Two weeks after former Attorney General Michael Mukasey embarrassed CNN host Chris Cuomo on his own show (Cuomo Prime Time) by calling out how his was “misleading a lot of people,” he was back to school Cuomo and spoon feed him the law on executive privilege, releasing grand jury material, and obtaining FISA warrants. As a reminder, Cuomo used to be a trained lawyer and treats his show like a courtroom.
As they began diving into what was covered by executive privilege, Cuomo couldn’t understand why former White House counsel Don McGahn’s conversations with President Trump should still be protected (click “expand”):
MUKASEY: McGahn’s disclosures. Because —
CUOMO: Even if he doesn’t work there anymore.
MUKASEY: Correct. It’s not whether he works there anymore, it’s whether he worked there at the time that he made them.
CUOMO: But does the privilege survive? I mean, it’s not the privilege of me giving you $5 and you representing me in a case against someone else. That’s a complete privilege. This is an incomplete privilege.
Mukasey tried to explain that since McGahn and Special Counsel Robert Mueller were both part of the executive branch, their conversation was protected. And in the process, Mukasey blasted Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) for being “flat-out wrong” about McGahn waiving that privilege.
Cuomo still couldn’t wrap his head around it, so Mukasey had to walk him though the logic step-by-step (click “expand”):
MUKASEY: Mueller is still a member of which branch of government?
CUOMO: Executive.
MUKASEY: Thank you. It’s an executive privilege. Disclosure from one part of the executive to another part of the executive is not a waiver of the executive privilege.
CUOMO: Who says? It’s hard to find cases on point that’s why I ask you.
MUKASEY: Okay. The concept is inconsistent with waiver. Number one. Number two, if it is a waiver, it’s as you know from law school, waivers are narrowly construed. It’s a relinquishment of a right.
The rest is at Newsbusters
That old guy is so mean! He made all 100 of CNNs watchers cry.
Can he sit down with the Democrats and explain it to them many of them are confused there are big words some with as many as 3 syllables.
You have to understand how liberals view the law, justice and the Constitution. To them, those elements are only useful when they can be used to attack political opponents. They are not constraints on THEIR powers. So, as Cuomo reveals, the way they view those law enforcement tools, they can be interpreted in any way they want to justify the violation of an individual’s rights in order to maintain political attacks. What Obama’s DOJ did to Carter Page and the Trump campaign is not that different from what they did to James Rosen of Fox; invent criminal charges for the sole benefit to justify spying, then just discard the charges without explanation after the spying is done.
The fact that Carter Page was NEVER charged with any crime totally exposes that Obama’s FBI was simply concocting a justification to spy; there never was any real suspicion or evidence of a crime. People should be in jail for this.
@Deplorable Me: Page was in the commission of a crime, just in the last few days Hillary said the election was stolen from her. So Sorry theft is a crime, she was delusional A democrat made an accusation, we know that is settled science and stuff.
After his review, Barr redacted nothing from the Mueller report based upon claims executive privilege. The reason for each redaction he made was clearly specified as justification, and then the report was released. It’s ridiculous to think he should be able to go back and redo this whenever Trump decides he wants something else hidden from congressional oversight.
Likewise, witnesses who have already been allowed to speak with Mueller’s team without any assertion of executive privilege cannot be retroactively muzzled with regard to past events that they’ve already testified about. It would only make sense to allow such a new claim with respect events that have occurred since that point in time.
@Greg: Mueller was part of the executive team so it was executive branch to executive branch in some cases, read the article again maybe you will get it this time. Cuomo is that guy dont be that guy….
The investigation is over time for congress to legislate.
If Trump was hiding things he would not have allowed his underling to interrogate, provided over a million documents. It all over now.
@kitt:
Democrats no longer know how to legislate. They are, as a group and individually, unhinged and irrational.
@Greg:
He sure can. The unredacted report was there if they wanted to read it. Not one democrat did.
He never waived executive privilege.
@DrJohn, #7:
Executive privilege is not presumed to be in effect unless specifically waived. It has to be asserted to apply, and common sense suggests it would have to be asserted before witnesses have been allowed to testify. It can’t be done after the fact.
Once they have done, how does it make sense for what they’ve said on record to be locked down and hidden from those responsible for congressional oversight, or for orders to be issued that they ignore congressional subpoenas? This is essentially an Executive Office nullification of the lawful oversight powers of Congress. It’s a step too far.
@Greg:
Um… if it is already on record, why do Democrats need it repeated? Oh… that’s right. Theater.
@Deplorable Me, #9:
It’s on record as part of the underlying testimony and evidence gathered during the course of the Mueller investigation, Sherlock. Trump and his DoJ factotum have locked it down, along with the unredacted Mueller report and access to the witnesses who provided the testimony. These are records that no one is allowed to see—including Congress’s lawfully designated oversight committees.
Our constitutional checks and balances are not being allowed to do any checking or balancing, By the Order of Donald Trump.
@Greg:
Oh. And you know this…. how? If it hasn’t been made available, then executive privilege still applies… Watson. Trump made such information available to Mueller because he WAS COOPERATING. However, the information is not intended for public consumption.
I don’t recall the Constitution declaring that part of “oversight” is running a seditious coup against a legally elected President that has committed NO crimes.
@Deplorable Me, #11:
How do I know that Trump has locked down the unredacted report, the underlying evidence and testimony Mueller collected, and Congress’s access to those who provided testimony, so that they can’t be questioned about any of it?
Anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention is aware that he has done this.
He has also ordered the IRS to defy a lawful congressional committee request for his tax returns. Mnuchin and Charles P. Rettig has just been subpoenaed as a result. Are they going to comply, or break the law again? Will they then resist arrest? Perhaps they should bug out of their offices and flee the District of Columbia. Maybe Trump could set up temporary quarters and offices for them at Mar o Lago.
@Greg: The unredacted report is locked down by law. Even though a copy 95% unredacted was provided to Congress to read, they didn’t bother getting up off their dead asses to read it. So, it will be secured.
It’s not a lawful request. They have no business seeing his returns; they can identify no valid reason to have them. So, they can just pout and stamp their feet all they want; we have a Constitution.
Ya think? Keep watching. Your “we” isn’t “the people”. Your “we” is the threat.
@Greg: You keep wishing.
@Deplorable Me:
I think I can speak for Greg when I say we all sincerely do not wish for you people to be a threat to our democracy.
James Baker, James Comey, Robert Mueller, and Rod Rosenstein will go down in history as highly-principled American patriots. Trump will be remembered as a national embarrassment and a monument to the power of organized greed and human stupidity. We’ll probably be lucky to have avoided the lunacy of a Third Middle East War by the time Trump has played all of his cards.
@Greg:
via GIPHY
@Michael: Supporting the growth of the police state with police state tactics is the actual threat to our Constitutional republic.
@Greg:
They have all been proven to be liars, with Rosenstein perhaps the exception; he could go either way. Baker, Comey and Mueller have all been caught lying. They may be patriots, but not for America.
@Curt: Some people actually LIKE being lied to.
No, they HAVE NOT been proven to be any such thing. Trump’s lies, on the other hand, have been extensively documented.
I’ve had enough of this nonsense for one evening. A good night to you.
@Greg:
Yes, they have. They have all (but Rosenstein) committed perjury, in fact.
@Deplorable Me, #21:
You haven’t bothered to specify what any of those proven lies are, I notice.
No doubt you’ll dig up some allegations from one of your usual horse manure sources and “back it up” with the same allegation repeated by another one. Before you do, you might want to look up the definition of the word “proven”.
@Greg: according to James Baker in his recent House testimony, that business about Rosenstein maybe wearing a wire against Trump was no joke, choose the liar in that one.
Mueller calling Mifsud a Russian spy.
Comey lied to Trump about being under investigation multiple times.
FBI Director James Comey lied when he told Congress that the FBI and the Justice Department were not coordinating on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, text messages and emails have proven that.
“There’s even another email from the Department of Justice that would indicate … on how to articulate the exoneration of Hillary Clinton,” Oh dear what can the “matter” be.
Proven? Where’s the evidence?
There’s a reason access to all of Mueller’s underlying evidence and testimony is being blocked, and access to further questioning of the people who provided it is being blocked.
There’s a reason Barr announced misleading “bottom line” conclusions regarding the Mueller report, and then gave Trump 3 weeks to proclaim his “total exoneration” before anyone was allowed to see what the report actually said.
Mueller Proved Comey Told the Truth
@Greg: Sure Greg, as described, circumstantial evidence.
Trump could have ordered flat out the investigation of Flynn stopped.
@Greg:
Sometime, when you get the chance, you should visit a site called “Flopping Aces”. The lies and false accusations are covered extensively there.
Again, it’s called “Flopping Aces”. Check it out.
Wow. That would have been a brilliant plan if all interest in the false accusations and witch hunt “investigation” would suddenly end. But, it didn’t, so Barr would not have been so stupid (as stupid as a liberal) to try such a ploy. Why? Because, unlike with Democrats, the media would not be providing supporting cover for such a trick; it would be exposed and the repercussions would be 10 times more severe. Releasing the full, 98.2% unredacted report would sort of ruin such a brilliantly diabolical scheme. So, instead, Barr simply told the truth, something not readily recognizable to liberals.
You know what has absolutely been proven? That you and the rest of the left LIED about collusion and that Trump committed NO crimes, including obstruction.