(12-06-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, everything I've read said that executive privilege only applies to advice regarding execution of the office of POTUS, not personal matters.
In the case of, say, someone coming in and talking to Trump about a reality TV show, you would be correct that that 'personal advice' would not be covered.
Quote:So shouldn't there be a limit to advisers in official roles, as a way to make it clear what advice is personal vs in the execution of office?
You assume that advice on Presidential issues is limited to people who inhabit official positions. I wouldnt necessarily make that limitation. A President can have a trusted adviser who isnt an official.
For example, let us assume that Trump has a relationship as deep with Melania as Shrub had/has with Laura Bush (a big stretch in this circumstance....). No offense but I am very much aware that Laura was enormously influential in Shrubs thought process on large gamut of issues. (Knowledge from fairly good family friends who are and have been personal friends of Laura and Shrub for 30 years). I would have zero problem extending the Presidential privilege and attendant immunity to Laura Bush.
But if the orange man is as isolated from Melania as might be the case (given a large number of factors), then I might have an issue with that same exercise.
The issue (to me at least) is kind of a product test: multiply the deepness of the advice by the importance of the advice to get a final weight.
In that realm, if the Senator's aide renders extremely important and candid advice in a limited instance, then perhaps the immunity and privilege should attach.
But the key is to enable frank and open discussion and advice. When yo uself-limit to any particular factor as a bright line, you diminish the impact on the objective you wish to protect: i.e. frank, honest, and open discussion.
That is the underlying importance to *any* privilege, whether it be clergy, doctor, attorney, spousal, *and* executive. Executive is special because they have the additional quiver of being able to cover with immunity from subpoena far more readily than the other privileges.
Quote:And I know you don't care if I'm convinced - I'm just discussing this topic because it's of interest and you seem to know a lot and have a strong opinion about it.
Privilege is a fundamental underpinning of my profession. It is an incredibly valuable asset to be able to have open and frank discussions. I could not see how a legal system could operate without it, to be honest. And the same extends to the medical profession.