Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, December 13, 2019

The Justice Department on Thursday made public a series of internal memos that the Trump administration has relied on to justify its defiance of congressional subpoenas related to the impeachment inquiry.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Before the teeth-gnashing and cries of Whataboutism commence, I am posting this because many people have expressed confusion as to the basis for Trump asserting Executive Privilege regarding his advisers, and if you note from the last sentence of the article, "OLC opinions are generally considered binding on the executive branch, but courts are not required to treat them as legal authorities."

I have previously posted several of these opinions, most notably Janet Reno's similar opinion in Assertion of Executive Privilege With Respect To Clemency Decision and Steven Bradbury's similar opinion in Immunity of the Former Counsel to the President From Compelled Congressional Testimony.

The reason that these opinions are important is that unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise, like The Hon. Ketanji Brown Jackson did in the McGahn case, all executive branch employees are subject to this privilege whether they like it or not.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-13 02:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

FTA:

The Justice Department on Thursday made public a series of internal memos that the Trump administration has relied on to justify its defiance of congressional subpoenas related to the impeachment inquiry.

The memos, written by legal advisers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), date as far back as the Nixon administration and supply legal arguments for a broad reading of presidential power in the face of congressional oversight.

The OLC reportedly published the opinions in response to a request from House Democrats. The OLC cited the memos in a May OLC opinion that gave legal justifications for blocking the congressional subpoena against McGahn.

One of the newly released OLC memos, written in 1982 by Assistant Attorney General Ted Olson, is titled "History of Refusals by Executive Branch Officials to Provide Information Demanded by Congress."

The opinion from Olson traces historical examples since the country's founding where presidents ordered the withholding of information in the name of executive privilege. It cites instances from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, through the Civil War and Reconstruction-era administrations of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, and continues through the early years of the Reagan administration.

"The memorandum seeks to show that presidentially mandated refusals to disclose information to Congress " though infrequent " are by no means unprecedented acts of this or any other administration," the opinion states.

Another OLC opinion from 1982 was requested by then-Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani, who is now Trump's personal attorney. That memo, also written by Olson, explained how executive privilege applies when Congress requests testimony from close presidential advisers.

OLC opinions are generally considered binding on the executive branch, but courts are not required to treat them as legal authorities.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-13 10:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Congress has oversight power over the Executive branch.. if the president can just hide all evidence and testimony.. then we have no oversight and instead have a king...
but as long as he pretends to be a a concervative.. we can all ignore the $trillion deficit.

#3 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-12-14 06:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Seems like that release really blows a hole into half of the impeachment articles headed towards the House.

#4 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-14 08:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

ROC likes -------

ROC likes to muddy the waters.

ROC is a conservative POS.

LOL!

#5 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-12-14 10:50 AM | Reply

It's good to be king.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-14 11:31 AM | Reply

"OLC opinions are generally considered binding on the executive branch, but courts are not required to treat them as legal authorities."

And they don't. Ted Olsen et al's opinions didn't keep Tricky Dick from running for the hills; he knew they were worthless.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-14 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anything to protect your boy, Trump.

Carry on carrying all that water, RoC.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-14 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

AVIGDORE

Here's a bigger hole: OLC opinions are generally considered binding on the executive branch, "but courts are not required to treat them as legal authorities."

Now what?

#9 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-15 03:53 AM | Reply

Courts can overrule Office of Legal Council.

Of course they can. Court are a higher authority than some nerdy cubicle dwellers at the DOJ.

#10 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-15 03:59 AM | Reply

Here's a bigger hole: OLC opinions are generally considered binding on the executive branch, "but courts are not required to treat them as legal authorities."
Now what? - #9 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-15 03:53 AM

Now what? Now the court would need to step in a make a decision, as they have during the history of the country. What will the courts decide? Will the president comply with those decisions? Who knows...the house is impeaching him for....them not following the precedence of taking it to the courts. Ok.

#11 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-15 01:11 PM | Reply

AVIGDORE

"Will the president comply with those decisions?"

Vegas odds makers say he's going to kick like a mule. ~ LOL

#12 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-15 01:16 PM | Reply

It's funny to see the Usual Idiots attack the thread poster when they can't attack the source or the thread premise.

Keep on being DRtarded, it fits you.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-16 01:08 PM | Reply

all executive branch employees are subject to this privilege whether they like it or not.

Under what penalty? Has Alexander Vindman been dishonorably discharged?

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-16 01:25 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort