|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 11, 2022 12:59:25 GMT -5
I love the three adjectives before "committee."🙂
The rest of the letter does not fail to entertain. It's an outrage the committee has not allowed duc privilege. It's un-American to not be able to duc and cover at a Congressional hearing.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jul 11, 2022 14:23:38 GMT -5
The Supreme Court was correct on this one. (and this being a thread about Thomas, I'm sure they'll be glad to know this Thomas supports that decision) If among the many things being tossed about concerning Ukraine, it was suggested that we nuke Russia, but the idea was dismissed as bad, we might not want that information out there.
But there does need to be some sort of line. Discussions in the oval office about illegal coverups of an illegal break in to a Washington hotels that were later put in to practice probably shouldn't be subject to privilege
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jul 11, 2022 14:34:22 GMT -5
I believe Mr. Bannon was not an employee of the government during the period from around the election in Nov., 2020 to Jan.20th.,2021. Were his communications with the president during that time period subject to Executive Privilege? I don't know the answer. Additionally, I believe any criminal activities being investigated are not covered by E.P. Also, the current president has refused to invoke Executive Privilege over the communications with Bannon during the previous administration. There may be some carry over for certain communications but there is no blanket privilege. Interestingly, it has been claimed that the previous president never claimed EP over his communications with Bannon. Would a president's claim of EP "ex post fact" after he is out of office be valid? Possibly, in reality there was no EP for the former president to waive. Hopefully all will testify truthfully under oath without fear or favor. PS I believe Nixon claimed the tapes were his property and thus could not be taken by government investigators. The Court rejected Nixon's claim and stated unequivocally the tapes belonged to the government.They had to be released. I wonder if emails on government servers could be viewed in the same way as were the Nixon tapes.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 11, 2022 14:36:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jul 11, 2022 14:54:13 GMT -5
Bannon should put this behind him. Give the committee the documents and take the Fifth. Negotiate a plea deal on the criminal case where he does 120 days. He appears to be in poor health. Maybe he gets put in a hospital type setting.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jul 11, 2022 14:55:11 GMT -5
I believe Mr. Bannon was not an employee of the government during the period from around the election in Nov., 2020 to Jan.20th.,2021. Were his communications with the president during that time period subject to Executive Privilege? I don't know the answer. Additionally, I believe any criminal activities being investigated are not covered by E.P. Also, the current president has refused to invoke Executive Privilege over the communications of the previous administration. There may be some carry over for certain communications but there is no blanket privilege. Interestingly, it has been claimed that the previous president never claimed EP over his communications with Bannon. Would a president's claim of EP "ex post fact" after he is out of office be valid? Possibly, in reality there was no EP for the former president to waive. Hopefully all will testify truthfully under oath without fear or favor. PS I believe Nixon claimed the tapes were his property and thus could not be taken by government investigators. The Court rejected Nixon's claim and stated unequivocally the tapes belonged to the government.They had to be released. I wonder if emails on government servers could be viewed in the same way as were the Nixon tapes. Trump has an hilariously expansive view of EP. Not surprising from the man who once said, "I'm the President I can do whatever I want." Bannon is a dangerous guy. He has anarchic tendencies, called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci and Christopher Wray, and is willing to entertain just about any conspiracy theory in existence no matter how insane. HIs stated goal with his communications is "flood the zone with s**t", i.e, facts are less important that creating a tsunami of disinformation to achieve a desired result.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 11, 2022 15:03:08 GMT -5
I believe Mr. Bannon was not an employee of the government during the period from around the election in Nov., 2020 to Jan.20th.,2021. Were his communications with the president during that time period subject to Executive Privilege? I don't know the answer. Additionally, I believe any criminal activities being investigated are not covered by E.P. Also, the current president has refused to invoke Executive Privilege over the communications of the previous administration. There may be some carry over for certain communications but there is no blanket privilege. Interestingly, it has been claimed that the previous president never claimed EP over his communications with Bannon. Would a president's claim of EP "ex post fact" after he is out of office be valid? Possibly, in reality there was no EP for the former president to waive. Hopefully all will testify truthfully under oath without fear or favor. Steve Bannon left the White House (and government employment) around September 2017. He had no official government capacity subsequently. And thus, privilege does not extend to him for any subsequent communications he may have had that were unrelated to communications he had during his brief tenure as a government employee. Also, the claim of privilege has never extended to my knowledge to a former President successfully asserting such a claim for communications occurring after he was no longer President, and are unrelated to communications with a government employee that might be privileged if he were still President. For all practical purposes, Bannon''s (and Trump's) claim of executive privilege ended the day Bannon handed over his White House ID.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 11, 2022 15:42:07 GMT -5
Bannon offered "no defense for his total non compliance with the subpoena." The defense is obvious to me. Ratings of his podcast/radio show or whatever it is.
I wonder what strategy Trump had when he decided not to give pardons to all the merry men and women of the insurrection. Did he give the Committee and DOJ leverage they wouldn't have had if pardons were issued?
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jul 11, 2022 15:47:19 GMT -5
Even for the period he worked at the White House it's unclear how extensive the privilege is. What types of communications does it cover (e.g. if he and Trump discussed the merits of Pence being hung by the mob that would likely not be covered by the privilege)? Does it extend to communications made when other people were present? Does it extend to communications that Bannon observed but wasn't a part of? Etc., etc.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 11, 2022 17:27:23 GMT -5
Even for the period he worked at the White House it's unclear how extensive the privilege is. What types of communications does it cover (e.g. if he and Trump discussed the merits of Pence being hung by the mob that would likely not be covered by the privilege)? Does it extend to communications made when other people were present? Does it extend to communications that Bannon observed but wasn't a part of? Etc., etc. In your hypothetical about Jan 6, -- which was long after Bannon had left, but assuming he was still in the government -- if he and Trump discussed Trump leading a large group of armed followers up to Capitol Hill with the intention of interfering with or disrupting the counting of electoral votes as provided for under the Constitution, that discussion would fall within the definition of 'seditious conspiracy' and most probably 'insurrection' as well. No court would uphold a claim of executive privilege because the discussion of what Trump could do in this instance does not fall within any rubric of the President's powers and authorities. (Nixon directing the plumbers to break into and burgle Democratic Headquarters would be an act for which Nixon or others could not claim privilege, as nothing in the Constitution or Federal law authorizes the President to undertake such an action.) As I understand the privilege, those who attend but do not directly participate in communicating with the President are subject to a claim of privilege. I doubt the privilege extends to hearsay, except perhaps for national security matters. Lincoln pushed the boundaries of executive power and authority, and, in effect, defied the Supreme Court to do anything about it. Chief Justice Taney, from Maryland, finally acknowledged such. www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-is-challenged#:~:text=On%20April%2027%2C%201861%2C%20Lincoln,deemed%20threatening%20to%20military%20operations
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jul 11, 2022 17:39:22 GMT -5
Pak, Great read. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 25, 2022 15:52:07 GMT -5
Liz Cheney said on Sunday that there are on on-going discussions between the Select Committee and Ginni Thomas' lawyer about her being interviewed by the Committee. Hazarding a guess, the Committee's interest may center on Ginni's promoting having Trump appoint Sidney Powell as a special counsel to the President. The proposed appointment caused Pat Cipollone to go ballistic. Powell would have been authorized to seize voting machines, and pursue criminal charges.
E.g., On Nov. 13,
On Nov. 19,
On Nov 22,
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jul 25, 2022 16:18:24 GMT -5
Ginni Thomas also emailed Rusty Bowers and others in AZ to reject the election results and come up with a second set of electors. I think there may be an interest on the committee in determining just how vast her efforts were to overturn the election. Pretty stunning to realize that the wife of a sitting SCOTUS justice tried to overthrow an election.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jul 25, 2022 17:05:49 GMT -5
How many people on this board actually know Clarence and his family? I am betting around a dozen??
If YOU don’t know things to be fact, and not what we read or listen to from the right and left media, then I would keep your politics off this board. I am surprised this and the Fauci threads are allowed
Sports gives us data and the eyeball test. Politics well not as much as it is about emotion and values
Stay well my friends
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 25, 2022 18:46:21 GMT -5
The second of the two areas of interest for the Select Committee with respect to Ginni is her being a nominal head of a small, ad hoc group of conservative activists called Frontliners for Liberty. Frontliners was started in the summer of2020, and is a spin-off from a large conservative organization called Freedom Works. Freedom Works was started in 2004, one of the founders was Dick Armey, who was House Majority Leader during Bush 41, and early Clinton. Ginni was a key aide to Armey when he was majority leader. In early December, 2020, Ginni invited John Eastman to speak to this group about his legal strategies. Eastman's core strategy basically was to have Vice President Pence refuse to accept the electors from several states on Jan 6. A corollary was to have Pence then declare Trump the winner on Jan 6. Eastman told Pence's counsel that if the matter went to the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas would be one of two justices who would back his strategy. After further conversation about precedents, Eastman then said the Court would rule 9-0 against him. In a deposed appearance before the Select Committee, Eastman took the Fifth with respect to his prediction of how the Supreme Court would vote. Re: John Eastman www.politico.com/news/2022/05/20/eastman-trump-role-legal-overturn-election-00034023
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jul 25, 2022 19:57:45 GMT -5
How many people on this board actually know Clarence and his family? I am betting around a dozen?? If YOU don’t know things to be fact, and not what we read or listen to from the right and left media, then I would keep your politics off this board. I am surprised this and the Fauci threads are allowed Sports gives us data and the eyeball test. Politics well not as much as it is about emotion and values Stay well my friends Ginni Thomas's emails are facts. I believe they were turned over to the Jan. 6 committee by John Eastman after being ordered to do so by a federal judge. I know of no one, including Ginni Thomas, who has questioned whether these were the emails she sent.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jul 25, 2022 20:22:24 GMT -5
My comment goes to the title of the thread-what Thomas is really like-
Your comments and those of others while interesting are about his family and politics— are they 100% factual and accurate- perhaps and they might be worthy of their own thread, but they have little or nothing to do with the title of the thread..
Look if this forum was about politics we would have volumes more to write about from Nixon- Biden, which covers the adult lives for most of the posters and includes some of the more interesting leaders the US government has ever offered.
But for the most part it is not intended to be a political site,so let’s move on, and for those about to say I don’t need to read it you are correct, and moving forward I will bypass the thread..
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Jul 25, 2022 20:26:22 GMT -5
Remember, fish always stink from the head . . . Always.
Given that this board clearly no longer has a rule regarding politics, perhaps those who care about hearing from highly credible whistleblowers rather than standard political hacks and their MSM accomplices across the entire political spectrum may appreciate reading the following regarding our federal law enforcement agencies:
www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/whistleblowers-reports-reveal-double-standard-in-pursuit-of-politically-charged-investigations-by-senior-fbi-doj-officials
Think it is just the SEC, Wall Street self-regulator FINRA, the FBI and DOJ which are the only regulatory oversight and law enforcement agencies meaningfully captured and corrupted? Come on, really? We can add the MSM to the mix as well. Any surprise why the general public no longer trusts?
It is this corruption and regulatory capture why I always try to look at situations through the lens of NOT Right v Left but rather Right v Wrong and massively discount messaging from those with very real conflicts of interest.
Why are this story and its implications so important? This journalist nails it: FBI Jeopardized National Security: thefederalist.com/2022/07/26/fbi-jeopardized-national-security-by-calling-verified-hunter-biden-evidence-disinformation-whistleblowers-say/
Recommendation: SERIOUSLY question any and all pronouncements and never blindly take the bait, i.e. the BS, put out by these agencies and their friends.
Back to Crusader Football, 90Wide and winning on and off the field for me.
Let's Win!!
#frauds #corruption #regulatorycapture
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 26, 2022 7:41:06 GMT -5
How many people on this board actually know Clarence and his family? I am betting around a dozen?? If YOU don’t know things to be fact, and not what we read or listen to from the right and left media, then I would keep your politics off this board. I am surprised this and the Fauci threads are allowed Sports gives us data and the eyeball test. Politics well not as much as it is about emotion and values Stay well my friends Ginni Thomas's emails are facts. I believe they were turned over to the Jan. 6 committee by John Eastman after being ordered to do so by a federal judge. I know of no one, including Ginni Thomas, who has questioned whether these were the emails she sent. There are two sets of Gini-related communications. The messages to Mark Meadows were turned over by Meadows in response to a Select Committee subpoena. The communications with John Eastman were turned over by Eastman after a Federal judge ruled these were not privileged. Pence's chief of staff and general counsel testified before a special grand jury last week. Both were present in a January 4, 2021 meeting in the Oval Office when Trump and Eastman sought to convince Pence to reject the certified electors from certain states. 18 USC §2384. Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. 18 USC § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (§ 2383 is basically unchanged from when it was first enacted in 1862.)
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jul 26, 2022 16:53:48 GMT -5
Remember, fish always stink from the head . . . Always.
Given that this board clearly no longer has a rule regarding politics, perhaps those who care about hearing from highly credible whistleblowers rather than standard political hacks and their MSM accomplices across the entire political spectrum may appreciate reading the following regarding our federal law enforcement agencies:
www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/whistleblowers-reports-reveal-double-standard-in-pursuit-of-politically-charged-investigations-by-senior-fbi-doj-officials
Think it is just the SEC, Wall Street self-regulator FINRA, the FBI and DOJ which are the only regulatory oversight and law enforcement agencies meaningfully captured and corrupted? Come on, really? We can add the MSM to the mix as well. Any surprise why the general public no longer trusts?
It is this corruption and regulatory capture why I always try to look at situations through the lens of NOT Right v Left but rather Right v Wrong and massively discount messaging from those with very real conflicts of interest.
Why are this story and its implications so important? This journalist nails it: FBI Jeopardized National Security: thefederalist.com/2022/07/26/fbi-jeopardized-national-security-by-calling-verified-hunter-biden-evidence-disinformation-whistleblowers-say/
Recommendation: SERIOUSLY question any and all pronouncements and never blindly take the bait, i.e. the BS, put out by these agencies and their friends.
Back to Crusader Football, 90Wide and winning on and off the field for me.
Let's Win!!
#frauds #corruption #regulatorycapture I'm so confused. You disparage "standard political hacks" and encourage people to read about "highly credible whistleblowers," and then link a press release from Chuck Grassley's office? What's next, encouraging people to read peer-reviewed scientific studies and then linking a 'Moms against vaccines' Facebook group?
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Jul 26, 2022 17:03:49 GMT -5
Chuck Grassley. I used to respect him; recently endorsed by you know who.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jul 26, 2022 17:13:18 GMT -5
Chuck Grassley. I used to respect him; recently endorsed by you know who. Grassley is the living embodiment of the need for term limits
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 26, 2022 17:27:23 GMT -5
I'd buy a PPV for a two hour debate between Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jul 26, 2022 17:29:11 GMT -5
I'd buy a PPV for a two hour debate between Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein. Would those two hours include the necessary 75 mins of napping between the two of them?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 26, 2022 17:49:18 GMT -5
Chuck Grassley. I used to respect him; recently endorsed by you know who. Grassley is the living embodiment of the need for term limits I can think of dozens who should be higher on the list
|
|