Did Comey Violate Executive Privelege? (SPOILER: This Is Dumb Even By Trump’s Standards)

Does it violate executive privilege for a private citizen to recount conversations he or she had with the president? Evidently, to state the premise is to refute it — is every one of Bob Woodward’s sources facing a jail term? But just in case:

After the public testimony of former FBI Director James Comey on Thursday, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement. In addition to being riddled with typos, it contained a curious legal argument.

Kasowitz contended that Comey broke the law by leaking memos about his private conversations with the president — what the statement called an “unauthorized disclosure of private information.”

The not-so-subtle implication here is that any and every conversation with the president is privileged, and therefore protected under the law. That’s a rather broad interpretation of executive privilege, and one that 10 legal experts disputed in interviews with Vox.

Executive privilege exists for a reason: to protect against the forced disclosures of classified or confidential executive branch communications. But here’s the problem: The conversations between Trump and Comey were not classified. Moreover, because the president himself has publicly referred to the conversations in question, he has already waived any claim for executive privilege. That Comey is now a private citizen also weakens the Kasowitz’s claim that he’s bound to secrecy.

 There is, however, little settled law on the question of executive privilege. So I reached out to 10 legal experts and asked them if Kasowitz’s interpretation of executive privilege makes any sense. Every one of them said it doesn’t.

Yesterday was truly the day Trump became Predisent.

Meanwhile, Johnathan Turley wishes to make it clear that he’s available for any wingnut or fake-balance TV slot that Alan Dershowitz is unavailable for.