Trump's Rump

[Naskra]

Or what specifically about Bannon implicates him sufficiently

He's called as a witness, therefore he's a witness, therefore conspiracy, therefore insurrection, threat to democracy, Reichstag fire, and bombshells for Rachel.

 

[Drakle]

@TheMeInTeam doesn't understand the law and will twist themselves in whatever partisan way is needed.

But Bannon also isn't part of the executive branch. He was a private citizen, and had no job in the admin. This is how intellectually lazy, Bannon and you lot are Moderator Action: not nice, don't do that. . He was living on a Chinese billionaires yatch, scamming MAGA rubes out of their money, and being prosecuted for wire fraud, when Trump dangled a pardon for his help with the coup. That's the guy conservatives are defending, someone who was aligned with a foreign billionaires trading access, while scamming American citizens.

Also I very doubt we would be having this cheering for congressional authority being completely gutted, if it were some Clinton lackey refusing to testify.

I will give you a peak into the future. After 2022 when Republicans retake either the House or Senate, they are going to launch congressional investigations and subpoenas. Then all the conservatives will suddenly switch on a dime to cheering as they demand Hasbro explain why a toy spud doesn't have a gendered title. Or more seriously calling in everybody from the Afghanistan withdrawal, from private to general, and grilling them, until they find a target for the Fox News rage machine to link to Biden and keep caterwauling about. See Benghazi, where the GOP congressional leaders openly boasted was them just hunting for a way to sink Clinton's approvals.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

McGrain v. Daugherty

McGrain v. Daugherty

, 273 U.S. 135 (1927), was a case heard before the Supreme Court, decided January 17, 1927. It was a challenge to Mally Daugherty's contempt conviction and arrest, which happened when he failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating the failure of his brother, Attorney General Harry Daugherty, to investigate the perpetrators of the Teapot Dome Scandal. The Court upheld his conviction.[1]

In the case, the Supreme Court held for the first time that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to compel witnesses to appear and provide testimony.[1]
The core issue in the case, whether Congress has the authority to investigate and compel testimony and other evidence, was addressed by the court by citing previous investigations authorized by the House and Senate. "This power was both asserted and exerted by the House of Representatives in 1792, when it appointed a select committee to inquire into the St. Clair expedition and authorized the committee to send for necessary persons, papers and records. Mr. Madison, who had taken an important part in framing the Constitution only five years before, and four of his associates in that work, were members of the House of Representatives at the time, and all voted for the inquiry." Another later investigation by the Senate and other various cases were also discussed in the opinion.

The court also said that Congress' investigative power is just another subordinate duty to its legislative duties: "The means of carrying into effect by law all the granted powers, is given where legislation is applicable and necessary; but there are subordinate matters, not amounting to laws; there are inquiries of the one house or the other house, which each house has a right to conduct; which each has, from the beginning, exercised the power to conduct; and each has, from the beginning, summoned witnesses. This has been the practice of the government from the beginning; and if we have a right to summon the witness, all the rest follows as a matter of course."

According to the court, Congress possesses, not only the powers that are expressly granted to them by the Constitution, but "auxiliary powers" that are necessary and appropriate to make the express powers effective.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the same SCOTUS that upheld eugenics/forced sterilization would also ignore the 4th amendment.

However, they still had some evidentiary burden back then. What evidence do we have on Bannon right now?

 

[Arakhor]

How does Bannon even have executive privilege in the first place? If it was a simple matter of Trump saying he did, surely Biden saying he doesn't is all that matters.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How does Bannon even have executive privilege in the first place? If it was a simple matter of Trump saying he did, surely Biden saying he doesn't is all that matters.

The timing of the alleged action(s) would matter for that.

What continues to confuse me about this is that the FBI knows there was no advance plot of "overthrowing the government" or anything similar. They also had advance notice that rioting was going to happen, and how that information was handled is suspect.

Not that trusting the FBI is a sane position to take given their conduct lately, but since they were motivated to find such evidence we can presume they'd use any they've found.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the same SCOTUS that upheld eugenics/forced sterilization would also ignore the 4th amendment.

Are you suggesting that any SCOTUS decision from the past should be suspect because they were made under different cultural settings or by Justices who might have held views that are less popular today? BTW, the 4th Amendment is all about warrants for searches and seizures related to suspected crimes. It is not related to subpoenas for court appearances.

However, they still had some evidentiary burden back then. What evidence do we have on Bannon right now?

Bannon failed to produce the asked for documents and failed to show up for his hearing. That is called contempt. You seem to forget that he is being called as a witness. His "crime" is that he did not comply with a legal subpoena. If you were subpoenaed to be a witness in court and did not show up, you too could be charged with contempt. And btw, executive privilege only applies to a president's conversations and communications with his staff. It does not apply to private citizens. Bannon was not a WH employee during 2020. Trump will likely lose his case claiming that he still has executive privilege even if he not the president.

 

[Joij21]

Are you suggesting that any SCOTUS decision from the past should be suspect because they were made under different cultural settings or by Justices who might have held views that are less popular today? BTW, the 4th Amendment is all about warrants for searches and seizures related to suspected crimes. It is not related to subpoenas for court appearances.

Just because it's unpopular by the larger populace doesn't mean our leaders don't still espouse such beliefs in private.

As a matter of fact, not even all the older ones which you are referencing are dead yet. Some still hold positions of power if not yet retired, they're just low key about what they used to publicly admit in the past.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

BTW, the 4th Amendment is all about warrants for searches and seizures related to suspected crimes. It is not related to subpoenas for court appearances.

Bannon failed to produce the asked for documents

Hmmmmmmmm. It's almost like they want to search Bannon's possessions, and are willing to use legal force to seize them.

Why do you think Bannon specifically has received a subpoena?

Are you suggesting that any SCOTUS decision from the past should be suspect because they were made under different cultural settings or by Justices who might have held views that are less popular today?

No, I am not suggesting that dishonest representation of my criticism of early 1900's SCOTUS.

I am suggesting that SCOTUS got more than one thing wrong back then, in direct violation of the constitution as it existed in their time. Just like it got it wrong much more recently when it upheld civil forfeiture w/o a conviction.

Anyway, there does appear to be some requirement for legal subpoenas:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States (1961),[13] a congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

Absent already-existing evidence that the former administration was involved in planning the riot, it's not clear what valid legislative purpose is possible.

Also, from what I understand if Bannon made a motion to quash the subpoena based on executive privilege, that would have to be considered and have the legal process regarding its denial completed before Bannon can be properly held in contempt. His failures to appear happened while that was an ongoing legal process.

 

[Gori the Grey]

How does Bannon even have executive privilege in the first place?

He doesn't. Executive privilege belongs only to the sitting president. Trump is making the claim that it applies to former presidents. That claim will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, since his only mode is just to keep delaying things by appealing. That's fine. But it will be decided, probably 6-3, maybe 7-2. Thomas and Kavanaugh voting, with twisted legal reasoning, out of pure spite. Who knows where Coney Barrett would come down on something like this.

it's not clear what valid legislative purpose is possible.

People (me at least) would like laws so that nothing like Jan 6 ever happens again. Knowing how to shape those laws involves getting to the bottom of what occurred on Jan 6. Bannon has information about what occurred on Jan 6. Congressional oversight committees have the authority to compel testimony. It's that simple. Nobody has seriously questioned that authority since the Court ruled unanimously on it. Certainly the Republicans loved having the ability to call Clinton to testify on what occurred in Benghazi.

 

[Naskra]

Trump is making the claim that it applies to former presidents.

And he's right. Read E.O. 13489

 

[Gori the Grey]

And he's right. Read E.O. 13489

You read more closely through it:

In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

He doesn't. Executive privilege belongs only to the sitting president. Trump is making the claim that it applies to former presidents. That claim will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, since his only mode is just to keep delaying things by appealing. That's fine. But it will be decided, probably 6-3, maybe 7-2. Thomas and Kavanaugh voting, with twisted legal reasoning, out of pure spite. Who knows where Coney Barrett would come down on something like this.

This still has to be settled before contempt would stick, logically speaking. Compelling testimony before that ruling effectively bypasses the reason for the legal challenge.

People (me at least) would like laws so that nothing like Jan 6 ever happens again. Knowing how to shape those laws involves getting to the bottom of what occurred on Jan 6.

Rioting is already illegal, just like it was during the "summer of peace" burning and looting sessions of 2020 (still waiting on accountability for officials who allowed those/blocked efforts to stop them). Forcing your way into trespass (though not all of the alleged rioters in Jan. 6 did so, some people did in fact riot), violently attacking people, and destroying property are crimes. Conspiracy to do them is also a crime. Despite fake reports of "insurrection", there doesn't appear to be any evidence of planned or attempted government overthrow, just a combination of angry rioting and a group of people who walked into places they shouldn't be without resistance.

We do not need more laws to prevent actions that are already illegal. The real question is why authorities ignored tips/advanced warning of the riot. Rather than doing junk subpoenas on people for which congress has no evidence of their involvement despite actively looking for it, why not bring in some of those folks who knew the attack would happen and didn't act? Is it not useful to compel their testimony? Not only would that give us some answers, it would also implicate/give credible basis to go after any government officials who were actually involved in it.

Could be interesting to hear why the feds were working alongside agitators there, too. After the Whitmer "kidnapping" stuff I'm a bit more inclined to listen to conspiracy theories about the feds than I'd have been previously, since it appears they do in fact engage heavily in conspiracy.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hmmmmmmmm. It's almost like they want to search Bannon's possessions, and are willing to use legal force to seize them.

Why do you think Bannon specifically has received a subpoena?

The commission has issued almost 50 subpoenas. Bannon is just one among many. He is a witness and they want to ask him questions and share his communications with others regarding the Jan 6 events. Bannon apparently was involved in some of the meetings prior to the events. They did not ask for his computers, just his "emails" connected to Jan 6th.

No, I am not suggesting that dishonest representation of my criticism of early 1900's SCOTUS. I am suggesting that SCOTUS got more than one thing wrong back then, in direct violation of the constitution as it existed in their time. Just like it got it wrong much more recently when it upheld civil forfeiture w/o a conviction.

They got it wrong is just a matter of opinion. Legally, what they have decided in the past is "correct" unless overturned.

Anyway, there does appear to be some requirement for legal subpoenas:

Yes, and the commission has met those requirements.

Absent already-existing evidence that the former administration was involved in planning the riot, it's not clear what valid legislative purpose is possible.

Also, from what I understand if Bannon made a motion to quash the subpoena based on executive privilege, that would have to be considered and have the legal process regarding its denial completed before Bannon can be properly held in contempt. His failures to appear happened while that was an ongoing legal process.

Legislation might be needed to provide protection for members of Congress or for the process of certifying elections. The crowd was out for blood and shouted that they wanted to kill Pence and Pelosi in addition to stopping a constitutionally sanctioned action.

 

[Farm Boy]

He doesn't. Executive privilege belongs only to the sitting president. Trump is making the claim that it applies to former presidents. That claim will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, since his only mode is just to keep delaying things by appealing. That's fine. But it will be decided, probably 6-3, maybe 7-2. Thomas and Kavanaugh voting, with twisted legal reasoning, out of pure spite. Who knows where Coney Barrett would come down on something like this.



People (me at least) would like laws so that nothing like Jan 6 ever happens again. Knowing how to shape those laws involves getting to the bottom of what occurred on Jan 6. Bannon has information about what occurred on Jan 6. Congressional oversight committees have the authority to compel testimony. It's that simple. Nobody has seriously questioned that authority since the Court ruled unanimously on it. Certainly the Republicans loved having the ability to call Clinton to testify on what occurred in Benghazi.

There is a "never again" in there.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here is a list of the first 35 people subpoenaed. The goal of the commission is discover the who, what, when, why, for the Jan 6th attempt to overthrow the election. Once the investigation is complete we will knw more.

https://news.yahoo.com/subpoenaed-far-jan-6-committee-012246417.html

 

[Birdjaguar]

Just because it's unpopular by the larger populace doesn't mean our leaders don't still espouse such beliefs in private.

As a matter of fact, not even all the older ones which you are referencing are dead yet. Some still hold positions of power if not yet retired, they're just low key about what they used to publicly admit in the past.

So what? Most Americans oppose banning abortions and fewer gun laws. Many elected officials still support both in private and public. Nothing new here.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Despite fake reports of "insurrection", there doesn't appear to be any evidence of planned or attempted government overthrow, just a combination of angry rioting and a group of people who walked into places they shouldn't be without resistance

Steven Bannon on his podcast:

The day before the attack, former top Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon said on his podcast, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s going to be moving. It’s going to be quick.”

He added: “So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”

And: “It’s all converging, and now we’re on the point of attack tomorrow. … And all I can say is: Strap in. You have made this happen, and tomorrow it’s game day.”

There is a "never again" in there.

Yes, it would be nice if we never again had to witness anything like what we witnessed on January 6th.

 

[Naskra]

from th E.O.:

"nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege"

 

[Birdjaguar]

What continues to confuse me about this is that the FBI knows there was no advance plot of "overthrowing the government" or anything similar.

that question is unanswered and is what the commission is trying to find out. What the FBI knew or didn't know is separate from the truth they are looking to discover.