ADVERTISEMENT

Should Biden release the tape?

I believe I heard Biden say something to the effect of being willing to release the tape in the same time frame that Trump released his tax returns.

I assume that’s what the OP is getting at, yes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: noStemsnoSTICKS
this is the thing to be disingenuously mad about today.

there will something else to be disingenuously mad about tmorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennNole17
I believe I heard Biden say something to the effect of being willing to release the tape in the same time frame that Trump released his tax returns.

I assume that’s what the OP is getting at, yes?

Personally I'm a believer that tax returns being released when you are running for federal office, especially president should be law.

Your tax return is basically your relationship with the federal government. For an ordinary citizen that's between them and the IRS. But if you are asking people to give you the keys to run that federal government it's only fair/right that everyone sees that your relationship with them was fair and honest.
 
How damning is the audio? Transcripts don't always tell the whole story.

Do we hear mumbling and fumbling? Hurr made the decision not to prosecute based at least in part on this testimony. If national security isn't at stake here, release the audio.
He's a senile old man who'd be in assisted living if he wasn't potus. I'm sure it's pretty damning lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
Personally I'm a believer that tax returns being released when you are running for federal office, especially president should be law.

Your tax return is basically your relationship with the federal government. For an ordinary citizen that's between them and the IRS. But if you are asking people to give you the keys to run that federal government it's only fair/right that everyone sees that your relationship with them was fair and honest.
Would non-US LLCs show up?
 
Would non-US LLCs show up?

I have no idea of the ins and outs of it. I am just thinking more on the ethical/moral sense that while there is some limited expectation of privacy even for presidential candidates, their relationship with the federal government from before they ran for president isn't one of those things that you should reasonably be able to keep private.
 
You guys act like the whole Trump didn't set this precedent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. time to stand up to executive privilege was years ago.
Yeah Trump start executive Privilege





George Washington​

As with so much of the presidency, George Washington set the precedent for executive privilege. After a failed military operation against Native Americans, Congress wanted to know what happened. It sought records and testimony from White House officials. Washington and his cabinet agreed that a President had the right to refuse to these requests in the name of national security. Washington also later argued that the House of Representatives had no right to see the Jay Treaty signed between the U.S. and Great Britain. Eventually, he relented in both of these cases, but the precedent of asserting such authority was set.

Dwight D. Eisenhower​

Eisenhower was the first President to coin the term “executive privilege”. During Senator Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against communism, the President prevented Cabinet members and other advisors from being questioned in the famous McCarthy-Army hearings. He said, “Any man who testifies as to the advice he gave me won’t be working for me that night.” This was designed to protect sensitive documents from coming into public view, especially the view of Senator McCarthy, and to continue the tradition of allowing advisors to speak freely without the threat of a subpoena.

Some, including President Lyndon B. Johnson, believed that Eisenhower went too far with executive privilege. It was recorded that the privilege was used 44 times, sometimes by other members of the executive branch to not even talk about daily routines without Eisenhower’s approval. Johnson made a point to say that if his administration were to use executive privilege, he would be the sole one to invoke it, much like his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. Both Presidents used it sparingly.
 

Bill Clinton​

The Clinton White House was mired in two major scandals involving Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. During these investigations, President Clinton used executive privilege 14 times, which included protecting First Lady Hillary Clinton from testifying during the Whitewater hearings and protecting himself from testifying in both cases.

His executive privilege claims, as well as his attorney-client claims in the Lewinsky investigation, were challenged in federal court. Citing U.S. v. Nixon, the courts determined that the prosecutor’s needs outweighed the confidentiality of executive documents and discussions. This ruling was not appealed to the Supreme Court, as the White House sought to avoid a headline-grabbing legal loss.

Clinton was eventually impeached by the House but not convicted the Senate, allowing him to finish his second term.

Barack Obama​

President Obama’s most famous use of executive privilege came during the “Fast and Furious” scandal. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had run an operation to sell guns to Mexico, in the hope that they could track those weapons to major drug cartels and apprehend some of their members. The guns were not able to be tracked and one was eventually used in the killing of a border patrol agent.

Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Chuck Grassley held hearings to determine what went wrong during the mission. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both said they did not know about it until a few weeks prior to the killing and did not authorize it. Congress and the Department of Justice ended up in a standoff over the sharing of 1,300 documents, leading Obama to assert executive privilege in order to keep them private. In retaliation, Congress voted to cite Holder for contempt of Congress.

Much like Nixon and Clinton, Obama’s claim of executive privilege was rejected by a federal court, and the documents were turned over.

Clearly, in the last half-century, executive privilege has lost some of its luster. But while executive privilege may be on the ropes after several defeats in court over the years, history indicates that President Donald J. Trump and future Presidents will continue to call upon this power—and the courts will continue to judge its necessity.
 
Day 1 in office Biden proclaimed he was gonna bring "transparency and truth" back to the White House.

Wonder when he plans to begin that?
 
what is the upside for biden? do we really think people (including those on this thread) are going to be substantively less critical or more supportive of him if he does release them?

the transcripts are already out there

whatever happens...people will move onto the next thing in a day or two (if not less)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennNole17
There’s plenty of public audio of Trump sounding like an idiot to counter anything thats in these interviews, right
Right now a great deal of both Republicans and a growing number of Democrats seem to suspect he's lost his fastball if he ever had one. This won't do anything to dispell that notion.
 
Yes, Biden should release the tape. He just doesn't want to be even more embarrassed. It's not comparable to anything else, like Trump's tax returns. It's part of an official investigation into Biden's illegal actions. I really don't even understand how he can assert executive privilege. Heck, Biden was discussing classified documents with a writer.
 
Yes, Biden should release the tape. He just doesn't want to be even more embarrassed. It's not comparable to anything else, like Trump's tax returns. It's part of an official investigation into Biden's illegal actions. I really don't even understand how he can assert executive privilege. Heck, Biden was discussing classified documents with a writer.
I'd say while there was an active investigation, it's fine to keep it under wraps. But since the investigation has concluded and no charges are going to be filed, then I don't see how EP would apply here especially since the transcripts were released.
 
what is the upside for biden? do we really think people (including those on this thread) are going to be substantively less critical or more supportive of him if he does release them?

the transcripts are already out there

whatever happens...people will move onto the next thing in a day or two (if not less)
That’s the thing for me- release them, people move on, yadda yadda

Refuse to release them and you make it a thing that it didn’t have to be.
 
Yes, Biden should release the tape. He just doesn't want to be even more embarrassed. It's not comparable to anything else, like Trump's tax returns. It's part of an official investigation into Biden's illegal actions. I really don't even understand how he can assert executive privilege. Heck, Biden was discussing classified documents with a writer.
Captain America Lol GIF by mtv
 
Yes, Biden should release the tape. He just doesn't want to be even more embarrassed. It's not comparable to anything else, like Trump's tax returns. It's part of an official investigation into Biden's illegal actions. I really don't even understand how he can assert executive privilege. Heck, Biden was discussing classified documents with a writer.
And you have the transcript. Are you asserting that the transcript and the audio recording don't match? If that's not your contention, can you explain why the audio recording would be more helpful to you in determining responsibility as part of an official investigation? What would be the relevance?
 
all we ever get is the transcripts, right?

because if we're now deciding that we need audio recordings, there are a lot more important things than biden's interview about the documents case

lets start a list
trumps "perfect" phone call with ukraine
any and all audio of trump's phone calls on jan 6
any and all audio of trump's phone calls on election night 2020
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFsdisciple
all we ever get is the transcripts, right?

because if we're now deciding that we need audio recordings, there are a lot more important things than biden's interview about the documents case

lets start a list
trumps "perfect" phone call with ukraine
any and all audio of trump's phone calls on jan 6
any and all audio of trump's phone calls on election night 2020
tHaT's dIfFeReNt!!!
 
And you have the transcript. Are you asserting that the transcript and the audio recording don't match? If that's not your contention, can you explain why the audio recording would be more helpful to you in determining responsibility as part of an official investigation? What would be the relevance?
I think everyone knows exactly why the House GOP wants them and can venture a pretty good guess at to why Biden doesn’t want to turn them over.

Seems to me the questions are (1) do they have a right to the audio portion (complete record, etc) if they already have the transcript? and (2) are there really grounds to withhold the audio on the basis of exec privilege, given that the transcripts have already been released?
 
all we ever get is the transcripts, right?

because if we're now deciding that we need audio recordings, there are a lot more important things than biden's interview about the documents case

lets start a list
trumps "perfect" phone call with ukraine
any and all audio of trump's phone calls on jan 6
any and all audio of trump's phone calls on election night 2020
I would love to get those
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT