1
Politics & Religion / Politics by Lawfare, Bogus Executive Privilege assertion
« on: Today at 05:36:46 AM »
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-executive-privilege-recordings-robert-hur-interview-edward-siskel-265ab86b?mod=opinion_lead_pos2
------------
Isn't this a total admission his I don't recall testimony won't hold up to public scrutiny?
We have the transcript but can't listen for credibility in his voice? Among the things he couldn't remember was when he was Vice President.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/full-text-robert-hur-biden-classified-documents-interview-pdf-rcna142956
Testimony that led prosecutor to conclude he was too old and senile to be held accountable for same crime his opponent is charged multiple felonies, real prison time for.
-------
WSJ:
"The privilege claim is bogus on two grounds. First, once a President waives a privilege right, it can’t be reclaimed. Mr. Biden conceded that the interview wasn’t privileged, and there’s no legal basis to say that a recording is different from a transcript.
Even if Mr. Biden had first claimed privilege over the interview, that wouldn’t pass legal muster because the interview subject didn’t concern his presidential duties or White House deliberations. It concerned his handling of documents while in the Senate, as Vice President, or as a private citizen.
Mr. Siskel’s claim that the goal is to protect the Justice Department’s “law enforcement investigations” also doesn’t work. Such a claim of law-enforcement privilege typically attends to a continuing investigation, but Mr. Hur’s work is complete. He has filed his report and closed up shop.
Mr. Siskel complains in his letter that the transcript should be sufficient and the “absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal—to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.” No doubt partisanship is at play, as it was for Democrats on Capitol Hill against Mr. Trump.
But Republicans want the audio to judge the tenor and credibility of Mr. Biden’s responses and Mr. Hur’s conclusion that the President’s faulty memory was cause not to bring an indictment in the case. The White House claim of privilege over the recordings isn’t intended to protect executive power. It’s intended to avoid presidential embarrassment.
That’s a political goal, not a legitimate legal justification."
------------
Isn't this a total admission his I don't recall testimony won't hold up to public scrutiny?
We have the transcript but can't listen for credibility in his voice? Among the things he couldn't remember was when he was Vice President.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/full-text-robert-hur-biden-classified-documents-interview-pdf-rcna142956
Testimony that led prosecutor to conclude he was too old and senile to be held accountable for same crime his opponent is charged multiple felonies, real prison time for.
-------
WSJ:
"The privilege claim is bogus on two grounds. First, once a President waives a privilege right, it can’t be reclaimed. Mr. Biden conceded that the interview wasn’t privileged, and there’s no legal basis to say that a recording is different from a transcript.
Even if Mr. Biden had first claimed privilege over the interview, that wouldn’t pass legal muster because the interview subject didn’t concern his presidential duties or White House deliberations. It concerned his handling of documents while in the Senate, as Vice President, or as a private citizen.
Mr. Siskel’s claim that the goal is to protect the Justice Department’s “law enforcement investigations” also doesn’t work. Such a claim of law-enforcement privilege typically attends to a continuing investigation, but Mr. Hur’s work is complete. He has filed his report and closed up shop.
Mr. Siskel complains in his letter that the transcript should be sufficient and the “absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal—to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes.” No doubt partisanship is at play, as it was for Democrats on Capitol Hill against Mr. Trump.
But Republicans want the audio to judge the tenor and credibility of Mr. Biden’s responses and Mr. Hur’s conclusion that the President’s faulty memory was cause not to bring an indictment in the case. The White House claim of privilege over the recordings isn’t intended to protect executive power. It’s intended to avoid presidential embarrassment.
That’s a political goal, not a legitimate legal justification."