- So if you invoke your rights in response to an accusation, invoking advice of council or other legal authority, you must be guilty of the accusation or have something to hide
- So sayeth Liz Cheney
- Executive privilege is a separation of powers doctrine held since George Washington.
- Just too much switch-hitt’n going on in Washington (photos of transitions below)
So Liz Cheney, whom we hope will soon be retired as a congressperson from Wyoming , thinks that Steve Bannon and Donald Trump must be guilty if they invoke executive privilege regarding a House subpoena which she supported supposedly focusing on events surrounding January 6th. From The Washington Examiner:
Arguments made by Trump and Bannon that relevant information sought by the committee is protected by executive privilege, Cheney said, “appear to reveal one thing: They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of Jan. 6, and this committee will get to the bottom of that.”
Hmmm . . . Remember when Democrats in Congress thought they smelled a rat or maybe just wanted to tie-up a Bush administration, go on a fishing expedition . . . whatever? That would be both as regards the H.W. and G W. Bush administrations both of which by the way Liz Cheney’s dad worked for and who was as at the center of assertions of executive privilege controversies in both administrations. (links below).
Well nothing has changed with the propriety of asserting what is a separation of powers claim except for maybe Liz Cheney’s feelings about such matters and her transitioning into a really nasty human being. So did now Congressperson Cheney express any reservations about assertions of executive privilege back then when her dad, to use her current vein of thought, hid behind executive privilege? By her standard her dad must have been guilty of something.
If somehow Trump or Bannon after they have left office asserting executive privilege is invalid by Cheney’s lights are Democrats then free to re-open or open up any matter they might want to and demand answers from Presidents, Vice Presidents and anyone they have spoken to?
Let’s grant that Bannon was not in an official position at the time of a conversation with President Trump. Should that matter if Trump asserts that the conversation involved executive privilege, a privilege he has wide range to invoke invoke. It seems a reasonable assertion given that Trump was President at the time and no doubt Bannon was considered perhaps an advisor or organizer regarding Trump’s appearance before the throng on January 6th.
Would it not obviate the separation of powers if a politicized House can do an end run and demand say e-mails between Trump and someone and Trump by rights refuses but the House tries to intimidate the someone who is disinclined to speak to them and who has been advised by Trump’s attorney’s to not comply as Bannon has because executive privilege pertains.
The Justice Department through the FBI has already indicated they have found no evidence of a conspiracy. If the Democrats seriously think they have something then they can try and get the Justice Department to show probable cause, but in this world of malicious political prosecution, pretext inquiries etc, an intensely partisan political body ought not to have kangaroo court powers. R Mall
/////
Links regarding recent assertions of executive privilege including as regards Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney’s father.
https://sgp.fas.org/bush/cogr-execpriv.pdf
https://lawliberty.org/the-constitution-and-executive-privilege/
When Presidents Invoke Executive Privilege.
Photos after transitions:
