there would be no reason not to say “x met with y to discuss z law”. even if the information would be technically confidential (i am not going to fact check that), there wouldn’t be reason not to volunteer that information.
there is a reason to hide behind technicality if they are lying and defrauding the public, though.
Thanks for demeaning me at the the outset. Gives me an understanding what I’m dealing with.
Executive privledge guards the executive from folks that want to use information for nefarious purposes. As such, the rules are not broken by anyone for any purpose. Hope this helps, but know it will never.
you are really bad at this, spin doctor.
there would be no reason not to say “x met with y to discuss z law”. even if the information would be technically confidential (i am not going to fact check that), there wouldn’t be reason not to volunteer that information.
there is a reason to hide behind technicality if they are lying and defrauding the public, though.
Thanks for demeaning me at the the outset. Gives me an understanding what I’m dealing with.
Executive privledge guards the executive from folks that want to use information for nefarious purposes. As such, the rules are not broken by anyone for any purpose. Hope this helps, but know it will never.
like… electing competent president. got it 😂
Executive privledge has been in effect for this information since Kennedy.