The Biden Department of Justice

[seacoaster]

January 6 Committee and Bannon. Note that Cooper is a leading conservative lawyer. See below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

"The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol sent Stephen K. Bannon’s lawyer a stern letter Friday informing him that the panel rejected his arguments for failing to cooperate — and would likely proceed to vote on holding the adviser to former president Donald Trump in contempt of Congress.

Bannon has said that he should not have to comply with a subpoena from the panel because Trump is asserting executive privilege to shield his activities and those of his aides and allies from congressional scrutiny.

“The Select Committee believes that this willful refusal to comply with the Subpoena constitutes a violation of federal law,” Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) wrote in a previously undisclosed letter sent Friday to Bannon’s lawyer, Robert Costello.

The emphatic tone of the letter and legal arguments it lays out underscore the committee’s desire to move quickly and aggressively to combat any attempts to slow down or scuttle its investigation. The panel is scheduled to meet Tuesday evening to vote on the contempt charge against Bannon, which it is expected to approve, and it is possiblethe vote could be taken up by the full House as early as this week. The matter would then go to the Justice Department.

Costello did not respond to a request for comment.

Jan. 6 committee will move to hold former Trump aide Bannon in criminal contempt for not complying with subpoena

The committee’s move to hold Bannon in criminal contempt has already sparked a debate among legal experts about whether its aggressive posture will result in the speedy results panel members said are critical to the success of their inquiry.

Contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor criminal offense that can result in up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Criminal contempt can only be pursued by the Justice Department, setting up potential bureaucratic and legal hurdles. The committee can pursue civil contempt charges without the involvement of the Justice Department but that has historically produced substantial delays.

In addition to Bannon, the committee has subpoenaed documents and testimony from other key Trump advisers, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino and Kash Patel, a former national security and Defense Department aide.

Unlike Bannon, committee staff have said the others have “engaged” with the panel and their deadlines for providing information were extended.

In declining to cooperate, Bannon’s lawyer wrote Thompson last week that his client had been contacted by Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, and instructed not to respond to the committee’s demands citing Trump’s claim of executive privilege.

Costello said that until the panel reaches an agreement with Trump or a court instructs Bannon to cooperate, his client “will not be producing documents or testifying.”

Thompson responded harshly to Bannon’s lawyer in the Friday letter as well as in another previously undisclosed letter obtained by The Washington Post sent the previous week.

First, Thompson said “the former president has not communicated any such assertion of privilege,” to the committee. His stated intention to assert privileges “that may or may not belong to him does not provide a legal basis for Mr. Bannon’s refusal to comply” with the subpoena, Thompson wrote in his Oct. 15 letter.

A week earlier in an Oct. 8 letter to Costello, he noted that the subpoena requests information that concerns “Bannon’s actions as a private citizen” regarding topics that are not protected by executive privilege. “Even if your client had been a senior aide to the President during the time period covered by the contemplated testimony, which he was most assuredly not, he is not permitted by law to the type of immunity you suggest that Mr. Trump has requested he assert,” Thompson wrote.

Bannon left his job as a top White House adviser to Trump in 2017.

Biden rejects Trump’s request to withhold documents from House committee investigating Jan. 6 attack

Charles Cooper, who has advised Republican presidential advisers in the past on claiming immunity from congressional inquiries, said Monday that “Bannon’s claim is utterly without merit.”

“He cannot legally defend defiance of a subpoena” in part because he was not an official adviser to the president during the period of time in question, according to Cooper. “The issues here are multilayered,” he said, noting that the authority to invoke executive privilege lies with the incumbent president, not his predecessor.

“The overarching point is that the president’s immunity from congressional subpoena extends only to his closest Oval Office advisers, and Bannon clearly did not qualify at the time of his communications with President Trump about the election,” Cooper said.

However, a Minnesota lawyer observing the case, Marshall Tanick, said Monday that executive privilege is intended “to encourage unfettered communications by the president with others during his time in office. To be effective, it must extent to those senior advisers and confidants with whom he communicates and remain in effect after the term of office ends.”

In his most recent letter, Thompson emphasized that much of the information sought from Bannon was about his discussions of Jan. 6 with members of Congress, Trump campaign officials and “other private parties … that could not conceivably be barred by a privilege claim.”

Bannon’s status as a private citizen and his flat refusal to cooperate made him an obvious target for the committee hoping to set an example for other witnesses, according to legal experts.

“Bannon is in the weakest position to refuse compliance with the subpoena as a private citizen — he has the most tangential claim to being protected by executive privilege,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University who has written about the protection of White House documents and previously argued that Democrats’ impeachment efforts against Trump were a misguided use of congressional power.

Even for former Trump officials, Turley added, “Congress has an advantage in seeking testimony but for private citizens like Bannon, it’s difficult to see a viable legal basis for simply refusing to comply with an otherwise valid subpoena.”

Panel members have made clear they have little patience for anything they view as a stalling tactic or attempt to avoid scrutiny.

“This potential criminal contempt referral — or will-be criminal contempt referral for Steve Bannon — is the first shot over the bow,” said committee member Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday. “It says to anybody else coming in front of the committee, ‘Don’t think that you’re gonna be able to just kind of walk away and we’re gonna forget about you. We’re not.’”

Jan. 6 committee faces unprecedented choice of whether to call Republican lawmakers to testify

In response to a question from a reporter, President Biden said Friday that he hoped the Justice Department would decide to prosecute after receiving the referral. His statement drew criticism from Republicans who argued it showed the investigation was being politicized. The department quickly issued a statement saying it reviews any referral without regard to political pressure.

“The Department of Justice will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop,” Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said in a statement Friday.

While the president and the committee support the idea of moving quickly on a criminal referral, some outside experts are dubious.

“It’s not going to shorten the process. If anything, it’s going to go a long game,” said Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel. “There’s a lot of ways that he goes to trial and he forces the committee or the Department of Justice to prove each and every element of a congressional contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Others noted the panel is facing the potential political deadline of the 2022 midterm elections, after which Democrats could lose control of the House.

Bannon is considered a key witness for the committee because he had conversations with Trump in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 and held a meeting with Trump allies on Jan. 5 at the Willard Hotel. That day, Bannon said on his podcast that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”

Trump has mentioned executive privilege in press comments but only formally asserted it and other privileges earlier this month in attempting to block the National Archives from releasing 45 specific documents requested by the committee.

As a sitting president, Biden controls the invocation of executive privilege. He rejected Trump’s assertion that privilege protected release of the documents. Biden’s White House counsel, Dana Remus, wrote the head of the National Archives that “President Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified as to any of the documents.”

[old salt]

More obfuscation and garbage BS from you and frankly your credibility is shot. No idea if Bannon is under investigation by FBI or DoJ and neither do you. If he were the target of a Grand Jury, those proceedings are SECRET.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Congressional activity is to fact find what led up to and occurred on January 6 and then to develop legislation to prevent a recurrence. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they turn that over to DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

You were thrilled when the Congressional gas bags were Republicans/Benghazi...and is why you have no credibility in this case. Hiding behind that they were government employees is disingenuous at best and it all goes out the window with your gas bag reference as if those Congressional folks were not gas bags during the Benghazi hearings which lasted FOR YEARS. All of the hot air your elected reps expended likely contributed to global warming there was so much of it.

Last time I checked the Teamsters Union was a non-government private entity yet Hoffa was compelled to testify as its leader but also was just a citizen. So were many purported organized crime figures who were all private citizens - many of them plead the 5th (which is their right as well as Bannon's if he were to testify.)

I still maintain the real purpose of the committee is not so much to get Bannon to testify but to send a message to others that they mean business and that those people should not plan on ignoring orders to compel testimony.

The real purpose of the committee in calling Bannon is political theater to discredit Trump enough to deter him from running again.
To generate video clips of Congressional gas bags repeating accusations made in un-sourced tell-all books & get those unproven allegations into the Congressional record.

So now you are comparing Bannon to organized crime figures because of his 1st Amendment political speech & advice to the President.

Again you ignore the fact that the Benghazi witnesses were testifying about what they did as govt employees, not as private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

As a partisan who is also a lawyer I'm not surprised that you applaud weaponizing Congressional oversight to run up massive legal bills for private citizens in these political kangaroo courts.

[seacoaster]

Maybe you should bone up before your usual, GOP-scandal dodging windbaggery:

https://www.cov.com/~/media/files/corpo ... ress_calls

There are two questions: does the subpoena-issuing entity have the power to do so? And does the subpoena target have evidence that is pertinent to the investigation? If the answer is yes, then he or she should comply absent a credible claim of privilege. Here, the privilege doesn't extend to a non-government citizen, and the claim of privilege has been waived by the holder of the privilege, the Office of the POTUS. Bannon is the one performing here; he's the Trey Gowdy in our story. And you are easily the biggest apologist for Bannon that I know. Nice fight to pick. How proud you must be.

[a fan]

More obfuscation and garbage BS from you and frankly your credibility is shot. No idea if Bannon is under investigation by FBI or DoJ and neither do you. If he were the target of a Grand Jury, those proceedings are SECRET.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Congressional activity is to fact find what led up to and occurred on January 6 and then to develop legislation to prevent a recurrence. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they turn that over to DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

You were thrilled when the Congressional gas bags were Republicans/Benghazi...and is why you have no credibility in this case. Hiding behind that they were government employees is disingenuous at best and it all goes out the window with your gas bag reference as if those Congressional folks were not gas bags during the Benghazi hearings which lasted FOR YEARS. All of the hot air your elected reps expended likely contributed to global warming there was so much of it.

Last time I checked the Teamsters Union was a non-government private entity yet Hoffa was compelled to testify as its leader but also was just a citizen. So were many purported organized crime figures who were all private citizens - many of them plead the 5th (which is their right as well as Bannon's if he were to testify.)

I still maintain the real purpose of the committee is not so much to get Bannon to testify but to send a message to others that they mean business and that those people should not plan on ignoring orders to compel testimony.

The real purpose of the committee in calling Bannon is political theater to discredit Trump enough to deter him from running again.
To generate video clips of Congressional gas bags repeating accusations made in un-sourced tell-all books & get those unproven allegations into the Congressional record.

So now you are comparing Bannon to organized crime figures because of his 1st Amendment political speech & advice to the President.

Again you ignore the fact that the Benghazi witnesses were testifying about what they did as govt employees, not as private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

As a partisan who is also a lawyer I'm not surprised that you applaud weaponizing Congressional oversight to run up massive legal bills for private citizens in these political kangaroo courts.

Bannon worked for trump, and then the cause. He’s not some random civilian. Come on.

And even if he was—-how many civilians have testified to Congress in the last year? 100? 200? I don’t get why you think this isn’t ok

[MDlaxfan76]

More obfuscation and garbage BS from you and frankly your credibility is shot. No idea if Bannon is under investigation by FBI or DoJ and neither do you. If he were the target of a Grand Jury, those proceedings are SECRET.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Congressional activity is to fact find what led up to and occurred on January 6 and then to develop legislation to prevent a recurrence. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they turn that over to DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

You were thrilled when the Congressional gas bags were Republicans/Benghazi...and is why you have no credibility in this case. Hiding behind that they were government employees is disingenuous at best and it all goes out the window with your gas bag reference as if those Congressional folks were not gas bags during the Benghazi hearings which lasted FOR YEARS. All of the hot air your elected reps expended likely contributed to global warming there was so much of it.

Last time I checked the Teamsters Union was a non-government private entity yet Hoffa was compelled to testify as its leader but also was just a citizen. So were many purported organized crime figures who were all private citizens - many of them plead the 5th (which is their right as well as Bannon's if he were to testify.)

I still maintain the real purpose of the committee is not so much to get Bannon to testify but to send a message to others that they mean business and that those people should not plan on ignoring orders to compel testimony.

The real purpose of the committee in calling Bannon is political theater to discredit Trump enough to deter him from running again.
To generate video clips of Congressional gas bags repeating accusations made in un-sourced tell-all books & get those unproven allegations into the Congressional record.

So now you are comparing Bannon to organized crime figures because of his 1st Amendment political speech & advice to the President.

Again you ignore the fact that the Benghazi witnesses were testifying about what they did as govt employees, not as private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

As a partisan who is also a lawyer I'm not surprised that you applaud weaponizing Congressional oversight to run up massive legal bills for private citizens in these political kangaroo courts.

Let's be very, very clear, you and I are NOT lawyers. And while I'd certainly trust your distinguishing between different types of coptor rotor blades, when you get anywhere near the law, you flail really, really badly.

As you've done on this topic.
It's been explained to you by both the lawyers on here, and the non-lawyers on here like me, that Congressional subpoenas apply to private citizens if they have a legislative or legislative oversight purpose, which this one of Bannon most assuredly does...indeed Bannon's not asserting otherwise, he's simply claiming a non-existent executive privilege. His assertion is flat wrong on its face, but it's a delay tactic and a grift to raise money.

On your political assessment, no doubt that Dems would like to bury Trump and Trumpism, due their egregious and flagrant abuse of the law and their threat to democracy. Yup, no doubt.

Frankly, I'm not actually sure they wouldn't be better off with Trump as the opponent in 2024, rather than someone with less obvious baggage having really good running room starting soon, but that's up for grabs as a proposition. But I'm 100% in favor of burying Trump and Trumpism, so am just fine with their holding his feet to the fire. I'm far less concerned with the political calculus.

Let's be clear, the Jan 6 Committee is examining an actual Insurrection, an effort to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of the highest power in the country, and the questions of who fomented and perpetrated this act of sedition, and how they did so, are far more serious than why support wasn't sent more swiftly to reach those at Benghazi, or why they were vulnerable in the first place, tragic as that event was.

But Trumpists, and yeah that's you yet again Salty despite all your denials, are only interested in protecting Trump's skin and to be able to revel in the opportunity to ignore the law and to abuse power.

[old salt]

More obfuscation and garbage BS from you and frankly your credibility is shot. No idea if Bannon is under investigation by FBI or DoJ and neither do you. If he were the target of a Grand Jury, those proceedings are SECRET.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Congressional activity is to fact find what led up to and occurred on January 6 and then to develop legislation to prevent a recurrence. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they turn that over to DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

You were thrilled when the Congressional gas bags were Republicans/Benghazi...and is why you have no credibility in this case. Hiding behind that they were government employees is disingenuous at best and it all goes out the window with your gas bag reference as if those Congressional folks were not gas bags during the Benghazi hearings which lasted FOR YEARS. All of the hot air your elected reps expended likely contributed to global warming there was so much of it.

Last time I checked the Teamsters Union was a non-government private entity yet Hoffa was compelled to testify as its leader but also was just a citizen. So were many purported organized crime figures who were all private citizens - many of them plead the 5th (which is their right as well as Bannon's if he were to testify.)

I still maintain the real purpose of the committee is not so much to get Bannon to testify but to send a message to others that they mean business and that those people should not plan on ignoring orders to compel testimony.

The real purpose of the committee in calling Bannon is political theater to discredit Trump enough to deter him from running again.
To generate video clips of Congressional gas bags repeating accusations made in un-sourced tell-all books & get those unproven allegations into the Congressional record.

So now you are comparing Bannon to organized crime figures because of his 1st Amendment political speech & advice to the President.

Again you ignore the fact that the Benghazi witnesses were testifying about what they did as govt employees, not as private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

As a partisan who is also a lawyer I'm not surprised that you applaud weaponizing Congressional oversight to run up massive legal bills for private citizens in these political kangaroo courts.

Bannon worked for trump, and then the cause. He’s not some random civilian. Come on.

And even if he was—-how many civilians have testified to Congress in the last year? 100? 200? I don’t get why you think this isn’t ok

Trump fired Bannon > 3 years before Jan 6th.
It's using Congressional power to stifle political speech & to intimidate private citizens from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
If Congress thinks Bannon did something illegal they should do a criminal referral to the DoJ. Otherwise, it's harassment over political differences & suppression of opposing political soeech.

[old salt]

Let's be clear, the Jan 6 Committee is examining an actual Insurrection, an effort to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of the highest power in the country, and the questions of who fomented and perpetrated this act of sedition, and how they did so, are far more serious than why support wasn't sent more swiftly to reach those at Benghazi, or why they were vulnerable in the first place, tragic as that event was.

But Trumpists, and yeah that's you yet again Salty despite all your denials, are only interested in protecting Trump's skin and to be able to revel in the opportunity to ignore the law and to abuse power.

So get the DoJ to indict Bannon for conspiracy or sedition instead of trying him in a political show trial.

[a fan]

Free speech isnt Unlimited.

You’re ignoring that our halls of governance was breached, and people were killed. If they didn’t do that? No one would care, and bannon and everyone else could shoot their mouths off all they like…..

You can’t set aside that context as if it’s a footnote.

[MDlaxfan76]

Let's be clear, the Jan 6 Committee is examining an actual Insurrection, an effort to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of the highest power in the country, and the questions of who fomented and perpetrated this act of sedition, and how they did so, are far more serious than why support wasn't sent more swiftly to reach those at Benghazi, or why they were vulnerable in the first place, tragic as that event was.

But Trumpists, and yeah that's you yet again Salty despite all your denials, are only interested in protecting Trump's skin and to be able to revel in the opportunity to ignore the law and to abuse power.

So get the DoJ to indict Bannon for conspiracy or sedition instead of trying him in a political show trial.

Ohh, if that's where the evidence leads, I'm 100% for it.

But we don't for a certainty know how complicit, if at all, Bannon was in the sedition, though we do know that sedition occurred.

Could be he knows a lot about who fomented this act and how, or who acted to prevent it, or he might know very little. Either and all would be illuminating and useful to the legislative purpose and legislative oversight. But either way, he needs to provide the documents subpoenaed and he needs to testify, under oath, under pain of perjury.

If he's concerned that his testimony might incriminate him, he has a Constitutional right to take the 5th. But he has to do so in person, under oath.

And no such protection extends to documents, etc.

That's the way our Constitutional system works Salty, like it or leave it.

[Kismet]

More obfuscation and garbage BS from you and frankly your credibility is shot. No idea if Bannon is under investigation by FBI or DoJ and neither do you. If he were the target of a Grand Jury, those proceedings are SECRET.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Congressional activity is to fact find what led up to and occurred on January 6 and then to develop legislation to prevent a recurrence. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they turn that over to DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

You were thrilled when the Congressional gas bags were Republicans/Benghazi...and is why you have no credibility in this case. Hiding behind that they were government employees is disingenuous at best and it all goes out the window with your gas bag reference as if those Congressional folks were not gas bags during the Benghazi hearings which lasted FOR YEARS. All of the hot air your elected reps expended likely contributed to global warming there was so much of it.

Last time I checked the Teamsters Union was a non-government private entity yet Hoffa was compelled to testify as its leader but also was just a citizen. So were many purported organized crime figures who were all private citizens - many of them plead the 5th (which is their right as well as Bannon's if he were to testify.)

I still maintain the real purpose of the committee is not so much to get Bannon to testify but to send a message to others that they mean business and that those people should not plan on ignoring orders to compel testimony.

The real purpose of the committee in calling Bannon is political theater to discredit Trump enough to deter him from running again.
To generate video clips of Congressional gas bags repeating accusations made in un-sourced tell-all books & get those unproven allegations into the Congressional record.

So now you are comparing Bannon to organized crime figures because of his 1st Amendment political speech & advice to the President.

Again you ignore the fact that the Benghazi witnesses were testifying about what they did as govt employees, not as private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

As a partisan who is also a lawyer I'm not surprised that you applaud weaponizing Congressional oversight to run up massive legal bills for private citizens in these political kangaroo courts.

Hilarious - what do you think the gas bag Republicans were doing at the Benghazi hearings which is exactly the type of weaponization you used to support but now hate.

HYPOCRITE Alert!!!!! Again.

You and dirtbag Bannon and former DOPUS deserve one another.

[CU88]

Love how trumpers here think that to cry "fire" in movie theater is protected free speech...

[Farfromgeneva]

Love how trumpers here think that to cry "fire" in movie theater is protected free speech...

Only allowed if it’s this band doing it! (But not
Great white)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8g6h1vI4Xv0

[old salt]

Free speech isnt Unlimited.

You’re ignoring that our halls of governance was breached, and people were killed. If they didn’t do that? No one would care, and bannon and everyone else could shoot their mouths off all they like…..

You can’t set aside that context as if it’s a footnote.

I don't know where you've been the past few years but our halls of governance have been breached all over the country.

1 person was "killed" on Jan 6, & that was justified (imo).

[old salt]

Let's be clear, the Jan 6 Committee is examining an actual Insurrection, an effort to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of the highest power in the country, and the questions of who fomented and perpetrated this act of sedition, and how they did so, are far more serious than why support wasn't sent more swiftly to reach those at Benghazi, or why they were vulnerable in the first place, tragic as that event was.

But Trumpists, and yeah that's you yet again Salty despite all your denials, are only interested in protecting Trump's skin and to be able to revel in the opportunity to ignore the law and to abuse power.

So get the DoJ to indict Bannon for conspiracy or sedition instead of trying him in a political show trial.

Ohh, if that's where the evidence leads, I'm 100% for it.

But we don't for a certainty know how complicit, if at all, Bannon was in the sedition, though we do know that sedition occurred.

Could be he knows a lot about who fomented this act and how, or who acted to prevent it, or he might know very little. Either and all would be illuminating and useful to the legislative purpose and legislative oversight. But either way, he needs to provide the documents subpoenaed and he needs to testify, under oath, under pain of perjury.

If he's concerned that his testimony might incriminate him, he has a Constitutional right to take the 5th. But he has to do so in person, under oath.

And no such protection extends to documents, etc.

That's the way our Constitutional system works Salty, like it or leave it.

So you're looking to Congress to investigate Bannon's role ? What are DHS, the FBI & DoJ doing ?

Doesn't Congress usually check with DoJ before issuing a subpoena to be sure they are not interfering with an ongoing investigation ?

Who has been indicted for sedition ? I must have missed that ?

[old salt]

But we don't for a certainty know how complicit, if at all, Bannon was in the sedition, though we do know that sedition occurred.

Could be he knows a lot about who fomented this act and how, or who acted to prevent it, or he might know very little. Either and all would be illuminating and useful to the legislative purpose and legislative oversight. But either way, he needs to provide the documents subpoenaed and he needs to testify, under oath, under pain of perjury.

That's the way our Constitutional system works Salty, like it or leave it.

Here's the smoking gun.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-hou ... 021-10-18/
According to the report, Bannon in a podcast on Jan. 5 told his listeners, "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow... So many people said, 'Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well, this is your time in history."

The committee also said that Bannon has "had multiple roles" relevant to its investigation, including helping to construct and participate in the "stop the steal" public relations effort that helped motivate the Jan. 6 attack.

https://news.yahoo.com/law-expert-wonde ... 05276.html

Law Expert Wonders Why A Grand Jury Isn't Mulling Sedition Charges Against Steve Bannon

Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe is wondering why the Department of Justice isn’t convening a grand jury to consider sedition charges against Donald Trump ally and former White House strategist Steve Bannon.

Tribe was referring to Bannon’s boast the previous day on his “War Room” podcast that “we told” Trump before the Jan. 6 insurrection: “You need to kill this administration in the crib.”

Bannon also had a “war-room-type meeting” with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former personal attorney, and others in Washington on the eve of the insurrection, Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa reported in their new book, “Peril.” They also reported on Bannon’s comment that night about killing the Biden presidency “in the crib.”

Bannon played a clip on his podcast of an MSNBC interview with Woodward and Costa discussing Bannon’s role, and he didn’t deny it.

Bannon repeated the Biden comment but attempted to reframe it as a metaphorical death of his administration through “its own incompetence and its illegitimacy” — implying that he wasn’t calling for the violence that erupted Jan. 6.

Tribe tweeted Wednesday after Bannon’s podcast that it was “mounting evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit sedition against the US Government and to give aid and comfort to an insurrection.”

According to an account in “Peril,” it was Bannon who persuaded Trump, who’d been at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, to return to Washington to prepare for Jan. 6.

“You’ve got to return to Washington and make a dramatic return today,” Bannon said to Trump, according to the book. “You’ve got to call [Vice President Mike] Pence off the f***ing slopes and get him back here today.”

He added, according to “Peril”: “We’re going to bury Biden on January 6th, f***ing bury him.”

We need legislation or Congressional oversight to prevent this sort of seditious speech. Dust off the Alien & Sedition Acts.

[Farfromgeneva]

More obfuscation and garbage BS from you and frankly your credibility is shot. No idea if Bannon is under investigation by FBI or DoJ and neither do you. If he were the target of a Grand Jury, those proceedings are SECRET.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Congressional activity is to fact find what led up to and occurred on January 6 and then to develop legislation to prevent a recurrence. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they turn that over to DoJ for further investigation and prosecution.

You were thrilled when the Congressional gas bags were Republicans/Benghazi...and is why you have no credibility in this case. Hiding behind that they were government employees is disingenuous at best and it all goes out the window with your gas bag reference as if those Congressional folks were not gas bags during the Benghazi hearings which lasted FOR YEARS. All of the hot air your elected reps expended likely contributed to global warming there was so much of it.

Last time I checked the Teamsters Union was a non-government private entity yet Hoffa was compelled to testify as its leader but also was just a citizen. So were many purported organized crime figures who were all private citizens - many of them plead the 5th (which is their right as well as Bannon's if he were to testify.)

I still maintain the real purpose of the committee is not so much to get Bannon to testify but to send a message to others that they mean business and that those people should not plan on ignoring orders to compel testimony.

The real purpose of the committee in calling Bannon is political theater to discredit Trump enough to deter him from running again.
To generate video clips of Congressional gas bags repeating accusations made in un-sourced tell-all books & get those unproven allegations into the Congressional record.

So now you are comparing Bannon to organized crime figures because of his 1st Amendment political speech & advice to the President.

Again you ignore the fact that the Benghazi witnesses were testifying about what they did as govt employees, not as private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

As a partisan who is also a lawyer I'm not surprised that you applaud weaponizing Congressional oversight to run up massive legal bills for private citizens in these political kangaroo courts.

Because lawyers add no value like bankers. The language used tells the real truth of intentions.0

[Farfromgeneva]

Maybe you should bone up before your usual, GOP-scandal dodging windbaggery:

https://www.cov.com/~/media/files/corpo ... ress_calls

There are two questions: does the subpoena-issuing entity have the power to do so? And does the subpoena target have evidence that is pertinent to the investigation? If the answer is yes, then he or she should comply absent a credible claim of privilege. Here, the privilege doesn't extend to a non-government citizen, and the claim of privilege has been waived by the holder of the privilege, the Office of the POTUS. Bannon is the one performing here; he's the Trey Gowdy in our story. And you are easily the biggest apologist for Bannon that I know. Nice fight to pick. How proud you must be.

Wrong it’s every white collar professional building a lock ie hood and adding value to communicator that are the scumbag roaches. He is of a higher order of human being and citizen but since you read the NYT you are part of the conspiracy and clearly not intelligent enough to understand this .

[Farfromgeneva]

Let's be clear, the Jan 6 Committee is examining an actual Insurrection, an effort to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of the highest power in the country, and the questions of who fomented and perpetrated this act of sedition, and how they did so, are far more serious than why support wasn't sent more swiftly to reach those at Benghazi, or why they were vulnerable in the first place, tragic as that event was.

But Trumpists, and yeah that's you yet again Salty despite all your denials, are only interested in protecting Trump's skin and to be able to revel in the opportunity to ignore the law and to abuse power.

So get the DoJ to indict Bannon for conspiracy or sedition instead of trying him in a political show trial.

Ohh, if that's where the evidence leads, I'm 100% for it.

But we don't for a certainty know how complicit, if at all, Bannon was in the sedition, though we do know that sedition occurred.

Could be he knows a lot about who fomented this act and how, or who acted to prevent it, or he might know very little. Either and all would be illuminating and useful to the legislative purpose and legislative oversight. But either way, he needs to provide the documents subpoenaed and he needs to testify, under oath, under pain of perjury.

If he's concerned that his testimony might incriminate him, he has a Constitutional right to take the 5th. But he has to do so in person, under oath.

And no such protection extends to documents, etc.

That's the way our Constitutional system works Salty, like it or leave it.

Or attempt to selfishly split the baby and sh*t on others, individually and their class of profession in a pathetic manner.

[CU88]

October 18, 2021
Heather Cox Richardson
Oct 19

Today, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol recommended that the House of Representatives find Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress. Bannon is refusing to cooperate with a subpoena for documents and testimony about the events surrounding the January 6 insurrection. Now the House will take up the question of contempt.

The committee report is a lot more interesting than that topline suggests (political historian here: although people tend to watch what happens before the TV cameras, committee reports are often where the action is).

The report starts by stating that the attempt of “a violent mob” to “halt the lawful counting of electoral votes and reverse the results of the 2020 election” was, according to “the words of many of those who participated in the violence, ...a direct response to false statements by then-President Donald J. Trump—beginning on election night 2020 and continuing through January 6, 2021—that the 2020 election had been stolen by corrupted voting machines, widespread fraud, and otherwise.”

The committee is laying the events of January 6 on Trump.

Congress established the committee, the report says, “to identify how the events of January 6th were planned, what actions and statements motivated and contributed to the attack on the Capitol, how the violent riot that day was coordinated with a political and public relations strategy to reverse the election outcome, and why Capitol security was insufficient to address what occurred.”

The committee is saying that the riot was coordinated ahead of time, and it appears to suggest that Capitol security was compromised.

Then the report explains why Bannon is an important witness. Its account of his actions in that crisis is an illuminating roundup of what we have seen in pieces in many other places. It concludes that Bannon knew specifically about the events of January 6 ahead of time.

On his January 5 podcasts, for example, he said:

“It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen. OK, it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. [. . .] You made this happen and tomorrow it’s game day. So strap in. Let’s get ready.”

“All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. [. . .] So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”

Bannon said that the country was facing a ‘‘constitutional crisis’’ and ‘‘that crisis is about to go up about five orders of magnitude tomorrow.’’

And: “It’s all converging, and now we’re on the point of attack tomorrow.”

So, the committee report suggests there was high-level planning for the January 6 insurrection. And it goes on:

The report says that it appears Bannon joined others eager to overturn the election “who gathered at the Willard Hotel, two blocks from the White House, on the days surrounding the January 6th attack…. The group that assembled at the Willard Hotel is reported to have included members of the Trump campaign’s legal team (including Rudolph Giuliani and John Eastman), several prominent proponents of false election fraud claims that had been promoted by Mr. Trump (e.g., Russell Ramsland, Jr. and Boris Epshteyn), as well as Roger Stone, who left the hotel with Oath Keeper bodyguards, and campaign spokesman Jason Miller.”

Then the report blows up the idea that Bannon had an excuse not to testify.

Bannon refused to honor the subpoena because he claimed that Trump was going to invoke executive privilege, but “Trump has had no communication with the Select Committee.” “This third-hand, non-specific assertion of privilege, without any description of the documents or testimony over which privilege is claimed, is insufficient to activate a claim of executive privilege,” it says. In any case, as a private citizen at the time of the events in question, Bannon would not be covered by executive privilege anyway.

This is a powerful document, laying out the direction the committee report is likely to go.

Today, former president Donald Trump did, in fact, invoke executive privilege…but not to cover Bannon.

He sued Representative Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), the chair of the House Select Committee; the committee itself; the national archivist, David S. Ferriero; and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to try to prevent the National Archives from releasing records from the January 6 insurrection to the House committee investigating it.

The suit alleges that the investigation is a “fishing expedition” designed “to harass President Trump and senior members of his administration (among others) by sending an illegal, unfounded, and overbroad records request to the Archivist of the United States.” It relies on executive privilege and the argument that there is no legitimate legislative reason for Congress to have access to the records it wants to see.

There are some oddities in this lawsuit. First off, executive privilege covers current presidents, not past ones, and President Biden has waived the privilege for these documents, saying it would not be “in the best interests of the United States.” White House counsel Dana Remus wrote: “These are unique and extraordinary circumstances. Congress is examining an assault on our Constitution and democratic institutions provoked and fanned by those sworn to protect them, and the conduct under investigation extends far beyond typical deliberations concerning the proper discharge of the President's constitutional responsibilities.” So a former president is asking a court to overrule a current president.

Second, the lawsuit covers only the material at NARA and none of the other requests the committee has made. This is for the obvious reason that executive privilege can’t cover things outside the scope of official business—which is archived at NARA—but since there is almost certainly a great deal of overlap in the material requested from different parties, this lawsuit seems likely to be designed not to hide evidence so much as to gum up the works. If the committee can be held at bay until after the 2022 election, a Republican victory might end its investigation.

Third, the lawyer bringing the lawsuit is Jesse R. Binnall, a Trump loyalist associated with Trump’s former lawyer Sidney Powell, who is currently being sued for $1.3 billion by the voting technology company she accused of stealing the 2020 election. Binnall is not a top-of-the-line attorney.

In response to the lawsuit, committee chair Thompson and Vice Chair Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) issued a statement noting that “the former President’s clear objective”—Trump’s supporters never use the word “former” to refer to him—“is to stop the Select Committee from getting to the facts about January 6th and his lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to delay and obstruct our probe…. It’s hard to imagine a more compelling public interest than trying to get answers about an attack on our democracy and an attempt to overturn the results of an election.”

“The Select Committee’s authority to seek these records is clear. We’ll fight the former President’s attempt to obstruct our investigation while we continue to push ahead successfully with our probe on a number of other fronts.”

[dislaxxic]

Thanks for posting CU88...this is going to be a very interesting period in our politics.

Poor Cradle, i wonder where he'll have to go to learn the "real truth" about this issue...since, obviously, HCR is such a quack on such things as history...

..