon’s offices. The court held that the tapes were constitutionally privileged....”
Bump!
Aaaaannnndddd....we’re done here.
In your hat Kamala Harris et al.
No puzzle at all. Every Senator up there who was trying to turn Sessions (and last week, Coats and Rogers) responses into "stonewalling," was gaslighting. The principle that Sessions was relying on is well known, established, and if not for assholery, not contentious.
Juvenile showboating. It's a shame that the public tolerates this sort of low-life rhetoric from powerful legislators.
The SCOTUS reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kamala is not yet ready for the big stage.
Sessions was being asked to pre-empt the President’s executive privilege. I don’t know why he didn’t just point that out when the senator said only the President has the privilege, not the AG.
Sessions did and was VERY explicit about it. Sessions was asked several times about conversations with the President and responded the same way....IMOW...I cannot divulge that as the President may wish it to use his executive privilege. He explained it more than once. Some Senators are just plain thick.
In this instance, they aren't "thick." They are bald-faced liars. They know the principle and are subverting it to gaslight the public. These are unprincipled actors.
Those Senators are looking for the perfect 'sound bite' for their next re-election campaign.
The next set of lies occur right after they have been re-elected.
That's why he should have used the word "pre-empt."
What several Dems tried to do was goad Sessions into agreeing that Trump had declared executive privilege. Then the headlines would so read “Trump invoked Executive Privilege like Nixon”. Instead Sessions was saying I am not going to disclose my discussions with the President because he has not had a chance to invoke executive privilege. I will not let the cat out of the bag. Give the Presidnet an opportunity to examine your questions, then he may allow me to divulge our discussions.
Now it seems that Coates (DNI) and Rogers (NSA) refused to discuss what they discussed with Trump, but when taken into executive sessions they spilled their guts. I like Sessions’ method better.
What is clear from yesterday is that Russia is dead after Sessions described the social gatherings in which he (maybe) met up with the Russian ambassador in passing. Comey is also dead after Sessions explained how many steps he took towards the door leaving Comey alone with Trump and how Comey came crying to him the next day wearing his pussy hat.
True but if they had said something damaging in closed session the Dems would have harped on that. Instead the Dems denied that Coates and Rogers said anything. In fact they claimed that Coates and Rogers behaved exactly like Sessions invoking the executive review standard that the Dems claim has no legal basis.
The Dems have made Sessions’ perfectly standard refusal to disclose the contents of his private conversations with the president without Trump waiving his right to executive privilege their main talking point. What this says to me is they know Sessions did an unassailable job with the actual substance of his testimony, and now they are grasping at straws to open up any line of attack they can.
“Now it seems that Coates (DNI) and Rogers (NSA) refused to discuss what they discussed with Trump, but when taken into executive sessions they spilled their guts. I like Sessions’ method better.”
With near certainty I feel neither Coates or Rogers said anything of use to the Liberals. Had they done so we would have already heard it via leaks.
Remember they both did say publicly they felt NO pressure nor were they asked to do anything illegal by the administration or anyone else.
She will never be ready. She acted like she grew up on the streets with a brother who pimped out his girlfriend as a crack whore and became a two-bit attorney prosecuting small-time punks who are ratted out by informers in return for money for their daily fix.
I will not speculate on how you go from Howard University to Hastings Law School. I will not say the Q-word. But if Kamala does not want to be called a "Q" she should show some decency and respect and stop acting like one.
Yes they did but that was a narrow ruling and would not have an effect on the general rule of confidentiality re conversations with the president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.