(07-23-2022 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 02:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Eric Holder and Steve Bannon both refused to respond to Congressional subpoenas.

Both did so at a time when the Democrats were in control of the WH, which controls who is in charge of the DOJ.

What is the difference between these two cases?

I heard a former Congressman say that the Biden WH and DOJ would not grant subpoenas for Hunter if the GOP wins the House.

Politics thwarts justice.

I thought Holder responded but didn’t testify. So in one instance you have someone producing docs and providing responses - just not all of them - whereas on the other side you’ve got zilch.

You thought wrong.

Not at all - the article Tanq posted literally points out that I’m correct. Tanq is arguing that failing to fully comply is the same as not complying at all.

Thats not what I said, nor did I argue that.

But that statement you just put forth is equally as valid.

Intentionally not fully complying is equivalent to intentionally not complying at all on any single subpoena. But that is not what you said earlier, nor is that what I noted earlier.

Nor is it the rationale for the differences.

As to your statement, you did note a difference. That is true. It is a stupid and non-germane difference nonetheless in the legal context. But I am glad you are pointing out how correct your astute difference is. Let me add one equally as germane -- Holder's first papers were done on blue paper.

And I suggest you re-read that article as it does not make any legal case for a difference in outcome.

Not following that last sentence for a few reasons.

Are you talking about the article not making a legal case for a difference in outcome between Holder and Bannon? Of course - it was written in 2012.

Are you taking about it not making a legal case for a difference in outcome between Holder not providing any documents vs only some documents? I’m not sure about that as I never argued it did. I referenced the article to point out that Holder and the DOJ provided a lot of documents, which was made to point out that your statement “ Holder refused to turn over documents.” needed some extra context.

I’m also lost at how you’re saying you weren’t arguing that partial compliance is equal to complete non-compliance. You wrote “ Both were complete stonewalls in their own right. Holder refused to comply fully with a subpoena. That is the only germane issue.

It’s not scored as partials over a whole. It’s scored as either THE subpoena was complied with or THE subpoena was not complied with.”