From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: MerrickGarland held in contempt - DOJ refuses to uphold the law
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:56:51 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2024-06-19 10:52, Loran wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-06-16 07:15, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 20:12:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>> Interesting that those who screamed about Steve Bannon are silent when
>>>>> a Dem voilates the law.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since when can Congress demand violation of executive privilege?
>>>
>>> The Democrats have fought exectutive privilege in the past. I missed
>>> your outrage back then. Oh and Banon had asserted exectutive
>>> privilege too and the Dems proceeded anyway
>>
>> Bannon wasn't a part of Trump's administration.
>
> You LIE constantly:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon
>
> Stephen Kevin Bannon (born November 27, 1953) is an American media
> executive, political strategist, and former investment banker. He served
> as the White House's chief strategist for the first seven months of U.S.
> president Donald Trump's administration, before Trump discharged him. He
> is a former executive chairman of Breitbart News and previously served
> on the board of the now-defunct data-analytics firm Cambridge Analytica.
>
>> Ergo, he had no standing to invoke executive privilege.
>
> You LIE constantly:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon
>
> Stephen Kevin Bannon (born November 27, 1953) is an American media
> executive, political strategist, and former investment banker. He served
> as the White House's chief strategist for the first seven months of U.S.
> president Donald Trump's administration, before Trump discharged him. He
> is a former executive chairman of Breitbart News and previously served
> on the board of the now-defunct data-analytics firm Cambridge Analytica.
>
Oh, little loser...
<https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/05/bannon.pdf>
'Here, the OLC opinions Bannon cites involve a variety of
situations where OLC concluded executive privilege could be
properly invoked. But, as the district court correctly observed,
none of the opinions address a situation resembling Bannonâs:
a congressional committee subpoena for communications
âbetween a nongovernmental employee and a President who,
at the time of the Subpoena, was no longer in office and had
not clearly directed the Subpoena recipient to decline to
comply altogether.â J.A. 2351â52. Further, none of the
opinions addressed communications between a private citizen
subpoena recipient and other private citizens. Here, only a
small subset of the subpoena topics even referenced
communications with President Trump or his staffâthe rest
concerned Bannonâs communications with individuals outside
the White House not even arguably subject to executive
privilege.'
And:
'III
The judgment of conviction and sentence under 2 U.S.C. § 192 is affirmed.
So ordered.