bannon indicted, arrest warrant issued

[Sean Renaud]

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

With much stricter rules on the dems. If Obama and Bush's presidencies or Obama and Trumps, Obama and his entire cabinet would be in Gitmo. Instead once the theatrics end we're gonna let this go.

 

[HisArpy]

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.

The failure here is that you still seem to think that an ILLEGAL subpoena must be complied with.

Void ab Initio - void from the beginning. It means it has no legal force or effect EVER.

 

[HisArpy]

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 even being compelled to say "I can't say" is a violation of executive privilege. At the very least it is a confirmation that "something" privileged was discussed.

That discussions occurred is itself privileged information.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The failure here is that you still seem to think that an ILLEGAL subpoena must be complied with.

Void ab Initio - void from the beginning. It means it has no legal force or effect EVER.

He always had the option to ask a court to quash the subpoena. He chose to ignore it, at his peril.

 

[ll74]

The failure here is that you still seem to think that an ILLEGAL subpoena must be complied with.

Void ab Initio - void from the beginning. It means it has no legal force or effect EVER.

Congress has the power to issue subpoenas.

Aka it's legal

 

[pecksniff]

The failure here is that you still seem to think that an ILLEGAL subpoena must be complied with.

Void ab Initio - void from the beginning. It means it has no legal force or effect EVER.

What are you basing that on?

 

[Comshaw]

The failure here is that you still seem to think that an ILLEGAL subpoena must be complied with.

Void ab Initio - void from the beginning. It means it has no legal force or effect EVER.

Sorry, no. Congress has the power to issue such, so the subpoena was as legal as any, no matter which side of the political spectrum it came from. I believe the coming actions will make that clear.

Because even being compelled to say "I can't say" is a violation of executive privilege. At the very least it is a confirmation that "something" privileged was discussed.

That discussions occurred is itself privileged information.

The assertion that by claiming privilege in front of a committee ( "I can't answer that") is a violation of th presidential right to privilege is ludicrous. How many times, in how many meetings, in front of how committees have you heard that phrase? I've heard it dozens of times. Not a one was a violation of any law, rule or tenet. Bannon could have done the same and it would NOT have been a violation of the privilege statue.

Presidential privilege allows the POTUS to keep certain things concealed for the good of the nation. As part of that statute, he can require silence from those in his administration on subjects that he has declared privileged. It DOES NOT however allow those in his administration the latitude to ignore a subpoena from Congress. So how can something be a violation of a rule when nothing has been done to violate that rule?

There is also a fatal flaw in the second part of your argument. You do realize that Trump trying to exert privilege over testimony by Bannon has already shown that "something" that he wants to claim as privileged occurred, don't you? So your argument that by testifying Bannon would be signaling that something privileged was discussed is irrelevant.

Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

Congress has the power to issue subpoenas.

Aka it's legal

If it has a legislative purpose.

 

[pecksniff]

If it has a legislative purpose.

Congress also has investigative authority.

 

[ll74]

If it has a legislative purpose.

Oversight is a legislative purpose.

 

[Rightguide]

What are you basing that on?

Probably the fact that it has to have a "legislative purpose" and be “in aid of its legislative function.” Thus Congress' authority to investigate is tied to the power to legislate. Congress has no authority to bring charges, to prosecute crimes, or investigate the personal events in private lives. Constitutional separation of powers also limits congressional investigative authority. Congress cannot use an investigation to usurp the plenary power of another branch of government. For instance, it cannot investigate the reasons for the granting of a Presidential pardon. Congressional power to investigate is limited.

 

[pecksniff]

Probably the fact that it has to have a "legislative purpose" and be “in aid of its legislative function.” Thus Congress' authority to investigate is tied to the power to legislate. Congress has no authority to bring charges, to prosecute crimes, or investigate the personal events in private lives. Constitutional separation of powers also limits congressional investigative authority. Congress cannot use an investigation to usurp the plenary power of another branch of government. For instance, it cannot investigate the reasons for the granting of a Presidential pardon. Congressional power to investigate is limited.

No court is going to deny or even question Congress' power to subpoena in this matter.

 

[ll74]

Probably the fact that it has to have a "legislative purpose" and be “in aid of its legislative function.” Thus Congress' authority to investigate is tied to the power to legislate. Congress has no authority to bring charges, to prosecute crimes, or investigate the personal events in private lives. Constitutional separation of powers also limits congressional investigative authority. Congress cannot use an investigation to usurp the plenary power of another branch of government. For instance, it cannot investigate the reasons for the granting of a Presidential pardon. Congressional power to investigate is limited.

The DOJ indicted Bannon.

Because he ignored a subpoena....from Congress...which is within their power to issue

 

[Rightguide]

The DOJ indicted Bannon.

Because he ignored a subpoena....from Congress...which is within their power to issue

Did I say any different?

 

[ll74]

Did I say any different?

Tbh, I have no idea wtf you're arguing.

It sounds like you're arguing that the subpoena is illegal...which it's not.

 

[Rightguide]

No court is going to deny or even question Congress' power to subpoena in this matter.

It depends. The courts have already ruled on it and established the limitations I've mentioned.

 

[pecksniff]

It depends. The courts have already ruled on it and established the limitations I've mentioned.

"Usurp the plenary power of another branch of government" is not an issue that arises in connection with this.

 

[Rightguide]

Tbh, I have no idea wtf you're arguing.

It sounds like you're arguing that the subpoena is illegal...which it's not.

That's because you can't read or understand English. I didn't say anything about the subpoena itself. I made a statement of fact as a "possible" motivation for Harpy's comments. I simply addressed the limits of the investigative power of Congress in general as it is understood and supported by established jurisprudence.

I understand that simple facts, innocently expressed, carry with them an explosive wave of foreboding in your lower tract. They seem to trigger in you a panicked cheek clinching flight response to the nearest restroom. That being so, you should probably ignore my cramping style in the future.

 

[Rightguide]

"Usurp the plenary power of another branch of government" is not an issue that arises in connection with this.

It is when the Democrats are using it to force the public exposure of private conversations of a President of the United States.

 

[ll74]

That's because you can't read or understand English. I didn't say anything about the subpoena itself. I made a statement of fact as a "possible" motivation for Harpy's comments. I simply addressed the limits of the investigative power of Congress in general as it is understood and supported by established jurisprudence.

I understand that simple facts, innocently expressed, carry with them an explosive wave of foreboding in your lower tract. They seem to trigger in you a panicked cheek clinching flight response to the nearest restroom. That being so, you should probably ignore my cramping style in the future.

Your actually response was to my comment, which seemingly was opposed to my statement....since it usually is. Whatever works for ya....Bannon appears this afternoon on his indictment.

 

[Rightguide]

Your actually response was to my comment, which seemingly was opposed to my statement....since it usually is. Whatever works for ya....Bannon appears this afternoon on his indictment.

You were puzzled by his simple assertion, to which I then suggested possible motivations for consideration.

So what?

 

[ll74]

No arraignment today. Postponed

 

[ll74]

You were puzzled by his simple assertion, to which I then suggested possible motivations for consideration.

So what?

You're a strange person

His assertion didn't puzzle me. It was incorrect and i stated as such.

 

[Rightguide]

You're a strange person

His assertion didn't puzzle me. It was incorrect and i stated as such.

You must have been puzzled, because what he said was a fact. An "illegal subpoena" need not be complied with. That statement in and of itself, is not a judgement for or against any particular subpoena. Get it?

 

[ll74]

You must have been puzzled, because what he said was a fact. An "illegal subpoena" need not be complied with. That statement in and of itself, is not a judgement for or against any particular subpoena. Get it?

He was asserting that this was an illegal subpoena.

Now fuck off.