I would like to see the Supreme Court rule on "Executive Privilege"...

[kentuck]

...for present and former Presidents.

Can they claim "executive privilege" in a criminal investigation? It's as simple as that.

Can they cover up criminal conduct by claiming "executive privilege"?

One would expect the Court to rule that Presidents have a right to claim executive privilege in almost every instance, except when there is a crime involved and the evidence requested by Congress is needed as evidence in their investigation.

I hope the Committee does request the ruling by the Court in this matter.

[Effete Snob]

1. Which previous Supreme Court decisions on the topic have you read?

If the answer is "zero", then one more isn't going to matter.

United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974) is a good starter...


https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5132513257326080850&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[dweller]

2. Done

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon


✌🏻

[kentuck]

3. So it is precedent.

Thanks!

[tblue37]

4. They would rule that IOKIYAR.

[Ocelot II]

7. They didn't for Nixon.

[tblue37]

9. Different times, different SCOTUS.

[Ocelot II]

5. They have, in United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones.

In the Nixon case, Nixon claimed that executive privilege protected him from having to release the Watergate tapes to the special prosecutor. In a 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon on the basis that criminal activity was under investigation. In Clinton, the court held that activities prior to assuming the office of president were not protected. A couple of DC Circuit cases have construed the privilege narrowly: In re Sealed Case (the Espy ruling), https://casetext.com/case/in-re-sealed-case-56, and Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice, https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-37.

[ShazamIam]

6. If it is a Republican president, they will claim the Constitution doesn't limit powers, if it is a

Democratic president, the president is only a figure head, not a separate and equal branch of government. /s

[Ocelot II]

8. See United States v. Nixon. Nixon lost.

[ShazamIam]

11. A different time and a different Court.

[Hortensis]

10. THIS Supreme Court maybe not. Notably, precedents

set by previous courts would probably not limit where a court packed with hard-core RW political agents went.

[Ocelot II]

12. This majority-conservative Supreme Court is conservative in the sense

that it tends to favor corporate interests vs. individual rights and generally follows the constrained and somewhat ridiculous concept of constitutional originalism. They are not, however, Trumpists, and they have already shown that they aren't about to bend the law to do favors for TFG, much to his fury. I tend to think they'll follow the US v. Nixon precedent if the question comes to them.