Pence says "White House doesn’t report to the Congress.”

[wellwisher]

The implication of Pence's statement is that Congress should impeach first and ask questions later.

That being said: if President Biden (the current president) doesn't object to the questioning, then I don't see how Pence's (a retired VP) past activities must be protected under separation of powers. He is no longer in power and retains his title only.

When a person joins the military that person is the property of the military, but when they leave the military they become a citizen again and own themselves again. The same is probably true of the president and vice president, or I would think so. The President is Commander in Chief until he leaves office, is voted out of office or his term expires. He ceases to be in the military, or one would think so. He's no longer in charge and is not under orders.

If you work for the government and have a security clearance you are required to keep secrets after you leave. You can be arrested for discussing the wrongs things in public. Executive privilege does not expire after you retire, since this time of executive privilege was when you were aware of deep state secrets at the top of the food chain.

Another reason is, if you knew you could become a targets of politics, after you leave a job, and made to tell your secrets, you would never feel free to say what is on your mind while in the job. You would play it safe trying not be vulnerable to interrogation, later, by corrupt people like Schiff. One needs some level of protection to feel free to be open and candid while in the job. Then you keep these secrets until you pass.

The fact that the Jan 6 committee is still digging is they have nothing that can be pinned on their political opponents. Al the hype was not enough. This was/is all theatre since it does not allow for due process. It is a political inquisition and hit job that was designed to hobble Trump, since they still fear him if he was to become president. Trump would play harder ball this time.

In the case Biden and the new House next year, the laptop is a wild card since there will be explaining to do. This is different since the laptop is about when Biden was a Senator who did not have executive privileges. He cannot bet asked about anything from Jan 2021 to now, but before is open game.

I read an article yesterday that some Republicans were auditing the money given to Ukraine for the war. It turns out not all the money is going to equipment as was specified. Where is the extra money going? The Biden administration is scrambling and dodging. Biden can stall with executive privilege since this is within the time frame where it applies.

This reminds me of when Obama and Biden sent all that cash to Iran so they would stop their nuke development. Why did they send pallets of cash, and how much of that was stolen and by whom? It was done in a way it could not be audited, to the end. Once it was in Iran territory the split is out of reach of US auditors. The days of Democrats money laundering are nearing the end. Luckily, that cash to Iran was protected by executive privilege.

 

[fantome profane]

Executive privilege does not expire after you retire,

Yes it does. It very clearly and obviously does.

No, Former Presidents Cannot Assert Executive Privilege. At Least Not Meaningfully.

 

[Ponder This]

I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do believe that one has to be in office to exercise executive privilege. How can Mike Pence, who was not eve the executive and is no longer in office exercise this?

Executive Priviledge protects executive communication - it is not simply Presidents or Vice Presidents. That's why.

Thank you for your input.

The first thing that must be understood about executive privilege is that it belongs to the President - the current President. Mike Pence does not have executive privilege. Joe Biden does.

Also, even if executive privilege did apply, that does not necessarily grant carte blanche to ignore a subpoena. The person subpoenaed could still be required to show up and evoke that privilege on a question by question basis. I think that would be better.

Executive privilege exists to allow for frank and open communication between the President and his advisors. It only applies to those communications, it does not apply to everything a Presidential advisor might have said, heard or done. It does not allow for planning criminal acts.



No, of course Hunter cannot invoke executive Privilege, nor can Joe invoke it in regards to his communications with his son. I don't think anyone has suggested such a thing. Of course Hunter can invoke the 5th amendment just like any other citizen (yes, that does apply to congressional committees).

It is my opinion that Hunter has done some highly unethical things, but I am not aware of anything criminal he might have done, and absolutely no evidence that Joe has any involvement in anything illegal, or even unethical regarding Hunter. Yes, I know that is what investigations are for, but there is a pattern of these right wing theories that are pushed by pundits evaporating when they try to go to trial. We will see.

Executive Priviledge protects executive communications regardless of who is subpeonaed or when the subpeona is received. A subpeona is a written order to give testimony on a particular subject. Executive Priviledge can be invoked when a subpeona to testify about executive communications is received. I think your idea, that Executive Priviledge be invoked on a question by question basis, is worth considering, but in the politically charged atmosphere of Washington D.C., I wonder how to make that fair and practical.

It looks like Hunter may have possessed a firearm illegally and may have commited some tax crimes. Many of his ethically questionable actions might not be crimes. Arranging a meeting between the Vice President and another person also isn't a crime.

Former Vice President Pence is no longer part of the Executive Branch.

Executive communications do not cease to be executive when people leave the executive branch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Executive Priviledge protects executive communication - it is not simply Presidents or Vice Presidents. That's why.



Executive Priviledge protects executive communications regardless of who is subpeonaed or when the subpeona is received. A subpeona is a written order to give testimony on a particular subject. Executive Priviledge can be invoked when a subpeona to testify about executive communications is received. I think your idea, that Executive Priviledge be invoked on a question by question basis, is worth considering, but in the politically charged atmosphere of Washington D.C., I wonder how to make that fair and practical.

Sources please. Unsupported arguments are not worth much.

 

[metis]

Executive privilege does not expire after you retire, since this time of executive privilege was when you were aware of deep state secrets at the top of the food chain.

Clearly, you are wrong.

The fact that the Jan 6 committee is still digging is they have nothing that can be pinned on their political opponents.

You really believe this after all that so many of Trump's appointees have testified? Do you ever get the news-- I mean the real news and not that which is "sanitized" on Fox?

 

[Ponder This]

Sources please. Unsupported arguments are not worth much.

I'm not saying I agree with assertions of Executive Priviledge. I'm just informing you of what Executive Priviledge is.

To learn more about Executive Priviledge, you can start here: Executive privilege

Also consider this: ArtII.S3.4.1 Overview of Executive Privilege

the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.

Here is United States vs Nixon.
Since the courts have ruled that claims of Executive Priviledge must be adjudicated on a case by case basis, any challenge of Pence's claim to Executive Priviledge will go to court.

There is no confusion that Pence is invoking Executive Priviledge in response to a subpeona of executive communications. Is there?

 

[fantome profane]

There is no confusion that Pence is invoking Executive Priviledge in response to a subpeona of executive communications. Is there?

Is he? Has he actually used the words "executive privilege"?

He seems to be invoking "separation of powers", which is just nonsense. Separation of powers does not cancel out a subpoena. Separation of powers isn't even a justification for not answering questions. Congress has subpoena power. That is it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not saying I agree with assertions of Executive Priviledge. I'm just informing you of what Executive Priviledge is.

To learn more about Executive Priviledge, you can start here: Executive privilege

Also consider this: ArtII.S3.4.1 Overview of Executive Privilege


Here is United States vs Nixon.
Since the courts have ruled that claims of Executive Priviledge must be adjudicated on a case by case basis, any challenge of Pence's claim to Executive Priviledge will go to court.

There is no confusion that Pence is invoking Executive Priviledge in response to a subpeona of executive communications. Is there?

Your link on executive privilege is not working, but the first two sites that I clicked on appear to disagree. They both say that the court found:

Primary Holding
The President cannot shield himself from producing evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine of executive privilege, although it is valid in other situations.
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)


Also your source on executive privilege appears to apply when the President is in power. I do not see anything in it about a President invoking it after he is out of office. That is why I wanted a lawyer to chime in since it appears to me that it cannot be invoked after he is out of office to avoid prosecution.

 

[Ponder This]

Is he? Has he actually used the words "executive privilege"?

He seems to be invoking "separation of powers", which is just nonsense. Separation of powers does not cancel out a subpoena. Separation of powers isn't even a justification for not answering questions. Congress has subpoena power. That is it.

Separation of Powers is the Supreme Court's basis for Executive Priviledge. Executive Priviledge is not in the Constitution. Separation of Powers is in the Constitution. The Court constructed Executive Priviledge on the basis of Separation of Powers.

Your link on executive privilege is not working, but the first two sites that I clicked on appear to disagree. They both say that the court found:

Primary Holding
The President cannot shield himself from producing evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine of executive privilege, although it is valid in other situations.
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)


Also your source on executive privilege appears to apply when the President is in power. I do not see anything in it about a President invoking it after he is out of office. That is why I wanted a lawyer to chime in since it appears to me that it cannot be invoked after he is out of office to avoid prosecution.

Pence is not currently in office, but no one's asking about Jan 6, 2022. They are asking about Jan 6, 2020, when Pence was in office. I already quoted for you in my last post about the foundation of the priviledge... "without fear that those deliberations will later be made public" (emphasis added) I'm sorry that you were not able to peruse the link. If they want to challenge Pence's claim, then perhaps the matter will go to court.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Separation of Powers is the Supreme Court's basis for Executive Priviledge. Executive Priviledge is not in the Constitution. Separation of Powers is in the Constitution. The Court constructed Executive Priviledge on the basis of Separation of Powers.



Pence is not currently in office, but no one's asking about Jan 6, 2022. They are asking about Jan 6, 2020, when Pence was in office. I already quoted for you in my last post about the foundation of the priviledge... "without fear that those deliberations will later be made public" (emphasis added) I'm sorry that you were not able to peruse the link. If they want to challenge Pence's claim, then perhaps the matter will go to court.

But once again, the Nixon case indicates that it does not apply in legal prosecutions. I was aware of what you said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you work for the government and have a security clearance you are required to keep secrets after you leave. You can be arrested for discussing the wrongs things in public. Executive privilege does not expire after you retire, since this time of executive privilege was when you were aware of deep state secrets at the top of the food chain.

Another reason is, if you knew you could become a targets of politics, after you leave a job, and made to tell your secrets, you would never feel free to say what is on your mind while in the job. You would play it safe trying not be vulnerable to interrogation, later, by corrupt people like Schiff. One needs some level of protection to feel free to be open and candid while in the job. Then you keep these secrets until you pass.

The fact that the Jan 6 committee is still digging is they have nothing that can be pinned on their political opponents. Al the hype was not enough. This was/is all theatre since it does not allow for due process. It is a political inquisition and hit job that was designed to hobble Trump, since they still fear him if he was to become president. Trump would play harder ball this time.

In the case Biden and the new House next year, the laptop is a wild card since there will be explaining to do. This is different since the laptop is about when Biden was a Senator who did not have executive privileges. He cannot bet asked about anything from Jan 2021 to now, but before is open game.

I read an article yesterday that some Republicans were auditing the money given to Ukraine for the war. It turns out not all the money is going to equipment as was specified. Where is the extra money going? The Biden administration is scrambling and dodging. Biden can stall with executive privilege since this is within the time frame where it applies.

This reminds me of when Obama and Biden sent all that cash to Iran so they would stop their nuke development. Why did they send pallets of cash, and how much of that was stolen and by whom? It was done in a way it could not be audited, to the end. Once it was in Iran territory the split is out of reach of US auditors. The days of Democrats money laundering are nearing the end. Luckily, that cash to Iran was protected by executive privilege.

You didn't watch the January 6th hearings, did you?

 

[Ponder This]

But once again, the Nixon case indicates that it does not apply in legal prosecutions. I was aware of what you said.

Is it you assertaion that the Jan 6 committee is engaging in a criminal prosecution (as opposed to an investigation)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it you assertaion that the Jan 6 committee is engaging in a criminal prosecution (as opposed to an investigation)?

An investigation is always part of a prosecution. Nixon was never formally prosecuted. It only got to the investigation point for him. That is the same stage we are in in regards to Trump.

 

[Ponder This]

An investigation is always part of a prosecution. Nixon was never formally prosecuted. It only got to the investigation point for him. That is the same stage we are in in regards to Trump.

Hardly the same stage at all, unless you admit that the Jan 6 committee was formed to go after Trump from the very beginning. Formally, that was not the reason for the Jan 6 committee. Moreover, the subpeona for Pence - not Trump. It doesn't seem like the commitee is going to challenge Pence... although, perhaps they will challenge Trump.

 

[metis]

Hardly the same stage at all, unless you admit that the Jan 6 committee was formed to go after Trump from the very beginning. Formally, that was not the reason for the Jan 6 committee.

That is not true as they made very clear from the get-go. What Trump's role may or may not have been was unknown as they began looking into the background of what happened on 1-6. Now, they and we know so much more, thus it is likely that they will refer this to the Department of Justice. The vast majority of those that testified were part of Trump's staff and/or appointed by him in other positions, and the fact that he's losing court case after court case, even of his judicial appointees, does not pose well for him.

 

[fantome profane]

Moreover, the subpeona for Pence - not Trump.

They have both been subpoenaed by the Jan 6th committee.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hardly the same stage at all, unless you admit that the Jan 6 committee was formed to go after Trump from the very beginning. Formally, that was not the reason for the Jan 6 committee. Moreover, the subpeona for Pence - not Trump. It doesn't seem like the commitee is going to challenge Pence... although, perhaps they will challenge Trump.

January 6 committee to recommend DOJ investigate criminal charges
Jan. 6 panel subpoenas Trump