On Friday, during the hearing against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), her attorney objected to a line of questioning about White House discussions of declaring martial law to overturn the 2020 presidential election — saying that he also represents former President Donald Trump, and claiming that any discussions on that are covered by executive privilege.
Question: Did you discuss the idea that there should be martial law prior to the inauguration \nLawyer: I\u2019m going to have to object. I actually represent the President and that\u2019s covered by executive privilegepic.twitter.com/uCCGSmHwrm— Acyn (@Acyn) 1650654050
In response, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance expressed her shock at the claim of executive privilege, claiming that it is a "heckuva conflict of interest" for this attorney representing Greene to also have been involved in discussions with Trump — and noting the multiple ways that executive privilege does not, in fact, apply to this situation.
A lot of things to say about this, but one of the first that pops into my mind is, wow, that's one heckuva conflict of interest for a lawyer to have. Nice of him to share (& of course, Biden not Trump, decides privilege. Even if this is, there's that pesky crime-fraud exception)https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1517579196037443584\u00a0\u2026— Joyce Alene (@Joyce Alene) 1650664510
Greene's hearing is a part of a lawsuit arguing that she should be disqualified from the ballot to run for re-election to Congress, under Civil War era law that prohibits insurrectionists from holding federal office. So far, such legal efforts have not been successful; a similar challenge to Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) was recently blocked by a federal judge appointed by Trump.
