Gregg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:12 am
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:55 am
![Confused :confuzzled:](./images/smilies/confused.gif)
does he even have a right to intervene? the denial of executive privilege needs to be raised by the witness, not? Or, of course, the sitting president.
FFS, this exact point was settled law in 1974
1 and Trump has lost this exact point AT LEAST 4 times. "Will no one rid me the
vexatious litigator?
1] US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
I thought that it was well-settled law that Executive Privilege rests ONLY with the sitting President, not former holders of that office.
Even if the witness is claiming EP from testifying against/about a sitting president, I don't think that the witness can claim it if the sitting prez does not. IOW, a witness can only refer to a pre-existing claim of privilege made by the sitting prez. He can not raise the issue of EP himself.
If TFG were still the sitting prez, I believe that he would have standing to file a request with a grand jury, claiming EP for one of his associates who has been called to testify. As a former POTUS, I do not believe that he has standing to make such a request.