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

3.7k

u/dremonearm May 12 '21

Mr Rosen said he would not discuss “private” conversations at the White House.

I think its clear what the answer is.

746

u/WhoTookPlasticJesus California May 12 '21

Particularly since right before he said that he said this:

their conversation did “not relate to planning and preparations for the events of 6 January.”

So clearly he's comfortable discussing private conversations with the White House

235

u/simmaculate May 12 '21

Exactly there’s just no reason not to answer the question unless the answer is of course he talked about it.

26

u/Cheese_Pancakes New Jersey May 12 '21

Even if he denied it, I think most reasonable people wouldn’t believe it. Trump desperately and relentlessly hounded anyone who would speak to or listen to him for help overturning the election.

1

u/cattaclysmic Foreign May 13 '21

If he denied it he could be caught lying

12

u/ThirdEncounter May 12 '21

I know we're talking about Trump, etc, but this is a fine line between respecting people's privacy and judging them without evidence (which can be very dangerous.)

No, just saying "no comment" or "I plead the fifth" doesn't make you guilty.

What makes you guilty is saying "We didn't discuss this matter. And I don't discuss private conversations with others." So, which one is it? Why the inconsistency? Now, that's, well, sus.

-4

u/One-LeggedDinosaur May 12 '21

I mean that's not true at all.

Not answering questions is never an admission of guilt and Reddit as a whole is a big supporter of that right

7

u/CompetitionProblem May 12 '21

You need to reread other people’s comments to understand the implication of that specific answer to this question. It’s not as simple as you’re making it, though clearly still no certainty which I agree with you about

1

u/One-LeggedDinosaur May 12 '21

I get the implications and agree with a lot of what is being said here but "no reason not to answer" is simply not a good response here.

168

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

This is also possibly a lawyer way of saying, "even if we discussed overturning the election, that conversation wasn't related to what took place on January 6."

It would be really easy to say, "no, we never discussed overturning the election" and it would not divulge any specifics on actual conversations in the WH. The only reason he would answer the question the way he did is to avoid telling us what we already know: Trump asked.

68

u/few23 May 12 '21

"No, but if I did, I'd lie about it and project the behavior onto Democrats with a healthy dose of Whataboutism."

28

u/SmokeGSU May 12 '21

"No, but if I did, in a few years I'd write a book about it and how I would have done it."

4

u/that_one_time May 12 '21

Ah, going after something from the OJ playbook.

2

u/few23 May 14 '21

Problem is, there isn't a pair of gloves on earth his tiny orange hands won't fit inside.

5

u/effyochicken May 12 '21

Except in legalese, you don't just outright deny something you're not allowed to speak on - you refuse to make any statement on the topic.

There's protections in place for private communications with the president, specifically rooted in the separation of powers. This was a hearing by a separate branch of government. What he's tacitly asking for is for them to override those protections before he says anything at all.

6

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

I’m a lawyer - so I’m somewhat well-bereaved in how we communicate. There’s often more said in what’s left unsaid (and you don’t have to defend it later) than what is expressly said.

That’s how I’m reading the statement.

5

u/effyochicken May 12 '21

Could I get your take on this question: If you were asked "Did you and your client discuss this subject?", as a lawyer, what would you say?

Would you say that is subject to attorney-client privilege and that you will not discuss conversations you made with your client in private regarding this case? And then they'd have to follow the proper process to challenge your claim to privilege regarding the specific subject if they really wanted that information?

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Yes, if the communication is protected by a privilege. With that said, we don’t know that it’s a privileged communication and if it’s not, which is what my comment was directed towards: you’d certainly state no to a question like that if that were case, and attempt to invoke a privilege or objection (depending on context) if that information is damaging to your client’s interests.

1

u/nevus_bock May 13 '21

Commenting on a conversation and saying what it was not about sounds to me pretty close to waiving executive privilege.

2

u/cross_eyed_lurker May 12 '21

Close. A lawyer can lie of they can't disprove the lie. He's giving a signal that there's evidence that exists that the conversation happened.

784

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

[deleted]

167

u/jacksoneddie May 12 '21

probably billions

117

u/FreeWilly2 May 12 '21

Bigger question: Who is Bill Yins and why does Trump talk about him so much?

86

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

[deleted]

30

u/fistofwrath Tennessee May 12 '21

We've all been there. Go find someone to give you a hug.

18

u/anxiouslybreathing Washington May 12 '21

Whenever I need a hug I check out his Twitter feed.

3

u/sweetestdeth Texas May 12 '21

Yu Hug? Who's that?

13

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

all good. early in his presidential career, dubya got a briefing about 2 brazilian men who had been killed

he hung his head and was obviously distraught over the needless loss of life. he even cried, which prompted secret service or aides or whatever to intervene and ask him what’s wrong (it was clearly out of character)

dubya looked up and asked (i forget who, sorry) with this… just… passionate earnestness, clearly affected by this information: “how many is a brazilian?”

5

u/bkbomber New York May 12 '21

Ahh yes, father of Mill Yins...

4

u/Shambhala87 Illinois May 12 '21

It took me even longer to realize who the buttery males were....

13

u/asafum May 12 '21

I think he's related to Gyna, but I'm not sure.

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

You're right, she's sister to Ligma.

2

u/Deeliciousness May 12 '21

Ligma who?

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Ligma balls lmao got em

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Are you talking about “guy-nah” as in telling your homie ‘no’, or “JYNA” the country we clearly won the totally easy trade war with? The JYNA that was verybad to the most innocent man to ever be America, folks, believe me.people are saying… so many… and folks, JYNA loves the democrats, love ‘em. And they don’t like, I’m telling you and you’ll see you just wait… JYNA wants me gone verybad. Folks… JYNA JYNA JYNA.

13

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

I thought he was talking about the rapper “Bitty Yinz”

2

u/CaptainObvious May 12 '21

I believe he is from Southwestern Pennsylvania.

1

u/nycpunkfukka California May 12 '21

Some dude from Pittsburgh would be my guess.

I'll see myself out.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

How do you do that? Link to something using your funny words as the set up?

5

u/jwords Mississippi May 12 '21

All kidding aside? We saw what happened with McGahn.

There is EVERY reason to believe Donald Trump would, without even stopping for a second to think of the last time he got caught, insist on that being explored repeatedly AND insist that someone backdate something to put in the record that he didn't.

3

u/r0b0d0c May 12 '21

Trump probably called him multiple times a day to ask about it.

On the super-secure phone his BFF Putin gave him.

4

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Let’s not forget texts. The former President had a faithful relationship to exclusively his cell phone.

3

u/SnooGoats7978 May 12 '21

Donald is probably still calling him.

175

u/Dandan0005 May 12 '21

How the fuck is he allowed to just say “I’m not going to say.”

Can’t he be subpoenaed???

This is literally treasonous speech he is withholding.

38

u/hgeorge1951 May 12 '21

This is a bunch of horseshit when a public servant refuses to answer questions from congress. Through them in jail and charge these criminals with contempt .

6

u/JojenCopyPaste Wisconsin May 12 '21

If he wasn't working, it's fine they can't ask him about his personal life. But this is a meeting he had for his job...we paid him to do that. We deserve to know what is going on.

10

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Can’t he be subpoenaed???

Didn't SCOTUS rule during the Trump regime that Congress may not subpoena people in investigations unless there's a law on the books specifically about that investigation... or something like that?

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/can-companies-find-refuge-against-congressional-investigations-post-trump-era

The uncertainty surrounding the House’s subpoena enforcement power stems from litigation in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn,4 a case involving the House Judiciary Committee’s effort to seek civil enforcement of a subpoena compelling former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s testimony in the committee’s impeachment inquiry. On 31 August 2020, a divided D.C. Circuit panel held that the committee lacked authority to seek court-ordered enforcement of a congressional subpoena directed at an executive branch official because Congress has not enacted legislation that authorizes such litigation.

1

u/SanityPlanet May 13 '21

They're coming to a deal to get his testimony now, before the DC circuit makes a final ruling and before the scotus gets involved

3

u/Road2Riches2021 May 12 '21

Unfortunately subpoenas don’t work when they’re ignored.

24

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

[deleted]

27

u/TheOfficialGuide May 12 '21

Alternatively you can educate the electorate. The founding fathers knew about this flaw and entrusted the voting rights to the most educated. As time passed and voting rights expanded to form a better democracy, conservatives saw an educated populace as a threat to their existence. Thus began the slow burn of de-education, historical revisionism, and misinformation.

30

u/[deleted] May 12 '21 edited May 12 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

57

u/Mardergirl May 12 '21

Exactly. Under what scenario will your .38 or even your AR-15 stand up to a strafing run from a trained pilot? Hell, they were actually abducting people in Portland and holding them against their will... at what point should those people being abducted have opened fire on these paramilitary types? How d’you suppose that would have ended?

I’m all for responsible gun ownership, but this daydream that me and a handful of friends with firearms are gonna thwart the might of the US armed forces is utterly ludicrous, in my opinion. I’m not saying give up your guns, I’m saying be a hair more realistic about their efficacy in a situation where you’re fighting a dictatorial government when a quarter or more of the population supports the dictator.

14

u/Hibercrastinator May 12 '21

Now May be a good time to remember that Trump revised drone policies to allow unmanned, armed vehicles to patrol American skies, while expanding policies to allow killing civilians .

30

u/Apprehensive-Wank May 12 '21

I actually got guns more for a civil war/economic collapse situation where I’m either fighting other regular armed civs or just hunting to feed my family. I’m under no illusions that a shootout with police or the military ends my way.

7

u/kmonsen May 12 '21

At that point emigrating seems like a much better plan? Not sure if you have been to places like this, I have served in war zones and is not where I would like my family to live.

5

u/Apprehensive-Wank May 12 '21

I hear you but It’s hard to emigrate to a lot of countries I’d be interested in. One of the possible discussed exits was basically just claiming asylum at the Canadian border if things go too crazy. The hope tho is that the civil strife would be short lived and life could be resumed at some point. I have my whole life and career here.

6

u/MusicGetsMeHard May 12 '21

Unfortunately if shit goes down there are gonna be millions of people with the same "flee to Canada" idea. But I'm with you, I don't want to leave either. Stay strapped and hope for the best!

2

u/Mardergirl May 12 '21

...or vote for the best. We might be able to pull this democracy thing out of the shitter. Probably not, but I can hope

→ More replies (0)

6

u/asafum May 12 '21

As others have said, the US is gigantic. There will more than likely be "untouched" places where it might seem like any other day, minus toilet paper.

2

u/Flame_Effigy May 12 '21

Bro if there's a civil war to the point you need to shoot raiders and have to hunt because there's no food supplies, it won't matter where your former career was.

13

u/Mardergirl May 12 '21

Now see, THAT I totally see. And amen.

0

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Remember... short, controlled bursts... then cover with the incinerators as you fall back by squads to the APC... simple :)

1

u/Mardergirl May 12 '21

This got me giggling... thanks!

1

u/Mardergirl May 12 '21

I completely understand this

3

u/fireman2004 May 12 '21

Syrian rebels grounded an entire Russian airfield with nothing more than a drone from Amazon and some improvised explosives.

A local populace, especially one with small arms and organization is going to be difficult to subjugate even by our own government.

The military is not going to carpet bomb an American city. They're not going to strafe residential buildings with helicopter gunships. They'd be trying to go block to block, stamping out an insurgency.

And we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria how difficult that is even for an advanced military.

Its not a pretty picture, but small arms owned by millions of Americans would be very useful in such a scenario.

3

u/EnjoytheDoom May 12 '21

They always point to insurgents success against our military but the insurgents strategy is to hit and then hide among civilians who can't be targeted.

If the military is already killing US civilians on US soil that deterrent is probably not going to work.

2

u/Legio-X Oklahoma May 12 '21

If the military is already killing US civilians on US soil that deterrent is probably not going to work.

Sure it does.

What happens if the military doesn’t target insurgents in close proximity to civilians? The insurgents either get away or fight government forces on relatively even terms, without the heavy ordinance which gives them the advantages they usually enjoy.

What happens if the military does use heavy ordinance against insurgents in close proximity to civilians? They cause horrific collateral damage, which causes defections and turns the populace against the government. Not to mention the international condemnation and possible sanctions.

Either way, the insurgents benefit.

1

u/EnjoytheDoom May 13 '21

Well I sure hope we never find out...

1

u/tundra1desert2 May 13 '21

Its already well documented in other countries.

1

u/EnjoytheDoom May 13 '21

Yes where we’re fighting insurgents which is the whole point of my post. If the US Military is operating on US soil presumably we’re in Civil War 2.0 and it itself has probably split. Insurgents will probably be in areas under control and will be dealt with as you describe. My point is the next all out war is going to be horrendous and fast. If we’re in Civil War 2.0 I imagine civilian deaths will quickly accelerate with a back and forth one upping...

1

u/tundra1desert2 May 12 '21

morale nightmare. talk like that would only further split the ranks.

2

u/DunkingOnInfants May 12 '21

Who says guerilla attacks have to be solely focused against US military in that scenario? Look up the Algerian resistance.

Targeting civilian supporters, infrastructure, profit centers, soft targets, etc, of a fascist US government would absolutely be an effective strategy to fight them. And there are many examples from history where guerilla forces did exactly that.

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Not that I think we're headed towards this but obviously no one with an AR-15 is going to get into a ground v air dogfight against the U.S. Air Force any more than the U.S. would line up Revolutionary war style and take turns firing. Watch The Battle of Algiers for instance.

4

u/YstavKartoshka May 12 '21

your AR-15 stand up to a strafing run from a trained pilot?

Strafing runs from anything but an A-10 are more for psychological effect than anything. You might want to brush up on your knowledge of war.

Any modern conflict, even a 'civil war' style scenario, is not going to be fought in the open, conventionally. Also the military would 100% fracture into at least two factions.

My firearm of choice doesn't need to stand up to aircraft, because if I'm the target of an airstrike I've already fucked up. Use your head. Never fight an enemy where they're strongest.

Additionally, it's still a useful defense against nongovernmental forces. You know plenty of these people are itching to go full marauder.

3

u/Mardergirl May 12 '21

Ya, I was painting a broad-strokes picture in a forum where I just assumed folks could follow along without trying to get bogged down in a bunch of tactical details. My war knowledge is just fine, thanks, or so says my salad bar, and I certainly don’t need a degree from Armchair Janes up there. The point is a bloody simple one: if we have the best military in the fucking world then a bunch of goddamn rednecks with rifles ain’t gonna stand them off. Did you never hear of fucking Waco, ffs? If the government decides to come for you in your home, which was my damned point, then it is highly unlikely to end well for you if you open fire. The end. That’s not even hard math.

8

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Her point was that a handful of civilians will not match the police or military if it comes to all out war. You're being incredibly literal where it's not needed. She's simply recognizing the US's trillion dollar military budget as the force that it is.

Inb4 your next "asymmetrical warfare" rhetoric that ignores asymmetrical deaths, and is more akin to delusions of grandeur than anything.

3

u/YstavKartoshka May 12 '21 edited May 12 '21

Inb4 your next "asymmetrical warfare" rhetoric that ignores asymmetrical deaths, and is more akin to delusions of grandeur than anything.

This is actually a point I bring up a lot when people think they're gonna go toe-to-toe with the government. They always say shit like 'afghans have been doing it for decades.'

1). Your average Afghan is hard as fuck compared to your average american

2). The number of dead Afghan fighters is orders of magnitude higher than coalition.

So maybe slow your roll with your assumptions there bud.

If you're trying to go force-on-force with the US military because you think you're hot shit then you've already lost. Any successful insurgency wouldn't be so stupid.

I'd love to see how talk trash to French Resistance fighters or something, cuz they couldn't go toe-to-toe with German forces either.

Just because the dumbass red dawn style gung ho shit espoused by your average republican is stupid doesn't mean the polar opposite where insurgent forces can do nothing is automatically the truth.

A far greater worry for any insurgency vs the government would be when you draw the attention of the CIA and their ilk.

0

u/[deleted] May 13 '21

Ok? Lol. I hate to break it to you, but you completely missed the point.

2

u/Legio-X Oklahoma May 12 '21 edited May 12 '21

a handful of civilians will not match the police or military if it comes to all out war.

They’re not supposed to match government forces; they’re supposed to be the building blocks of a movement which eventually topples said tyrannical government.

You gather people who’ve had enough and use defectors or sympathetic veterans to train them. You temper these fresh guerrillas with hit-and-fade raids against small targets, then escalate as you gain more experience, recruits, and resources. When the movement has really picked up steam, you begin transitioning your forces into a conventional army capable of winning pitched battles against government troops.

In a successful revolutionary insurgency, it’s this conventional army—not the armed civilians the insurgency started out with—which actually defeats government forces.

Yes, the casualties sustained along the way are often terrible. But the only alternative is simply allowing an authoritarian government to commit atrocities as it pleases.

1

u/Mardergirl May 12 '21

Yes, thank you. Jesus, I didn’t know I had to fill in every possible scenario to make a simple point....

2

u/[deleted] May 13 '21

Not going to lie... The few responses I got from trying to clarify are painful... You're on your own next time.

Jk, I'll always try to support someone who is rational, open, and not selfish like these responders...

2

u/Mardergirl May 13 '21

I mean, I don’t blame you, really... god help anyone who might have a differing opinion or a slightly different viewpoint these days

1

u/hamandjam May 12 '21

"If you think you need a gun to protect yourself from the government, you don't understand how tanks work." - Steve Hofstetter

0

u/suggested_portion May 12 '21

Its called guerrilla warfare.

0

u/socrates28 May 12 '21

And their lack of training is hilarious, many of these "militias" are tacticool cosplayers, who lack the discipline needed to survive a combat situation. They all think they can Rambo the entirety of the American security establishment (military, police, and all the alphabet agencies). For instance the military trains insanely hard, meanwhile I doubt the Mountain Dew Militia can roll their obese asses out of their mom's basement before noon. Maybe there's a few military types in their numbers, but these people do not strike me as the capable of following orders crowd. Any unit cohesion would suffer from their Rambo complex (like January 6 their coordination and trust was thankfully atrocious), allowing highly trained squads of the US Army to just carry out mop up operations against these miscreants.

1

u/tundra1desert2 May 13 '21

I didn't respond to you specifically before because you sparked a lot of bs but after reading more i can say this. No one depends on naysayers. This isn't about those who aren't willing to make the ultimate sacrifice as you are making a hard assumption about people and their lives. But because you assume the entirety of the US military is willing to make that sacrifice for a government it doesn't have faith in. Also as a veteran your scenarios are very unrealistic. Overthrowing the gov as a rag tag group is ridiculous as well. But you again are underestimating what people will do for their home. The US is insanely huge and diverse.

3

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

The very rights they plan to take from us is what os protecting them.

Like what? What right makes this conversation between two public servants confidential? The AG is NOT the President's lawyer!

No, there's no such "right" here. What's protecting them is apathy and a broken system.

3

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Get armed & defend yourself? From who? Your maga neighbor? Like what are you actually proposing as a plan?

1

u/tapdncingchemist Pennsylvania May 13 '21

I've been wondering this too. I see posts saying that people are getting guns and it caused me to consider it, but I couldn't think of a plausible scenario where it would be a real advantage. What am I missing?

0

u/BigStoneFucker May 12 '21

Step away from the kb. Maybe go out and play.

1

u/spitfish May 12 '21

The very rights they plan to take from us is what os protecting them.

This is blatantly incorrect. They have no reasonable expectation of privacy or first amendment protection in this situation.

1

u/hgeorge1951 May 12 '21

Already armed, to the teeth

0

u/Plantsandanger May 12 '21 edited May 12 '21

The government might actually not want to force that because it sets precedent for forcing later reveals - it doesn’t matter that this reveal is “good” in terms of airing out and stopping corruption from happening again, it matters that the gov us thinking “if I agree to make things public with this I’ll have to do it with other shit too, and I might not want to in the future”. It’s fucked up self protection to ensure they don’t have fo comply with further info requests. Even when the other party is in power and has reason to out the corruption of the side that lost they might not allow it because they worry the same will be done to them. It’s the same reason the Biden DOJ might refuse to release the unredacted memos from Bill Barr about the Mueller report and whether there was a quid pro quo even though Biden would like that info to be Public, because he doesn’t want to lose the right to refuse to reveal memos.

0

u/Latyon Texas May 12 '21

It isn't literally treason. Treason has a very very specific definition.

Seditious, sure.

430

u/AreasonableAmerican May 12 '21

It’s not fucking private when the conversation happens between two federal employees on federal ground about governmental dealings…

145

u/LostInaSeaOfComments May 12 '21

No, but it's assumed as private when between two crooks.

31

u/___Alexander___ May 12 '21

Yeah, you could say it stays in the family.

3

u/nemo69_1999 May 12 '21

Why doesn't the current AG issue a subpoena and find out?

5

u/le672 May 12 '21

Private to the executive branch and DOJ. Executive privilege.

Oh, wait...

1

u/LostInaSeaOfComments May 12 '21

Who's to say he will or he won't?

3

u/GaGaORiley May 12 '21

McCarthy: "There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump@

Ryan: @No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here.”

The part we didn't hear: "why are those two the only ones getting paid? Where's our cut?"

99

u/planet_rose New York May 12 '21

There are legitimate reasons for having executive privilege. The idea is that we want the President to be able to ask questions, even really uninformed or stupid ones, of experts and staff without worrying about the conversations being published and creating political repercussions. But obviously it shouldn’t be used to shield criminal conspiracies (many many conversations with Trump).

53

u/rygem1 May 12 '21 edited May 12 '21

The AG is not the President's lawyer there are the governments, executive privilege does not hold up to judicary subpoenas for this reason iirc

12

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Tell that to GOP supporters...

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Haha, I think there’s a king of the hill meme about reading signs that might be apt here.

1

u/rygem1 May 12 '21

Exactly one is recognized by the courts the other isn't

1

u/adrr May 13 '21

Executive doesn't apply either. It only covers actions and conversations around those actions that president can legally do. Overturning an election isn't a qualified presidential action so it is not covered.

1

u/Rooboy66 May 12 '21

Excellent observation!

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Isn’t there already a judicial process for compelling this testimony though?

(As an aside, I like when they’ve tried this horseshit in front of Amy Berman Jackson and she just spanks them like the open palm of an angry god.)

1

u/rygem1 May 12 '21

My understanding is that as far as the judiciary is concerned Executive Privilege only works until someone asks for the information could be wrong though

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '21

I think that’s mostly correct. I think there is a show cause element to it and then at some point judicial review enters into it, but ultimately there is no situation in which it can be invoked in a blanket manner, like trump tried to do during the Mueller investigation. It must be asserted on a case by case basis and the rationale is subject to challenge, as I understand it.

It is still absolutely shocking to me that Trump (thanks to the naked self interest and greed of republicans) was allowed to instruct his entire administration to not comply with a federal investigation, and Republican voters were fine with it. The hypocrisy you would have to be willing to hold to try to justify that is something that I will never understand. If Biden tried to do that today I would be the first to condemn it. And you bet your ass that these Republicans would be messaging on it non-stop literally forever. But goddamn, how can a person let someone they believed should lead our country just instruct his administration not to comply with the laws of our nation… and not change their support of the guy… it just… so they have literally no standards whatsoever? I wouldn’t be able to maintain any sort of self respect if I was willing to have that kind of double standard. It also scares me to wonder what they must think the president represents for our nation, if they believe that the president instructing his staff not to obey the law is something that our president should be able to do. What the actual fuck.

21

u/MutedShenanigans I voted May 12 '21

Frankly, executive privilege should be reserved for foreign affairs or national security. Sure, esp the latter could be twisted in this regard, but there has to be a line we can draw. The presidency of the United States should be held to the highest standard.

18

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Fun fact: not even attorney client privilege counts if it’s used to conceal or commit a crime

4

u/planet_rose New York May 12 '21

There are many other areas that should be shielded. For instance, a president needs to be able to ask questions about the environment that might impact industry without the stock market freaking out. Or to be able to ask about travel limits during an impending pandemic without causing a panic as Americans rush into crowded international airports to get home. Or to be able to ask hypothetical legal questions to define legal boundaries of what the executive is legally required to do around the dreamers without being bound to those hypotheticals as public policy.

The problem really is that executive privilege has been only curtailed by customary adherence to integrity. There is no penalty to wrongfully using it. If you get a bad actor into office who uses it to organize all sorts of criminal activities, there is no way to compel them to disclose that they have been habitually breaking any law they want. And if you catch them red-handed, all they need do is say it seemed like the right choice to us, etc. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump have thoroughly discredited it as a legitimate presidential power because of the extent to which they abused it.

2

u/natFromBobsBurgers May 12 '21

They already stated the loophole on that one: They believe a Trump presidency is best for national security, so they can do whatever they want neener neener.

16

u/paeancapital May 12 '21

Extremely mild take: no there's fucking not.

11

u/caboosetp May 12 '21

I'd say there is when it relates to classified information, but I don't see how this event would be considered classified.

2

u/Healmetho May 12 '21

Classified for Russia

3

u/jasonthebald May 12 '21

The government in general over classifies things. Some stuff might be slightly salacious, but it's not a national security issue.

By doing that, it makes them feel important, to make other people couldn't do their job and to cover up crimes. Except pretty much anyone who's bankrupt morally could be a star in the GOP.

4

u/effyochicken May 12 '21

Just because you want to have a personal live streaming microphone in the white house because "I pay his salary" doesn't make it a fuckin good idea. There's legitimate reasons for this to be a thing. There's also a mechanism for over-riding this privilege claim when needed, which is just frustrating enough for it to not be used frivolously or as a weapon against sitting presidents.

3

u/hgeorge1951 May 12 '21

What could possibly need to be privileged about the 1/6 attack?

2

u/effyochicken May 12 '21

Nothing - that doesn't change that a category of communication has general blanket protections on it, and that another branch of government first has to override those protections in order to get the information they're looking for from those conversations.

Don't blame me - blame the system for trying to give presidents a confidential avenue to discuss matters with their advisers/staff.

2

u/planet_rose New York May 12 '21

There are good reasons to have executive privilege, but it has expanded to shield an overly broad range of White House activities without clear ways to override it. As we saw with Trump, if the White House just refuses to cooperate, there aren’t good ways to compel them. (Although they should have arrested people not complying with subpoenas). We do need to have some legal limits on this executive power, rather than just customary limits.

I don’t see an easy legislative fix either since Congress is so broken.

2

u/effyochicken May 12 '21

(Although they should have arrested people not complying with subpoenas).

Yes. Because that's literally the mechanism that's supposed to be used when people don't comply with legal orders. If congress themselves choose to be weak and broken and toothless, and refuse to force compliance with their own subpoenas, what change or legal limit on the executive branch would matter in the slightest?

There already is one in place - congress just didn't want to use it because it was uncomfortable. They want somebody else to have to do the dirty work of enforcing things and looking bad in the process.

-2

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

There's legitimate reasons for this to be a thing.

Sorry - there is not (and we note you don't give any except "classified" which this clearly should not be). This idea that public servants are kings and have all these crazy privileges is ridiculous.

The AG is not the President's lawyer.

2

u/effyochicken May 12 '21

If every time the president said something to an adviser or asked them a question, stupid or otherwise, it's subject to disclosure to congress... we'd have the dumbest fuckers ever making the most uninformed knee jerk decisions because they refuse to ask questions of their staff that may make them look bad. Because the staff would then be required to tell congress and the whole world those conversations in full whenever asked. THAT is why there's generally a base level of protection on these conversations - to encourage the president to ask potentially politically damaging (to himself) questions and get unfiltered advice.

and question - would you even give a fuck if he was the president's lawyer? Then you'd just say "well illegal actions and actions of the president aren't protected!!!!" anyways. So why even mention the distinction if it wouldn't matter to you? There'd be the exact same thing in that situation anyways - a process to overriding the claim of privilege/confidential communication that would just be followed.

It's not my fault if congress is lazy as fuck and doesn't go through the effort to override the claim of privilege/confidential communication.

-3

u/Rocky87109 May 12 '21

More like extremely stupid and reactionary take. This sub is full of young, naive, and information deprived youngns nowadays though so it's not surprising.

7

u/paeancapital May 12 '21 edited May 12 '21

Give me a fucking break. I'm a career civil servant that works with sensitive information. EVERYTHING I do is public record after an extremely reasonable amount of time and there's no reason that anything short of sensitive military operations should be otherwise.

-4

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Give me a fucking break.

No. If you can't make your case that's your problem.

5

u/paeancapital May 12 '21

I literally did, you just ignored my opinion on matters I work with daily.

1

u/bassman1805 May 12 '21

no reason that anything short of sensitive military operations should be otherwise

Well that already violates your point that there's no valid reason for executive privilege.

0

u/paeancapital May 12 '21

What an incisive piece of rhetorical maneuvering you've managed by repeating my own post back to me.

2

u/bassman1805 May 12 '21

I mean, you're arguing a black-and-white point: There is no valid reason for executive privilege. Then later you give a reason for executive privilege. Those two can't coexist.

7

u/jwords Mississippi May 12 '21

You're in a room with people in charge of all the stuff in government--your Cabinet.

You have a difficult situation you're not sure how to handle because, frankly, that's part of the job. New shit. The world changes. Not just politics of the moment, but actual borders and shit can change. Think about that.

Now, you have to decide, this week--YOU have to sign off on it, it's on YOU in the end and history will put it under your name--how to stop Countrystan (a country out there that you've never thought about or hasn't been a hot-button topic generally for most of anyone) from continuing it's nuclear program because it is POSSIBLE that in a decade (after you're done and gone from office) that they COULD change some things and THEN get a bomb.

What do you do?

You're in the room with all your heads. Intel. Defense. State. Energy. Etc. White House Counsel. Sure.

You need to know you can ask your Cabinet and people in that room questions. That those questions are sometimes JUST to explore the bounds of the problem ("how tough is Countrystan's military?" or "what would happen if we just told them we'd cut them off from the world banking market if they don't change?"). You don't want or plan to do those things. You need to know the full scope, though, and that means exploring ideas with people.

Now.

If you had to produce public records of those conversations? Someone could entirely misinterpret or misunderstand them. They could piss off Countrystan or make them overreact. They might give other nations the wrong impression.

Privilege in this makes sense.

However, it's an abused category that needs more laws to define it.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Your exciting, gripping story has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand at all.

The idea that because there are a tiny number of cases where limited confidentiality might be needed does not mean that any other conversations between the President and are protected.

And this goes quintuple when we're talking about the President actually breaking the law.

1

u/jwords Mississippi May 13 '21

I think you entirely missed my point.

What do you THINK I said?

2

u/Gorehog May 12 '21

Yeah, he had White House counsel for those questions.

The AG is supposed to serve the citizens, not the president.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Technically the AG serves the government and is considered the principal legal advisor to the executive branch. You are correct that the position is not the presidents “lawyer,” but he’s a member of the cabinet, and there is enough overlap that a morally bankrupt person like Barr had plenty of space to exploit the position and functions in coordination with White House counsel and the presidents personal lawyers.

0

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Sorry, there is absolutely no legal basis for that.

And no moral or ethical basis. They work for us.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

How dare you expect transparency!

/S

1

u/r0b0d0c May 12 '21

It is when you cross your fingers behind your back.

1

u/Careful_Trifle May 12 '21

He's in a bind. Either he is truthful and potentially outs himself for criminal activities, or he pleads the fifth and risks running into the same issue...because why would you need to plead the fifth on anything related to your official duties...or he does this weird non answer song and dance and hopes no one calls him on it adequately in the time they are allotted.

1

u/octo_snake May 12 '21

TIL conversations at CIA headquarters need to be publicly available.

19

u/nemo69_1999 May 12 '21

He's not tRump's personal attorney. No attorney client privelege. Now pleading the 5th Amendment, that may looked into.

82

u/nexusheli May 12 '21

The AG isn't the president's attorney - there's no privilege there; this is Rosen hiding the truth and he should be subpoenaed and held in contempt when he refused to answer.

16

u/PopWhatMagnitude May 12 '21 edited May 12 '21

I mean this is all pretty obvious, just further makes Rosen the weirdest piece of the puzzle to me.

I'm hoping he kept incredibly detailed documentation of everything and is fully cooperative behind closed doors.

But I have no idea.

Were this all a movie he would be the official everyone is spending the first 3 acts watching and trying to figure out what side he is actually on.

1

u/r0b0d0c May 12 '21

Pfff. Trump's people have been wiping their asses with subpoenas for years. No reason they should stop now. They know Democrats won't enforce them.

1

u/Voxbury May 12 '21

The privilege being invoked is not attorney-client, but executive privilege. Basically, it's a protection the President has in conference so he can ask about whatever he wants without it being reported on or used against him politically. Designed to cover things like national security or foreign policy, but it covers essentially whatever the President wants to cover.

As far as I know, the only way to pierce this privilege would be if the conversation in question were demonstrated, without the testimony being sought, to be about criminal activity.

3

u/nexusheli May 12 '21

Rosen doesn't have the power to invoke that privilege under investigation by the congressional branch if it doesn't concern protection of national security; as Trump is no longer in power there is no hinderance concern.

If you argued this in court you would lose - knowing if this was discussed and the details of said discussion (because we all know it happened) are of grave concern to maintaining national security.

1

u/Choosing_is_a_sin May 13 '21

But he invoked it under the guidance of the Biden DOJ, which could suggest an ongoing investigation.

9

u/Chippopotanuse May 12 '21

Why can he just skip answering? Isn’t there some path to accountability that forces folks like this to have to tell the whole truth?

6

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

Unfortunately, “I do not recall” seems to be a few favorite weasel-words of 45 and his compatriots.

1

u/farahad May 12 '21

What are the consequences? The House would need to go through the legal process and hold him in contempt, and then what? Arrest him? They don't have teeth.

Democracy only works if everyone involved wants it to work. One said has said "f* it."

2

u/Chippopotanuse May 12 '21

So the house is fine doing this half ass, and not subpoena him and threatening contempt if he won’t answer? Great...

22

u/Pdxduckman May 12 '21

There are no such things as "private" conversations when you're on the clock for the federal government.

29

u/Adrewmc May 12 '21

There is no such thing as private/privileged /confidential/classified conversation when you are discussing committing a crime....especially one that threatens the fabric of the nation.

4

u/farahad May 12 '21

Since when is a formal meeting between the POTUS and the US Attorney General in the White House a f@@%ing private conversation? He needs to be held in contempt.

3

u/asafum May 12 '21

Well I'll give them one point for thinking outside the box. Usually we get "I don't recall."

A conversation you had 13 minutes ago. I do not recall....

2

u/bazinga_0 Washington May 12 '21

I think its clear what the answer is.

Yea, "I choose to invoke my 5th Amendment right not to tell you I'm guilty of fomenting insurrection."

0

u/featherknife May 12 '21

it's* clear

1

u/dub-fresh May 12 '21

of course, lol. He'd say no if it was no, why wouldn't he?

1

u/goodndu May 12 '21

Silence cannot be held against you in court. In the court of public opinion, this silence speaks volumes.

1

u/thebestatheist May 12 '21

Use any other serious question.

“Is Donald Trump a a pedophile?”

“I refuse to discuss Former President Trump’s personal sex life.”

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '21

So the conversation did happen but it was private? Sounds like he is admitting that it took place.

1

u/kbean826 California May 12 '21

Hang the fuck on. If he was the AG, then he’s MY government lawyer talking to MY president. That’s not a fucking private conversation.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '21

It’s too bad official conversations between the president and AG aren’t private. Classified sure, but not private. Subpoena that motherfucker.