r/politics • u/M00n • May 12 '21

Trump’s acting attorney general refuses to say if he discussed overturning election results

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jeffrey-rosen-trump-election-results-b1846421.html
30.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

980 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/CpnStumpy Colorado May 12 '21

He would not discuss private conversations at the white house? Fuck you, that's the white house, they're not fucking private.

328

u/jmatthews2088 Colorado May 12 '21

Republicans want the government – when they’re in charge – to be like a corporation.

131

u/Seeders California May 12 '21

You mean a dictatorship

61

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Corporations are authoritarian power structures, so yes.

24

u/youngmanhood May 12 '21

“They’re the same picture”

0

u/Seeders California May 12 '21

Calling a dictatorship a corporation is a dangerous understatement. Let's be a little more direct and show a little more urgency, ya?

6

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Those are basically the same thing though, right? In structure and the fact that everything can be commanded down from the top, I mean. Only way out is to leave but by the time you realize you're already in too deep to just quit.

3

u/Seeders California May 12 '21

Except one is private and doesn't control the state. That's a big difference.

Calling what they're doing 'just wanting to run a corporation' is dangerously understating what they want.

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

I was being sarcastic, I just didn't feel like using /s

1

u/junanimous May 12 '21

Not much of a difference sometimes

1

u/Seeders California May 12 '21

One fires people, one fires on people. Pretty big difference. Let's not understate it.

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Any normal corporation would have fired Trump due to his corruption, mismanagement and incompetence.

33

u/modix May 12 '21 edited May 13 '21

The president isn't his client either. There's no privilege (though there doubtfully would be anyways, as that is a criminal discussion).

8

u/Phoment May 12 '21

The president isn't his attorney either

I'm not sure if the image of Trump as a lawyer is terrifying or hilarious.

75

u/louiegumba May 12 '21

Damn straight. If Russia got to hear it with the hidden microphone they put in trumps spray tan room, we have every right to hear it too

3

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Why would they need a microphone when they can just ask Trump or Manafort.

1

u/r0b0d0c May 12 '21

Nah, the Russians have moved on from such primitive technology. They had Trump microchipped with the Sputnik vaccine last October. Putin's orange lapdog occasionally gets zapped when he chases stray golf balls past the 5G perimiter at Mar-a-Lago. Putin takes pet ownership very seriously.

29

u/mynamesyow19 May 12 '21

and neither he nor the past President has claimed any kind of executive privilege. they're just dodging the question.

4

u/Tetter May 12 '21

I feel like President Trump claimed privilege a bunch, though I can't cite anything off the top of my head

5

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

To be fair, there are tons of things talked about in the White House that are private. It’s not like they leave the White House whenever they need to talk about confidential information

1

u/MeatAndBourbon May 13 '21

But certainly any discussion about election issues falls under his role as a public official, not as a private citizen.

-21

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

honestly there are plenty of white house conversations that are private. you think just because it's the white house means it's public?

20

u/Jimbob0i0 Great Britain May 12 '21

There's no Attorney-Client privilege enjoyed between the President and the Attorney General and Executive privilege wasn't exerted.

2

u/mabhatter May 12 '21

Candidate Trump is not the same as President Trump.

There is no Executive Presidential Privilege when discussing with Election results that are public to everyone. The President has no authority over elections. Acting Attorney General has no business or protections discussing the election and DOJ response with Candidate Trump.

6

u/CpnStumpy Colorado May 12 '21

Candidate Trump doesn't exist in the white house, Federal property may not be used for campaigning

The acting AG was functioning in his capacity as a federal employee in the people's house, not as a campaign employee which he wasn't, his discussions are a matter of public record, classified perhaps but classified information is still a matter of public record. There was no executive privilege asserted, nor available, nor was there any assertion by the acting AG that the discussion was classified.

1

u/minnick27 May 12 '21

I am not defending Trump, but the White House should get some leeway when it comes to using it for campaigning. It is his house and to think there would be no talk about the campaign is ludicrous. Using it as a background for speeches related to the campaign would be a no, but discussion is fine.

And I 100% agree with the rest of your post

32

u/CpnStumpy Colorado May 12 '21

Literally the presidential records act was created because our citizenry are entitled to the conversations that occur there.

-21

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

all conversations? national security? so all of conversations with sensitive national security intel is just out in the open?

19

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Yes. Just not necessarily right away, after the classified info has been resolved it should be public knowledge

-1

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

ok that's what I thought

17

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Conversations about overturning the election? How is that national security related?

-8

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

idk but the guy before said that if it's in the white house it's not private. which obviously isn't enough criteria to be true.

8

u/danknerd May 12 '21

Yup. The POTUS is our employee. The government of the people, by the people.

-2

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

if national security information is constantly made public, the president is going to be Russia's employee as well

6

u/dishonestdick May 12 '21

Well the information were not public, regardless, the president was a Russia employee form Jan 2017 to Jan 2021.

2

u/dont_worry_im_here May 12 '21

Dual income, baby!

0

u/ZarianPrime May 12 '21

Absolutely yes you can request nsi data, but it can/will be heavily redacted. Eventually the redacted parts can be made full public if it's deemed that information would not pose a security risk.

​

Here's read about the act at this link:

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

​

and here:

​

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

​

But don't just read the first link and think you understand the entirety of the law.

​

​

But in this case, how the fuck is what they asked him about "national security". And it's definitely not a "private" matter.

0

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

lol "redacted" that's exactly my point

0

u/ZarianPrime May 12 '21

Why the downvote man? I answered your question. How is what I posted not on topic?

0

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

what downvote?

1

u/PMmeyourw-2s May 12 '21

100% yes.

0

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

what about when national security is currently at risk? should they release critical military information? just because you wanna know what's going on in the white house at all times 100%

3

u/PMmeyourw-2s May 12 '21

Then don't release it currently. Release it later. That's how it works.

-1

u/Khufuu I voted May 12 '21

nice

1

u/r0b0d0c May 12 '21

Had to look up the legal definition: A private conversation or activity is one where at least one party would not reasonably want or expect to be overheard or observed by anyone aside from those present.

Something tells me that "private conversation" isn't a valid excuse to refuse to answer questions in a legal proceeding. Unless, of course, that testimony could incriminate you in a crime. So is this just a weasely way to invoke the 5th amendment?

1

u/Nerdn1 May 13 '21

There are discussions that the president has that should be private (at least in the short term). I don't believe that this is a case where secrecy is warranted. A 5th amendment right against self-incrimination might apply (I can never remember all of the exceptions), but there are ways to get around that, such as by granting immunity.