Barr on McGhan testimony: 'We haven't waived his privilege'

[demmiblue]

Last edited Wed May 1, 2019, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Hill

Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday said it wasn’t clear that former White House counsel Don McGahn would testify to Congress, saying, “we haven’t waived his privilege.”

Barr’s use of the word “we” immediately created a storm on social media, with critics of Barr saying it highlighted how has used his office as an extension of the White House.

The remarks took place during an exchange between Barr and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) during high-profile Senate Judiciary Committee testimony.

Barr told lawmakers that McGahn was a “close adviser to the president" when asked whether he objected to him testifying before Congress.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/441592-barr-on-mcghan-testimony-we-havent-waived-his-privilege

---

Maya Wiley on MSNBC remarked that since McGahn already testified (30 hours), executive privilege cannot be invoked.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. It's as clear as gin that Barr thinks he's Trump's lawyer, not the people's.

[onetexan]

15. in deed, that's been obvious from his hearings till now. He's the Roy Cohn the Idiot wanted.

no clue why anyone would want to put their neck on the chopping block for such an insidiously corrupt, amoral maniac.

[Iliyah]

2. The Republican party only panders to t-rump and themselves.

They refuse to work for the American people.

[Atticus]

3. Republicans were successful in redefining "conflict of interest", "facts", and "fire".

Now they are insisting that "waiver" does not mean what every court to this date has held it to mean.

[TruckFump]

4. WE...?????????

What is this WE bullshit???????

A mouse in his pocket??????

This lying POS is in a mode wherein he is representing the POTUS and not the people!!!!

[Turbineguy]

5. Some fine, professional grade

obstruction of justice going on here.

One difference between William Barr and John Mitchell is that Barr seems to have a very nice Wife.

[shanny]

6. His privilege was already waived

when he was allowed to be questioned by the special counsel.

Asshat.

[poli-junkie]

7. The OP needs to be edited

"Maya Wiley on MSNBC remarked that since Barr already testified (30 hours), executive privilege cannot be invoked."

Should read: "...since McGahn already testified..."

[demmiblue]

10. Thank you (It seems I am not good at multi-tasking... lol!). n/t

[duforsure]

8. Barr's statement will haunt him on this

Executive privilege already was waved , and he knows that. It shows his intent to obstruct justice. Just like his threat to not show up to testify. To mislead the public, and to intentionally lie to Congress. He's doing nothing but building the case against himself, and will soon regret his actions . Someone should open up actions for his immediate disbarment, he's a disgrace to the Department of Justice , and the rule of law, and to the legal system.

[onenote]

9. Barr's argument is stronger than many realize

Executive privilege is not the same as, and is not treated the same as, other forms of privilege such as attorney-client privilege. Whereas attorney client privilege is broadly waived when privileged information is disclosed to a third party, the courts have found that waiver of executive privilege cannot be inferred and the scope of any waiver is to be construed narrowly. Thus, McGahn's testimony itself is no longer privileged, but his testimony about that testimony or about how he came to testify about certain matters could be privileged.

A leading case on the subject is "In re Sealed Case", decided in 1997 by the DC Circuit in connection with an executive privilege dispute arising out of the Office of Independent Counsel's investigation of whether Mike Espy improperly accepted gifts from individuals and organizations with business before the Agriculture Department. The court stated: "It is true that voluntary disclosure of privileged material subject to the attorney-client privilege to unnecessary third parties in the attorney-client privilege context “waives the privilege, not only as to the specific communication disclosed but often as to all other communications relating to the same subject matter.”  Citations omitted.   But this all-or-nothing approach has not been adopted with regard to executive privileges generally, or to the deliberative process privilege in particular.   Instead, courts have said that release of a document only waives these privileges for the document or information specifically released, and not for related materials."

[angrychair]

11. Fair point

I find it ridiculous to imply "executive privilege" on topics already testified to and on the record.

I cannot presume to understand the logic involved here but I have to believe it's very narrow in how its applied.

If someone cannot ask you questions about things you have already answered questions about it creates a chicken and egg conundrum.
A logic loop that no amount of boolean algebra is going to solve.

[duforsure]

13. Isn't under the commission of a crime , or crimes that

Isn't applicable. Also if McGahn's willing and wants to testify , and someone threatens it ,, isn't that obstruction and tampering with a witness? trump will lose in his efforts to refuse to have McGahn testify, especially because of trump's continual corrupt tactics he's used on him and many others. He wasn't trump's lawyer, he represented the office of the president, not the president, and he now is a private citizen. I don't think he has a snowball chance in hell stopping him. Also too many previous instances where it is allowed and has happened.

[DeminPennswoods]

12. It can't be invoked to cover up a crime either

nt

[Moostache]

14. "Wassa matter boss? WE sick?"

That quote - from Spike Lee's "X", describing the mentality of some slaves during the era - was what IMMEDIATELY jumped into my mind.

Just who the fuck are you working FOR Billy Barr?
Don't sound like the people...

You just KNOW that in the recesses of his diseased mind, Trump pictures himself as a Plantation owner in the pre-war South. Probably fantasizes about it daily...like the next McDonald's fix.

[scarletlib]

16. Question:

There are numerous potential penalties that Congress can impose on someone who refuses to answer a subpoena or to testify.

Are the any civil or criminal penalties for testifying in defiance of an assertion of executive privelige?

I could see a current employee being fired if she/he defied the President but what about someone like McGahn who no longer works for the President?

[jberryhill]

18. If I testified about one of my clients over my client's objection...

...I would be disbarred, for starters. Then I would be sued for malpractice.

[xxqqqzme]

17. WE.?.?.?.?.?.

you got a king con in your pocket?

[MissMillie]

19. AG is not WH Counsel

so I don't know where Barr gets off thinking he (or "we" ) has the right to waive anything or not.