bannon indicted, arrest warrant issued

[adrina]

You said something dumb, I asked you for facts and you couldn't cite any - just like I predicted. Instead you deflected in a lame ass attempt to cover your ass. You're embarrassed because you stepped in a pile of dog shit and couldn't get it off your shoe.

Time for your pudding.

Wow that's not a completely out of proportion overly aggressive response or anything is it.

I think this would be a good time for Liam to appear.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You said something dumb, I asked you for facts and you couldn't cite any - just like I predicted. Instead you deflected in a lame ass attempt to cover your ass. You're embarrassed because you stepped in a pile of dog shit and couldn't get it off your shoe.

Time for your pudding.

Actually Yooser, you just got owned, like 100%.

Too bad you fail to see why, even after Adrina point it out,clear as the nose on your face.


So from this post exchange, you have advocated that possession of marijuana, rates as a far more serious crime, than contempt of government.

Well,when I read this,where marijuana is 100% legal (in my country), I can only wonder, what type of outcry you would have if you were a citizen here. Would you still pout out the same view?

That possession of a legal substance, rates as a far higher crime than contempt of Government?

Keep on smoking bro, though I do prefer edibles.

 

[Dribble]

Any time one identifies an alt under 100 posts and gets them on the ignore list where they belong is a win. Interacting with Fascist traitors give them a voice...and they aren't worthy of my time.

 

[HisArpy]

It appears that you believe he will be acquitted because of a so far hidden, unspoken reason that allowed him to defy a subpoena by congress. I believe Trump tried to intervene with (and the thing Bannon was banking on) his executive privilege argument that was dismissed by the courts. That has already been settled and isn't a reason for Bannon's actions of ignoring a subpoena. I don't see anything else he could use as a defense.

What is it that you think he's going to try to use as a defense that might lead to an acquittal?

Comshaw

The exec privilege issue is still being litigated and until it's over, the question remains; can someone be lawfully subpoenaed to testify about things covered by exec privilege?

It's like issuing a subpoena for someone claiming their 5th Amendment Right to remain silent and then trying to punish them for refusing to cooperate and reveal what they claim they have a right to be silent about.

What it's NOT is whether the issuing of the subpoena MUST BE complied with in all circumstances regardless. See, it's not as simple as "issue a subpoena, appear, and then be required to say what you cannot." Not even Congress can compel testimony which is privileged and attempting to do so is lawless. A lawless subpoena has zero force or effect and is considered "void ab initio."

So, there you have it in a nutshell. If the underlying issue is privileged, then the sub P is unenforceable and invalid. If the underlying issue isn't privileged, then Bannon was required to appear. The question for the jury in Bannon's contempt case will be called upon to decide that issue.

 

[ll74]

It's like issuing a subpoena for someone claiming their 5th Amendment Right to remain silent and then trying to punish them for refusing to cooperate and reveal what they claim they have a right to be silent about.

It's not like that at all. A person asserting the fifth must still comply with a subpoena in order to do so. Not appearing has no bearing on that ...it's simply an ignoring of subpoena.

 

[Dribble]

It's not like that at all. A person asserting the fifth must still comply with a subpoena in order to do so. Not appearing has no bearing on that ...it's simply an ignoring of subpoena.

You would think a "lawyer" would know this?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

You would think a "lawyer" would know this?

I wonder if we have any lawyers who post here on the Lit

 

[LupusDei]

The exec privilege issue is still being litigated and until it's over, the question remains; can someone be lawfully subpoenaed to testify about things covered by exec privilege?

Why, show up and answer "I can't say," on everything. If they then challenge why you think you can't talk, I wouldn't think anyone could really be compelled to talk, even if the reasons provided for such refusal are pure bullshit. As long you don't lie, claiming to not know what can be proven you definitely should.

 

[ll74]

Why, show up and answer "I can't say," on everything. If they then challenge why you think you can't talk, I wouldn't think anyone could really be compelled to talk, even if the reasons provided for such refusal are pure bullshit. As long you don't lie, claiming to not know what can be proven you definitely should.

Because you were subpoenaed to do so.

 

[Comshaw]

The exec privilege issue is still being litigated and until it's over, the question remains; can someone be lawfully subpoenaed to testify about things covered by exec privilege?

It's like issuing a subpoena for someone claiming their 5th Amendment Right to remain silent and then trying to punish them for refusing to cooperate and reveal what they claim they have a right to be silent about.

What it's NOT is whether the issuing of the subpoena MUST BE complied with in all circumstances regardless. See, it's not as simple as "issue a subpoena, appear, and then be required to say what you cannot." Not even Congress can compel testimony which is privileged and attempting to do so is lawless. A lawless subpoena has zero force or effect and is considered "void ab initio."

So, there you have it in a nutshell. If the underlying issue is privileged, then the sub P is unenforceable and invalid. If the underlying issue isn't privileged, then Bannon was required to appear. The question for the jury in Bannon's contempt case will be called upon to decide that issue.

ll74 said it, two separate issues. Your analogy is flawed in that it's not like trying to force someone to violate their 5th amendment rights and wanting to punish them for that. Bannon could have shown up and refused to testify on the grounds of executive privilege. He refused to show up at all, refused to comply with a legally issued subpoena.

Should we allow witnesses to just ignore a subpoena by the courts? And to be clear congressional subpoenas are as legally binding as the courts. That power is derived from the House and Senate rules. Those rules were passed by each house of congress. Congress's power to make laws is a constitutional power, so those rules are as binding as any other law. There is no ambiguity about that issue.

Personally, I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican instigated and controlled investigation. If congress calls you to testify, you show up THEN make your legal arguments. Allowing witnesses to just ignore congress is a dangerous precedence to set and should not be allowed, any more than it should be allowed (and isn't) in our courts.

As far as the executive privilege case still being adjudicated, you are correct and I was in error to say it was settled. BUT, EVERY legal opinion I've read and so far every ruling by the courts has said that Trump can't, as a former president, assert executive privilege. If that holds true, as it seems it will, Bannon can't use that argument to refuse to testify. Even if Trump could exert that privilege, he would have to delineate by item what he wanted covered by that policy. A shotgun approach claiming everything produced by his administration is covered doesn't cut it.

Comshaw

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I wonder if we have any lawyers who post here on the Lit

We have a self confessed one, who apparently likes "carbon based water products".

 

[YooserName]

Actually Yooser, you just got owned, like 100%.

Too bad you fail to see why, even after Adrina point it out,clear as the nose on your face.


So from this post exchange, you have advocated that possession of marijuana, rates as a far more serious crime, than contempt of government.

Well,when I read this,where marijuana is 100% legal (in my country), I can only wonder, what type of outcry you would have if you were a citizen here. Would you still pout out the same view?

That possession of a legal substance, rates as a far higher crime than contempt of Government?

Keep on smoking bro, though I do prefer edibles.

That's just weapons grade stupidity.

What the hell are you talking about? Never mind. You agree with her.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That's just weapons grade stupidity.

Hey, remember it was You posting that possession of marijuana is a higher crime than contempt of government....(hell I'd bet you consider it worse than contempt of court).


Adrina merely pointed out your "weapon grade stupidity", which you failed to see....

 

[Rightguide]

This is a political prosecution. The last person convicted of contempt of Congress was G. Gordon Liddy in 1974, 47 years ago. In the meantime the following were found to be in contempt of congress, Attorney General William Barr, former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and former Attorney General Eric Holder — but it hasn’t been since 1983 that the DOJ indicted someone (in that case, Rita M. Lavelle, and she wasn't convicted on the charge. She was convicted of perjury. The DOJ has been very selective in their indictments of governmental officials. What we're seeing right now is the DOJ weaponizing itself into a domestic terror organization. But what goes around comes around.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

If you ever want terrible legal advice just ask the fake lawyer and renowned dipshit known as timmy rapey.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

This is a political prosecution. The last person convicted of contempt of Congress was G. Gordon Liddy in 1974, 47 years ago. In the meantime the following were found to be in contempt of congress, Attorney General William Barr, former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and former Attorney General Eric Holder — but it hasn’t been since 1983 that the DOJ indicted someone (in that case, Rita M. Lavelle, and she wasn't convicted on the charge. She was convicted of perjury. The DOJ has been very selective in their indictments of governmental officials. What we're seeing right now is the DOJ weaponizing itself into a domestic terror organization. But what goes around comes around.

Wrong, they are targeting a domestic terror organization, and yes, it has come around.

 

[Rightguide]

Wrong, they are targeting a domestic terror organization, and yes, it has come around.

No, they are targeting their political enemies with a two tiered justice system. One for Republicans and one for Democrats.

 

[Dribble]

Putin knows how to take care of political adversaries. We have a choice...follow the law...those asked to show up can show up and let the system work...or there is Putin's option.. I prefer the peaceful option. Republicans should be grateful.

 

[ll74]

No, they are targeting their political enemies with a two tiered justice system. One for Republicans and one for Democrats.

Republican Congresses have had the same opportunity to refer anyone who defies subpoenas to the DOJ as well.

There's not a two tiered justice system...Congress has the power to issue subpoenas and all the power that is associated with those subpoenas

 

[Rightguide]

Republican Congresses have had the same opportunity to refer anyone who defies subpoenas to the DOJ as well.

There's not a two tiered justice system...Congress has the power to issue subpoenas and all the power that is associated with those subpoenas

They referred Eric Holder and the DOJ failed to do a thing...a Democrat. Nunes sent a couple of dozen criminal referrals to the DOJ, if it wasn't for Barr appointing Durham, none would have been followed up on.

 

[ll74]

They referred Eric Holder and the DOJ failed to do a thing...a Democrat. Nunes sent a couple of dozen criminal referrals to the DOJ, if it wasn't for Barr appointing Durham, none would have been followed up on.

They referred Eric Holder for refusing to respond to a subpoena?

 

[Comshaw]

Originally Posted by Rightguide View Post
They referred Eric Holder and the DOJ failed to do a thing...a Democrat. Nunes sent a couple of dozen criminal referrals to the DOJ, if it wasn't for Barr appointing Durham, none would have been followed up on.

They referred Eric Holder for refusing to respond to a subpoena?

There are several here I never see unless they are quoted. RG is one. But since I read it, I can't unsee it.

They did refer Holder to himself for prosecution for not supplying documents to congress. BUT, President Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, which meant that Holder COULDN'T supply them and therefore WAS NOT defying a subpoena.

Another case of RG ignoring the facts to make the story fit his narrative.

Comshaw

 

[ll74]

There are several here I never see unless they are quoted. RG is one. But since I read it, I can't unsee it.

They did refer Holder to himself for prosecution for not supplying documents to congress. BUT, President Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, which meant that Holder COULDN'T supply them and therefore WAS NOT defying a subpoena.

Another case of RG ignoring the facts to make the story fit his narrative.

Comshaw

Like Ii said ...no party preference.

 

[Rightguide]

They referred Eric Holder for refusing to respond to a subpoena?

No they referred him for Contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents under subpoena Holder claimed executive privilege. Much like what is going on with Bannon and mark meadows. The vote on Holder was bipartisan as well, but he was a Democrat, so he was safe.

 

[ll74]

No they referred him for Contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents under subpoena Holder claimed executive privilege. Much like what is going on with Bannon and mark meadows. The vote on Holder was bipartisan as well, but he was a Democrat, so he was safe.

Lol..whatever works for ya. Providing documents is different than testimony.

If you're arguing that they are the same....in a comparable way....and you know there's a difference...that seems like you're making a stupid argument.

I'd say that if you can't have a vote of contempt, then you haven't convinced the people voting and that's not the same problem