POL just now-NEWS-heard BIDEN RESCINDED TRUMPS Executive priviledge as soon as he got in office!

ainitfunny

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
They said it paved the way for the Justice dept to go after him. But ex-post facto laws are illegal in the CONSTITUTION!

We only get 5 min of news so they didn't elaborate
 
Last edited:
Dobbin

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Um. Executive Privilege goes both ways. Trump is privy to Classified Information and his security clearance (and executive responsibility) continues for things of his knowledge. Executive Privilege covers him should previous decision create "blow back" - Trump can't be held liable for bad decision as President.

The notion that he can be held liable for his former actions as President is ludicrous. Otherwise, every war fatality family would seek redress in the courts for their loss, every dollar holder would seek redress for loss of value by inflation, and everyone adversely affected by lawmaking (which the President ultimately signs) would be in court looking for "damages."

Dobbin
 
Groucho

Groucho

Has No Life - Lives on TB
And Mitch the Bitch McConnell and his prancing elephants are in a complete rage. They're talking about boycotting congressional sessions, law suits and....... What? Ya know it does sound like snoring from the republican side. I get the feeling they like being in a banana republic. :rolleyes:
 
Dobbin

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
Interesting read on Executive Privilege at the Wikipedia Entry. Below is a link to the Trump Administration but the entire article especially the "general" at the top is worth reading.

No mention of any "rescind" - and you can be sure Wiki will be quick to invoke ANYTHING Leftist.

Executive privilege - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Dobbin
 
20Gauge

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
Dobbin said:
Um. Executive Privilege goes both ways. Trump is privy to Classified Information and his security clearance (and executive responsibility) continues for things of his knowledge. Executive Privilege covers him should previous decision create "blow back" - Trump can't be held liable for bad decision as President.

The notion that he can be held liable for his former actions as President is ludicrous. Otherwise, every war fatality family would seek redress in the courts for their loss, every dollar holder would seek redress for loss of value by inflation, and everyone adversely affected by lawmaking (which the President ultimately signs) would be in court looking for "damages."

Dobbin
Click to expand...
Yet is that not what the Biden admin is trying to do to Trump?
 
alfa1

alfa1

Contributing Member
Buckle up folks, we’re headed for a Gov/Oligarch Dictatorship which will initiate either a Constitutional Convention, which may disband the Federal Government or the secession of many States….or CWII. The Democrats have used every trick that’s available, now it’s time for the opposition to do the same !!!
 
alfa1

alfa1

Contributing Member
Macgyver said:
I think you're mixing up executive privilege and executive order.
Click to expand...
I thought Executive Privilege is enshrined in the Constitution and subsequent amendments!
leaving no President able to by any means, revoke it.
 
ainitfunny

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Macgyver said:
I think you're mixing up executive privilege and executive order.
Click to expand...
I'm not mixing up anything, THATS WHAT THE NEWSMEN SAID!
BIDEN "RESCINDED" TRUMPS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SOON AFTER HE GOT IN OFFICE.
THAT further paved the way for the JUSTICE DEPT TO GO AFTER HIM,
 
Mtsilverback

Mtsilverback

Veteran Member
alfa1 said:
Buckle up folks, we’re headed for a Gov/Oligarch Dictatorship which will initiate either a Constitutional Convention, which may disband the Federal Government or the secession of many States….or CWII. The Democrats have used every trick that’s available, now it’s time for the opposition to do the same !!!
Click to expand...

That would be great, if only one was able to get the states to go along that path.
 
TheSearcher

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Millwright said:
Then check it.

If you can't corroborate this, it will be closed.
Click to expand...
I did not find a blanket revocation, but Biden has selectively addressed it when politically convenient:
www.washingtontimes.com

Biden waives executive privilege for Trump White House documents in Jan. 6 riot probe

President Biden waived executive privilege on an initial set of documents from the Trump White House sought by the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters, his spokeswoman said Friday.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com
 
John Green

John Green

Veteran Member
Dobbin said:
Interesting read on Executive Privilege at the Wikipedia Entry. Below is a link to the Trump Administration but the entire article especially the "general" at the top is worth reading.

No mention of any "rescind" - and you can be sure Wiki will be quick to invoke ANYTHING Leftist.

Executive privilege - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Dobbin
Click to expand...
Check it tomorrow after they change it. That’s how it usually works.
 
ShadowMan

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
Sounds like the Dem-on's and the Deep State Powers That Be are really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for ANYTHING they can dream up in their attempt to dethrone The Don.
 
Kris Gandillon

Kris Gandillon

The Other Curmudgeon
_______________
Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.
 
Kris Gandillon

Kris Gandillon

The Other Curmudgeon
_______________
In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.

The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch.

The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president.
 
O

OldArcher

Has No Life - Lives on TB
ShadowMan said:
Sounds like the Dem-on's and the Deep State Powers That Be are really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for ANYTHING they can dream up in their attempt to dethrone The Don.
Click to expand...

Not just overthrow Trump, but destroy the nation we once knew…

OA
 
kyrsyan

kyrsyan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I'm going to say that it would be a stupid decision on their part to do such a thing. Do the Democrats really want a Republican president to rescind executive privilege for prior Democrat presidents?
Now, there is a version/segment of executive privilege, or used to be, that allowed former presidents to be kept current on things that are not released to the general public. Not to the level they were while in office, but still more information. IIRC, that has been blocked before. I'm not sure if Trump blocked it for Obama.
But to rescind full executive privilege does indeed expose the Fed gov for a lot of lawsuits. And exposes past presidents for deeds that they used their power to hide from the public. Deeds that were not in line of duty but instead in line of abuse of power.
 
Countrymouse

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
Ok, found this from JUNE 2022 in Newsweek--not exactly a "conservative" source--and this commentator even says in Newsweek that what Biden is doing is dangerous:
www.newsweek.com

Executive Privilege Means Nothing if the Next President Can Waive It

The Biden administration is making a dangerous argument that threatens executive privilege.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com


The Biden administration is making a dangerous argument that threatens executive privilege, as well as other important and long recognized privileges, in its attempt to reveal internal Trump administration communications surrounding the events of January 6, 2021.

Executive privilege, rooted in Article Two of the Constitution, empowers the president to confer confidentially with members of his staff without fear that these secret communications will be made public. It is akin to similar privileges such as those with one's lawyer, priest, doctor and spouse. Their purpose is to encourage candid communications that are intended to remain secret.

But now, the Biden administration is claiming that communications made by President Donald Trump when he was in office can be waived by subsequent presidents. If this were the case, it would mean the end of executive privilege, since no one would be able to count on the future confidentiality of communications made with a sitting president.


That means President Joe Biden would not be able to assure his chief of staff or his secretary of state that their advice would not become the subject of a subpoena when the next president is sworn in. If a subsequent president is of a different party, he could play politics with the privilege and waive it in hopes of benefiting his party or reelection prospects. No one would be willing to give a sitting president controversial advice if he knew the next president had the power to disclose it.

For a privilege to have its intended effect—encouraging candid communication—its boundaries must be clear. Most privileges do not cover all communications; there are well-known exceptions for criminal or fraudulent communications. But if the communication was privileged at the time it was made, it cannot become unprivileged by a change of personnel.

Joe Biden presidential seal

The seal of the President of the Unites States is seen as US President Joe Biden speaks about lives lost to Covid after death toll passed 500,000, in the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington, DC, February 22, 2021. SAUL LOEB / AFP/Getty Images

The Supreme Court has not definitively resolved the general issue of whether a sitting president can impose a blanket waiver of all information provided in confidence to a prior president, because no president has ever tried to impose such a broad waiver. Indeed, President Biden has sought to waive President Trump's privilege only as to certain documents, but his administration has suggested that he may be seeking a broader waiver.

Generally, these issues are raised in a narrow, fact-specific, case-by-case manner. But it is important to resolve the broad issue definitively so that presidents and their advisers know exactly what to expect if they were subpoenaed to disclose past confidences. I believe the Supreme Court would not uphold the kind of broad waiver by a sitting president of all communications to his predecessor, that some have suggested. Such a waiver would eviscerate executive privilege. If the High Court were to render such a dangerous decision, it should at least do so only prospectively. Past communications were made under a reasonable expectation of continuing confidentiality—an expectation that should be honored.



Read more

There is no guarantee that courts will do the right thing. Past cases generally recognize privilege, though they sometimes craft exceptions and impose balancing tests. But before a case gets to court, decisions are made by Congress and the Justice Department to challenge the claim of privilege. In making these challenges, they should take a long-term and nonpartisan view, rather than look for short-term partisan advantage. They should understand that a precedent set today against Republicans will surely be invoked against Democrats when the balance of power changes. Any challenge to execute privilege should pass the "shoe on the other foot test" and be equally applicable to both parties.

Empowering a sitting Democratic president to revoke the executive privilege of a past Republican president would destroy the privilege for all presidents. It would deny future executives the right to obtain needed confidential advice from trusted members of the administration and others. That would be bad for our nation and bad for both Democratic and Republican presidents.

One point should be beyond dispute: that before a member of a past administration, such as Peter Navarro, is indicted for refusing to violate a former president's executive privilege, the courts should resolve the conflict and order him to testify. That is not the approach taken by the Biden Justice Department, which indicted Navarro without a judicial resolution or court order. That, in my view, is unconstitutional.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, emeritus. He is author of "The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics. Follow him on
Twitter: @AlanDersh. His new podcast, The Dershow, is available on Spotify, YouTube and iTunes. Dersh.Substack.com


The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
 
ainitfunny

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
apparantly the story came out in Zerohedge. and several other places.
Biden did put it in writing but I dont know that he made it an executive order. I'll check.
Alan Dershowitz is CORRECT.
Executive PrIvIlege means NOTHING ,
If the Next President can waive it.




Home ► Health ► Biden Personally Denied Trump’s Privilege Claim, Authorizing FBI Raid on Mar-a-Lago

Biden Personally Denied Trump’s Privilege Claim, Authorizing FBI Raid on Mar-a-Lago​


Posted on August 23, 2022 by Constitutional Nobody
Via The Space Worm

Leaked correspondence between federal officials and Trump’s legal counsel show Biden’s involvement in the raid.​

Also seen on ZeroHedge.
Before getting into this, I just want to state: I’m no fan of Trump. He deficit spent like no other, pressured the Federal Reserve to goose the stock and housing markets driving wealth inequality even further, gave hundreds of billions to Big Pharma to create a shitty vaccine that the subsequent administration then used to oppress and ostracize the working class, and bombed the shit out of the Middle East. That said, I prefer him to any of the last five presidents and believe a sitting President wielding law enforcement agencies to persecute political opponents should make everyone uneasy regardless of whom its used against.


Ok, now that that’s out of the way…
Jon Solomon’s Just the News recently obtained a letter between National Archivist Debra Stiedel Wall and Trump’s legal team showing Biden’s tacit support for the FBI’s investigation into Trump.

The documents in question had been examined by and temporarily in possession of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) as early as January of 2022, when they “arranged for the transport from the Trump Mar-a-Lago property in Florida to the National Archives of 15 boxes that contained Presidential records, following discussions with President Trump’s representatives in 2021,” according to NBC News.

Then in April, presumably after returning these materials back into Trump’s possession, Wall writes Trump’s defense attorney Evan Corcoran, “In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information.” Wall then informs Corcoran that the FBI would like access to the documents. Given the supposed sensitivity of the documents, it seems strange that NARA returned them to Trump before completing their review. Cocoran requested time to determine whether Trump intended to exercise executive privilege on specified materials.
“We have requested the ability to review the documents,” Corcoran wrote to both NARA and White House Deputy Counsel on April 29. “We would respectfully request that you restrict access to the documents until we have had the opportunity to review the documents and to consult with President Donald J. Trump so that he may personally make any decision to assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege.”

According to Just the News, “Wall informed Corcoran that she had the blessing of Biden to overrule those privilege claims and share all materials requested by the DOJ and FBI.”
From the letter: “The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, Illegitimate President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President’s purported ‘protective assertion of executive privilege,’” Wall wrote. “… I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s ‘protective’ claim of privilege.”
Here’s WH Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre a day after the raid:

(Cue the Curb Your Enthusiasm Theme)
Wall’s claim that Biden deferred to her judgment is odd considering that, on the same day, Wall herself was contacted by White House Counsel member Dana Remus stating

“The President has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified.”
[Ed: It was Not by executive order, Just by a letter from the KING, - BIDEN decreeing it to be so! ]


That letter is available thanks to a FOIA request (not sure who filed for it but luckily Evil Google has yet to scrub it from the top search results):

Why Wall told Trump’s team that it was her decision is a mystery. Could this be related to Dana Remus’s departure from the WH Counsel Office just one month later? Did Remus f*** up by revealing it was Biden’s decision?

Shortly after Wall’s letter was sent, the DOJ issued a subpoena prompting the FBI to visit Mar-a-Lago on June 3 who were granted access voluntarily by Trump. The FBI seized a portion of the materials and instructed Trump to lock the remaining boxes in a storage room, an order Trump complied with according to a Fox News source.
A quick reminder that when Crooked Hillary Clinton was subpoenaed to produce the contents of her private email server, her response was far from compliant. She denied ever receiving a subpoena, told the FBI she could not locate any of the requested 13 mobile devices, deleted 33,000 emails from her personal server, and joked about all of this publicly! Somehow this behavior did not result in a search warrant and raid of her summer home in Chappaqua, NY.
Can you imagine if Trump had burned the documents after learning of the subpoena and claiming to have ‘misplaced’ them?
Biden personally denied trump s privilege claim authorizing fbi raid on mar a lago | health

Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Administrator

This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, The Burning Platform and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page

Are Millions of Americans Going to Face Evictions in the Upcoming Months?
INTERVIEW: Corey Drayton on Hollywood’s Obsession With Super Heroes





The Reason Why Some Doctors May Not Prescribe Metformin
 
Last edited:
R

Rabbit

Has No Life - Lives on TB
It seems our present dictator came to office as most dictators do and he is doing what most dictators do. What a sad time for our country I pray we survive.
 
155 arty

155 arty

Veteran Member
ainitfunny said:
They said it paved the way for the Justice dept to go after him. But ex-post facto laws are illegal in the CONSTITUTION!

We only get 5 min of news so they didn't elaborate
Click to expand...
and the final dance grows ever closer,with every tic of the clock ...it's all a sham everyone knows it !
Biden and handlers will follow thru with it.
not sure they understand what they are about to step in tho...time will tell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top