Appeals Court Refuses to Delay Steve Bannon's 4-Month Contempt Prison Sentence
-
@blablarg18 He provided testimony, answered questions, and provided a transcript of the audio recordings they wanted. He should serve prison time for that??
And Bannon, who didn't even show up, should go free?
How are these two even remotely the same thing.
-
@Spintendo Garland's being worse, of course they're not the same.
Bannon said, I will gladly testify for you when Executive-Congress conflict is sorted
Garland said, I am above Congress, period - I decide what Congressional actions apply to me.
You can say what good things you THINK Garland did, all day long. It won't alter fact that Congress disagrees.
Nor will it alter fact that DOJ is incredibly selective in which contempts it enforces.
....USA REGIME JAILS OPPONENTS, is the decode
Same with all those J6ers, still in jail because they walked on a lawn - where police told them to go
-
@raphjd The audio recordings involve presidential privilege. The DOJ never prosecutes contempt of congress when the documents involve presidential privilege. As you mentioned, Obama asserted executive privilege over documents sought by the Oversight Committee about the failed "Fast and Furious" gun-walking operation. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the panel's subpoena.
But what you didn't mention was another example when the DOJ declined to prosecute two White House officials working for President George W. Bush, Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, after they were the subject of a contempt of Congress referral from the House, then led by Nancy Pelosi.
The DOJ has a record of always stepping aside when presidential privilege is exerted, no matter who is president. That seems to negate your belief of them having some sort of bias.
The speed of light from Earth to the Moon in real time (c = 3×10^8 m/s) -
@Spintendo said in Appeals Court Refuses to Delay Steve Bannon's 4-Month Contempt Prison Sentence:
DOJ has a record of always stepping aside when presidential privilege is exerted
Nope! Check your own headline. Bannon jailed, also Navarro, even though they wanted to testify - after Executive Privilege issue could get sorted.
It's selective. Decode key is: USA REGIME JAILS OPPONENTS
Bolton, Miers, Bush, Pelosi, Holder - all in Uniparty club. Hardly Regime opponents.
-
@blablarg18 The DOJ has long maintained during administrations of BOTH parties that the contempt of Congress statute can't be used against an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege. Nothing you say about them "being biased" contravenes their track record on this, which clearly shows they have made decisions not to prosecute NO MATTER who is president at the time.
-
@Spintendo Their track record: Don't jail Regime/Uniparty friends... Always jail Regime/Uniparty opponents.
"But BOTH parties splutter splutter splutter" - Eyeroll.
It's a Uniparty.
Don't make me question your intelligence.
-
"But Bolton was Trump NSA!" - and didn't last - whereupon Bolton wrote a hater book
Bolton is about one thing: Permanent war.
So are Bush, McCain, Tori Nuland, Obama, Clintons, Biden, Miers, Holder, Garland, Lindsey Graham, Pelosi, Brennan, Clapper. <-- Uniparty. All great friends.
-
@blablarg18 Since it's evident you need a history lesson, allow me to provide one for you.
-
1982 Burford Contempt: Democrat-controlled House sought contempt charges against EPA administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford. OUTCOME: Reagan asserts privilege. DOJ decides NOT to prosecute.
-
2007 Miers & Bolten Contempts: Democrat controlled House sought contempt charges against Miers and Bolton. OUTCOME: Bush asserts privilege. DOJ decides NOT to prosecute.
-
2012 Holder Contempt: Republican-controlled House sought contempt charges against AG Eric Holder. OUTCOME: Obama asserts privilege. DOJ decides NOT to prosecute.
-
2013 Lerner Contempt: Republican-controlled House sought contempt charges against IRS official Lois Lerner. OUTCOME: Obama DID NOT assert privilege; instead, Lerner invoked her 5th amendment right not to incriminate herself. DOJ decides NOT to prosecute.
If there's bias there (being pro-democrat or pro-republican), I don't see it. If anything, I see a bias towards whichever president asserts the privilege. The DOJ takes their word for it, no matter what party they come from.
-
-
@Spintendo Hey genius: You agree with me.
USA Regime (Uniparty) does not jail its friends.
It jails dissidents.
"If there's bias there (being pro-democrat or pro-republican), I don't see it" - exactly - REGIME UNIPARTY.
But they throw EP & fairness standards out window - for REGIME UNIPARTY opponents.
Why on Earth would Obama DOJ prosecute Lois Lerner - Regime's great friend? Literal money collector for Regime, plus, persecutor of Regime opponents - was Tea Party at that time.
You keep on to prove my point....Thanks, I guess.
-
blablarg18's response (when unchallenged by facts) : "It's Democrats to blame!"
blablarg18's response (when challenged by facts): "It's BOTH (Uniparty regime) to blame!"
You just go whichever way the wind blows, don't ya?
Who woulda guessed youre an anarchist at heart.
The speed of light from Earth to the Moon in real time (c = 3×10^8 m/s) -
@Spintendo I have consistent logic. You just don't like to hear it.
Not my problem tho. HAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha
Back on Lois Lerner: I believe McCain brought Tea Party to her attention - as people she should persecute. If yes, he probably also asked DOJ not to touch her. Partisan labels? Irrelevant.
-
Which makes me wonder, is there a country on earth that you do respect their government?
Which county, in your estimation, practices in a fair manner that is opposite to your "uniparty regime" structure?
My guess would be one of the rare collective-head-of-state-type governments, like Switzerland.
-
@Spintendo All I ask of government is
-
No needless / permanent wars
-
Free speech
-
Transparent elections, visible open vote counts
After that, other issues handle themselves. Like if your thing is gay rights or shoplifting or abortion or whatever..... all that works out, if we have what's above.
Pretty basic. But no government in world right now, can handle it.
Which should tell you something: They're all criminal gangs. Or service operations, service adjuncts to criminal gangs - like Switzerland.
It astounds me, that you could think Bush vs. Clinton vs. McCain vs. Obama vs. Biden is more than Kabuki theater for retards.
Then again you think NYT is real, so......
-
-
@blablarg18 said in Appeals Court Refuses to Delay Steve Bannon's 4-Month Contempt Prison Sentence:
Then again you think NYT is real, so......
I'm sorry we don't all appreciate the superior journalistic qualities of Seyed Ali Taghva quite like you do.
-
@Spintendo Swing & miss
-
What is "privileged" other than some senile old man answering questions?
Eric Holder was told by a court that he did not enjoy exec privilege. Did you intentionally leave that out or didn't your media tell you about that?
-
@blablarg18 A bigger question is whether or not your blame might be misplaced.
In several of these instances, you blame the sitting president--"Obama didn't prosecute" or "Biden didn't prosecute". But those presidents and the others I mentioned were working off of a framework -- that of executive privilege-- that existed long before they came into power, one which has been confirmed by the Congress and Courts.
It's as if you're expecting a president to suddenly say "You know what? Even though I have this ability to protect my administration, one that other presidents have used--I'm going to go out of my way NOT to use it, and hopefully no one else in my party will think I'm crazy for not doing it." You actually believe that is possible, that a president would do that?
When you're driving down the street, and you have legal abilities provided to you by the law (an ability to say, turn right on red, or change lanes in an intersection, or other privileges like taking certain tax exemptions) you're going to ignore those long-standing privileges and go out of your way to go the harder route by not taking them?
Your expectation that Obama and Biden should not avail themselves of the same rights Reagan and Bush took advatage of seems, at best, naive.
-
@Spintendo said in Appeals Court Refuses to Delay Steve Bannon's 4-Month Contempt Prison Sentence:
you blame the sitting president--"Obama didn't prosecute" or "Biden didn't prosecute".
It's an expression. The REGIME / UNIPARTY didn't prosecute.
Really - would you expect Obama to go after Lois Lerner ever? even if she stabbed children in the street? I wouldn't.
So again we agree. But maybe for different reasons.
Lerner misused IRS & violated law - and if I remember correctly, likely under White House direction as she made many many visits to White House - so badly, that, in fairness, or if Obama were honorable....
.... yes he would indeed go "I'm going to go out of my way NOT to [sheild Lois Lerner]"
Yes.
It's his lack of honor or Uniparty loyalty (same thing), that made him & cronies want to shield her.
BUT - I agree it's not just Obama, or not especially him - it's a REGIME / UNIPARTY.
Your expectation that Obama & Bush & Lerner & McCain & Holder & others aren't all in it together seems, at best, naive.
-
@raphjd said in Appeals Court Refuses to Delay Steve Bannon's 4-Month Contempt Prison Sentence:
@Spintendo
Eric Holder was told by a court that he did not enjoy exec privilege. Did you intentionally leave that out or didn't your media tell you about that?The committee did file a lawsuit, authorized by House resolution, seeking judicial enforcement of the subpoena. The D.C. District Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute in 2013 and denied the committee’s motion for summary judgment in 2014.
But it was not until 2016—in a new Congress and after Attorney General Holder had left his position—that the D.C. District Court issued an opinion in Committee on Oversight and Government Reform v. Lynch instructing the new Attorney General to comply with the subpoena. Despite the committee’s victory, two aspects of the court’s reasoning affected Congress’s ability to obtain similar documents from Holder. Although the committee won the case, it still appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit out of concern for the reasoning applied.
The case was held in abeyance pending a potential settlement between the committee and the Trump Administration. Although the parties reportedly reached a negotiated settlement in March 2018, that settlement was contingent upon the vacation of two specific orders issued by the district court earlier in the case.
In October 2018, the district court declined to vacate those decisions, leaving the fate of the negotiated settlement uncertain.
-
@blablarg18 said in Appeals Court Refuses to Delay Steve Bannon's 4-Month Contempt Prison Sentence:
so badly, that, in fairness, or if Obama were honorable.... yes he would indeed go "I'm going to go out of my way NOT to [sheild Lois Lerner]"
Yes.
It's his lack of honor or his Uniparty loyalty (same thing), that made him not do it.
But Obama DID go out of his way NOT to exert privilege. He refused, and she ended up taking the 5th.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login