Deranged Rhino Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Just now, garybusey said: Back in the land of reality, Bannon was subpoenaed this afternoon (second time in as many weeks for those keeping score) to comply with the House Intelligence hearing. Sources (from Fox reporter Chad Pergram) say Bannon was directed by the White House to not answer any questions about the White House and the transition. In my opinion, the bolded is an example of obstruction of justice. Thankfully your opinion isn't law. According to the law, it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Thankfully your opinion isn't law. According to the law, it isn't. matter of national security on transition advice, unless it's deemed not to be for very important grounds, not just butthurt over losing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, garybusey said: Back in the land of reality, Bannon was subpoenaed this afternoon (second time in as many weeks for those keeping score) to comply with the House Intelligence hearing. Sources (from Fox reporter Chad Pergram) say Bannon was directed by the White House to not answer any questions about the White House and the transition. In my opinion, the bolded is an example of obstruction of justice. That's executive privilege as exercised by every administration since Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, DC Tom said: That's executive privilege as exercised by every administration since Clinton. besides Nixon, has the declaration of executive privilege been overruled for a President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: besides Nixon, has the declaration of executive privilege been overruled for a President? Don't know. Not in my memory (Clinton administration), and it's been consistently expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Don't know. Not in my memory (Clinton administration), and it's been consistently expanded. i did not know that, weird wild stuff... again I trust we can avoid challenging EP unless there is a clear and compelling reason for it, and butthurt over Trump winning isn't close to that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: i did not know that, weird wild stuff... again I trust we can avoid challenging EP unless there is a clear and compelling reason for it, and butthurt over Trump winning isn't close to that But he's a Nazi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, DC Tom said: That's executive privilege as exercised by every administration since Clinton. The same report finished by saying executive privilege was not given to Bannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, garybusey said: The same report finished by saying executive privilege was not given to Bannon. it gets complicated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 20 minutes ago, garybusey said: The same report finished by saying executive privilege was not given to Bannon. When you rely on reports, rather than doing the due dillegence for yourself, you get a lot of stuff wrong. Like this. In no way was it obstruction of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, garybusey said: The same report finished by saying executive privilege was not given to Bannon. If the report said Bannon was given instructions not to answer, and it says he wasn't granted executive privilege, then the report is !@#$ed. If, on the other hand, you're saying Bannon was given instructions not to answer, and the report says he wasn't granted executive privilege, then you are !@#$ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, DC Tom said: If the report said Bannon was given instructions not to answer, and it says he wasn't granted executive privilege, then the report is !@#$ed. If, on the other hand, you're saying Bannon was given instructions not to answer, and the report says he wasn't granted executive privilege, then you are !@#$ed. Yep. That's internally contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, garybusey said: Back in the land of reality, Bannon was subpoenaed this afternoon (second time in as many weeks for those keeping score) to comply with the House Intelligence hearing. Sources (from Fox reporter Chad Pergram) say Bannon was directed by the White House to not answer any questions about the White House and the transition. In my opinion, the bolded is an example of obstruction of justice. If that's true it could be. The transition for sure would in no way count as executive privilege Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 No, it couldn't be. Under any interpretation of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Bigger question is, why don't they want Sloppy Steve to testify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 It was a closed door session. Perhaps they want to wait for it to be an open hearing to prevent leaks/framing of his answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 24 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Bigger question is, why don't they want Sloppy Steve to testify? presumption of complete innocence without compelling evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 20 minutes ago, Tiberius said: If that's true it could be. The transition for sure would in no way count as executive privilege You're an idiot. The transition involved discussion between the sitting administration and the incumbent administration, which certainly falls under the rubric of "executive privilege." It's a short hop from there to covering almost anything a transition team is involved in, based simply on the idea that any discussion likely involved deliberation on policy related to the current executive. 20 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Bigger question is, why don't they want Sloppy Steve to testify? Why didn't Obama, when he exercised "executive privilege," want Ben Rhodes to testify to Congress about the Iran nuclear deal? If you had any sort of introspection whatsoever, it would bug the living **** out of you that your bull **** cuts both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 52 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You're an idiot. The transition involved discussion between the sitting administration and the incumbent administration, which certainly falls under the rubric of "executive privilege." It's a short hop from there to covering almost anything a transition team is involved in, based simply on the idea that any discussion likely involved deliberation on policy related to the current executive. Why didn't Obama, when he exercised "executive privilege," want Ben Rhodes to testify to Congress about the Iran nuclear deal? If you had any sort of introspection whatsoever, it would bug the living **** out of you that your bull **** cuts both ways. Nice try, but no. Just because they were working with the other administrion doesn't mean it falls under Trump's executive privilidge. Obama and a nuclear deal where sensitive information might actually need protected are a poor precedent to cite for another's transition team lame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: The transition involved discussion between the sitting administration and the incumbent administration, i think you might have meant incoming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts