The Biden Department of Justice

[jhu72]

sophistry

[dislaxxic]

WELCOME TO LISA MONACO’S DOJ, E JEAN CARROLL LAWSUIT EDITION

"...Lisa Monaco oozes intelligence and competence; she’s undeniably qualified to be where she’s at. But she also got where she’s at by cleaning up the messes left by Stellar Wind, the torture program, and John Brennan’s drone program by improving those shirtty policies without demanding any accountability for the abuse of DOJ and presidential authority they entailed. Plus, as a career DOJ official, she’s going to defend professionals who did stupid things on the orders of a deeply politicized boss.

Particularly in the wake of the decision to defend Trump against Carroll’s suit, people are wondering how Merrick Garland could make such a horrible decision. My suspicion is they would be better asking what Lisa Monaco’s role was in the decision."

..

[dislaxxic]

WHY DID DOJ DELAY SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE LETTING JEFFREY ROSEN TESTIFY?

It’s possible that this seven month delay is inexcusable.

It’s also possible that it reflects the time DOJ took to come to other determinations about whether privileged information could be used to investigate a former President and if so how to obtain it.

..

[dislaxxic]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

..

[old salt]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

[cradleandshoot]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

[Kismet]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here. Besides, it appears to be more a a meaasge to the others who might be contemplating similar things and who would not benefit from the bad publicity or having to incure more legal fees

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Also see the former Asst FBI McCabe settled his lawsuit against DoJ and got his pension reinstated and back pay paid up. Trump loses again.

DOPUS also lost his case in NYC and will have to be deposed as soon as next week in a civil case with protesters outside of Trump Tower who were manhandled by his security people during the 2016 campaign.

[old salt]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

[Kismet]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

And he will still be marginalized, if not more so, after the public sees what a whack job he is. It is a message to any of the others who might be trying a similar ploy.

Just today, VA Republicans publicized (at a political rally for the candidate for Governor) saying the pledge to a flag that was allegedly at the January 6 riot. A perfect Goebbels move

more whack jobs.

[old salt]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

And he will still be marginalized, if not more so, after the public sees what a whack job he is. It is a message to any of the others who might be trying a similar ploy.

Just today, VA Republicans publicized (at a political rally for the candidate for Governor) saying the pledge to a flag that was allegedly at the January 6 riot. A perfect Goebbels move

more whack jobs.

Bannon is not a govt employee. Congress is not a law enforcement agency.
What is the legal basis for Congress to compel private citizen Bannon to disclose the content of his private conversations ?

[Kismet]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

And he will still be marginalized, if not more so, after the public sees what a whack job he is. It is a message to any of the others who might be trying a similar ploy.

Just today, VA Republicans publicized (at a political rally for the candidate for Governor) saying the pledge to a flag that was allegedly at the January 6 riot. A perfect Goebbels move

more whack jobs.

Bannon is not a govt employee. Congress is not a law enforcement agency.
What is the legal basis for Congress to compel private citizen Bannon to disclose the content of his private conversations ?

"Congress has broad authority, established by Supreme Court rulings, to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. As part of these powers, Congress can request documents or ask witnesses to testify. While not specified by the Constitution, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/h ... oenas-work

"Based on precedent, statutes, and court rulings, the House and the Senate each have the power to invoke three types of contempt proceedings if a committee believes someone is obstructing its investigative powers."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... -explained

You can now stop winging it to get a rise out of the situation (like Bannon does all the time - no wonder you're in his corner). Don't forget to stand at attention and recite the pledge to that flag that was carried by rioters at the Capitol on January 6.

[Farfromgeneva]

Winging it works so well…

[dislaxxic]

The whole process that makes Congress a co-equal branch of gubmint requires the ability to conduct investigative/oversight functions. This looks very much like incitement to insurrection/sedition, which could potentially lead to criminal referrals. Ignoring this behavior for all the petty political reasons Swampy sets out is the LAST thing we ought to be doing at this point.

Junkyard dogs Schiff and Raskin are gonna catch this bus and give it a few flat tires. Liz Cheney wants to subpoena Trump and McCarthy. With luck, all these criminals will stretch this out up to and through both ‘22 and ‘24 election cycles…

..

[Farfromgeneva]

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CATS SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR 2X AS LONG AS ANY DRUG RELATED THIRD STRIKE SENTENCE

Federal Judges or Their Brokers Traded Stocks of Litigants During Cases
Dozens of judges have reported share purchases and sales made while they presided in suits involving those companies, a WSJ investigation found
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: DAVE COLE/WSJ
By Coulter Jones, Joe Palazzolo and James V. Grimaldi
Oct. 15, 2021 9:59 am ET
SAVE
SHARE
TEXT
140 RESPONSES

Mary Geiger Lewis acquired Walmart Inc. stock. Charles Norgle Sr. reported nearly a dozen buys and sells of Pfizer Inc. shares. Charles Siragusa had two accounts that bought Medtronic PLC stock.

None of that would be a problem, except for this: All are federal judges, and at the time of the trades, all were hearing cases involving those companies.

The Wall Street Journal discovered this trading in a broad investigation that identified 131 federal judges who heard hundreds of cases between 2010 and 2018 involving companies in which they or a family member owned stock—in violation of federal law and judicial-ethics rules.

Judges Lewis, Norgle and Siragusa were among 61 judges who didn’t just own stocks of companies that were litigants in their courtrooms. Accounts held by the judges or their families traded shares as suits were progressing, the Journal’s investigation found. Nearly half of the judges reported more than one trade while a case was in progress.

Federal law and ethics rules say judges must recuse themselves if they, their spouse or any minor children own even a single share of a company that is a plaintiff or defendant in a case before them.

Some judges, when contacted by the Journal, said they were unaware that brokers or advisers who managed accounts for them traded shares of the companies during the cases. But there is no exception for holdings in managed accounts. And federal law requires judges to inform themselves about their financial interests and make a reasonable effort to do the same regarding their spouse and any minor children.

VIEW IN DEPTH
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: DAVE COLE/WSJ
RELATED LINKS
131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest
GRAPHIC: Federal Judges With Financial Conflicts
Judge Rodney Gilstrap Sets an Unwanted Record: Most Cases With Financial Conflicts
Q&A: Dozens of Federal Judges Had Financial Conflicts: What You Need to Know
How the Journal Found Judges’ Violations of Law on Recusals
A Post-Watergate Law Some Judges Overlook
Other judges said they failed to update their “recusal lists”—tallies that judges keep of parties they shouldn’t have in their courtrooms—in the middle of hearing cases. Federal courts use software to identify such parties, but the software can’t spot stocks judges buy unless the judges update their conflict lists.

Trading during a case “can happen only if the judge is recklessly indifferent to the conflict-of-interest rules in the statute and the Canons of Ethics,” said Arthur Hellman, an ethics specialist and law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who was briefed on the Journal’s findings.

While Judge Walter Rice was hearing a case involving International Paper Co., his financial disclosure form shows, he sold between $15,001 and $50,000 of the company’s stock in December 2015. The sale earned a profit of between $15,001 and $50,000, the form shows. Judge Rice said that later that month, he gave his remaining shares to five charities. International Paper doesn’t appear on his later disclosure forms.

The case involved an effort to recoup cleanup costs from International Paper and other companies that operated a mill in Dayton, Ohio. During the case, which is pending, Judge Rice, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter who serves in the Southern District of Ohio, has issued rulings both favorable and unfavorable to International Paper.

After being contacted by the Journal, Judge Rice informed parties to the case of the appearance of the conflict. “In all candor, I am remiss at checking this as thoroughly as I should,” he said.

Judge Rice said the stock was in an account whose manager “can buy or sell without getting my permission.” He said he wasn’t aware he owned International Paper shares, likely because he wasn’t reading the statements.

“In all candor, I am remiss at checking this as thoroughly as I should.”

— Judge Walter Rice
A spokeswoman for International Paper declined to comment.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on Wednesday warned judges in a memo they are required to keep informed about their finances and maintain timely lists of parties that are off limits. Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, director of the office, wrote that judges may not rely on accounts managed by financial advisers to avoid their recusal obligations. “Up-to-date recusal lists are the most effective tool for conflict screening,” she wrote.

In response to Journal articles on judges’ recusal failures, lawmakers are proposing far-reaching changes. A bill being drafted by House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.), would require judges to report financial transactions, such as stock trades, within 90 days, a congressional aide said. Judges would also have to post their financial disclosures in a searchable database, and there would be civil penalties for recusal violations. The committee plans a hearing this month, the aide said.

Judge Lewis, who owned Walmart stock, reported on a disclosure form five purchases of the shares in a six-day span while she presided in a suit against the company in August 2017.

Walmart and the plaintiff, a former employee seeking short-term disability benefits, told the judge early in August of that year that they were exploring a settlement. Judge Lewis extended court deadlines to give them time to resolve the matter.

Her financial disclosure form recorded five purchases from three different accounts in quick succession. The form shows Walmart stock bought on Aug. 25, Aug. 29 and Aug. 30, the day Judge Lewis dismissed the case.

At the time, her retirement account and a trust each held as much as $15,000 of Walmart stock, and another trust held $15,001 to $50,000 worth, her disclosure form shows.

Judge Lewis, who is based in Columbia, S.C., and was named to the court by former President Barack Obama, declined requests for comment. After the Journal contacted her, the court clerk notified parties to the suit about her stock ownership, saying it “neither affected nor impacted” her court decisions but would have required her to recuse herself.

The clerk’s letter invited the parties to respond and said a different judge would consider any response they filed. The parties didn’t reply by an Aug. 9 deadline the letter set. Walmart didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Judge Norgle’s 2010 financial disclosure form shows 11 purchases or sales of Pfizer shares while he oversaw a suit against the pharmaceutical company.

Before the suit, he acquired Pfizer shares worth between $15,001 and $50,000 on Feb. 3, 2010, and made three smaller purchases that month, the last on Feb. 17. Less than a week later, Judge Norgle was assigned to hear a lawsuit alleging that Pfizer falsely marketed an expired patent on packaging of Advil products.


From Left: Walter Rice, Mary Geiger Lewis, Charles Norgle Sr.
His disclosure form shows trading continued in March with four more purchases and one sale of Pfizer stock—three of the purchases valued at up to $15,000 each and one purchase and one sale valued at between $15,001 and $50,000. The form records six additional Pfizer trades in April and May, the last a sale of $15,001 to $50,000 of Pfizer stock on May 20.

Judge Norgle rejected Pfizer’s motion to dismiss the case early the next year, and in May 2011 granted Pfizer’s motion to transfer it to New Jersey federal court.

Judge Norgle, a Ronald Reagan appointee based in Chicago, didn’t respond to requests for comment. The court clerk sent the lawsuit’s parties a notice this month saying that the judge’s stock ownership didn’t affect his courtroom decisions but would have required his recusal. The parties hadn’t filed a response as of Tuesday. Pfizer declined to comment.

Judge Charles Norgle Sr. or his family bought and sold stock in Pfizer right before he was assigned a false-marketing lawsuit against the company. There were 11 trades while the judge oversaw the case.

Docket No. 1:10-cv-01193

SIMONIAN V. PFIZER

Case filed

Case transferred

WSJ investigation

PFIZER STOCK

Oct. 2021

Norgle directs court clerk to alert parties of conflict.

Feb. 2010

Case filed and assigned to Norgle.

April 2011

Pfizer files motion requesting transfer to U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

May 2011

Norgle grants Pfizer's request to transfer case to New Jersey Federal Court.

BUY

SELL

COMBINED PROFIT:

AT LEAST

$3,003

UP TO

$9,500

Some judges ruled in favor of companies in which they reported purchasing shares during the case. An example was Judge Siragusa, who heard a suit against Medtronic involving an injured boy.

When the boy was 8, he fell off a motorized toy car and broke his neck, requiring surgery to implant a titanium rod. A surgeon inserted a Medtronic bone graft in his neck when he was 12. His family sued Medtronic in April 2014 alleging the graft was defective.

Judge Siragusa handled pretrial motions, scolding the family’s attorney for missing deadlines. Eight months into the case, on Jan. 27, 2015, two purchases of Medtronic shares, each valued at up to $15,000, were made in two separate brokerage accounts of Judge Siragusa, his financial disclosure form shows.

Later in the year, Judge Siragusa asked the family’s attorney at a hearing, “So where are you going with this case? I don’t know how…there would be a manufacturing defect.”

He dismissed the case “with prejudice,” meaning the plaintiff couldn’t amend and refile it. His 2015 financial disclosure form wasn’t filed until 10 months later, in August 2016.

“That’s not to say I shouldn’t have picked up on some of these, but we have a conflict checking system that is supposed to alert me if there’s a conflict.”

— Judge Charles Siragusa
Judge Siragusa, a Bill Clinton appointee based in Rochester, N.Y., said an investment adviser made the purchases without consulting him.

“They control what stocks are bought and sold,” he said. “I’m sure they’ll send me notifications of what’s bought and sold.” He said he doesn’t keep track.

“That’s not to say I shouldn’t have picked up on some of these, but we have a conflict checking system that is supposed to alert me if there’s a conflict,” the judge said.

A spokesman for Medtronic declined to comment. An attorney for the family didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In some cases, judges or their families made repeated trades in cases that spanned years. Judge Janis Sammartino in California heard 18 cases during which her family traded shares of plaintiffs or defendants in the suits.

In one, her family owned Pfizer stock in two trusts when she was assigned a Pfizer case in 2011. A biotech company accused Pfizer of infringing its patents for technologies used to research cancer treatments.

Judge Sammartino’s disclosure forms recorded 14 trades of Pfizer shares during the nearly six years the case was in her court or on appeal, including eight sales that brought combined profit of $7,506 to $19,500.

The first trade, a sale for a profit of up to $1,000, came in December 2011, nearly a year after plaintiff AntiCancer Inc. filed suit.

Two accounts owned by Judge Janis Sammartino’s family traded Pfizer shares 14 times while she heard a patent dispute involving the company.

Docket No. 3:11-cv-00107

ANTICANCER V. PFIZER

Case filed

Sammartino

dismisses case

Appeals court returns case to Sammartino

AntiCancer appeals

WSJ investigation

Case settled

Aug. 2021

Sammartino directs court clerk to alert parties of conflict.

Jan. 2011

Complaint filed by AntiCancer. Case assigned to Judge

Sammartino.

Oct. 2016

AntiCancer agreed that Pfizer hadn’t infringed its patents, and each side bore its own legal costs.

PFIZER STOCK

BUY

SELL

COMBINED PROFIT:

AT LEAST

$7,506

UP TO

$19,500

Judge Sammartino, a George W. Bush appointee, threw out part of AntiCancer’s case the following year. She offered the plaintiff a choice: Accept defeat on the remaining claims or amend its filing and continue, but only if it paid Pfizer’s legal fees.

AntiCancer appealed that ruling in late 2012. The judge’s family continued to trade Pfizer stock in the trusts, gaining a total of as much as $6,000 in profit in two sales, then buying more Pfizer shares in the latter half of 2014.

AntiCancer won its appeal. “The district court exceeded its discretionary authority in imposing a fee-shifting sanction as a condition of proceeding with the litigation,” a federal appellate court said in October 2014, sending the case back to Judge Sammartino’s court.

The judge’s family traded Pfizer stock nine more times—four purchases and five sales, each for a profit of $1,001 to $2,500—before the parties reached a settlement in October 2016, according to disclosure reports. In it, AntiCancer agreed that Pfizer hadn’t infringed its patents. Each side bore its own legal costs.

After the Journal asked Judge Sammartino about the matter, she directed a court clerk to tell parties to the suit that she should have recused herself and that she hadn’t been aware a family member owned Pfizer stock.

Robert Hoffman, AntiCancer’s founder and chief executive, said that though his company settled, he believed Pfizer had infringed. “We got this funny ruling in front of [Judge Sammartino], and here we are against this giant, and they aren’t budging, and we were afraid we were going to have to pay the fees,” he said.

Dr. Hoffman said he wants to reopen the case. “This is such a disappointment. This never should have happened, ever,” he said. Pfizer declined to comment.

[MDlaxfan76]

Anyone doing this knowingly should indeed do time...all should lose their law licenses and jobs.

[MDlaxfan76]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

And he will still be marginalized, if not more so, after the public sees what a whack job he is. It is a message to any of the others who might be trying a similar ploy.

Just today, VA Republicans publicized (at a political rally for the candidate for Governor) saying the pledge to a flag that was allegedly at the January 6 riot. A perfect Goebbels move

more whack jobs.

Bannon is not a govt employee. Congress is not a law enforcement agency.
What is the legal basis for Congress to compel private citizen Bannon to disclose the content of his private conversations ?

"Congress has broad authority, established by Supreme Court rulings, to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. As part of these powers, Congress can request documents or ask witnesses to testify. While not specified by the Constitution, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/h ... oenas-work

"Based on precedent, statutes, and court rulings, the House and the Senate each have the power to invoke three types of contempt proceedings if a committee believes someone is obstructing its investigative powers."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... -explained

You can now stop winging it to get a rise out of the situation (like Bannon does all the time - no wonder you're in his corner). Don't forget to stand at attention and recite the pledge to that flag that was carried by rioters at the Capitol on January 6.

I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress must stick to legislative purpose and oversight, not simply investigate the "strictly private" discussions of individuals.

But this certainly has legislative purpose, no doubt.
It also certainly involves oversight of the Executive Branch functions and that includes their interactions with individuals, eg communications with private individuals.

Salty is all too willing to align himself with opposing the rule of law. Good example here.

That said, Congress can't bring criminal charges themselves. That'll require the DOJ...and the DOJ is no longer in the pocket of Trump and co.

I agree that this kind of contempt for the law and for Congress absolutely can't be allowed to slide.
We've seen 4 years of total contempt, and we're reaping the results of that ongoing.
Time to stop it.

Bring out the full arsenal under the law.

Sure, some will squeal and holler, but we know they'll do that regardless, and chortle as they get away with it "we owned the libs".....put them in jail for contempt and where appropriate, start bringing sedition charges. Grow a backbone. Enforce the law.

[old salt]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

And he will still be marginalized, if not more so, after the public sees what a whack job he is. It is a message to any of the others who might be trying a similar ploy.

Just today, VA Republicans publicized (at a political rally for the candidate for Governor) saying the pledge to a flag that was allegedly at the January 6 riot. A perfect Goebbels move

more whack jobs.

Bannon is not a govt employee. Congress is not a law enforcement agency.
What is the legal basis for Congress to compel private citizen Bannon to disclose the content of his private conversations ?

"Congress has broad authority, established by Supreme Court rulings, to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. As part of these powers, Congress can request documents or ask witnesses to testify. While not specified by the Constitution, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/h ... oenas-work

"Based on precedent, statutes, and court rulings, the House and the Senate each have the power to invoke three types of contempt proceedings if a committee believes someone is obstructing its investigative powers."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... -explained

You can now stop winging it to get a rise out of the situation (like Bannon does all the time - no wonder you're in his corner). Don't forget to stand at attention and recite the pledge to that flag that was carried by rioters at the Capitol on January 6.

Before I take seriously all the hype, I want a sense of whether or not Bannon will actually be compelled to testify or not. Based on what you've posted, it does not appear to be a sure thing that he can be compelled to testify in this instance & it looks like it will have to be decided in one or more courts, which could take some time. The other 3,who were still govt employees during the time in question, appear to be co-operating. If so, this show trial may be fizzled out by the time Bannon has to testify, or not.

So yawn, for now. I was looking forward to Bannon sparring with the Congressional gas bags.

[Kismet]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

And he will still be marginalized, if not more so, after the public sees what a whack job he is. It is a message to any of the others who might be trying a similar ploy.

Just today, VA Republicans publicized (at a political rally for the candidate for Governor) saying the pledge to a flag that was allegedly at the January 6 riot. A perfect Goebbels move

more whack jobs.

Bannon is not a govt employee. Congress is not a law enforcement agency.
What is the legal basis for Congress to compel private citizen Bannon to disclose the content of his private conversations ?

"Congress has broad authority, established by Supreme Court rulings, to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. As part of these powers, Congress can request documents or ask witnesses to testify. While not specified by the Constitution, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/h ... oenas-work

"Based on precedent, statutes, and court rulings, the House and the Senate each have the power to invoke three types of contempt proceedings if a committee believes someone is obstructing its investigative powers."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... -explained

You can now stop winging it to get a rise out of the situation (like Bannon does all the time - no wonder you're in his corner). Don't forget to stand at attention and recite the pledge to that flag that was carried by rioters at the Capitol on January 6.

Before I take seriously all the hype, I want a sense of whether or not Bannon will actually be compelled to testify or not. Based on what you've posted, it does not appear to be a sure thing that he can be compelled to testify in this instance & it looks like it will have to be decided in one or more courts, which could take some time. The other 3,who were still govt employees during the time in question, appear to be co-operating. If so, this show trial may be fizzled out by the time Bannon has to testify, or not.

So yawn, for now. I was looking forward to Bannon sparring with the Congressional gas bags.

No surprise that you're shilling for a dirtbag like Bannon. You are nothing more than a partisan, fraudulent hypocrite.

Funny how you gave all the Benghazi gas bags a pass for YEARS (and you even became one of them) and not one Obama Administration witness failed to show up and no subpoenas were required in order to get their testimony.

Also regarding private citizens needing to respond to Congressional subpoenas - last time I checked Jimmy Hoffa and various reputed mobsters managed to comply with a variety of Congressional subpoenas.

[old salt]

Jan. 6 Committee To Seek Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon

Come ON, Merrick...DO IT!

Bannon's milking this for as much publicity as he can get, before he testifies.
Arresting him will just make him a martyr, harden support from his supporters & give him a bigger megaphone.

Tactical mistake, self-indulgent revenge by the Dems but will be highly entertaining if Bannon eventually testifies &/or is not gagged in media appearances.

The 5th amendment defense is all Bannon needs.

I think the committee will take their chances on a Bannon public hearing. They know they are not dealing with Niccolo Machiavelli here.

Both he and the former DOPUS a perfectly capable of putting their feet in their mouths as much as anything else. You can listen to Bannon rant on his radio/podcast daily show as all of the MAGA crowd does. The non-MAGAs might be enlightened by his public pronouncements in front of the committee. Added bonus of a possible criminal charge with no get out of jail free card any longer.

He won't take the 5th either as it doesn't fit with his grandstanding persona.

Right now, Bannon is marginalized. This puts him right back in the mainstream.

And he will still be marginalized, if not more so, after the public sees what a whack job he is. It is a message to any of the others who might be trying a similar ploy.

Just today, VA Republicans publicized (at a political rally for the candidate for Governor) saying the pledge to a flag that was allegedly at the January 6 riot. A perfect Goebbels move

more whack jobs.

Bannon is not a govt employee. Congress is not a law enforcement agency.
What is the legal basis for Congress to compel private citizen Bannon to disclose the content of his private conversations ?

"Congress has broad authority, established by Supreme Court rulings, to oversee the executive branch and conduct investigations. As part of these powers, Congress can request documents or ask witnesses to testify. While not specified by the Constitution, Congress has a long-established history of using subpoenas to compel testimony when information is not provided voluntarily."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/h ... oenas-work

"Based on precedent, statutes, and court rulings, the House and the Senate each have the power to invoke three types of contempt proceedings if a committee believes someone is obstructing its investigative powers."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... -explained

You can now stop winging it to get a rise out of the situation (like Bannon does all the time - no wonder you're in his corner). Don't forget to stand at attention and recite the pledge to that flag that was carried by rioters at the Capitol on January 6.

Before I take seriously all the hype, I want a sense of whether or not Bannon will actually be compelled to testify or not. Based on what you've posted, it does not appear to be a sure thing that he can be compelled to testify in this instance & it looks like it will have to be decided in one or more courts, which could take some time. The other 3,who were still govt employees during the time in question, appear to be co-operating. If so, this show trial may be fizzled out by the time Bannon has to testify, or not.

So yawn, for now. I was looking forward to Bannon sparring with the Congressional gas bags.

No surprise that you're shilling for a dirtbag like Bannon. You are nothing more than a partisan, fraudulent hypocrite.

Funny how you gave all the Benghazi gas bags a pass for YEARS (and you even became one of them) and not one Obama Administration witness failed to show up and no subpoenas were required in order to get their testimony.

Also regarding private citizens needing to respond to Congressional subpoenas - last time I checked Jimmy Hoffa and various reputed mobsters managed to comply with a variety of Congressional subpoenas.

Shilling for Bannon ? I repeat -- I look forward to Bannon testifying. This is all political theater & grandstanding. Bannon is loving this.

It is politically stupid to give Bannon such a large mainstream platform. It is just a forum to publicize a bunch of speculation about what Trump supposedly said or thought, that does not pass legal muster for inclusion in the legit legal investigations of Jan 6th & what lead up to it.

The Congressional gas bags will get their speculation on the record, & before a national audience, with no proof to back it up.
This committee's witness list is based on Woodward's latest book.

Even the anti-Trump political talking heads are wary of Bannon & cautioning not to expect too much from him, even if it he testifies soon enough to matter.

Here's a question for you -- if Bannon has something worthy of the govt compelling him to testify, why is he not under subpoena by a grand jury & talking to the FBI. Why wasn't he under subpoena as an impeachment witness ?

Hoffa testified based on his job as a Teamster leader. What is the basis for compelling Bannon to testify about his private conversations ?
The Benghazi witnesses were govt employees testifying about what they did in their official capacities.
Bannon is a private citizen being targeted for the political views which he espouses.

[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.