Presidents usually try to help each other with executive privileges and defend each other`s claims after leaving office. Presidents have fought with Congress throughout U.S. history over the concept of executive privilege. On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Fielding again claimed the privilege, this time in connection with documents related to the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman in 2004. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding said some documents related to the friendly fire discussion “relate to the confidentiality interests of the executive” and would therefore not be referred to the committee.  Before becoming Attorney General in 1991, Deputy Attorney General William P. Barr 1989 issued guidelines for responding to congressional requests for confidential management information. He wrote: “It is only when the adjustment process cannot resolve a dispute and a subpoena is issued that it becomes necessary for the President to consider asserting executive privilege.”   In 1997, Pres. Bill Clinton on executive privilege in a civil lawsuit in which Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee while Clinton was governor, alleged Clinton sexual harassment. Lawyers representing Clinton argued that the president should be immune from civil lawsuits during his tenure. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Clinton`s request. The following year, in a similar case, the court also rejected a claim of privilege by Clinton in connection with conversations he had in the Oval Office with White House advisers (who received federal compensation) about the Jones case. The Court relied heavily on the precedent in the Nixon-Bänder case.
During the hearings between the military and McCarthy in 1954, Eisenhower used the claim of executive privilege to prohibit the “provision of data on internal conversations, meetings, or written communications between employees, without exception of subjects or persons.” Department of Defense officials have also been ordered not to testify about such conversations or to produce such documents or reproductions.  This was done in order to deny the McCarthy Committee`s subpoenas regarding transcripts of monitored telephone conversations of military officials, as well as information about meetings between Eisenhower officials as part of the hearings. This took the form of a letter from Eisenhower to the Department of Defense and an accompanying note from Eisenhower Justice. The rationale for the order was that there was an “open” exchange between senior managers to give each other “advice”. In the end, Eisenhower invoked the claim 44 times between 1955 and 1960. Its resolution is faithfully put into practice by the executive branch in its character of responsible government. Presidents and congresses have engaged in protracted disputes over the provision of information from the former to the latter, but the fundamental thing to know is that most of the congressional requests for information are met. The disputes, however, were varied and varied.33 The basic premise of the concept of executive privilege, as used to resist requests for information from Congress and private parties, with or without the support of the courts, is found in the doctrine of separation of powers, the prerogative of each branch equally to operate in its own sphere independently of the control or direction of the other branches. In this context, the President then affirms the stage of claiming privileges that is relevant at this time, such as the confidentiality of communications, the protection of diplomatic and military secrets, or the preservation of investigative records. This assertion of presidential privilege contrasts with the power of Congress to obtain information on the basis of which laws can be passed, to monitor the implementation of its legislation, to examine and root out corruption and executive misconduct in the legislative and appropriation functions of Congress, and ultimately, to continue the President. the Vice-President and all federal government officials. Executive privilege is the right of the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications within the executive branch in certain circumstances and to defy certain subpoenas and other legislative and judicial checks to obtain certain information or personnel relating to such confidential communications.
The Act comes into force when disclosure of information would interfere with the functions of government. Neither executive privilege nor congressional oversight authority is explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight are each a consequence of the doctrine of separation of powers, which derives from the supremacy of each branch in its own constitutional sphere of activity.  A president and his supporters must have the freedom to explore alternatives in the policy-making and decision-making process in ways that many would only express in private. These are the considerations that justify a presumed privilege for the Chair`s communications. Privilege is fundamental to the functioning of government and inseparable from the separation of powers under the Constitution. Executive privilege is an important legal doctrine for U.S. presidents — whose borders have been debated for decades. And although it has its roots in constitutional law, it is not explicitly granted by the constitution.
“Executive privilege”. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/executive%20privilege. Retrieved 14 January 2022. On June 12, 2019, Trump invoked executive privilege on documents related to the addition of a citizenship question in the 2020 census. That was in response to a House subpoena that led to their upcoming vote on whether Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr should be found in contempt of Congress on the census issue.  Since these exceptions can be interpreted to encompass most executive claims of privilege, either by criminalizing administrative misconduct or by arguing in court that an administrative officer has exceeded his or her responsibilities, most executive privilege claims are likely to fail because of a specific objection. Nevertheless, claiming executive privilege is a way for the president to resist congressional surveillance or criminal investigations. This limited scope of executive privilege and the legacy of congressional oversight is a welcome step toward a more balanced government. On July 17, 2008, Rove still claimed executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove`s attorney wrote that his client was “constitutionally immune from forced congressional testimony.”  The president`s communications, according to the Nixon Tribunal, had “an alleged privilege.” “Privilege is fundamental to the functioning of government and is inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.” The functioning of government is facilitated by the protection of communications between senior public servants and those who advise and assist them in carrying out their duties. “A president and those who support him must have the freedom to explore alternatives in the policy-making and decision-making process in ways that many would only express in private.” The basis for the separation of powers derives from the fact that each branch of the federal government is endowed with powers that must be exercised by each of them largely independently of the other branches. The confidentiality of conversations with the president then results from the effect of the enumerated powers.26 There is no specific provision in the U.S.
Constitution that provides for executive privilege. However, successive governments have claimed that the principle of executive privilege is implied in the separation of powers structure in the constitution. Moreover, the courts have always recognized the existence of such privilege in decisions of the early 19th century. For example, in United States v. Burr (1807), where Aaron Burr was tried for treason, the U.S. Supreme Court did not require the Jefferson administration to hand over the requested documents, although it did affirm that the courts had the right to request such documents from the executive branch. Since executive privilege is entirely a construct of the courts, some constitutional scholars, such as Raoul Berger in Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth (1974), have argued that such protection simply does not exist. Asked for comment, a senior industry executive declined to say a word.
Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved in the decision to end the service of American lawyers. In addition, he claimed that the president`s executive privileges to protect Bolten and Rove were illegal. The senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor and J. Scott Jennings “immediately” comply with their subpoenas.