Scoop: Trump denies 9 former Biden aides executive privilege

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Axios

10 hours ago


The Trump White House has decided that nine former senior Biden aides won't be protected by executive privilege during their interviews for a congressional probe into Joe Biden's mental fitness for office.

Why it matters: The White House's move means the former Biden aides will have to answer questions about their private conversations with Biden, unless they or Biden try to challenge the decision in court.

Republicans have launched four separate investigations into Biden, 82. They're examining whether his declining health affected his abilities in the White House, and allegations that his staff helped cover up his decline.

Driving the news: Trump's White House sent a letter Tuesday waiving executive privilege for former adviser Neera Tanden, according to a White House official.

The White House told Tanden's lawyers that invoking executive privilege is not "in the national interest" given the "exceptional circumstances," according to a copy of the letter obtained by Axios.

Trump has decided to do the same for eight other former top Biden aides the GOP-led House Oversight Committee plans to interview.

They include Jill Biden's adviser Anthony Bernal along with Joe Biden's advisers Annie Tomasini, Ashley Williams, Mike Donilon, Anita Dunn, Ron Klain, Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti, a person familiar with the matter told Axios.

Read more: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/25/biden-investigation-congress-aides-executive-privilege

[LSparkle]

1. "His Dumbass has decided/ordered ... "

These “executive” orders are like notes on cocktail napkins. Throw them in the dustbin where they belong!

Why is everyone complying in advance? I will never for the life of me understand why people are so fucking afraid of that 💩 (turd). If you punch him in the nose he’ll fall off his lifts ... or melt like the witch of the west. Sheesh ...

[Ms. Toad]

18. There is a difference between executive orders, and executive privilege. n/t

[riversedge]

2. I would hire very good lawyers before I said one word!!

[JohnnyRingo]

3. "Why didn't you tell anyone about Joe Biden's mental state?".....

"Nobody asked me".

Done, go home.

[emulatorloo]

27. "Because there was nothing wrong w his mental state."

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Who the f*#k decided that only TSF can define what is or is not in the 'national interest' or 'national security'?

[PatSeg]

6. He certainly is full of himself

He thinks he can proclaim anything and it is instantly law.

[LiberalArkie]

10. Cause congress and the Supreme Court has decided that he is the king and the second coming.

[Zephyr1948]

5. Take a cue from Republicans

You don't need executive privilege if...........you just "can't recall" anything.

[chia]

17. Republicans do what they want, and they never apologize for pushing the guardrails aside.

Time for us to turn that back on them.

[littlemissmartypants]

24. Welcome to DU, Zephyr1948.

[oldmanlynn]

7. Biden and his aides should challenge this in court

We should not give in. Executive privilege should apply to when these people worked for the executive.

[cadoman]

11. ironically, that is already floating through the appeals process w/Bannon & Navarro

So if a decision comes down on that in their favor, it ironically helps us here.

The more I think about it though, the more I think they should just testify. What the repukes think is there, won't be.

It's a chance to bolster Biden's public perception with strong firsthand accounts from his most valuable aides.

[Kali]

8. Too much projection can bite you

In your demented old ass later, fucker.

[cadoman]

9. from what I can tell, the legality of this privilege remains undecided, both Bannon and Navarro went to prison for it

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/07/01/politics/steve-bannon-report-to-prison

https://apnews.com/article/peter-navarro-jan-6-prison-congress-contempt-ea6f0e60dda1a7bcaef31012cd2c7678

From what I can tell the cases are still floating through appeals?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68208736/united-states-v-peter-navarro/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

In both the Bannon and Navarro cases, the invocation of executive privilege seemed to be the linchpin. So if these aides want to avoid testifying that's what it seems they should seek to establish. Did Biden give that to them during his term? Was it implicitly granted? Can he grant it after the fact?

It may make more sense to just answer the questions, even though that is a bruising and highly political exercise. It's also the chance to defend Biden's mental acuity and bolster the public's perception of him with firsthand accounts.

This could easily be a situation where we bait the GOP into overextending, like they did with Hillary and the Benghazi hearing.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Bannon wasn't in the administration during the time period leading up to J6

so there should be no claim of "Executive Privilege" related to him. Navarro was in the administration during the first term and leading up to J6 however.

[cadoman]

15. true but his case involved another salient point: TFG did invoke executive privilege w/respect to Bannon's conversations

So there we had an explicit invocation of the privilege. There are several permutations of the matter here, across the following variables:

* Questioned is employed in the executive branch or not

* Presence of an explicit invocation of executive privilege or not

* Privilege invoked during or after the end of executive's term

* Answers sought are relevant to Congressional duties or not

As far as I can tell SC hasn't weighed in on any of this. Using common sense, I suspect they'll allow questioning as follows:

1. Material sought must be relevant to Congressional duties.

2. Executive privilege may be invoked over matters of presidential communications, criminal investigations, national security, military operations, and diplomatic communications.

3. A limited, weaker executive privilege remains after the executive leaves office.

4. Executive privilege is not limited to executive employees.

I suspect the path that the GQP will use to press here is the idea that Biden wasn't the one using the autopen (signing a document on behalf of POTUS would be a criminal act), so questioning would likely be limited to that. I think matters beyond that would boil down to whether Biden asserts privilege, but he hasn't done so (yet)..

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Alot of the "Executive Privilege" claims were denied early

during the J6 period - before the idea of "immunity" eventually came up. I remember OPs on this -

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142423659
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142791393
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142817866
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142896117
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142903555
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142941275
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142983030
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142985719
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143025240
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143038381
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143121915
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143122774

The problem with "Executive Privilege" with respect to J6 was that J6 investigations happened when Biden was President, NOT 45, so 45 had not "authority" to invoke anything.

[cadoman]

25. that's not exactly right, the privilege was denied in that specific instance but the denial wasn't absolute

The court left open the question that a former POTUS may invoke privilege even if the current POTUS disagrees.

W/respect to these 9 persons called to testify, Biden could still attempt to invoke privilege if he wanted. It might get tossed but if he feels there is subject matter that is being improperly pursued, he could and should.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. We are already in an unprecedented era of Presidential malfeasance

But I brought up those cases because you mentioned Bannon and Navarro. And actually in those cases, those were the only 2 who the DOJ pursued for "Contempt of Congress", and who ended up serving time, where Executive Privilege was argued (although in one case, it wasn't even invoked initially). Many of the others subpoenaed were semi-cooperating so it never went as far as those two.

[travelingthrulife]

12. More nonsense out of this vile hater.

[WinstonSmith4740]

14. We know the stories of his "cognitive decline" were bullshit.

The headline on this Salon article says it all.

https://www.salon.com/2024/02/23/dr-john-gartner-on-a-tale-of-two-brains-bidens-brain-is-aging-brain-is-dementing/

I would tell those rethug hypocrites that OUR witnesses don't have to claim executive priviledge because all they have to do is tell the truth. There is NO there there. Like everything else they do, rethugs use slight of hand techniques to get the media to look over THERE, because their leader's brain turned into oatmeal years ago.

snip:
"At the end of this conversation, Gartner explains how even on his worst day as an older person, President Biden is a far superior leader and decision-maker (and human being) than Donald Trump."

This article is from February of last year. We knew it. They were warned. I never want to hear, "I didn't vote for this" from any of them.

[cadoman]

16. agree, I think they'll testify ultimately

Unless Joe decides he wants to assert privilege it just makes sense. There is nothing to hide.

For all we know this article was dreamed up out of whole cloth.

What is there to even say that Tanden and the others sought executive privilege to begin with??? They wouldn't expect TFG to grant it, surely?

[calimary]

19. "Let the inquisitions begin."

[republianmushroom]

20. Tell me about reaching across the isle again.

[judy]

21. Let's remember that every accusation from Trump, is a confession...

Like "The election was rigged by Democrats", or "His staff covered up Biden's cognitive decline"...

[Owens]

23. I'm old enough to remember

Republicans, like Jim Jordan, ignoring subpoenas. I would get a lawyer and drag this out as long as possible - just like Trump does!