Reports are now coming out that some of the secret documents seized at Mar a Lago allegedly showed a foreign government's nuclear and military capabilities. As pointed out previously: if the unknown foreign country could get their hands on that material, they could reverse engineer the report and figure out supposedly relayed the information to the US,
Gramps, is there supposed to be a "who" between "out" and "supposedly" there?
Reports are now coming out that some of the secret documents seized at Mar a Lago allegedly showed a foreign government's nuclear and military capabilities. As pointed out previously: if the unknown foreign country could get their hands on that material, they could reverse engineer the report and figure out supposedly relayed the information to the US,
The consequences of that depend on whether the country is friendly to the U.S. (France, U.K.), an adversary (Russia, China, North Korea), or somewhere in between (India, Pakistan, Israel). A source in an American ally probably risks loss of career and/or imprisonment. A source in an American adversary probably risks torture and/or execution.
Reports are now coming out that some of the secret documents seized at Mar a Lago allegedly showed a foreign government's nuclear and military capabilities. As pointed out previously: if the unknown foreign country could get their hands on that material, they could reverse engineer the report and figure out supposedly relayed the information to the US,
Gramps, is there supposed to be a "who" between "out" and "supposedly" there?
Over the last few days 30+ Trump associates have been issued subpoenas to appear in various grand juries, both federal and state. Is the noose finally tightening?
In other news a special master to review the documents has been agreed to by both the fed and Trump lawyers. Justice Raymond Dearie is a senior federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, which covers Brooklyn and Long Island. He served a rotation on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an arm of the federal judiciary that mostly operates in secret because of the sensitive nature of the covert operations and national security interests at stake.
The New York General Attorney as now filed a $250mil civil lawsuit against the Trump family and Tramp Organization, barring members of the family from doing business in New York for five years. Since the Trump Organization is registered in the state of New York, this also deals with properties throughout the US now. Former members of the Organization will also be permanently banned from doing any business in NY, if the Organization is found liable. The AG has also made criminal referral to the United States Attorney General for bank fraud. That is a federal offense. Of course, all the above is alleged. The former president is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
It will be interesting how this might affect the mid terms and 2024
The New York General Attorney as now filed a $250mil civil lawsuit against the Trump family and Tramp Organization, barring members of the family from doing business in New York for five years.
The filing of the lawsuit doesn’t bar anything. The lawsuit seeks to have Trump and his children permanently barred from serving as directors or officers of any New York corporation or business, and to have Trump and the Trump Organization barred from engaging in real estate transactions for five years.
The New York General Attorney as now filed a $250mil civil lawsuit against the Trump family and Tramp Organization, barring members of the family from doing business in New York for five years.
The filing of the lawsuit doesn’t bar anything. The lawsuit seeks to have Trump and his children permanently barred from serving as directors or officers of any New York corporation or business, and to have Trump and the Trump Organization barred from engaging in real estate transactions for five years.
Two more years should be easy, then the fascist's in the hen house, with immunity even from the IRS for at least eight years.
Eight? Surely four, in that as the constitution currently stands, Presidents can be elected for two four year terms - there's nothing that says these should be two successive terms:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
It has, actually. The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment states:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
At the time the Twelfth Amendment was ratified (1804) "constitutionally ineligible" meant younger than 35 or not a natural born citizen, but the plainest reading of the amendment would incorporate any future bars on the presidency that might be devised to also apply to the vice presidency.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
It has, actually. The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment states:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
At the time the Twelfth Amendment was ratified (1804) "constitutionally ineligible" meant younger than 35 or not a natural born citizen, but the plainest reading of the amendment would incorporate any future bars on the presidency that might be devised to also apply to the vice presidency.
That must logically be true. A vice president is there to take over if the president dies or is taken ill etc. but they can't if they're ineligible to become president.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
It has, actually. The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment states:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
At the time the Twelfth Amendment was ratified (1804) "constitutionally ineligible" meant younger than 35 or not a natural born citizen, but the plainest reading of the amendment would incorporate any future bars on the presidency that might be devised to also apply to the vice presidency.
That must logically be true. A vice president is there to take over if the president dies or is taken ill etc. but they can't if they're ineligible to become president.
<Full disclosure: my extensive research (Wikipedia) didn't include the 12th amendment until after I'd posted here>
None the less
(a) a vice-president taking over the presidency mid-term hasn't been elected to the presidency, and the 22nd amendment is - as far as I can see - solely concerned with who can be elected to the presidency. And the US currently has a Supreme Court very keen on literal interpretations of the letter of the constitution.
(b) none of this gets us any nearer to understanding where Martin has got 8 years from for his worries if Mr Trump is elected in 2024.
Given the Trumpian propensity for scrupulously adhering (NOT) to all laws, regulations, customs, and precedents, etc., why do any of the above restrictions matter? They won't matter to The Thug and his armed supporters.
The New York State case is very damaging to Trump and his organisation beyond the legal ramifications.
He has hundreds of millions in loans coming due over the next 2 years. He may well find he cannot now refinance them. Lots of banks have a very good reason to say no and little reason to say yes.
Trump probably is technically bankrupt anyway. But now it may well all collapse around him.
And the US currently has a Supreme Court very keen on literal interpretations of the letter of the constitution.
No it doesn't. It has a Supreme Court very keen on putting a constitutional-sounding gloss on Fox News talking points. For example, in Shelby County v. Holder [PDF] John Roberts invented a brand new Constitutional principle (the equal sovereign dignitude of the states) to strike down a fifty year old law and effectively write the Fifteenth Amendment out of the Constitution.
Two more years should be easy, then the fascist's in the hen house, with immunity even from the IRS for at least eight years.
Eight? Surely four, in that as the constitution currently stands, Presidents can be elected for two four year terms - there's nothing that says these should be two successive terms:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
I seem to recall that strictures exist on the vice presidential office (and possibly on the Speaker of the House) precisely to avoid the situation where someone in those offices could succeed to the presidency when normally disqualified. I can't recall where those strictures are, though--some act or another. Because of course this same scenario would apply to anybody who attained either VP or Speaker status without being native-born, 35 years old, and so forth and so on. Someone else may recall the exact law.
I'll add though that even if such strictures exist only in my imagination, it would be child's play to slide past the unqualified vice president (or Speaker) and go on to the next qualified person in place.
I seem to recall that strictures exist on the vice presidential office (and possibly on the Speaker of the House) precisely to avoid the situation where someone in those offices could succeed to the presidency when normally disqualified. I can't recall where those strictures are, though--some act or another. Because of course this same scenario would apply to anybody who attained either VP or Speaker status without being native-born, 35 years old, and so forth and so on. Someone else may recall the exact law.
I'll add though that even if such strictures exist only in my imagination, it would be child's play to slide past the unqualified vice president (or Speaker) and go on to the next qualified person in place.
The Presidential Succession Act specifies successors to the presidency beyond the vice president. It places no restrictions on any of the after-the-vice-president successors. Since these are statutory rather than Constitutional successors it is simply assumed that succession would indeed "slide past" any ineligible people in the line of succession. For example, the Secretary of Energy is listed as being fifteenth in line to succeed to the presidency but Jennifer Granholm is a naturalized citizen rather than a natural born citizen. So in the event that a plane carrying Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Blinken, Janet Yellen, Lloyd Austin, Merrick Garland, and Pete Buttigieg crashes on top of a bus carrying Kamala Harris, Patrick Leahy, Deb Haaland, Tom Vilsack, Gina Raimondo, Marty Walsh, Xavier Becerra, and Marcia Fudge the next president of the United States would be Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, not Ms. Granholm.
For obvious reasons restricting all cabinet positions to people eligible to be president would be an overly onerous requirement for a very low probability event.
And Trump and his lawyers will do everything in their power to delay the case coming to trial.
Of course, but the financial ramifications that AFZ points out are important. The Trump Org is running out of banks. Most of the big Wall Street banks stopped lending to them something like 10 years ago. Deutsche Bank won't make them new loans. They are down to a much smaller institution headed up by a GOP donor willing to take on the risk of lending to them. They refinanced Trump Tower earlier this year through Axos, an internet-only bank headquartered in San Diego, California which is really slimy - among other things, it backs payday lenders, which are among the lowest of the low. I hope the Trump family finances collapse and take Axos down with them.
The financial ramifications have political ramifications because Trump's brand is built on his supposedly being a successful businessman. His grifting gets harder to do if he's a financial failure.
Another thing is that the NY Attorney General has made criminal referrals to federal prosecutors and the IRS.
Two more years should be easy, then the fascist's in the hen house, with immunity even from the IRS for at least eight years.
Eight? Surely four, in that as the constitution currently stands, Presidents can be elected for two four year terms - there's nothing that says these should be two successive terms:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
I sit corrected. Thank you @Fawkes Cat. So, who could be worse than Trump after another four years?
Two more years should be easy, then the fascist's in the hen house, with immunity even from the IRS for at least eight years.
Eight? Surely four, in that as the constitution currently stands, Presidents can be elected for two four year terms - there's nothing that says these should be two successive terms:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
I sit corrected. Thank you @Fawkes Cat. So, who could be worse than Trump after another four years?
Tom Cotton. The only thing worse than an incompetent fascist is a competent one.
Two more years should be easy, then the fascist's in the hen house, with immunity even from the IRS for at least eight years.
Eight? Surely four, in that as the constitution currently stands, Presidents can be elected for two four year terms - there's nothing that says these should be two successive terms:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
I sit corrected. Thank you @Fawkes Cat. So, who could be worse than Trump after another four years?
Tom Cotton. The only thing worse than an incompetent fascist is a competent one.
I dunno, he advocates no quarter be given to the likes of the scum who took the Capitol and those behind them, doesn't he?
A vice president may serve up to then years if s/he assumes the office during the mid term if the president is incapacitated. But, if the candidate for vice president has already served two terms as president, s/he would be ineligible.
The closest we came to this scenario was when Johnson assumed the office after Kennedy's death. Johnson won the next election, but stood down in the lead up to the second election.
Since Trump was elected once, he could be nominated for vice president for vice present provided he has not been found guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor previously, But do you really think he would accept the nod for vice president? Not on your life.
The January 6 Committee will be holding its ninth (and supposedly final) public hearing this Wednesday (28 September 2022) at 1:00 pm EST (5:00 pm UTC).
The ninth public hearing of the January 6 Committee has been rescheduled for 13 October 2022 (this Thursday) at 1:00 pm EDT (5:00 pm UTC). The livestream can be found here.
The Committee has voted unanimously to subpœna documents and testimony from Donald Trump. Presumably the testimony (if it happens) will be behind closed doors, as all other initial witness testimony was.
The first half of the hearing dealt with a review of previous testimony. The second half spent much of the time presenting the communications from within the Secret Service: basically they were informed that groups like the Proud Boys were going to be armed; the Proud Boys expected to out number the police on January sixth and they were prepared to kill people. Also mentioned was Trumps demand to go to the capitol and his reaction when his detail refused to do it. There were also videos of congressional leaders in their bunker pleading with military leaders and other government officials to send in the troops. And, yes, the committee did vote to subpoena Trump to testify, but I do not think he will honor it.
In other news, the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump's appeal to have the special master review the classified documents found at Mar-A-Lago.
As i understand it from the other side of the Pacific, the US mid-term elections for Congress will be held on Melbourne Cup Day (first Tuesday in November). That is not very far away, so any output of the Jan -6th commitee may well be rendered irrelevant by a Republican-dominated Congress after that.
As i understand it from the other side of the Pacific, the US mid-term elections for Congress will be held on Melbourne Cup Day (first Tuesday in November). That is not very far away, so any output of the Jan -6th commitee may well be rendered irrelevant by a Republican-dominated Congress after that.
No, the midterm elections are a week later. Election Day in the US is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, so November 8 this year.
And the new Congress doesn’t take office until January 2023.
If Trump fails to show up I would love to see him slapped in jail for contempt.
I guess that depends on whether the Department of Justice considers Trump to be like Mark Meadows or more like Steve Bannon. Honestly one of the most corrosive things to American law is the way the rich and well-connected get to treat subpœnas like optional invitations.
If Trump fails to show up I would love to see him slapped in jail for contempt.
I guess that depends on whether the Department of Justice considers Trump to be like Mark Meadows or more like Steve Bannon. Honestly one of the most corrosive things to American law is the way the rich and well-connected get to treat subpœnas like optional invitations.
Though I was intrigued to see that int he 50s HUAC subpoenaed then former President Truman and he told them to, pretty much, go fuck themselves.
If Trump fails to show up I would love to see him slapped in jail for contempt.
I guess that depends on whether the Department of Justice considers Trump to be like Mark Meadows or more like Steve Bannon. Honestly one of the most corrosive things to American law is the way the rich and well-connected get to treat subpœnas like optional invitations.
Trump 2016 campaign manager Steve Bannon has been sentenced to four months in prison and a fine of $6,500 for contempt of Congress. That seems a bit light to me, but he is technically a first time offender.
The judge has also ruled that his imprisonment can wait until he has exhausted his appeals, so Bannon will remain at large for now.
Pursuant to a unanimous vote of the Select Committee, Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) today announced that the Select Committee has issued a subpoena to former President Donald Trump for testimony under oath and records relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation into the attack on the January 6th on the United States Capitol and its causes. In a letter to Mr. Trump, Chairman Thompson and Vice Chair Cheney underscored his central role in a deliberate, orchestrated effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of presidential power, a matter central to the committee’s investigation as it reviews the facts and considers recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the violence of January 6th.
Those who wish to read the subpœna and its accompanying letter can do so here [PDF].
Comments
Gramps, is there supposed to be a "who" between "out" and "supposedly" there?
The consequences of that depend on whether the country is friendly to the U.S. (France, U.K.), an adversary (Russia, China, North Korea), or somewhere in between (India, Pakistan, Israel). A source in an American ally probably risks loss of career and/or imprisonment. A source in an American adversary probably risks torture and/or execution.
Yes, I have to stop typing messages at midnight.
Showing off. Same reason he has gold-plated everything.
In other news a special master to review the documents has been agreed to by both the fed and Trump lawyers. Justice Raymond Dearie is a senior federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, which covers Brooklyn and Long Island. He served a rotation on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, an arm of the federal judiciary that mostly operates in secret because of the sensitive nature of the covert operations and national security interests at stake.
It will be interesting how this might affect the mid terms and 2024
Thank you for the correction.
Eight? Surely four, in that as the constitution currently stands, Presidents can be elected for two four year terms - there's nothing that says these should be two successive terms:
I suppose that 'no person shall be elected more than twice' might allow an ex-president to stand for vice-president and then serve as president if the elected president stood down, but I don't think that the constitution has thought of that particular scenario.
It has, actually. The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment states:
At the time the Twelfth Amendment was ratified (1804) "constitutionally ineligible" meant younger than 35 or not a natural born citizen, but the plainest reading of the amendment would incorporate any future bars on the presidency that might be devised to also apply to the vice presidency.
That must logically be true. A vice president is there to take over if the president dies or is taken ill etc. but they can't if they're ineligible to become president.
<Full disclosure: my extensive research (Wikipedia) didn't include the 12th amendment until after I'd posted here>
None the less
(a) a vice-president taking over the presidency mid-term hasn't been elected to the presidency, and the 22nd amendment is - as far as I can see - solely concerned with who can be elected to the presidency. And the US currently has a Supreme Court very keen on literal interpretations of the letter of the constitution.
(b) none of this gets us any nearer to understanding where Martin has got 8 years from for his worries if Mr Trump is elected in 2024.
He has hundreds of millions in loans coming due over the next 2 years. He may well find he cannot now refinance them. Lots of banks have a very good reason to say no and little reason to say yes.
Trump probably is technically bankrupt anyway. But now it may well all collapse around him.
Watch this space.
AFZ
No it doesn't. It has a Supreme Court very keen on putting a constitutional-sounding gloss on Fox News talking points. For example, in Shelby County v. Holder [PDF] John Roberts invented a brand new Constitutional principle (the equal sovereign dignitude of the states) to strike down a fifty year old law and effectively write the Fifteenth Amendment out of the Constitution.
I seem to recall that strictures exist on the vice presidential office (and possibly on the Speaker of the House) precisely to avoid the situation where someone in those offices could succeed to the presidency when normally disqualified. I can't recall where those strictures are, though--some act or another. Because of course this same scenario would apply to anybody who attained either VP or Speaker status without being native-born, 35 years old, and so forth and so on. Someone else may recall the exact law.
I'll add though that even if such strictures exist only in my imagination, it would be child's play to slide past the unqualified vice president (or Speaker) and go on to the next qualified person in place.
The Presidential Succession Act specifies successors to the presidency beyond the vice president. It places no restrictions on any of the after-the-vice-president successors. Since these are statutory rather than Constitutional successors it is simply assumed that succession would indeed "slide past" any ineligible people in the line of succession. For example, the Secretary of Energy is listed as being fifteenth in line to succeed to the presidency but Jennifer Granholm is a naturalized citizen rather than a natural born citizen. So in the event that a plane carrying Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Blinken, Janet Yellen, Lloyd Austin, Merrick Garland, and Pete Buttigieg crashes on top of a bus carrying Kamala Harris, Patrick Leahy, Deb Haaland, Tom Vilsack, Gina Raimondo, Marty Walsh, Xavier Becerra, and Marcia Fudge the next president of the United States would be Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, not Ms. Granholm.
For obvious reasons restricting all cabinet positions to people eligible to be president would be an overly onerous requirement for a very low probability event.
Of course, but the financial ramifications that AFZ points out are important. The Trump Org is running out of banks. Most of the big Wall Street banks stopped lending to them something like 10 years ago. Deutsche Bank won't make them new loans. They are down to a much smaller institution headed up by a GOP donor willing to take on the risk of lending to them. They refinanced Trump Tower earlier this year through Axos, an internet-only bank headquartered in San Diego, California which is really slimy - among other things, it backs payday lenders, which are among the lowest of the low. I hope the Trump family finances collapse and take Axos down with them.
The financial ramifications have political ramifications because Trump's brand is built on his supposedly being a successful businessman. His grifting gets harder to do if he's a financial failure.
Another thing is that the NY Attorney General has made criminal referrals to federal prosecutors and the IRS.
I sit corrected. Thank you @Fawkes Cat. So, who could be worse than Trump after another four years?
Tom Cotton. The only thing worse than an incompetent fascist is a competent one.
I dunno, he advocates no quarter be given to the likes of the scum who took the Capitol and those behind them, doesn't he?
YES! He does!
But not to finding them.
The closest we came to this scenario was when Johnson assumed the office after Kennedy's death. Johnson won the next election, but stood down in the lead up to the second election.
Since Trump was elected once, he could be nominated for vice president for vice present provided he has not been found guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor previously, But do you really think he would accept the nod for vice president? Not on your life.
They never should let Trump have a Sharpie.
In other news, the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump's appeal to have the special master review the classified documents found at Mar-A-Lago.
And the new Congress doesn’t take office until January 2023.
You may be right, but it's hard to imagine this particular ex-president turning down a chance to strut his alleged stuff before an audience.
I don't think he is willing to face a hostile committee.
My worry is that if you stick him in an orange jumpsuit how will anyone know he's wearing anything at all?
Oh for the old :killingme: smiley!
What? You think he's orange all over?
(AND you're imagining him with no clothing!!?? Brain bleach please!)
I guess that depends on whether the Department of Justice considers Trump to be like Mark Meadows or more like Steve Bannon. Honestly one of the most corrosive things to American law is the way the rich and well-connected get to treat subpœnas like optional invitations.
Though I was intrigued to see that int he 50s HUAC subpoenaed then former President Truman and he told them to, pretty much, go fuck themselves.
A truer truth was seldom truthed.
You all are evil.
I like you.
An horrific thought.
https://twitter.com/itsjamesherring/status/766558659367178241
You could have put some sort of warning on that.
The judge has also ruled that his imprisonment can wait until he has exhausted his appeals, so Bannon will remain at large for now.
Those who wish to read the subpœna and its accompanying letter can do so here [PDF].