After the sentencing of Trump strategist Steve Bannon to four months behind bars, obvious comparisons were raised with the slew of contempt cases that the Justice Department refused to even submit to grand juries during prior Administrations. The most cited was the contempt case against former Attorney General Eric Holder. That has led to various pundits insisting that there is no such comparison and nothing to see there. In my opinion, they are right to draw distinctions but wrong to dismiss the concern over selective prosecution of contempt cases.
For the record, I previously stated that the House was on solid legal ground in pursuing a contempt charge. He was a private citizen during the critical period under investigation by the J6 Committee and previously testified in other investigations. He also stated shortly before trial that he was in fact willing to testify. His legal position was hopelessly conflicted and incomplete.
Bannon could have simply appeared and refused to testify under the Fifth Amendment. Instead, he took the worse possible course: he defied Congress entirely in the face of a valid subpoena.
Holder was a classic executive privilege claim as the Attorney General advising the President. In that sense, there is a world of difference.
However, Holder (as I have long argued) was clearly in contempt of Congress and abused executive privilege arguments to shield embarrassing details tied to Operation Fast and Furious. While Judge Amy Berman Jackson insisted that contempt was “unnecessary,” Congress had every reason to seek his prosecution in the face of his open defiance.
The Holder case was also only one of such cases scuttled by the Justice Department. There was Lois Lerner, the former IRS official accused of targeting conservative groups and individuals. Again, unlike Bannon, she appeared and then invoked the Fifth Amendment. That is a much better response. However, the House argued that she previously waived the privilege against self-incrimination in earlier testimony before Congress. The Justice Department refused to prosecute.
There was also former top Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who received two subpoenas from then House Chair Jason Chaffetz and defied them both. He never appeared. While he had an immunity agreement with the Justice Department (which was also controversial), the subpoenas were separate from that agreement.
I have long been critical of the Justice Department in its refusals to prosecute Executive Branch officials for contempt. The Bannon case is certainly distinguishable from past cases, but it still begs the question left from this history of non-prosecution. It is not the Bannon prosecution per se that is troubling but its departure from historical practice at the Justice Department that raises legitimate concerns.
As the CDC has done with its lunatic placement of a dangerous, experimental vaccine on the list for school kids, all the Bannon prosecution and sentencing has done is add more fuel to the argument that the present government is irrational, vicious, autocratic and indifferent to the law and the appearance of fairness.
I agree the present government is autocratic. But so are Republicans. You’ve had your chances, and you’re going to have still more. Learn to be still and bide your time, lest you follow too blindly, as many did on January 6th.
Nothing beats a talking point like criminal charges:
Charlie Crist’s campaign manager was arrested in domestic violence case
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/resigning-charlie-crists-campaign-manager-was-arrested-domestic-violen-rcna53443
follow blindly, much?
“That Pisses Me Off’: Tim Ryan Rips Democratic Consultant’s ‘Bullsh*t’ Suggestion the Party Target College Educated Voters
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/that-pisses-me-off-tim-ryan-rips-democratic-consultants-bullsht-suggestion-the-party-only-target-college-educated-voters/
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
If you dare to look at the whole of the event you may find the intended manipulation of the controller of the HOUSE. There the truevevil lies waiting to be found.
Turley says there is “selective prosecution”, and then attempts to draw comparisons to other situations involving Democrats or Democrat administrations. The reason this attempted comparison just won’t fly is the unprecedented and pre-planned attack on our Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a presidential candidate lost a free and fair election. This was after 60+ lawsuits failed for lack of evidence, efforts to bully state electino officials and Mike Pence failed, and recount after recount failed. It was Trump’s Last Stand, and it would have been bad for anyone to have done this, but for the sitting POTUS to incite people to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore” based on a lie and motivated by his massive ego, it is unforgivable. Congress has the right and obligation to investigate Jan 6th to prevent it from ever happening again, and those who thumb their nose at a legal subpoena like Bannon, deserve punishment to the full extent of the law. There is no comparable situation in our history.
“Congress has the right and obligation to investigate Jan 6th . . .”
That theater of the absurd is not investigating anything. They are trying to create the appearance of a Reichstag fire, to destroy their political opponents and to usurp rights (especially free speech).
No one should be surprised by this obvious political prosecution
I have no idea what will happen with Bannon’s appeals.
But Democrats should be hoping for reversal – November is coming. Turn about is fair play.
Can any committee set up by congress subpoena any citizen for any reason, even though that person has no meaningful relationship to the committees mission under investigation? For example, in Mr. Bannon’s case, he was not involved in the January 6th protest and was no where near DC. Where are the boundaries that a judge should say, this is way beyond what is logical or purposeful?
So please explain. How is it Hillary Clinton just said ” what does it matter now ” and then went home?
I think the attempted coup on January 6th and all connections leading to it make this case a far cry different and more important than the norm from the Justice Department. That said, I agree that Fast & Furious scandal was serious but not equivalent to January 6.
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
You’re not a rambler, you’re an anti-Constitution, anti-American communist who aids and abets the direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution, America and Americans!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Oregon
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, July 24, 2020
18 Arrested, Facing Federal Charges After Weeknight Protests at Federal Courthouse in Portland
Charges include assaulting federal officers, arson, and damaging government property
PORTLAND, Ore.—U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams announced today that 18 people have been arrested and are facing federal charges this week for their roles in recent weeknight protests at the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in Portland. According to court documents, since May 26, 2020, protests in downtown Portland have been followed by nightly criminal activity including assaults on law enforcement officers, destruction of property, looting, arson, and vandalism. The Hatfield Federal Courthouse has been a nightly target of vandalism during evening protests and riots, sustaining extensive damage. U.S. Marshals Service deputies and officers from the Federal Protective Service, Homeland Security Investigations, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection working to protect the courthouse have been subjected to nightly threats and assaults from demonstrators while performing their duties. Five people have been charged for alleged criminal conduct during a protest beginning July 20, 2020 and continuing into the early morning hours of July 21, 2020. Jennifer Kristiansen, 37, is charged with assaulting a federal officer; Zachary Duffly, 45, is charged with creating a disturbance; Wyatt Ash-Milby, 18, is charged with trespassing on federal property; and Caleb Ehlers, 23, and Paul Furst, 22, are charged with failing to comply with a lawful order. Seven people have been charged for alleged criminal conduct during a protest beginning July 21, 2020 and continuing into the early morning hours of July 22, 2020. Jerusalem Callahan, 24, is charged with willfully damaging government property; Joseph Ybarra, 21, is charged with arson; Marnie Sager, 27, and Ella Miller, 26, are charged failing to comply with a lawful order; and Taylor Lemons, 31; Giovanni Bondurant, 19; and Gabriel Houston, 22, are charged with assaulting federal officers. Six people have been charged for alleged criminal conduct during a protest beginning July 22, 2020 and continuing into the early morning hours of July 23, 2020. Joseph Lagalo, 37; Baily Dreibelbis, 22; Nicholas Kloiber, 26; David Hazan, 24; Hailey Holden, 30; and Cameron Knuetson, age unknown, are charged with failing to comply with a lawful order. All defendants are presumed to be local residents. All 18 defendants have made their first appearances in federal court and were ordered released pending jury trials or other follow-up court proceedings.
But of course it wasn’t an “attempted coup” you liar. It was a riot. And in fact it destroyed the legal process the Republicans were engaged in to try and address their concerns about the election. The riot hurt the cause. As well, none of the things a leader would do throwing a coup occurred. Why do you lie to yourself and others i this way? I know why – cuz it gives you permission to be the hateful thug you always wanted to be in the first place.
It was not even much of a riot.
Protestors were illegally and unconstitutionally locked out of the capital.
They were angry, the Capital Police at the West tunnel violated the rules of engagement and used deadly force before they were attacked and a mele broke out.
If I am wrong about that – release ALL the security footage. Make it public, crowdsource reviewing the video to the american public and we can change from media and left wing nut naratives to the actual truth.
And let the chips fall as they lie.
What? Unconstitutionally locked out of the capital? What part of the constitution allows for unfettered public access to Congress while it is in session?
The first amendment – gives us the right to protest, to petition government, to assemble.
SCOTUS long ago found that when Government creates a public forum, that it can not engage in viewpoint discrimination against those that would use that Forum to excercise first amendment rights.
“What part of the constitution allows for unfettered public access to Congress while it is in session?”
Not what I said.
Congress is free to “fetter” access to congress or the capital – but only so long as those “fetters” do not directly or indirectly engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Reasonable limits on the number of people in the capital at one time would not have violated the constitution.
The capital is capable of accommodating 4,000 visitors inside easily at one time – according to the visitors center.
3M visit it ever year – that is about 1400/hr for every hour it is open.
Searching people entering the capital for weapons would not have violated the constitution.
Restricting access to the public portions of the capital would not have violated the constitution.
Closing the capital while congress is in session absolutely violates the constitution.
First and Foremost the capital is the pre-eminent place to petition government.
Next, it is an established public forum for free speech and free assembly.
Then lets close all out government buildings to the public entirely. No one can go in the capital or any capital – no Kavanaugh protests, no george floyd protests,
Lets remove camera’s and reporters from our legislators – we can all learn what they are upto when they publish the legislation.
————
You are clearly ignorant of the First amendment.
YOU MAY NOT ENGAGE IN VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION.
If you allow one group to protest, petition government, to assemble – you MUST allow all.
If you allow Kavanaugh protestors, you MUST allow communists, and nazis, and Election protestors.
Congress is not free to pick and choose who or what issues the people can bring through its doors.
Nor can it say it impose different rules for different viewpoints.
Congress may “fetter” access, but it may not do so by viewpoint.
Whatever fettering it does, must be done consistently.
Which it obviously was not.
If Kavanaugh protestors were allowed into senators offices, cloak rooms, meeting rooms, the senate gallery,
then all protestors must be given the same access.
No matter what Congress was not free to lock their doors to bar ANY protest.
Where in the first amendment does it say “except election protesters” ?
The rights in the first amendment belong to all or to none of us.
I keep using the Kavanaugh protests as an example – because everyone is familiar with them.
But protests take place at the capital every day.
Government is not free to pick and choose which it will allow.
Warforthrwest, if you’re trying to install your unelected leader with violence and death threats that is an attempted takeover (coup). It is also fascistic.
The only recent attempted coup was the collusion delusion.
J6 6th was far Less important than James Hodgkinson- I bet you forgot that
James Hodgkinson shot up the GOP congressional baseball team.
Fast & Furious was a criminal coverup by the Attorney General of the United States.
January 6 was violence resulting from the constitutional right of protestors to petition government being disrupted.
Interestingly – Hodgkinson and Holder both involved the actual use of guns.
J6 did not
Every example Turley cited involved misconduct by someone in government acting in an official capacity.
Bannon was not in government and not acting in an official capacity.
Every example Turley cited involved legitimate constitutional govenrment oversite – a constitutional role of government.
Nothing that the J6 committee has done involved govenrment oversight – or they would be calling govenrment witnesses to report on the actions of govenrment. Not private individuals engaged in priviate conduct.
If there had been an actual coup attempt on J6 – that would be the domain of the DOJ to investigate and prosecute – not congress.
Congress is not a criminal investigative body.
I expect that those like you will be shouting that at the top of your lungs after November.
Given your own malfeasant conduct now – why do you expect anyone to care when you are lecturing us all about the legitimate roll of congress.
This is where you (‘kidrambler’and the woke ‘pundits’ are wrong.. it was never ‘an attempted’ coup’ or ‘insurrection’.. you can hardly call the extremist groups an army acting under official orders representing a country.. they only represented themselves…. much like BLM, who, btw, also had activists there causing a lot of damage… It was a riot – regardless of how much tear gas the Capitol Police threw into the crowd (which caused all those smokey photos. ) https://thedcpatriot.com/breaking-doj-charges-blm-supporter-who-allegedly-stormed-capitol-instigated-trump-supporters/.
18th hole, an army is a group of persons fighting for a central cause. It doesn’t have to be an existing national force. Example: 1776
However, it was led by two organizations, Oathkeepers and Proud Boys. Recall the commander’s order: “Proud Boys, Stand back and stand by!”
The Oathkeepers are on video helping police control the crowd and protecting them. Why do you forget about those videos?
OBEY THE LAW? OBEY WHAT LAW? ASK “CRAZY ABE.”
_________________________________________________
Black Lies Matter et al. are bunches of illegal aliens.
When will the Supreme Court act retroactively by Judicial Review to correct that illegal, unconstitutional aberration.
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln deployed a standing army in America; that army was comprised of illegal aliens who could not become citizens.
On January 1, 1863, this was immigration law:
_____________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
My dear ‘kidrambler..’ there were close to a million people there on the mall walking in protest….. a very small percentage were the extremists who were up at the Capitol where the rioting started… this is very different from 1776 where all who were there were a militia… I saw the tapes of the Mall… most were just ordinary Americans, a lot of families, simply walking on the Mall… as done throughout History in Washington for protests.. some of those protest marches I participated in while in college, for Civil Rights.. but I was never part of the extremists back then who tangled with police, defying barriers, lots of tear gas and arrests…. etc… there are always those fringe elements causing riots, etc.. like Bernie Sanders back then, who got himself arrested………….. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and all other extremists were just a fraction of the people who came to Washington that day………… their stupid extremism does NOT represent the majority who were simply there to protest by walking ‘peacefully and patriotically’ as Trump asked them to do………… All who hated Trump way before that day have zeroed in on the extremists as representing ‘MAGA’ Republicans… simply untrue…Hundreds of Thousands of people there did not buy into that extremism. If you continuje to think otherwise, you are ignoring the truth.
Nothing but a show trial. I’m not swayed or impressed.
When “We the People” come for the National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party don’t be surprised at the level of anger and violence.
Think the storming of the Bastille.
You’re out numbered and out gunned.
Turn about is fair play.
November is coming.
The house can find Garland, Wray, even members of the judiciary in contempt and just have the house sargent of Arms jail them until they clear the contempt.
If you are going to play fast an loose with the rules – expect others to do that to you.
John Say, was there a law and was the law broken by Bannon? Yes and yes. There is no fast and loose. And the fact that you incite vengeful retaliation when GOP has control again, merely demonstrates your willingness to play fast and loose. And the slow moving coup by conservatives continues on.
“John Say, was there a law and was the law broken by Bannon? Yes and yes.”
In the context of the J6 committee what law was broken?
Was Bannon convicted of breaking a law in the courts? Congress didn’t convict him. Get over it. Bannon got what you or I would have gotten if we did what he did. A black Bannon probably would have gotten two years. He should count his blessings (aka privilege).
Why do the other law breakers not get prosecuted? All the liars before Congress? Those held in contempt? The law is swift in only one direction. THAT’s the point.
Is the Rule of Law applied consistently? Equally? Or at all for Democrats? Clearly, demonstrably the answer is: no.
In the context of the J6 committee what law was broken?
You sidestepped that question. Why? Because you have no answers except the quick ones that are untrue and do not involve critical thinking skills.
This is going to an appeals court. Why? Because You can’t figure out what Bannon did that was illegal, and neither will the appeals court.
Help everyone out. In the context of the J6 committee what law was broken?
Bannon was improperly charged and brought to court.
Neither Congress nor the DOJ have the authority to determine whether a claim of executive priviledge is valid.
Only the courts can do that. And Due Process – the 14th amendment, requires that the claim of executive privildge reach FINAL resolution by the courts BEFORE anyone can be held in contempt.
That did not occur.
That is a violation of due process and the rule of law.
You disagree – fine, When the GOP takes over congress after November they can just start issuing contempt citations without any basis at all.
And the house sargent of arms can hold democrats in the capital for as long as republicans wish.
You really do not seem to grasp that we follow due process, and the rule of law to avoid this idiotic lawless tit for tat.
But if that is how you wish to play the game – remember “turn about is fair play”
You do not seem to grasp there is not one set of rules for democrats and a different one for republicans.
Nor do you grasp that what rights you allow those you hate are the most you should expect yourself.
No bannon did not get what you or I would have gotten. No one has ever been prosecuted for contempt of congress before.
Nor has congress ever held anyone in contempt until the courts have determined that no claims of privilege they have raised were valid.
Nor has to my knowledge a private person ever been held in contempt of congress.
Holder was held in contempt for a complete refusal to provide the House with Fast and Furious documents.
Holder claimed executive priviledge.
The courts rejected the priviledge claim.
Louis Lerhner was held in contempt for refusing to testify.
DOJ refused to prosecute either.
Both were government employees and subject to congressional oversight.
Congress is not law enforcement.
They are not a court.
They have no investigative power – except over government.
They have no direct power over private actors.
Bannon has CORRECTLY stated the law – Executive priviledge is NOT within his power to waive personally.
Anymore than, a lawyer can decide to testify about communications with his client.
Privilege can only be waived by the party holding the privildge – the lawyers client or Trump.
Priviledge can only be rejected by order of a court.
Bannon has said that he would respect an actual order of a court determining that executive priviledge did not bar him from testifying.
Battles over executive priviledge occur between congress and the WH all the time.
Congress can not overcome a claim of executive priviledge without going to court.
They rarely do.
They did not with Bannon.
As I said before – short circuiting the process – as the J6 comittee and DOJ did, and as Democrats have been doing in congress for the past 4 years, is unconstitutional.
You can pretend otherwise – but all that means is Republicans can play by those same new rules come november.
Biden has already refused to cooperate with congress claiming executive priviledge many times in the past two years.
Republicans can jump straight to holding administration officials in contempt and having the sargent at arms hold them in jail until they clear the contempt.
If you play fast and lose with the rules, you will have to live without the protection of those rules.
Bannon has already told Republicans not to waste time on him – he expects to win on apeal, and I would be very surprised if he does not.
Republicans should focus on doing to democrats in 2023 exactly what democrats have been doing these past 4 years – albeit without going quite so far outside the law.
He ignored a valid subpoena by the committee. It IS considered a punishable offense to defy an congressional subpoena and once contempt of congress charges are filed the DOJ can prosecute and once the the individual indeed was guilty of such a violation the LAW allows for prison time or fines. THAT law.
“He ignored a valid subpoena by the committee. “
Was the committee valid? Did that committee, the way it was constituted, have the proper authority? Were Bannon’s objections taken into account? I believe he responded with a willingness to testify and wanted his testimony in public. There are a lot of questions surrounding his conviction since not all information was permitted at his trial.
“ Was the committee valid? Did that committee, the way it was constituted, have the proper authority? ”
Yes, and yes. What says they were not valid or had proper authority.
“ I believe he responded with a willingness to testify and wanted his testimony in public.”
Originally he was willing to testify, BUT he then reneged on that and was subsequently subpoenaed and he ignored that subpoena. He was found in contempt of congress and referred to the DOJ for prosecution as is the law. The DOJ filed charges and was found guilty. That resulted in being sentenced to jail time.
What matters is that he defied the subpoena and as Turley noted, it was a stupid decision.
You have made statements that are unverified. Based on experience, you are wrong.
Was the J6 going to allow him to testify publically?
Is the J6 valid based on its composition?
Does the J6 have the right to declare a private person in contempt?
Did the committee exceed the limits of its powers?
The motives of those on the J6 are heavily questioned.
All of these things are open to question. Next step the court of appeals.
Not true and not how it works.
We discussed this in the context of the Trump subpoena’s
Congress can subpoena whatever it want.
It does not have the power to adjudicate the merits of or enforce its own subpoena.
This is universally true throughout our legal system.
Even warrants – can not be issued unilaterally by the police.
Actual contempt of congress can not occur until a court has reviewed all challenges to a subpeona and rejected them.
The party issuing the subpeona has the duty to go to court to enforce the subpeona.
The J6 committee completely skipped that.
This is important. Our courts are flawed. They make biased decisions.
But our govenrment fails LESS, when the demands of congress, lawyers, law enforcement are reviewed by courts – even bad ones.
“ Congress can subpoena whatever it want.
It does not have the power to adjudicate the merits of or enforce its own subpoena.”
Correct, however it CAN refer to the DOJ that Bannon is in contempt of congress and the DOJ decides whether to charge him or not. In this case they did. The next step was going to court to allow him to defend himself. Obviously he lost and the penalty for the charge is jail time or a fine.
“ An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena
may be cited for contempt of Congress. Eastland v. United States
Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975). Although the Constitution does
not expressly grant Congress the power to punish witnesses for
contempt, that power has been deemed an inherent attribute of the
legislative authority of Congress (Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204
(1821)) so far as necessary to preserve and exercise the legislative
authority expressly granted (Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917)).
However, as a power of self-preservation, a means and not an end, the
power does not extend to infliction of punishment. Manual
Sec. Sec. 294-296.
To supplement this inherent power, Congress in 1857 adopted an
alternative statutory contempt procedure. Sec. 2, infra. Thus, the
House may either (1) certify a recalcitrant witness to the appropriate
United States Attorney for possible indictment under this statute or
(2) exercise its inherent power to commit for contempt by detaining
the witness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.”
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htm
“however it CAN refer to the DOJ that Bannon is in contempt of congress and the DOJ decides whether to charge him or not.”
Nope,
There is no contempt until Congress has gone to court to attempt to enforce a subpeona and won.
“In this case they did.”
Correct – in violation of due process.
Sentence first verdict later
“The next step was going to court to allow him to defend himself.”
Nope, you can not game the system by re-arranging the order.
You really do not get subpeona’s and separation of powers.
NO subpeona has actual force until a court says it does.
Congress can subpeona anything they want.
Prosecutors can subpeona whatever they want.
In civil court cases the parties can subpeona whatever they want.
There is no penalty for violating a subpeona until a COURT says they subpeona has been violated.
Those issuing subpeona’s do NOT have the power or authority to establish the legitamacy of their own subpeona’s.
That alone is a massive violation of due process.
Imagine – I sue you for some stupid reason.
Then I go into court and ask the clerk of courts for half a dozen subpeona’s.
Now I fill them out subpeoning you, all your records, and everyone you know and their records.
Are you in contempt if you do not comply ?
I would note that you do not have to be an attorney to file a lawsuit.
You do not have to be an attorney to issue a subpeona.
We have developed the rules of due process to address this stuff because we have had a couple of thousand years to figure out how to make things work with the least problems.
You cite sections of law as if they support your claims – yet they do not.
Nothing in the section you cited, addresses the limits of subpeona’s.
In svelaz world congressional subpoena power is infinite, and is unreviewable.
Yet, you should know better. In the real world large numbers of congressional subpeona’s just die.
Republicans in congress have been subpeonaing the crap out of DOJ for the past year.
DOJ has completely refused to comply with any of these.
Yet in the world as you see it Garland should be being held by the house Sargent of arms as we speak.
He has defied a congressional subpeona.
The fact – as evidenced by the very case you cite is that congressional subpeona’s are reviewable by the courts.
IN fact ALL subpeona;s are reviewable by the courts, and no subpeona is actually enforceable until a court says so.
But you go with your interpretation.
I do not want to hear about it from you if congressional republicans subpeona Garland, he claims executive privilege
and Jordan has the house sargent of Arms haul him off to a cell in the capital.
Aparently the only way idiots like you can learn due process is to be victims of your own abuse of it.
Just to be clear – not only are you wrong in your understanding of the full process of enforcing a subpeona.
But unless you are an idiot, you would not want to be right.
You shoudl be praying that the courts toss Bannon’s conviction.
Because if they do not Congressional republicans will have an incredibly powerful weapon come 2023.
I would ask in your model of how a congressional subpoena works – what prevents congress from subpoenaing privileged material ?
What prevents congressional republicans from subpoenaing Garland, finding him in contempt when he refuses to answer some question, or fails to provide some document, and having the Sargent at arms haul him away ?
Your model has no requirement that there is a relevant purpose to what is subpoena’d.
Your model leaves determining whether something is privileged to the congress.
Bannon’s crime was helping Trump defeat Clinton in 2016.
KR – whether you like it or not conservatives will ultimately win the larger battle.
As I posted to Svelaz – that is inevitable. That is inherently in the ideology of the left.
The core to progressivism is more – more government, more government doing things.
Government is inherently the least efficient way to do anything – so that will pose your first problem.
In addition there are no steps forward that will ever have universal support.
That inherently means the more you do they more opposition you create.
And finally – whether it is free markets or worse still government new ideas fail far more often than they succeed.
While that does not inherently mean everything progressives do is failure.
It does mean that most things progressives do will fail.
And that will lead to a cycle back to conservatism.
In a correctly functioning world progressives would secure power they would do several things, most would fail,
conservatives would take power and reverse the failures, and we would repeat slowly over time.
But the bigger progressivism goes the larger the failure, the harder the backlash.
And the more dangerous that backlash is.
We end up with authoritarain government as a consequence of big progressive failure.
Sometimes the response of progressives to failure – like now is to double down on authoritarianism.
Right now in Biden we have everything the left accused Trump of.
An out of control authoritarian who is demented and failing all over the place and responds to failure
by demanding more power and blaming others.
Regardless, large scale progressive failure as we are seeing now often leads to either left or right authoritarianism.
Or one followed by the other.
You rant about republicans seeking vengence when they gain power – but that is exactly what you have done.
Everyone that Biden, DOJ, FBI Democrats are targeting is clear political vengence.
Whether it is Navaro and Bannon, or Trump, or pro-life protestors, or parents upset with the nonsense you are teaching their kids – your actions are vengeful.
You do not make your arguments and persuade people. You silence those that oppose you – by force criminally if necescary.
I have not paid much attention to the J6 committee – they are not entitled to attention.
But I have heard all the so called bombshells. Most of which proved false.
But even if they HAD proven true, in the end what the committee is targeting, what DOJ is targeting is politics you do not like.
There was no insurrection on J6, there was just a broad disorganized conspiracy to take every single constitutionally permissible step to challenge the 2020 election. That is called politics. Clinton did the same in 2016 – Worse she tried to sabatoage Trump AFTER he got elected.
The criminal corruption – was inside the DOJ/FBI. It is immoral for Clinton to do as she did. But it was neither illegal or unconstitutional.
You can dislike the fact that Trump challenged the 2020 Election ever possible way. You can beleive that is immoral or unethical.
You can be terrified that he might have succeeded.
But he was constitutionally and legally free to do so.
“ Everyone that Biden, DOJ, FBI Democrats are targeting is clear political vengence.
Whether it is Navaro and Bannon, or Trump, or pro-life protestors, or parents upset with the nonsense you are teaching their kids – your actions are vengeful.”
No, they are teaching kids that actions have consequences and those breaking the law are held accountable.
“ But even if they HAD proven true, in the end what the committee is targeting, what DOJ is targeting is politics you do not like.”
Nope, what they are targeting is people breaking the law and undermining democracy by abusing their authority. It’s not mere politics. It’s being held accountable.
“ There was no insurrection on J6, there was just a broad disorganized conspiracy to take every single constitutionally permissible step to challenge the 2020 election. That is called politics.”
Nope. It was an organized attempt at disrupting a legitimate function of congress by using false claims of election fraud and illegally changing slates of electors. Even Trump trying to force his VP Mike Pence to unconstitutionally and unilaterally declare state results invalid. The oath keepers and the proud boys have already been found guilty of sedition under Trump’s own rules.
Trump can challenge the vote, sure. But when he resorted to lying about it and conspiring to overturn it under false pretense then it becomes an issue of criminality and a violation of his oath of office.
The party that conducted the most lawless election in the past 150 years is ranting that breaking laws has consequences ?
What consequences were there for election lawlessness ?
What “rule of law” are you upholding by targeting parents whose daughters were raped by MTF TG in the girls room ?
How are you teaching that breaking the law has consequences – when protesting in front of Judges homes violates two federal laws, but no one is arested, yet a sit in at an abortiuon clinic – which several courts found was not a crime, resulted in multiple SWAT teams arrests over a law that is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment ?
How is it that you are teaching lawfulness when the president ignores the law and the constitution and wipes out 1/2 Trillion in debt magically ?
Even Pelosi said that was unconstitutional.
Svelaz, it is self evident to the entire world that the only law that you and democrats recognize is that of power.
You keep saying “false claims” over and over as if that somehow is true or matters.
It is neither.
Whether you like it or not free speech includes the right to lie, to be wrong. or most importantly to be right when YOU are wrong.
Your belief that the election was lawful – which is OBVIOUSLY was not, that it was not fraudulent – which it obviously was,
does not alter the fact that others are free to disagree and to act legally or constitutionally on their views.
As I have noted repeatedly – Hillary Clinton CONTINUES to claim that Russian influence cost her the 2016 election.
Anyone that still beleives that is a moron.
Clinton used that claim to get electors to change their votes – and several did. and several congressmen challenged certifying the electoral vote.
The so called Eastman plan which was never implimnted was actually Drafted By Lawrence Tribe for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
I did not hear you trying to Jail Hillary in 2017 ?
I did not hear anyone trying to charge sedition for the Clinton Pussy Hat protestors who committed violence and Arson in 2017 ?
The rule of law REQUIRES applying the law blindly.
Clinton;s conduct was repugnant – it was not illegal. Nor was Trump’s. Nor were those associated with Trump.
You impeached Trump for seeking a legitimate investigation of a political rival. Not once in that impeachment did you inquire as to whether there was justification for that investigation.
Yet here is Biden arresting political rivals all over the place – and only now do you think that Fraudulent claims of actual lawlessness change conduct YOU thought was impeachable into perfectly acceptable – sorry, too late.
You have a massive problem brewing. You have politicized pretty much everything – but especially law enforcement.
No one is going to be standing up for you when Republicans come after you.
You do not seem to grasp how easy you have made it to “do unto you, what you have done unto others”.
“ The house can find Garland, Wray, even members of the judiciary in contempt and just have the house sargent of Arms jail them until they clear the contempt.”
Contempt for what? You’ve said yourself that the house can’’t criminally investigate. What exactly are they going to investigate that is not criminal? Haven’t you been saying that congress cannot investigate anything for any reason?
“Contempt for what? ”
Whatever they want. That is the point. YOU have disconnected contempt from any actual meaning. – expect to reap what you have sewn.
“You’ve said yourself that the house can’’t criminally investigate.”
And yet, they have. So why do you presume that republicans can not do as Democrats have ?
You do not seem to grasp – you have two choices – either I am right – and the J6 committee is a massive unconstitutional overreach,
or I am wrong – and Republicans in power will do the same.
“What exactly are they going to investigate that is not criminal?”
Whatever they want.
That is the consequence that follows democrats rejecting the constitutional constraints to congressional investigation.
“Haven’t you been saying that congress cannot investigate anything for any reason?”
I would prefer you quote me – because your paraphrases are inaccurate.
Regardless, it is self evident I have lost the debate regarding the limits of congresses investigative powers.
The J6 committee is prof of that.
I have also lost the debate over due process regarding congressional hearings – the Bannon conviction is proof of that.
Republicans will not be subject to constitutional constraints that did not bind democrats.
Do not blame me when your own poor choices bite you in the ass.
You first. Next time the Capital Police and DC Police will have the proper “tools.”
What in the world are you talking about ?
What “tools” are you planning for the next protest ?
Machine Gun nests ?
Tanks ?
Are you going to send A-10’s in to straffe protestors ?
We had violent left wing nut protestors through the summer of 2020.
How many protestors were shot by Police ?
I imagine you support the Chinese using tanks at Tianamen Sq ?
Or the violent crushing of protests in in Hong Kong ?
Or what the Ayatolah’s are doing in Iran right now ?
Bull Conner was a democrat.
“ How many protestors were shot by Police ?”
A lot of them. Shooting people with rubber bullets is still shooting people. More people were shot during the 2020 protests than at J6. The only difference is that people were shot with rubber bullets and severely injured. Getting shot is getting shot regardless of the weapon.
How many protestors were killed by police?
None, but they were still shot and badly injured. Many were arrested and beaten by police.
In the J6 insurrection/riot one person died by getting shot when she stupidly forced he way into a secure area manned by armed police. She disobeyed commands and she got shot like everyone who disobeys commands from law enforcement.
How many protestors were killed by police?
Svelaz answers none. Then he says one person died by getting shot. This guy doesn’t remember what he says from one sentence to the next. Intelligence is not his strong point.
Boyland was on the ground and beaten by a black policewoman with a baton or stick. Boyland died a short time afterward. 2 protestors died but evidence shows the deaths might have been caused by a percussion grenade shot by police into a crowd a distance away from the Capitol Building.
—
“she got shot like everyone who disobeys commands from law enforcement.”
You make Mao proud. If you go 70mph in a 65mph zone, the police have a right to shoot you. That is known as Svelaz Logic, or logic that makes no sense.
Svelaz, Thanksgiving is coming so you better hide.
You are going to be shot.
You have a choice – rubber bullet or lead one.
Which do you choose ?
I am pretty sure that 100% of the time people pick rubber bullets.
Socialist, huh? Why would you bring economics into this? Jesus explained by our words our heart is exposed. This is all about Wall Street. I said it January 6th when during the riot wall st banks precariously stated they wouldn’t process donations for any congressman involved in this for three months. They realized they bit the hands that feed them. They got away with getting George W. Bush anointed by the US Supreme Court after creating a fake riot about hanging chads. They were trying it again because they love the tax cuts Republicans give them. Democrats give tax cuts too but not as much because they’ll throw the little people a bone once in a while. Wall Street hates that. Wall Street seethes for every dollar spent which they don’t receive. Since Nixon Republicans have been giving away the bank to Wall Street thru privatization of government programs. And Bill Clinton & Barack Obama continued in those tracks, weakening the nation further. Our schools aren’t performing because reduced funding them in order to give $$ to charter schools. Despite 9/11 happening our hospitals were unequipped to handle the worldwide pandemic because we sent manufacturing overseas; also because we falsely bought into businesses can handle it better. When 9/11 hit my city had 3 trauma centers. Now we have one and a half. Where’s the leadership? There is none in either party. Both parties voted to give Ukraine & NATO more weapons, but they won’t give their own constituents a livable wage, healthcare or education (all things our NATO Allies give their people).
Prophecies in the Bible book of Daniel, confirmed by Jesus’ gospel, and Revelation foretold their demise and how and why it would happen. I’m just gonna sit back and watch it obliterate itself, all for the love of money.
A lot of misinformation.
” Our schools aren’t performing because reduced funding them in order to give $$ to charter schools. “
Take NYC. Charter schools are paid less per student than the public schools, yet the children in the NYC charter schools are more proficient in math and English than in the public schools. How do you account for that, or do you prefer to fertilize misinformation?
I attended a friends child’s graduation at charter school. The graduating class sang with a song being played on a boom box. Remember those? The music teacher said their singing along accounted for 50% of their final grade.
All things aren’t equal.
You had an anecdotal experience and from that you draw conclusions. That is a pretty foolish way to draw a conclusion, especially when there is excellent information available based on tangible scientific results. Why are you acting shallow?
You tell me what is wrong with the following statement. In NYC charter schools had a tremendous positive effect on math and English proficiency. The results were tabulated based on NYS standardized testing system. No singing along interfered with the results.
I will provide one example from hundreds many better and some worse.
Well below proficiency 28 public 7 charter
Below proficient 37 public 19 charter
Proficient 33 public 68 charter
Above proficient 1 public 7 charter
These were near identical populations, chosen randomly, in the exact same buildings, from the same population groups. This blows what you say out of the water.
It is the leftist type of thinking that is keeping the poor minorities in the ghetto generation after generation.
Strictly speaking regarding the law, Professor Turley is correct in his declaration that Bannon should have plead the fifth. However pleading the fifth is the easy way out. Bannon instead took the course of civil disobedience. Henry David Thoreau wrote that if one is willing to go against the government one must also be willing to pay the price. Steve Bannon has stated that he is willing to go to jail and will not back down from his position. So the dilemma Bannon is faced with is whether he should take the cowards way out or if he should stand firm where he stands. Professor Turley is correct in his advice to take the fifth in the strictest sense but I am sure that he would agree that a man must first follow his conscience. “Is life so dear or piece so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. As for me give me liberty or give me death.” Thank you Mr. Patrick Henry. Thank you Mr Steve Bannon.
There are other issues here.
Bannon claimed priviledge. The J6 committee could have challenged the priviledge claim in court.
If they lost this would have been over.
If they won Bannon could have appealed.
Eventually either Bannon would have won or lost, but the priviledge matter would have been resolved.
Instead the cited Bannon for Contempt, and then tried him on that. Then the priviledge matter was adjudicated in the wrong forum – a criminal trial.
This is a massive procedural due process problem.
Both the J6 committee and the DOJ conspired to place anyone who raises a priviledge claim at jephardy of a criminal conviction – even if there is a legitimate privilege claim.
I am NOT in favor of executive priviledge. I beleive it should be very limited. But broad of narrow neither congress nor DOJ get to unilaterally determine what is a valid claim of priviledge. Nor can the J6 committee, DOJ or the courts put a person in a position where they must risk going to jail to claim a priviledge that the courts may or may not recognize.
But then the J6 committee is an illegal and unconstitutional star chamber trial.
Further Bannon did not actually have the right to plead the 5th.
Bannon’s claim is not that his testimony might violate his right to self incrimination.
But that it violated executive priviledge.
There is no d in privilege. FYI. How can a private citizen claim executive privilege? Can I claim it?
First, I oppose all but the narrowest claims of executive privilege.
But what I think are the constraints on executive privilege are irrelevant in this debate.
What is important is that the COURTS decide – not Congress, not DOJ.
I do not think executive priviledge exists int he context of the conversations of Bannon with Trump that the J6 committee is after.
Because they are communications about the 2020 election, they are not privileged because they are between Trump as a candidate and Bannon as an advisor. Not Trump as president.
However, that also means they are outside the domain of congress.
Congress has no power to investigate the conduct of ordinary people.
Regardless, I expect that Bannon would have lost in court on claims of executive privilege.
But losing does not change that due process requires challenging that claim in court BEFORE you can charge contempt.
Do you have executive privilege – no.
Can congress subpoena you to testify about your conversations with your neighbor ?
No.
If the private communications between Trump and Bannon violated the law – they are DOJ’s domain.
If the conversations between Trump and Bannon were government communications – then executive privilege would apply and the courts would have to sort out whether Congress can make Bannon testify.
Congress has legitimate oversight of GOVERNMENT – not of private actors.
You can claim whatever you want.
If you had a conversation with the person who was president, the courts must decide if executive privilege applies.
“ Bannon claimed priviledge. The J6 committee could have challenged the priviledge claim in court.”
There is a big flaw in Bannon’’s claim or executive privilege. He can’t claim it. He’s a private citizen. That is why he can’t go to court on that claim. Even Trump can’t make that claim anymore.
“ I beleive it should be very limited. But broad of narrow neither congress nor DOJ get to unilaterally determine what is a valid claim of priviledge. Nor can the J6 committee, DOJ or the courts put a person in a position where they must risk going to jail to claim a priviledge that the courts may or may not recognize.”
This should be moot. As I pointed out Bannon has no real claim to executive privilege at all. He’s a private citizen and con’t invoke that privilege as a means of defense. That privilege was gone the moment he left his position as government advisor and Biden waived executive privilege on the J6 case so the committee can investigate.
“ But then the J6 committee is an illegal and unconstitutional star chamber trial.”
Oh it’s quite legal and constitutional. Republicans had two opportunities to join once as a commission and second by offering members to the committee that they ended up refusing when Pelosi legally could reject who was put on the committee. That claim of illegality has been debunked a long time ago.
“ Further Bannon did not actually have the right to plead the 5th.
Bannon’s claim is not that his testimony might violate his right to self incrimination.
But that it violated executive priviledge.”
Wrong. Bannon did have the right to plead the 5th. He has the right to remain silent whether he can incriminating himself or not. He could not claim executive privilege as a private individual. That is why he CAN use the 5th to just remain silent. He is required to appear, but not to speak. Turley is correct here.
Executive privilege applies to anyone advising the president – private or not.
You are correct only the president can claim it – and he did.
Bannon has no authority to waive that claim.
The J6 committee has no authority to waive that claim.
The courts do.
Bannon was not obligated to go to court. He did not issue a subpeona he wanted the courts to enforce.
Subpeona’s are not self enforcing. People do not respond to subpeona’s all the time.
The Biden admin has ignored dozens of subpeonas by republicans in the past 2 years.
Subpeona’s are enforced by courts – after listening to arguments from both sides.
Even the DOJ does not have the power to decide the legitimacy of its own subpeona’s.
“This should be moot. As I pointed out Bannon has no real claim to executive privilege at all. He’s a private citizen and con’t invoke that privilege as a means of defense. That privilege was gone the moment he left his position as government advisor and Biden waived executive privilege on the J6 case so the committee can investigate.”
There is pretty much nothing above that is correct.
Executive privilege belongs to the president – just as the lawyer client privilege belongs to the client.
A lawyer can not waive the privilege for a client.
A presidential advisor can not waive privilege for the president.
Like attorney client privilege executive privilege does not go away
Nor can subsequent presidents waive privilege for former ones.
I do not happen to believe that privilege applies – unless Bannon and Trump were discussing acts Trump could take as president.
But the courts must decide that. The J6 committee does not get to decide it on their own.
Nor does DOJ
Nor can we engage in red queen justice – “sentence first, verdict afterward”
If the J6 committee wanted its subpoena enforced they were obligated to go to court to do so.
The J6 committee is quite litterally a star chamber. Your rebutal is wrong and irrelevant.
It is wrong because the house rules do not provide for the speaker of the house to select minority committee members – that is up to the minority leader.
But it is also wrong because it does not matter how the J6 committee came about, it is not a legitimate adversarial process.
But if you wish to pretend otherwise – I am sure republicans will be happy to play by your rules in 2023.
The claim of illegality can not be debunked.
The house of representatives has no constitutional law enforcement power.
Bannon may only assert the 5th if answering a question would tend to incriminate him.
There is a general right to remain silent with the police.
There is no right to silence as a witness under oath.
Only the right to not be a witness against yourself in a criminal case.
You have repeatedly said the J6 hearings are not criminal – otherwise they are unconstitutional.
Therefore Bannon has no right to plead the 5th.
Please read the 5th amendment.
Regardless, Bannon has already said he would be happy to testify if Trump would waive privilege or the courts would waive it.
He can not claim the 5th because he has already claimed there is no crime.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
SHOW TRIAL
A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors.[2]
Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and they are also conducted for propagandistic purposes.[3] When aimed at individuals on the basis of protected classes or characteristics, such trials are examples of political persecution. The term was first recorded in 1928.[4]
– Wiki
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
– Lavrentiy Beria, Chief of the Soviet Secret Police, NKVD, Under Joseph Stalin
“When Bannon was subpoenaed by the J-6 Committee, Trump’s lawyer sent him a letter stating that the president invoked executive privilege and therefore directed him not to testify. Trump holds the privilege, not Bannon. Under law, Bannon cannot waive it or violate it. So, on advice of his own counsel, Bannon declined to testify. It was the correct advice.”
https://thegreggjarrett.com/steve-bannon-has-strong-legal-grounds-to-get-his-j-6-contempt-conviction-tossed/?
Bannon sentenced, Strozk, Paige, Clinesmith, et al boogie. Welcome to third world America.
To be sure:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.
This prosecution is an act of “Dem/ Semi-fascism” that the Democrats have created with their deep state claws and policies. The Press has abetted them in the Dem/Semi-fascism since the Press acts as a propaganda arm for the Dem/Semi fascists and ignored the facts, abdicated any interest in investigative journalism, and consistently lied to the public.
Sorry, Johnathon but you miss the most important distinction of all:
Every person not prosecuted was a public servant whom congress has actual oversight over.
Bannon was NOT.
Criminal investigations are the domain of the Executive not congress.
Government oversight and legislation are the legitimate domain of a congressional committee.
We can debate whether the J6 committee was at all legitimate.
There is no debate that it had no authority to conduct a criminal investigation, and that is what it was doing With Bannon.
As it is near certain that Republicans will take over the house, and in all likelyhood the Senate in a few weeks, and as they have made clear – investigations will be the order of the day.
I expect Republicans to confine their investigations to government oversight, not seeking to investigate the private possibly criminal conduct of democrats.
I do not want Congress conducting Criminal investigations of private individuals – and neither does the constitution.
I do not want congress threatening or subpeonaing private individuals – not even for legitimate legislative purposes.
Congress is increasingly and clearly a political branch of government. That political nature is not dangerous so long as we do not embue congress with direct law enforcement related powers over private individuals.
@ John Say
Your comment asserts an important issue that deserves to be said again:
“…do not embue congress with direct law enforcement related powers over private individuals”.
We do not need tyranny, or its encroachment here.
Thank you.
What is at the center of this is the DoJ and FBI. Which are the same. The FBI is the police, answering to the DoJ.
What we are seeing the is manipulation of the process. In the Russia scam. A criminal investigation never happened. ALL of the spying was carried out as a counter intel investigation. FISA warrants? confidential human sources? Spying on US citizens not suspected of committing any crimes? All of it, the DoJ/FBI circumventing the constitution abusing the patriot act. NONE of it, in the investigation of a crime.
Now the fake Jan 6, kangaroo court, doing exactly the same thing. Violating Constitutional rights that the FBI could not. The FBI could not issue the subpoenas, because there is no crime. No article III judge would issue a subpoena, because there is not sufficient evidence. But the DoJ can follow up on a criminal referral from Congress that does not have the go through an Article III judge to fish about for incriminating(not criminal) information.
All this just documents, Democrats will do literally anything to get and retain power.
Obviously you were sleeping when the Mueller investigation said they were functioning under the OLC guidelines that a sitting president couldn’t be charged. And, even then, the Mueller report detailed multiple instances of obstruction…
And, oddly enough, Trump carried on with obstruction throughout his term. Add to that Conspiracy, racketeering, and espionage. Witness tampering and attempted election rigging as well. In his private life running parallel to his crimes in office: tax and insurance fraud.
That is why the FBI lied about the four FISA requests. That is why Mueller skipped looking into those things that proved all the claims were BS.
Let’s hear you provide facts instead of your typical meaningless generalities.
Steve Bannon was a no show because he didn’t like the optics of taking the Fifth Amendment, his attorney David Schoen commented [1].
[1] https://nypost.com/2022/10/22/steve-bannon-snubbed-subpoena-because-he-doesnt-like-the-optic-of-taking-the-fifth/
You presume that is what he would have done.
And you admit in what you are saying that the J6 committee was engaged in a criminal investigation which is not a legitimate power of congress.
If DOJ beleived that a single J6 witness prior to the hearings had committed a crime, they could interview them indict them and prossecute them.
They certainly have no problems with political prosecutions of the parents of school children or with prosecuting pro-life protestors or with the heinously biased prosecutions of J6 protestors – why would anyone beleive that DOJ would not go after Bannon if it had the slightest evidence of an actual crime.
The openly admitted purpose of the J6 hearings is to beuild a case to force DOJ to prosecute criminally conduct that is legal.
John, thanks to be a true patriot and be real stalwart!
Please accept my deep apology that I didn’t link my comment to Professor Turley’s statement:
“Bannon could have simply appeared and refused to testify under the Fifth Amendment. Instead, he took the worse possible course: he defied Congress entirely in the face of a valid subpoena.”
Two weeks prior to midterms, I am looking forward of the outcome. The result will tell us (again) in which direction our great country SHOULD be runned as they did ’16. Two years later, the electorate send their report card to GOP to tell them about their gratification.
What did then Speaker Ryan & Majority Leader McConnel do during 115th congress tenure?
SS that I didn’t meet your expectations to devote my time to coments on “comparisons were raised with the slew of contempt cases that the Justice Department refused to even submit to grand juries during prior Administrations.”
God Bless America!
As I have said before, this is now life in Doublestandardstan. I believe that the double standard is what is driving many Republicans and thoughtful Independents to vote against the Democrats this session.
The Democrats keep screeching, and I do mean screeching, about the threat to democracy, but the threat is coming from “inside the house”, to quote a movie. The Democrat’s DOJ is going after people protesting at abortion clinics…WITH SWAT TEAMS, as they ignore fire bombs at pro-life centers. Think of the difference between marching at a Planned Parenthood clinic vs blocking a highway, burning a federal courthouse or even looting a CVS. Think about how the J6 defendants are being handled vs how the “protesters” that burned the church across from the White House, injured SS agents and forced the president into the bunker were treated. I have no issue prosecuting the idiots from J6, if only they would prosecute the people from May, 2020.
The threat to Democracy from the left includes the politicizing of the DOJ, as cited above, packing the Court, trying to add two new states, federalizing elections, opening up the border, mailing ballots to everyone regardless of if they requested one, having the president ban evictions of people not paying rent, having the president hand out over THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to a favored group with no input from Congress, having the president forcing an Iranian deal that won’t be ratified by the Senate, having the DOJ ignore corruption by the Bidens and not having a special prosecutor.
The left/media likes to cite the fact that a high % of people think that there is a threat to Democracy but what they fail to understand that many people included in that % are on the right and they think the threat is from the Democrats. AND IT IS.
hullbobby…..LOVE “Doublestandardstan”! LOL It’s perferct.
DOJ might maintain what little credibility it had if it explained the legal reasons for what appears to be selective prosecution. (There really is no “what appears.” I’m just trying to hold on to the last ounce of faith I have in them.)
The DOJ doesn’t want to share the (D)ifference between Bannon and Hol(D)er.
Just where did Congress get the idea that it could hold American citizens in contempt? This is supposed to be a pluralistic society but parties have developed power along their own lines. Chances are, this committee is on the verge of disappearance. This is a purely political move in which the DOJ should have never been involved. Incidentally, the DOJ is a relic of Reconstruction when Grant set it up to help his party in the South.
Does the Professor not see the trend….Democrats elude prosecution…..not so a Republican especially one connected to Trump in some way.
That is what the Professor skated around.
If we are to indict the DOJ for failing or refusing to prosecute Executive Branch Officials for Contempt of Congress offenses….we should look to the motive and state of mind. of those making those decisions and demand display of the Decision Memo’s and all supporting documentation, texts, voice mails, and notes of meetings and discussions so we can discern who and how they played out.
This seeing criminal violations go unprotected for those working at higher levels of the Federal Government while ordinary folks rot in jail awaiting a Trial on their charges is undermining the trust of the People in the Federal Judicial System.
We have to dispense with civil liberties to SAVE DEMOCRACY!
After all, Equal Justice under Law is just a suggestion.
I am in total contempt of Congress in general and the J6 Star Chamber in particular.