@blablarg18 That's because even though the House adopted a resolution citing Lerner for criminal contempt of Congress, they did not choose to approve a resolution authorizing the committee to pursue civil enforcement of the subpoena in federal court, as had been done in the past. Thus, it was handled by US attorneys in the District of Columbia.
@blablarg18 I mispoke, in the Lerner case it wasn't the DOJ that made that decision, it was actually the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.
@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.
@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 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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@raphjd DOJ determined that the responses by Garland to the subpoenas issued by the Committees did not constitute a crime, mainly because transcripts of the audio tapes they wanted were turned over. I'd say that is a bit different than Bannon, who provided nothing at all and didn't even show up to the hearings.
A federal appeals court panel has rejected Trump ally Steve Bannon’s bid to stay out of prison while he fights his conviction for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the U.S. Capitol attack. Bannon is supposed to report to prison by July 1 to begin serving his four-month sentence for contempt of Congress.
Bannon’s lawyers had asked the appeals court to allow him to remain free while he continues to fight the conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court. But in a 2-1 vote, the D.C. Circuit panel said Bannon’s case “does not warrant a departure from the general rule” that defendants begin serving their sentence after conviction. Lawyers for Bannon had argued that the case raised serious legal questions that would likely need to be resolved by the Supreme Court. But with the Appeals court ruling, Bannon will now have already finished his prison sentence by the time his case gets to the Supreme Court.
He was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the Jan. 6 House Committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in efforts by Trump to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss.
A second Trump aide, trade adviser Peter Navarro, is already serving his four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress.
Project 2025, a compendium of Trump's plan to "lay out hundreds of clear and concrete policy recommendations for White House offices, Cabinet departments, Congress, and agencies, commissions, and boards" for use in the chance that he wins in 2024, describes how his administration would handle pornography:
Promise #1: Restore the Family as the Centerpiece of American Life and Protect Our Children
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime.
Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.
There are some interesting choices of words there that need to be unpacked:
"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance...." Why the mention of "transgender ideology"? Is it only transgender porn that they are against, and not mainstream porn? Transgender "ideology" makes me think of educational literature put out by the medical community, which conservatives might sarcastically refer to as "pornography". Either way, I think the mention of transgender is a red herring, an attempt to tar all of pornography by merely highlighting one word they know will trigger people. Besides, if they are referring to transgender literature, they themselves qualify that by stating "for instance", which clearly means "as one example of" many other forms, including hetero porn.
"Educators and public librarians who purvey it..." I'm certain that porn is not meant to be made available at public libraries. This might be an additional red herring to make us think they are referring to trans literature, which ostensibly might be found at a public library. In any event, the passage does suggest that maybe the people who wrote it have never stepped into a public library before.
"Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women." This passage clears up the earlier confusion by making it clear they are referring to all pornography, which includes women. Why else mention "women" if referring to only transgender literature? I believe that motivations such as these are chilling to consider.
Read the entire Project 2025 manifesto here.
Trump and other Republicans did not seem to be relishing the opportunity to call the president’s son a convicted felon. Instead, the early reactions to a jury’s guilty verdict against Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges seemed to more resemble a shriveling balloon.
“The Hunter Biden gun conviction is kinda dumb tbh,” said Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, in a post on X. Another Trump associate, Charlie Kirk, called it a “fake trial.” Many Trump allies had been secretly rooting for an acquittal. A person with knowledge of the Trump campaign’s fund-raising plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there had been discussions about how much an acquittal would help Trump, potentially raising tens of millions of additional dollars as they planned to cite it as more evidence the justice system was rigged.
Prominent Republicans, including those in the Trump campaign, immediately minimized the three felony gun charges, complaining that the charges steered public attention away from unspecified crimes that they claimed President Biden has committed and a justice system that they insisted was still very much two-tiered.
It spoke volumes that the first reaction from the Trump camp did not come directly from Trump. Instead, his campaign issued a statement that described the conviction as a “distraction.”
The president has not been charged with crimes, and the House Republican leadership has abandoned its effort to impeach Biden after it became clear that too many Republicans thought they lacked evidence of wrongdoing sufficient to impeach. Hunter Biden is facing another trial in September, on nine charges stemming from failure to pay $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 through 2019.
Behind all this, Trump, who aggressively attacked Hunter Biden in the 2020 election, has changed his mind about the political value of doing so now, at least over the younger Mr. Biden’s personal issues, according to people close to the former president. In a meeting last year, Trump acknowledged privately to an associate that attacks against the president’s son had the potential to backfire politically, according to a person who attended the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.
The way Trump speaks today about the Hunter Biden case is markedly different from his drumbeat over what he called “the laptop from hell” in 2020. In their first presidential debate, in September 2020, Trump directly attacked the president’s son over his drug use. A Trump ally who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe private conversations explained that as soon as it was clear that the Hunter Biden gun case couldn’t be used against President Biden, the topic fell off the radar for political messaging.
@raphjd said in Hunter Biden’s Laptop Makes Brief, Anticlimactic Appearance at His Trial:
I'm not sure what the purpose of you posting this is.
@raphjd Do you really need to be reminded? Ok, here goes.
This is called a F-O-R-U-M. Can you say for-umm? Forums are places online where people post other things that they come across online. They post them for others to read, and then talk about. Get it? Your claim of "I-don't-know-why-you're-posting-this-news-story-in-a-forum-where-people-post-news-stories-all-the-time" rings hollow.
@raphjd said in Hunter Biden’s Laptop Makes Brief, Anticlimactic Appearance at His Trial:
@Spintendo
You might remember, the top FBI guy who deals with electronics and cyber didn't know where the laptop was for a couple of years. He said that under oath at a Congressional hearing.The DOJ/FBI are extremely dirty and partisan.
So if I understand you, what youre saying is that
Is that correct?
On a day dominated by lurid tales of Hunter Biden’s years as a crack addict, told by the defendant’s former wife as well as an ex-girlfriend, a brief sighting in the courtroom of a major headliner passed with almost no comment.
At about 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, a federal prosecutor, Derek Hines, brandished the headliner in question — Mr. Biden’s notorious laptop, a silver Apple MacBook Pro encased in a plastic cover. He waggled it about with his left hand while reminding a government witness, Erika Jensen, an F.B.I. special agent, of all the data that had been seized during the Department of Justice’s investigation of Mr. Biden.
The jurors and courtroom spectators gazed at government Exhibit 16 as if expecting sparks to fly from it. Three seconds later, Mr. Hines returned the laptop to the prosecutors’ table, soon to be buried under a heap of other government evidence. It received no further mention.
The laptop’s cameo appearance, after making a similarly brief appearance the day before, underscored how anticlimactic its role has been in the various investigations relating to the conduct of what right-wing critics term “the Biden crime family.” House Republicans failed to glean from its contents anything warranting impeachment of President Biden, the defendant’s father. Nothing has yet emerged from it that ties the son to criminal activity other than drug-related misadventures to which the younger Mr. Biden has already confessed.
The laptop was left unclaimed at a Wilmington repair shop and made its way to allies of Trump a month before the 2020 election.
@raphjd said in Idaho Drag Performer Wins $1.1 Million in Defamation Suit Against Blogger:
I don't remember this case.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
30 June 2022, 23:09 --- "The SPLC, Media Matters, Business Insider, HuffPost, NewsBreak, and NPR all lied and claimed that Libs Of TikTok created a violent situation at an Idaho "family" drag show."
Only problem was, according to you, you mistook the Idaho drag show in question for another notorious Pride event:
01 July 2022, 06:27 --- "I was wrong about something. I mixed up the Idaho Pride event with the drag event in San Francisco. That does not change the over-arching premise of my original comment."
Either way the "Idaho Pride event", as you called it, was clearly on your mind one way or another. How ironic it was then, that those posts came from a thread where you argued about those who need to "correct their lies":
Why do liberal media refuse to correct their lies, in light of the FBI proving they were wrong?
Poor Ms. Bushnell, soon to be out 1.1 million dollars, still hasn't owned up to her lies. She prefers blaming others.
"He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4, and he will still treat them as unanimous."
This has already been widely debunked.