Steve Bannon Defies Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena

Obstruction of justice in SPADES...

 

Spoken like a mob lawyer...

 

Where? Somewhere between the hay fields and the semi tractor trailers???

 

See post #197 for proof Manafort was charged with obstruction.

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map



https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

What part of the IG report found Holder was unaware of the FF program don't you understand?

You folks know the talking points by heart but never the details. Holder provided hours of testimony and thousands of documents regarding the F&F investigation until it became apparent it was just a politically inspired cudgel congressional Repubs were using against Obama.

Justice's Inspector General: No Evidence Holder Knew Of Failed Gun-Walking Sting
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...or-general-to-release-fast-and-furious-report

Not really. In early 2011, the Justice Department wrote in a letter to Congress that no guns had been intentionally allowed to "walk," which it says was based on statements from ATF officials. That letter was retracted when it became clear that it was wrong. There's now a consensus that the operation was botched, but two questions remain. First, who approved it -- was Fast and Furious the work of a rogue ATF, or did Attorney General Eric Holder (or perhaps even President Obama) know of or approve it? Second, has there been an attempt to mislead Congress about the operation through a cover-up? On the first question, the department insists that only the ATF's Phoenix office approved the sting. At some point, however, the U.S. Attorney in Phoenix became aware, as did the acting director of the ATF. Both were forced to resign in August 2011 after Issa uncovered emails showing they'd been briefed. Justice says it's not trying to cover anything up, noting that it has turned over 7,600 documents and that Holder has testified before Congress nine times about Fast and Furious.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ast-and-furious-what-you-need-to-know/258783/

Just as you never tire of being wrong I never tire of proving you so.

 

Any conversations with a president under executive privilege, never expires. lol
Where do you come up with this stuff? lol

 

False. Courts have not determined precisely how much power former presidents have to assert executive privilege or testimonial immunity, so the current situation could set significant precedents.

I’ve noted several times over recent weeks that former President Trump lacks most of the unique protections he had as President. That means the Jan 6th committee should be able to press a real investigation whereas the House committees in the previous Congress and the two impeachment processes could not. Much of this is because ex-Presidents have no executive privilege. But it’s just as much that they don’t control the Justice Department and that possession is 9/10ths of the law. The current President, in some cases directly and in others indirectly, has custody of the records of the government of the United States. But it’s a small wrinkle to this story that I want to expand on today, both because it’s interesting to know in its own right but because it’s a window into how this latest investigation really puts not only the judiciary but the elite legal profession itself on trial.

First, former Presidents have no executive privilege.

How do we know this? Well, it’s what basically everyone assumes. It’s the assumption underlying virtually all of the case law. It’s the assumption behind the one statute law that governs this – The Presidential Records Act of 1978. Under that law a former President can request that certain documents be shielded. But that request has to go through the current President. The former President is dependent on the authority vested in the current President. There’s only one President at a time.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-jan-6-investigation-puts-the-legal-profession-on-trial-too

 

Balderdash
The Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.
The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a sufficient showing that the presidential material is essential to the justice of a case.

No other judge ruling can overturn that.

 

Lmao that isn’t how it works. He wasn’t even part of the admin at the time

 

I see your balderdash and raise you a baloney. The matter is far from settled and appears headed to court.

The investigation sets up a unique clash, pitting the current administration against its predecessor. Since Biden now holds the office of the presidency, he will make the call on some of Trump's privilege claims. And while Biden has accommodated the first requests from Congress, the White House has said it will review new claims on a “case by case basis.”

The final word may not rest with Biden, but the courts, if Trump decides to litigate — which is expected — or if the House votes to hold any of the witnesses in contempt of Congress. In the case of a House contempt vote, the Justice Department would then decide whether to prosecute.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...voke-executive-privilege-in-jan-6-house-probe

 

Biden will decide if Trump has executive privilege?

That just goes to show how ignorant the leftist and their media have become. We don't care what the Supreme Court ruled. We will make any claim we want too and when our ignorant claims get dashed on the rocks of reality, we will just make another claim.

 

From January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021, Trump has executive privilege. End of story.

 

The historical test governing when executive privilege is appropriate requires the president to determine whether the release of specified information would be in the public interest. Even if it is true that a former president may have more information about the particular documents or testimony at issue, it is difficult to understand on what basis, in that circumstance, a former president has authority to decide what is in the public interest. A White House or agency official will often have much more information than the president about the nature of particular communications subject to a claim of executive privilege. But those officials have no authority to decide to withhold information to protect the public interest. That decision belongs to the president alone. A former president no longer has any authority to make decisions about the public interest. In this case, the people chose to give that authority to Biden, not Trump, in the 2020 election.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-former-president-assert-executive-privilege-impeachment-trial

Executive Privilege and the Jan. 6 Investigation

The contours of the looming conflict are becoming clear. The committee intends to be aggressive and seek any and all information, notwithstanding any potential privilege issues; the Biden administration will pose few, if any obstacles, to the committee’s information demands; and the Trump team will exhaust every avenue to fight the release of information.

The various issues raised by the commission’s subpoenas and other requests for information are complex, and largely unanswered by the courts. Nor is it clear whether Trump and his team will ultimately follow through on his threats or what choices each individual subject to the committee’s inquiry will make about his conflicting duties to the former president, the current president, and the congressional inquiry. As for the bottom line, it seems quite likely that the committee is correct that, as a legal matter, it is entitled to most of the information and testimony it seeks. But, as a practical matter, the committee may never receive it.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/executive-privilege-and-jan-6-investigation

 

In short, former presidents have no executive authority, and no executive privilege.

 

I wouldn't go quite that far. One of the articles I provided a link for discusses court rulings regarding Nixon's claims on Watergate documents. Former prez's are not entirely without legit EP claims but the sitting prez has broad discretion to decide whether those claims are superseded by the "public's interest."

White House formally rejects Trump's request to protect specific documents from being given to January 6 investigators
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics/trump-biden-executive-privilege-january-6/index.html

 

You can copy and paste all the leftist hyperbole you want. Nothing changes the rights of presidential executive privilege which is supported by the SCOTUS. The only time EP is waved is when the information has more judicial value than it does confidentiality.

 

The phrase......"my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts".......perfectly describes your position.

In the letter released Wednesday, Remus wrote: "President Biden has considered the former President's assertion, and I have engaged in additional consultations with the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. For the same reasons described in [sic] earlier letter, the President maintains his conclusion that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified as to any of the documents provided to the White House on September 8, 2021."
"Accordingly, President Biden does not uphold the former President's assertion of privilege."

 

And you think it covers every conversation he has?

 

Yes it does if he says it does. The only time you can overrule executive privilege is when its more judicially important to expose information than its confidentiality.

 

lol, It doesn't matter what his conclusion is lol
Biden has no say so in the matter, Neither does the Office of Legal counsel or the DOJ
Where do you people come up with this stuff? You got it in your head that Biden can just override the Constitution and the SCOTUS because he said so?
Jesus, You don't vote, do you?

 

I am not sure where you are getting the law from but your source is seriously flawed. Executive Privilege applies to the OFFICE not the man behind the desk.

 

The DOJ standard is not in conflict with the 105 year old SCOTUS ruling, and I'll allow you to prove it to yourself:

Works for me. Biden will be a former president, replaced by a Republican, very soon. Like the Biden Rule on election year judicial appointments when the Senate and Presidency are in opposing hands, now we have the Biden Rule of EP assertions by former presidents.

Whew, Occupying Government Buildings Is Good Again. “It’s different when we do it:”

Legitimate form of protest now? Huh.

Ellie Silverman, WaPo:

Climate protesters attempted to occupy the Department of the Interior on Thursday, with dozens holding a sit-in inside as those remaining outside clashed with the police who were blocking the entrance.

Protesters and security personnel were injured as climate activists crowded an entrance to the Stewart Lee Udall Main Interior Building on C St NW. Melissa Schwartz, a department spokesperson, said in a statement that security personnel sustained “multiple injuries,” and one officer was transported to a hospital.

Yeah, but it was for a good cause. Everybody knows the weather is going to kill us all, so it’s okay to break into a government building and hurt people. That’s only bad when the rioters are wearing MAGA hats.

Via the great @MidnightMitch:



"I look forward to Brian Stelter defending the climate protestors’ moral imperative to riot because the earth is coming to end in [12 months, five years/ten years/insert preferred time period here], in between tweets promoting binge-travel such as this:"


https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/479497/

Messaging! (Messaging = Lies)

 

lol
It applies to the president when he is in office. Executive privilege is the right of the president and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications.

 

It applies to the OFFICE, that's why Biden can now deny or allow it. The CURRENT OFFICE HOLDER exercises that privilege, not a past office holder.

 

Well you will have to inform the SCOTUS. I guess they all got it wrong and only you could possibly be right. lol

Biden has no power or authority to determine Trumps executive privilege. But I do love your commitment to anything anyone can spew out in protection of the big guy. lol