There's a difference between having the legal standing to exert a claim of executive privilege and having that claim found to justify shielding a particular communication.
This is two separate issues, part of a two-step process the court has to consider .
The first question is a threshold one - whether a former president has the right to exert an executive privilege claim. That question is a general one, not related to the substance of the claim. The issue is simply whether he has a right to assert the claim.
If he does not have standing to assert the claim, it doesn't matter what the facts of the case are or what kind of communication he's trying to shield. He cannot even raise the issue of executive privilege - And if he tries, he's bounced out of court, regardless what the substance is .
But if he does have standing, he is allowed to go into court to raise the claim. At that point the court would decide whether or not the claim was a valid one, but he still has the right to assert it .
Trump has the right to assert the executive privilege claim - his position as a former president does not affect that.
Once he asserts that claim, however, it will be up to the court to decide whether or not executive privilege appropriately covers the particular communication he's trying to protect.
None of the quotes you cited contradict this.
Think of it this way. Standing determines whether or not a person is allowed to go into the courtroom. If he doesn't have standing, he's not allowed in the courtroom - the door is essentially slammed in his face before he can say a word. But if he does have standing, he's allowed to go into the courtroom and make his case - The judges will hear him out and then decide whether to rule in his favor or not.
Trump has standing to get into the courtroom. But once there, it's very unlikely the judges will rule in his favor for the reasons you cite - executive privilege cannot be used to protect criminal behavior.
= new reply since forum marked as read