Trump's Rump

[Lexicus]

He has one shot left, to convince the appeals court to stop the national archive handing over the record tomorrow. It is so close. I guess we will not see them then though.

The national archive should hand over the records regardless of what the court says. Any federal judge ruling with Trump on this ought to be impeached for aiding and abetting treason.

 

[Samson]

Federal grand jury indicts former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress

A federal grand jury has returned an indictment against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, the Justice Department announced Friday.

Bannon, 67, was charged with one count related to his refusal to appear for a deposition and another related to his refusal to produce documents. Each count carries a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, the Justice Department said.
​

What are the odds of him doing porridge? I am guessing slim to none, but what else can they do?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The national archive should hand over the records regardless of what the court says. Any federal judge ruling with Trump on this ought to be impeached for aiding and abetting treason.

Exactly!. Once they turn them over the case is moot. Then Trump can sue the Library of Congress.

 

[RobAnybody]

The national archive should hand over the records regardless of what the court says. Any federal judge ruling with Trump on this ought to be impeached for aiding and abetting treason.

Exactly!. Once they turn them over the case is moot. Then Trump can sue the Library of Congress.

As much as I support the outcome y'all are pushing, I can't support the methodology y'all are pushing. If a Federal Judge rules on something, that's it. It's done.

If that means nothing now, even now, in this egregious instance, then our whole system of government is broken (anticipating Lexicus's reply: "it's already broken!"). Federal Courts' rulings will mean nothing in the future if that line is crossed. Much like how Congressional subpoenas hang in the balance right now. They both need to mean something.

EDIT: I guess, what I'm saying is, it's easy to support an ideal when it goes your way. Everyone can do that. It's tougher to support an ideal when it doesn't go you way, & even tougher when it gets perverted, but the ideal itself, *has* to be supported. IMO at least.

 

[stinkubus]

Federal courts have already been ignored many times.

 

[Lexicus]

If a Federal Judge rules on something, that's it. It's done.

Did you forget that the Supreme Court exists?

If that means nothing now, even now, in this egregious instance, then our whole system of government is broken (anticipating Lexicus's reply: "it's already broken!"). Federal Courts' rulings will mean nothing in the future if that line is crossed. Much like how Congressional subpoenas hang in the balance right now. They both need to mean something.

It is quite obvious that the government is broken if it cannot even take rudimentary steps to defend itself against violent overthrow. Leaving that aside, I understand the deep-seated desire to both-sides this and every other issue, but the fact is that the courts have effectively already made a mockery of the Congressional oversight power.

I'm also a bit confused given that Presidents have in the past ignored the Supreme Court, not just the federal courts. Lincoln did it heroically, Jackson villainously, but it's been done.

 

[stinkubus]

The executive has also been openly flouting congress since at least Reagan. Checks and balances hasn't really worked out the way your junior high school social studies led you to believe.

 

[RobAnybody]

Did you forget that the Supreme Court exists?

You can't just ignore a court's ruling because a higher court exists.

 

[Samson]

Steve Bannon surrenders to face contempt charges

Trump ally Steve Bannon has surrendered to authorities to face contempt of Congress charges after refusing to give evidence about the Capitol riot.
Mr Bannon defied a summons to testify on what he knew about plans for the protest that ended with Trump supporters storming Congress.
On Friday, the justice department formally charged Mr Bannon, a former Trump White House strategist.
He now faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 (£74,429) fine.
​

I so hope they deny bail and he has a "nice" cell mate while waiting for his trial.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Federal grand jury indicts former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress

A federal grand jury has returned an indictment against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress, the Justice Department announced Friday.

Bannon, 67, was charged with one count related to his refusal to appear for a deposition and another related to his refusal to produce documents. Each count carries a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, the Justice Department said.
​

What are the odds of him doing porridge? I am guessing slim to none, but what else can they do?

Fake charges. FBI itself couldn't find any evidence of pre-planned "mostly peaceful protest" on Jan. 6, and on top of that Bannon claimed executive privilege. For this "contempt" political targeting to have any hope of working, congress would have had to first get past that claim. Not hold him in contempt w/o challenging it.

It says a lot that congress will go after fake crimes and ignore real ones.

The executive has also been openly flouting congress since at least Reagan. Checks and balances hasn't really worked out the way your junior high school social studies led you to believe.

True, and it's trended worse over time. Congress has also just decided to delegate increasingly broad authority to the executive branch and then twiddle its thumbs (alongside SCOTUS) regardless of how ethical or consistent the executive branch feels like being with the constitution. Of all things that are still bipartisan efforts, I wish this weren't one of them.

 

[Samson]

Fake charges. FBI itself couldn't find any evidence of pre-planned "mostly peaceful protest" on Jan. 6, and on top of that Bannon claimed executive privilege. For this "contempt" political targeting to have any hope of working, congress would have had to first get past that claim. Not hold him in contempt w/o challenging it.

It says a lot that congress will go after fake crimes and ignore real ones.

I do not know how it works in the US, but in the UK all you need to do to be held in contempt is to disobey a judge. Nothing else about the case has any bearing on the contempt charge. If you think that is bad, you should read about superinjunctions. You can be held in contempt for mentioning the existence of a court case.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do not know how it works in the US, but in the UK all you need to do to be held in contempt is to disobey a judge. Nothing else about the case has any bearing on the contempt charge.

I think in US you have to disobey a lawful order, which hasn't been established in this case. For the order to be lawful, it must bypass the claim of executive privilege AND have at least some factual basis.

If you come visit the US, a judge can't (lawfully) order you to appear in a US court for bombing Nepal. If you ignore that order it's not contempt, to my knowledge.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No, it's a real charge. If you're summoned to testify in front of Congress, you're required to do so. If you don't, they can hold you in contempt.

Bannon has shown contempt for their oversight power, so it's good that he's being held in contempt.

By the way, they could also, apparently, hold him in "inherent contempt," which as I understand it doesn't even have to go through DoJ and a grand jury, as this did.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, it's a real charge. If you're summoned to testify in front of Congress, you're required to do so.

Congress needs to provide a lawful order in order to have a legitimate procedural claim of contempt.

 

[Gori the Grey]

They did. They summoned Bannon to testify under subpoena. They have the authority to do that.

Here's something that a quick Google search turned up.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/05-congressional-investigations.html


There's been a unanimous Supreme Court decision on the matter:

The Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative power in Congress. “We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They did. They summoned Bannon under subpoena. They have the authority to do that.

Not that I've seen, according to law.

Bannon is "summoned" to testify regarding a "plot" which the FBI admitted it has no evidence the Trump administration was involved with. They squeezed that stone as much as they could and found no water.

People are not in violation of procedural law when the summons is unlawful.

 

[Gori the Grey]

They're not charging him with a crime. They're calling him to testify. Whether there was a "plot" or not is irrelevant. Whatever the FBI has found or not found is irrelevant. They can call people to testify on how well corn grows in Montana. They have the authority to compel testimony. Bannon scoffed at that authority. They have held him in contempt.

It's all perfectly lawful. Macgrain v Daughtery in the source I cited above.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They can call people to testify on how well corn grows in Montana.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding US law, but where does congress have the authority to randomly call people to testify? To compel testimony, you must pass at least some burden of evidence. A court (nor congress) cannot compel you to testify about your illegal drug operation...unless they have at least some evidence that such a thing exists.

In order to not violate the 4th amendment, there must be some evidence of Bannon's involvement. What is that evidence? And we'd need more than what we have for public figures who spoke in direct or indirect favor of the burning and looting last year and blocked attempts to constrain it, for example.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding US law

Yes. You are.

That's why I gave you a source to go look at. I'm not going to pretend that I know offhand the case law on the basis of which Congress has oversight authority. But it's a knowable thing for anyone who can do a Google search.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes. You are.

Then please explain how arbitrary compelled testimony is consistent with the 4th amendment. Or what specifically about Bannon implicates him sufficiently for congress to compel testimony over...say, compelling you to testify about your involvement in Jan. 6. I don't think I'm wrong about the 4th amendment, but I might be wrong about how much is known about Bannon.