waiver just as they re careful to recognize a blanket assertion. and the trump administration is treating executive privilege like the new black. they are just asserting it every possible opportunity. and basically challenging this to be challenged in court, right which democrats will likely do if they get satisfaction here. how long does that process play out? it could play out for a long time. the courts may expedite it a little bit. there are instances where it can drag out for quite some time like in the holder case, some of it wasn t resolved for years. other times it can move a little bit more quickly because it s primarily 100% legal issue, it s not really factual ones so you don t have to spend a lot of time developing a record on it. you have said that good questions by this panel will result in a very damning hearing even with an assertion of executive privilege. tell us why. exactly. it s because it s the same reason why in criminal cases the
right? well, a little bit of both. so it is certainly true that presidents of both parties have for a long time asserted that their closest aides are immune from testimony before congress. and that is a long-standing bipartisan position of the executive branch that the courts have never accepted and that congress has never accepted. so whether it s right or wrong, it is one with a bit of a bipartisan pedigree, historically. what is new to the trump administration is the blanket assertion of that over a much wider array of executive branch officials. not merely people like the chief of staff or the white house counsel, but, you know, people like a communications adviser, like hope hicks. so i think the administration is asserting it much more aggressively. and of course, it is
now, if hope hicks has incriminating information to offer about the president, that could be viewed as obstruction of justice by the president. greg, can the president instruct hope hicks, a private citizen? she s not his personal lawyer, and while he has not asserted executive privilege yet, if he does that, is it game over and we re getting nothing? that could be the practical effect in the near term, but legally it s hard to imagine how that sort of blanket assertion of executive privilege could last long-term and protect or prevent her from testifying forever. as i ve been saying throughout this process, the president really can t have it both ways. he can t, in effect, be immune from criminal prosecution according to the department of justice opinion, office of legal counsel opinions, and at the same time thwart congress in its
information, he would show up anyway. that s probably right. what would nixon have been able to do? it s not clear he would have been able to do anything. there is a difference. began got that memo. he literally got the memo. he is torn. from the office of legal counsel. under the control of william barr. doesn t that tell you something? hold on. there is an important point here. i don t want to be an a poll gist. in the 15-page letter, t partie many administrations serving a similar type of immunity to preclude congress from talking to senior officials in the administration. what mcgahn has to do is abide by the law. what congress has to do is challenge that blanket assertion. it has to be adjudicate and mcgahn won t be torn. how long that will take? that s the good question.
this committee. we still had 99% of her records. and on friday we learned that president trump is claiming executive privilege over an additional 102,000 pajsz of your records. such a blanket assertion of executive privilege is simply unheard of in the history of this country and the reason its unheard of is because its so outrageous. the last time a president tempted to hide his supreme court nominee s records by invoking executive privilege was when president reagan did this for justice william ren quist but then republicans and democrats came together, we demanded the documents be released and president reagan said okay, and they were released. boy how times have changed.