HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Judge in Bannon contempt ...

Wed Nov 17, 2021, 09:53 PM

Judge in Bannon contempt case once fought Congress' subpoena power

In 2008, a little-known Justice Department attorney stepped into a courtroom to argue that top aides to then-President George W. Bush could simply ignore congressional subpoenas.

“You have to recognize the absolute immunity of the president's close advisers,” the attorney, Carl Nichols, declared.

Today, Nichols is the federal judge set to preside over the criminal case of Steve Bannon, former President Donald Trump's ally who — like Bush’s aides — claims he doesn’t have to comply with a subpoena to testify about his efforts to help Trump overturn the 2020 election.

It’s a remarkable symmetry for the mild-mannered, longtime corporate lawyer, who now finds himself at the helm of one of the most important clashes between Congress and Trump — the man who put him on the federal bench in 2019. The Bannon case holds implications for the future of congressional investigations and for efforts to expose the secrets of those who stoked the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-in-bannon-contempt-case-once-fought-congress-subpoena-power/ar-AAQPJWT

Too many political hacks in our court system.

4 replies, 617 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge in Bannon contempt case once fought Congress' subpoena power (Original post)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2021 OP
asiliveandbreathe Nov 2021 #1
Hoyt Nov 2021 #2
asiliveandbreathe Nov 2021 #3
Hoyt Nov 2021 #4

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Nov 17, 2021, 09:57 PM

1. How did that absolute immunity case work out?? Anyone..

“You have to recognize the absolute immunity of the president's close advisers,” the attorney, Carl Nichols, declared.

I will do some research tomorrow - inquiring mind needs to know...

Edit..update on research..

https://vnexplorer.net/judge-in-bannon-contempt-case-once-fought-congress-subpoena-power-eo20212488935.html

Ultimately, Nichols lost the case before U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, who ruled that presidential advisers must show up when subpoenaed by Congress. The Justice Department appealed the decision but, after Barack Obama won the presidency, the House, Bush lawyers and the new administration reached a deal and dropped the litigation over the matter.

Bates’ ruling isn’t binding on other courts, but remains one of only a couple ever to address the notion of immunity for presidential advisers.

Despite Nichols’ broad argument for the immunity of top presidential advisers, it’s not nearly as extreme as Bannon’s. Nichols told the court, for example, that congressional subpoenas for documents could still be litigated. Bannon, notably, refused to comply with a committee document request.

And Nichols emphasized that the notion of “absolute immunity” was meant to apply only to a “small group” of close presidential advisers, like the chief of staff or White House counsel.


Much more at link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Nov 17, 2021, 10:09 PM

2. Hope he adds "while in office" to that old statement.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 17, 2021, 10:21 PM

3. See comment #1..new info added..and you are correct "while in office"..

Not sure how this could go..especially these politically drive days..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asiliveandbreathe (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 17, 2021, 11:00 PM

4. Thanks for update.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread