Impeachment for Dummies

As for "executive privilege:" there is no such thing as "executive privilege." It's a made up legal fiction that exists nowhere in the Constitution or statutory law. And think for just one moment: privilege only exists in a court or the body hearing the evidence. That body decides if there is a privilege. If you are trying a case in Dougherty Superior Court, you have to rely on the statutory privileges in the Georgia code. If you are trying a criminal case in federal court, you can't rely on a privilege created by Georgia's legislature- you have to use the privileges allowed or created in the federal evidence code (which may, in fact, recognize privileges created by a State's laws, i.e.: husband-wife, priest-penitent, lawyer-client).

Well, guess what: in this case, the Senate is a court. If 51 senators say that there is no such thing as "executive privilege" in their "court," then bingo, it ceases to exist. And no president can claim it. Also, even lawyer- client privilege is pierced when the lawyer and client are conspiring to commit a crime. Same holds true when Trump is conspiring to commit crimes with his advisers as Nixon did with Haldeman and Ehrlichman.

For those who have read this far: the United States Supreme Court, which basically created the concept of "executive privilege," has admitted that it made it up- that it created the idea because, in the Court's view, it was somehow "implicit" in the United States Constitution (I'm sure this would have been news to Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams):

"There are many other constitutional doctrines that are not spelled out in the Constitution but are nevertheless implicit in its structure and supported by historical practice—including, for example, judicial review, Marbury v. Madison , 1 Cranch 137, 176–180, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) ; intergovernmental tax immunity,

[139 S.Ct. 1499]

McCulloch , 4 Wheat. at 435–436 ; executive privilege, United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683, 705–706, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) ; executive immunity, Nixon v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 731, 755–758, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) ; and the President’s removal power, Myers v. United States , 272 U.S. 52, 163–164, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926)."

That quote above is from the Supreme Court case of Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S.Ct. 1485, 1498-99 (2019)