(12-05-2019 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Frankly, you extended that assumption to how I view the current situation. I was asking to understand if you felt there was a limit to executive privilege or if you thought it was absolute. Based on your response I was going to then see where the current situation fell and why you felt the subpoena deniers were able to legitimately use executive privilege in this scenario.
I think you far too frequently assign someone a position they haven’t taken.
I asked OO about the subpoena ignorers because it isn’t, on the surface, a clear cut right or wrong. I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on them, yet he responded to a question to me.
I don’t know enough about executive privilege to make a firm stance on whether they are legally ignoring these subpoena as or not - I just know that they are ignoring the subpoenas.

Executive privilege is a legitimate concept that exists for several reasons. One, the branches are established a co-equal, so one does not necessarily have to acquiesce to another. Two, a president necessarily has to have conversations with members of his administration that must be considered confidential. Executive privilege is necessary to protect the confidentiality. By the way, conversations with foreign leaders take place under a presumption of confidentiality, because those leaders must sometimes speak frankly.

Executive privilege is not unlimited. But congress does not define the limits, the courts do. The proper procedure for congress, when executive privilege is asserted regarding something they want to get, is to go to the Supreme Court for a decision. Until congress gets a court order, it is legal to ignore the subpoenas. For some reason, they have chosen not to do that, but simply to piss and moan. I can think of a reason, can you?

Appreciate the response. To be clear, I do know that executive privilege exists and is a legitimate concept - despite what Tanq has been saying I think...

So basically the precedent set in Nixon’s case is not enough to influence this issue, and further judicial action is required to decide if this instance is legal?