Assault on the Capitol (DC)

[Slim Cognito]

Well, just got myself banned from twitter for 12 hours. It's my own fault. I was posting ironically but twitter didn't know that. They must have an algorithm that immediately associates any photo of Pence with the word hang.

The post I'd responded to was a photo of Pence in cowboy dress, asking for the "name of this movie." Not thinking it through, I just had to write Hang 'Em High. I was suspended instantly, like less than one second. I hit send and the suspension notice came up immediately. I've removed it.

No biggie. I'll live. I can surf for the next 12 hours, just not post anything.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

I've never seen the back of a federal subpoena, or any subpoena for that matter, so maybe he's right, but I have a hard time believing it says you don't have to comply if you know nothing about the case.

[pipistrelle]

And why are we pretending the 1/6 Capitol incursion needs to be investigated? We had a zillion violent riots complete with deaths all through 2020 and they were excused, not investigated, no one was charged, etc.

100 percent BS.

[p0rtia]

[bob]

I've never seen the back of a federal subpoena, or any subpoena for that matter, so maybe he's right, but I have a hard time believing it says you don't have to comply if you know nothing about the case.

It is a gross (and willful) malrepresentation.

If the subpoena requests documents, there often is a box to check (and then sign under penalty of perjury) saying, "I have no documents responsive to this request."

"I have no responsive documents" is not the same as "I've decided this subpoena doesn't apply to me."

But Reed habitually makes bad-faith pronouncements. Attempts to correct him (or those of his ilk) aren't going to cause any reconsideration or correction.

"For completeness," a blank court subpoena. (Charitably reading "back page" as "last page.")

Edit: N10 makes the good point that court and congressional subpoenas are similar but not identical.

[northland10]

Not to mention, this is a Congressional subpoena, not the District Court Subpoena that has a long instruction page.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

And why are we pretending the 1/6 Capitol incursion needs to be investigated? We had a zillion violent riots complete with deaths all through 2020 and they were excused, not investigated, no one was charged, etc.

100 percent BS.

Yep. I'm pretty sure quite a few people were arrested during those riots in 2020. And none of them had a judge allow any of them to go on a company retreat in Mexico while awaiting trial.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

I've never seen the back of a federal subpoena, or any subpoena for that matter, so maybe he's right, but I have a hard time believing it says you don't have to comply if you know nothing about the case.

It is a gross (and willful) malrepresentation.

If the subpoena requests documents, there often is a box to check (and then sign under penalty of perjury) saying, "I have no documents responsive to this request."

"I have no responsive documents" is not the same as "I've decided this subpoena doesn't apply to me."

But Reed habitually makes bad-faith pronouncements. Attempts to correct him (or those of his ilk) aren't going to cause any reconsideration or correction.

"For completeness," a blank court subpoena. (Charitably reading "back page" as "last page.")

Edit: N10 makes the good point that court and congressional subpoenas are similar but not identical.

Well, he did literally write a book on "intellectually dishonest debate tactics."

[raison de arizona]

Here's an old Trump era Congressional subpoena I found. https://buckleyfirm.com/sites/default/f ... mty%29.pdf

Not sure if the last pages are boilerplate for all Congressional subpoenas, but if they are it would imply that Bannon AT LEAST has to reply with a list of what is privileged and a redacted copy of same. It certainly doesn't say you can just ignore it in any case. That I noticed at least.

[noblepa]

I've never seen the back of a federal subpoena, or any subpoena for that matter, so maybe he's right, but I have a hard time believing it says you don't have to comply if you know nothing about the case.

IIRC, Bannon did not directly claim executive privilege.

Trump has sued the National Archives to prevent release of documents, thereby invoking executive privilege. He sued the Archives because he can't sue the President directly.

Bannon has asked that he not be forced to comply with the subpoena until Trump's claim has been adjudicated. On its face, this doesn't seem to me to be a completely bogus argument. If he produced the documents or testified only to have the court rule in Trump's favor, it would, in effect, defy the court's ruling. OTOH, I don't think that the court will uphold Trump's claim of privilege.

Also, when I read the back of the blank subpoena that was posted, I see that it says that you must specifically invoke a claim of privilege. I assume that this is for lawyers and doctors, who enjoy legal confidentiality with their clients/patients. If a lawyer is ordered to produce documents and he/she wishes to avoid doing so because the documents contain privileged information, the claim must specifically invoke privilege and explain the nature of the privileged information they contain.

[Frater I*I]

"Mr. President, you've been in charge of the law for four years," he added. "At the end of your four year time, the only ones locked up were men like me, and others like me, that have stood by the president the strongest."

It's almost as if he doesn't care about anyone but himself huh buddy....

[Foggy]

I claim executive privilege and attorney-client privilege on the grounds that I told TFA "You stupid asshole, you lost by 8 million votes, do you have any grip on reality at all? Eight million votes!" but the stupid asshole won't listen to me so I don't want to be his lawyer no more.

Thanks judge. I put that envelope in your mailbox like you told me.

[SlimSloSlider]

“I used to work once for a guy who used to be President.
A very stable genius.
So he sez he doesn’t have to comply.
And I like that.
So there.”

Trump is merely trying to delay, as ever the vexatious litigant.
Bannon is on a hiding to nothing.
Of course he’s going along with it.
Pseudo-intellectual fascist bum.

[northland10]

IIRC, Bannon did not directly claim executive privilege.

Trump has sued the National Archives to prevent release of documents, thereby invoking executive privilege. He sued the Archives because he can't sue the President directly.

Bannon has asked that he not be forced to comply with the subpoena until Trump's claim has been adjudicated. On its face, this doesn't seem to me to be a completely bogus argument. If he produced the documents or testified only to have the court rule in Trump's favor, it would, in effect, defy the court's ruling. OTOH, I don't think that the court will uphold Trump's claim of privilege.

I have not seen his arguments or the subpoena, but whether the archives releases documents does not impact whether he shows up and testifies. Of course, a lawyer would be finding any possible loophole, anywhere so this is there's.

[RTH10260]

Banon and executive privilege, an outsiders opinion: will go nowhere cause first on J6 he was not a member of the WH, second impotus will be loser once more, cause when he was booted from the WH he became a simple citizen once again. It's the choice of the current potus to claim executive privileges, or not claim, and protect document of former administration over what the laws on the National Archive stipulate.

[noblepa]

Banon and executive privilege, an outsiders opinion: will go nowhere cause first on J6 he was not a member of the WH, second impotus will be loser once more, cause when he was booted from the WH he became a simple citizen once again. It's the choice of the current potus to claim executive privileges, or not claim, and protect document of former administration over what the laws on the National Archive stipulate.

I agree that Bannon has no legal hope of quashing the subpoena.

But the idea that a former president can't claim executive privilege for someone outside the government is, IMHO (IANAL), wrong. The whole point of executive privilege is for the president to have a free exchange of ideas with his advisors. I think that, for some issues, a president would be wise to consult non-government advisors. For example, if the WH were discussing new banking regulations, getting input from the CEO's of major banks and private economists would not be amiss. In fact, to not do so would be a dereliction of duty.

So, even though Bannon was no longer a member of the WH staff, he may still have been in contact with TFG. As such, he could be loosely considered to be an "advisor".

However, EP does not cover every conversation that the president has with anyone, anywhere, anytime. So, only those conversations relating to legitimate government business and policy should be covered.

The other point is that EP is the prerogative of the sitting president, not former presidents. An argument can be made that potential advisors might be reticent to speak freely with the president if they think that their words might become public when a new president arrives. I think that Trump would have to explain the nature and subject of any calls between himself and Bannon, in order to claim EP.

Then, too, EP does not and should not apply to the planning and execution of crimes. This is, to me, analogous to the idea that a client's communications with an attorney are privileged, unless the communication is in furtherance of a crime. IOW, if the attorney is a part y to the crime, there is no privilege.

[Maybenaut]

I don’t know much about executive privilege, but I think a former President can probably invoke it to cover conversations that occurred while he was President. But I don’t think every conversation he has while President would be covered.

[bob]

Executive privilege ultimately is rooted in the separation-of-powers doctrine: Congress and the courts can't compel an executive-branch officer (or employee) to disclose what was said to the big boss, i.e., the president. But all the cases and instances have involved seeking information from those then in the executive branch.

And, of course, in U.S. v. Nixon, SCOTUS ruled executive privilege is not absolute; it cannot be invoked for mere confidentiality if there are competing interests at play.

Perhaps the closest case was the investigation into Cheney's energy task force.* On paper, the task force was comprised of only federal employees. But (as we now know) several private individuals (read: lobbyists) participated, except they didn't have voting rights. The D.C. Cir. ultimately ruled that all-federal-employee organizations were exempt from certain disclosure requirements, and that the lobbyists' "limited" participation didn't convert the organization into a mixed-membered one (which would have required disclosure).


* A case initiated by ... Larry Klayman.

[John Thomas8]

Instances that involve protecting assets in the field from dying are the only valid reason to keep government business secret.

If you're huddling up with industry insiders? Lights, camera and action doods, the public deserves to know that they're being sold out for 23 pieces of silver.

[Gregg]

Well, just got myself banned from twitter for 12 hours. It's my own fault. I was posting ironically but twitter didn't know that. They must have an algorithm that immediately associates any photo of Pence with the word hang.

The post I'd responded to was a photo of Pence in cowboy dress, asking for the "name of this movie." Not thinking it through, I just had to write Hang 'Em High. I was suspended instantly, like less than one second. I hit send and the suspension notice came up immediately. I've removed it.

No biggie. I'll live. I can surf for the next 12 hours, just not post anything.

I got a week for calling Stephen Miller a Nazi.

I'm pretty sure the Nazis complained.

I don't know if I want to live in a world where I can't call Stephen Miller a Nazi.

[tek]

It would not surprise me that Stephen Miller's WIFE calls him a nazi. During sex.

There, you read it on the internet so it must be true.

[Slim Cognito]

she's probably required to call him a nazi during sex for...ahem...motivation.

[Foggy]

I read on the internet that Stephen Miller's wife calls him a NAZI during sex, pass it on.

[p0rtia]

The mistake everyone keeps making is calling him _a_ Nazi. In my group, Stephen Miller is referred to as _The_ Nazi.

(Will apologies to Irene Adler.)

[p0rtia]

Regarding executive privilege:

I've consumed thousands of pages of Watergate testimony + books in the past three months. My take is that their take was that claiming executive privilege on anything but national security was challenged as overreach. And the idea of using executive privilege to reject subpoenas during investigations of wrongdoing was scorned.

And the national security dodge for Nixon just that: a dodge. Cf John Ehrlichman lying through his teeth to the Senate Committee that the break-in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office was a NS operation. Nothing to do with smearing your "enemies", nope. No enemy-smearing going on in that administration.

Our government and the press that covers it are often a big fat joke.