Panel probing attack on U.S. Capitol threatens Bannon with contempt

[ExpandMyMind]

22 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

1953 He refused a subpoena issued by the committee on UN-American Activities citing executive privilege. Pretty simple to follow.

 

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

After he left office.  Important distinction. 

Look, we all know executive decisions only apply to a sitting President, and this includes executive privilege. Truman's claim is nothing more than that - a claim, and one that was never tested. If it was any other executive power (such as an executive order) he was trying to exert then there wouldn't even be a conversation.

If Obama tried to claim executive privilege now you'd be calling him a dictator or that the act was an abuse of power. And you'd be correct, at least about the abuse of power part.

It's so weird the knots you twist yourselves into to defend Trump or stick it to the Dems. 

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Look, we all know executive decisions only apply to a sitting President, and this includes executive privilege.

No. We know no such thing, as it hasn't been ruled on.

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Truman's claim is nothing more than that - a claim, and one that was never tested.

If it had been we wouldn't be having this conversation.

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If it was any other executive power (such as an executive order) he was trying to exert then there wouldn't even be a conversation.

It's not a conversation, executive orders are a completely different thing. 

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If Obama tried to claim executive privilege now you'd be calling him a dictator or that the act was an abuse of power. 

No, I would not.  I would think it was an interesting legal challenge and know in my heart the democratic investigative committee wouldn't dare put it to the test.

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's so weird the knots you twist yourselves into to defend Trump or stick it to the Dems. 

I'm not defending trump.  

Here let me say, again, and as clearly as I can.  There is a legal challenge that will determine if trump can claim executive privilege in this instance.  Anyone being summoned before this committee to speak on anything trump said or did during their time on his staff  would be advised by any lawyer to wait until trumps lawsuit has been determined before testifying.

If you'll note they have not yet held Bannon in contempt.  Why not?

Edited October 19, 2021 by OverSword

[Gromdor]

17 hours ago, OverSword said:

That's assinine and illogical.  At what point when there is no investigation, should a president declare executive privilege?  And just what does the JANUAURY 6th COMMITTEE want to ask Bannon about if it's not January 6th? 

Executive privilege isn't to thwart investigations- it's merely to keep sensitive matters secret for the President while he is doing things.  Perverting it to hide criminality is just something we have started to let slide.

Oh and I also forgot to add Bannon's communication to other people isn't covered by executive privilege either.  Just communication with Trump.

 

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Executive privilege isn't to thwart investigations- it's merely to keep sensitive matters secret for the President while he is doing things.  Perverting it to hide criminality is just something we have started to let slide.

Oh and I also forgot to add Bannon's communication to other people isn't covered by executive privilege either.  Just communication with Trump.

 

And since there is a lawsuit they will have to determine if that’s the case or not. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? At no time have I said this is settled and the witch hunt can’t see this or that people can’t testify. I’ve been pretty clear in what I said I believe legal procedure currently limits the inquisition.

[+OverSword]

 

Quote

 

Jan. 6 panel votes to hold Bannon in contempt

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol voted unanimously Tuesday to refer former Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon to the Justice Department for criminal charges, teeing up a full House vote Thursday to hold Bannon in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena.

 

The move comes after Bannon refused to provide documents to the committee or appear for a slated deposition following an assertion from former President Trump that he would challenge the committee on executive privilege grounds.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) opened the hearing by stressing that Bannon "stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena."

"It’s a shame that Mr. Bannon has put us in this position. But we won’t take 'no' for an answer. We believe Mr. Bannon has information relevant to our probe, and we’ll use the tools at our disposal to get that information," he said.

 

Link

And the committee has moved forward and referred Bannon to the Justice Department. 

[+OverSword]

What is very ludicrous about the goal of the Jan 6 panel (proving trump planned and coordinated the attack) ignores the FBI report that there is little or no evidence of a planned and coordinated attack.  This entire exercise is a waste of time and money IMO

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

[Michelle]

15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

This entire exercise is a waste of time and money IMO

It's what the Democrats do best.

[Gromdor]

Looking back at the time and cost of things like the Clinton investigations, the 60ish failed election lawsuits, and the multiple state audits, the border wall, etc.. I would have to say that both parties are equally talented at wasting time and money.

You have to ask yourself, however, "Do you really want someone like Hunter Biden to be able to refuse to testify four or fives years down the road while claiming executive privilege just because Biden was president?"

Bannon was fired by Trump years before Jan.6 after all.

Setting a standard where a person can claim executive privilege just because they know the president isn't going to end well.  People already complain about the lack of justice regarding Clinton but at least we were able to get her to testify for 11hrs.  Now no one will ever have to testify.

[aztek]

22 hours ago, OverSword said:

 

Link

And the committee has moved forward and referred Bannon to the Justice Department. 

oh the kangaroo court strikes again.

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Bannon was fired by Trump years before Jan.6 after all.

 

He must have still been associated with him at some sort of advisory level or why would they bother calling him?  

[Tatetopa]

On 10/19/2021 at 2:05 PM, OverSword said:

Anyone being summoned before this committee to speak on anything trump said or did during their time on his staff 

Of course Mr. Bannon was a private citizen, not on Trump's staff or part of the administration at this time.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Of course Mr. Bannon was a private citizen, not on Trump's staff or part of the administration at this time.

See above.

[Raptor Witness]

What are they going to do, give Bannon a public spanking? As far as I can recall, there aren't much teeth to ignoring Congressional subpoenas, but I could be mistaken.

[aztek]

6 hours ago, OverSword said:

He must have still been associated with him at some sort of advisory level or why would they bother calling him?  

do we know the nature of the call?  it could be about anything, just because a call took place means little to nothing, maybe it was a butt dial, and it went into a voice mail,  metadata would show a call, and its length, but not what the call was about.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

do we know the nature of the call?  it could be about anything, just because a call took place means little to nothing, maybe it was a butt dial, and it went into a voice mail,  metadata would show a call, and its length, but not what the call was about.

Was there a call?  I don't even know why they subpoenaed a guy who hasn't worked in the Whitehouse since 2016

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Was there a call?  I don't even know why they subpoenaed a guy who hasn't worked in the Whitehouse since 2016

if you looking for logic and reason with what libs do,  well, lots of luck there,

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

17 hours ago, OverSword said:

He must have still been associated with him at some sort of advisory level or why would they bother calling him?  

Because there is no hiding place, not even not being involved with the BOM anymore, where you can hide. Once a BOM supporter, always a BOM supporter and therefore an Enemy of the People who decide who the People who Matter are. 

[Gromdor]

20 hours ago, OverSword said:

He must have still been associated with him at some sort of advisory level or why would they bother calling him?  

Trump, as he does, attacked Bannon once his political svengali was no longer by his side. In the wake of Michael Wolff's book, "Fire and Fury," which cast Trump in a deeply negative light (and for which Bannon was rumored to be a major source) the President put out a lengthy statement bashing Bannon.

"Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency," Trump said. "When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind."

So according to Trump he has no relation., so how is executive privilege even being claimed?

 

As to why the January 6 commision is calling him- it was for all the statements and calls for action he was making prior to Jan.6 and the various people he was making them to.

 

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

Appeals court temporarily blocks archives from handing Trump records to Jan. 6 committee

A federal appeals court on Thursday intervened to temporarily block the National Archives from handing over Trump administration records to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol ahead of a Friday deadline.

A three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction keeping the records from being turned over to allow former President Trump to continue his legal challenge. 

"The purpose of this administrative injunction is to protect the court’s jurisdiction to address [Trump's] claims of executive privilege and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits," the panel said in a brief order. 

 

Link

Edited November 11, 2021 by OverSword