1
Politics & Religion / Politics by Lawfare, Bogus Executive Privilege assertion
« on: May 17, 2024, 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 admission that 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? (Yes we can.) He waived Exe. Priv. when they released the transcript.
Among the things he couldn't remember was when he was Vice President. A tape of that is more damaging than written words.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/full-text-robert-hur-biden-classified-documents-interview-pdf-rcna142956
(Did Trump have privilege when the perfect Ukraine call was released? WHen the Georgia find-the-votes call? He was POTUS then.)
Testimony that led the prosecutor Hur to conclude Biden was too old and senile to be held accountable, was for the same crime his opponent is charged with multiple felonies and real prison time for. And we can't hear it?
-------------------------------------
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 admission that 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? (Yes we can.) He waived Exe. Priv. when they released the transcript.
Among the things he couldn't remember was when he was Vice President. A tape of that is more damaging than written words.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/full-text-robert-hur-biden-classified-documents-interview-pdf-rcna142956
(Did Trump have privilege when the perfect Ukraine call was released? WHen the Georgia find-the-votes call? He was POTUS then.)
Testimony that led the prosecutor Hur to conclude Biden was too old and senile to be held accountable, was for the same crime his opponent is charged with multiple felonies and real prison time for. And we can't hear it?
-------------------------------------
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."