Hill's lawyers: executive privilege disappears when there's reason to believe there was

[Soph0571]

government misconduct

BOOM!!!!

Link to tweet

"We also understand that executive privilege likely does not apply to information which is no longer confidential and has come within the sphere of public knowledge through broad disclosures."

Heh.

And all the sweeter that it comes from a former lackey of Trump

[Sherman A1]

1. While I agree with the points made in the argument and

I would like to see the whole cabal in orange jump suits.

I would point out that according to the quote posted in the OP by the attorneys

"We also understand that executive privilege likely does not apply to information which is no longer confidential and has come within the sphere of public knowledge through broad disclosures."

The word "likely" does not make it so.

[hlthe2b]

2. "Likely" only correctly describes that which has not been specifically addressed by SCOTUS

or at least Federal appeals courts. I think you read too much into that particular word being used. Based on previous decisions that is the correct descriptor IMO.

[Sherman A1]

4. Time will tell

[QED]

3. "malversation"

"reason to believe that there has been malversation in office..."

malversation[ mal-ver-sey-shuh?n ]

noun Chiefly Law.
improper or corrupt behavior in office, especially in public office.

Not exactly the definition I expected from looking at the roots - mal = bad. I thought the "vers" meant speaking or communication but it's from versari = to conduct oneself.

Conversation, where I thought the latter part was from, is actually from conversari meaning "to associate with."

Sorry, got sidetracked by the etymology...it looks like the stonewalling is starting to crumble. I hope others start acting in their own interests instead of IQ45.