Executive Privilege Should Have No Power When It Comes to an Impeachment

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The House has now begun the public phase of its impeachment process. But during its closed-door sessions last week, more than 10 current and former executive-branch officials—including Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and the top National Security Council lawyer, John Eisenberg—refused to show up. Each had been subpoenaed to appear. Compliance with a subpoena is not normally optional, of course.

But the witnesses declined to appear, at the White House’s direction. The White House argued that the Constitution’s separation of powers prohibits Congress from requiring close presidential advisers, such as Mulvaney and Eisenberg, to testify, and prohibits Congress from requiring any executive-branch official to appear for a deposition without a government lawyer present, two “prophylactic” constitutional doctrines—one old and one new—that the executive branch says are necessary to protect executive privilege. These doctrines purport to allow current and former executive-branch officials to refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena. But they have never before been applied to a formal impeachment inquiry. Nor has executive privilege.

When the Democrats reclaimed the House of Representatives in the 2018 election, a commonrefrain was that the terrain in Washington had shifted. The Democrats would now have the constitutional authority to conduct oversight of the Trump administration, including by issuing subpoenas to demand particular documents or to require witnesses to testify. Understanding that shift, Donald Trump said he was ready to adopt a “warlike posture” in response.

The warlike posture, or at least posturing, did not take long to emerge. In April, Trump announced that his administration would “fight all the subpoenas.” And, amid a flurry of oversight on various matters, the administration responded aggressively to information requests and suggested it would not comply. But behind the posturing, the letters sent from executive-branch agencies and the White House to congressional committees sounded very similar to letters sent during the Obama administration to Republican-controlled House committees and, before that, during the George W. Bush administration to Democratic-controlled House committees. In the past, after the bluster and posturing came compromise, at least in the large majority of disputes. This time, however, neither side intended to back down.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/executive-privilege-should-have-no-power-when-it-comes-to-an-impeachment/ar-BBWOiE6?ocid=msn360

[dhol82]

1. Let's see how far this goes.

[Karadeniz]

2. I have thought that, too, lately...provisions could be made for matters of natl security.

[Nitram]

3. I'm not sure that's true. I don't think executive priveledge should extend to the aides Trump is

instructing not to testify. But his conversation with attorneys could very well still be subject to attorney-client privilege. We don't need those to impeach him. We need the testimony of his staff, who should not be covered by executive privilege in an impeachment investigation.