Yes, I wrote it. It’s mine.
( At least it’s mine until next week, when Stephen Colbert gets back from vacation, slips it into one of his monologues w/o permission, and makes the whole world think its his. )
Well, according to my reading of the clipped item above, the NYT also characterized it that way.
I have to cop to some confusion, here.
Well, but the NYT kind of sucks. They reflexively repeat political assertions without noting they are merely assertions in order to avoid being judged as partisan.
I have also waived executive privilege for any conversations/activities Bannon performed for the President. It has the same effect.
Nu-huh! Me first! I waive privilege!
Yes, but he’s trying to offer up “this great gift” in order to get special concessions.
He wants something for nothing.
Off the hook from all charges? That he gets a live mic to all the networks?
That he has his lawyer next to him to counsel him when to stop lying?
If it wouldn’t cause an oil slick, Congress should tell him to take a long walk off of a short pier…
You shouldn’t do that in public! There might be children about!
I have to admit I’m confused. We have a document (you can see it here, uploaded by Ryan Reilly of NBC) that is a scan of the letter Trump sent to Bannon waiving executive privilege.
It reads like a parody piece, so I’d consider it fake, except Trump really would write that kind of bullshit. So I don’t have a reason to doubt it. Even if it does read like something from The Onion.
I write about the Subpoena that you received in September 2021 from the illegally constituted Unselect Committee, the same group of people who created the Russia Russia Russia scam, Impeachment hoax #1, Impeachment hoax #2, the Mueller 'Witch-Hunt (which ended in no “Collusion”), and other fake and never-ending yarns and tales.
Last month, Bannon himself tried to claim executive privilege was in effect, and a judge denied the claim because there was no evidence that Trump ever invoked it.
In an oral ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols rebuffed a series of arguments Bannon had lodged, including that Trump had asserted executive privilege to block his former aide’s testimony. Nichols contended that there’s insufficient evidence that Trump truly did assert privilege or seek to block Bannon from testifying to the panel the House created to investigate the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 and related events.
Now Trump’s attorney claims that Trump never did invoke it.
The Justice Department revealed in an early Monday morning court filing that federal investigators interviewed former President Donald Trump’s attorney Justin Clark two weeks ago in connection with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s criminal contempt case.
Prosecutors say that Clark confirmed in the interview that at no point did Trump ever invoke executive privilege over Bannon’s testimony – and directly contradicted other claims made by Bannon’s defense team in their case.
So, is the letter fake? Did Trump lie in the letter about invoking executive privilege? Is he lying now (through his lawyers)? It’s all pretty much moot, since nobody is currently claiming there is any executive privilege in effect and Bannon is testifying. But it’s still confusing.
They’re all clowns. Nothing they say, or even write, apparently, can be taken seriously.
Trump’s new letter is real.
And no, I don’t believe that it’s new news that Bannon never had a leg to stand on. Trump’s lawyer sent out advice to people saying that they should not share any documents or information protected by executive privilege:
That is a very specific notification, of limited scope. What constitutes “executive privilege” and does not would be the question for Bannon’s lawyer - if following the guidance of Trump’s lawyers - not whether to show up for questioning.
Plausibly, Bannon’s lawyer was an idiot who read far too much into Trump’s lawyer’s letter. Bannon isn’t allowed to make that case and he’d be best served by getting comfortable jumping through hoops to please the Committee and the DOJ (IMHO).
An actual question asked by an actual $400/hour attorney to an actual Federal Judge:
Now, if the attorney asked that question to their client, it’s a great rhetorical question, and a strong argument to get them to agree to a plea deal.
Why the fuck would you ask that of a judge?
(Raises hand) I know! I know!
So, I guess, straight to prison for you. I mean, WTF? The attorney well must be getting very, very dry.
“I’m not actually getting paid for this bullshit, so how about if we just skip to the chase and put my client in jail?”
Defense/offence, what’s the difference?
I think the next step - if you’ve been denied a defense - is to try to change your pleading and to strike a deal with the prosecution.
I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem strange that you’d be compelled to continue on to trial regardless of the outcome of the judge’s review of the permissibility of various arguments. Even if the judge didn’t strike every argument, I could still see some lawyers wanting to go back and revise the pleading after the judge’s review. I have to assume that there’s an offramp available, still, at this stage.
And you, my friend, have now proved yourself sharper than any Far-Right-Nutjob-Who’s-Okay-With-Probably-Getting-Stiffed lawyer.
Lindsey Graham has now been ordered to testify before the Georgia grand jury on August 2. Graham had attempted use executive privilege to avoid giving testimony.
The entitled belief in privilege runs deep in these motherfuckers.