Judge in Bannon contempt case once fought Congress' subpoena power

[asiliveandbreathe]

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