Thank you, Joyce for opening the waters of court findings to give us passage of understanding. I guess these 'hide me' pleas will continue until the trial are underway
Thank you, Joyce for opening the waters of court findings to give us passage of understanding. I guess these 'hide me' pleas will continue until the trial are underway
Joyce: another consideration in the Navarro case is that the privilege belongs to the current president not the former one? And the current administration has made it perfectly clear in correspondence with Navarro that it does not choose to exercise any executive privilege in this instance! And, in addition to these appropriate legal considerations, the defendant is obviously crazy generally as well as to rely on the missing assertion of тАЬexecutive privilegeтАЭ in this instance!
I had to re-read your comment to 'think I got it.' But did Nararro have the gall to ask the current president for executive privilege? I almost feel embarrassed to ask.
No, not at all, but they obviously got wind of it because it was a very public stunt by this crazy guy (we Californians have had a very exhaustive experience with this guy) and the Biden Admin quickly chimed in publicly! Legal scholars contend that the privilege can only be asserted in court by the current Executive!
I googled Navarro. The Hill said this tonight: "Navarro cannot be forced to testify as the committee ceased its work last year, but he can still be held in contempt of Congress, which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $100,000 fine." I am wondering what the conservative Supreme Court will say if he appeals (should he be found guilty for contempt of Congress)? I think it will be very hard for even the conservative members to refute established law. But....
Thank you, Joyce for opening the waters of court findings to give us passage of understanding. I guess these 'hide me' pleas will continue until the trial are underway
Joyce: another consideration in the Navarro case is that the privilege belongs to the current president not the former one? And the current administration has made it perfectly clear in correspondence with Navarro that it does not choose to exercise any executive privilege in this instance! And, in addition to these appropriate legal considerations, the defendant is obviously crazy generally as well as to rely on the missing assertion of тАЬexecutive privilegeтАЭ in this instance!
I had to re-read your comment to 'think I got it.' But did Nararro have the gall to ask the current president for executive privilege? I almost feel embarrassed to ask.
No, not at all, but they obviously got wind of it because it was a very public stunt by this crazy guy (we Californians have had a very exhaustive experience with this guy) and the Biden Admin quickly chimed in publicly! Legal scholars contend that the privilege can only be asserted in court by the current Executive!
I googled Navarro. The Hill said this tonight: "Navarro cannot be forced to testify as the committee ceased its work last year, but he can still be held in contempt of Congress, which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $100,000 fine." I am wondering what the conservative Supreme Court will say if he appeals (should he be found guilty for contempt of Congress)? I think it will be very hard for even the conservative members to refute established law. But....
He will appeal!