1/6 committee to 'swiftly consider' criminal contempt for Steve Bannon, others who ignore subpoenas

YES, the executive branch which includes the POTUS. POTUS is not a monarch, he or she is not above the law if they committed crimes. Congress has constructional oversight duties.

 

You wave the FBI's findings around as if justice in this country is something absolute.

Are you going to deny that the rioters were on Capitol Hill to prevent Biden from being named POTUS?

That is the very principle of a direct attack on democracy.

And do you really think the elected officials who participated will get away with not facing the 1/6 Commission?

 

We have a JUDICIAL system that is the branch of government that deals with criminal matters, it is NOT the role of the Congress. If they were there to obstruct an official proceeding they can be charged with that crime, and let's make sure we apply that to ALL protesters.

What elect officials participated and what criminal investigation says so and who has been charged?

 

Nope, the President is not confirmed by the Congress he is an elected official and is NOT overseen by the Congress he is co-equal. That is why there is Executive Privilege for those officials in HIS office. And Congressional oversight is not CRIMINAL investigation and prosecution that is the JUDICIAL branch.

 

I guess it's OK for some of you to think that Bannon is innocent and there are some people that believe it and that's OK. I don't really know if Bannon is innocent or guilty but there is a special court that is going to determine this and that's all there is to it. There are some people out there that think Bannon ought to go to jail and that's OK as well. It will all be spread out what part of this January 6 incident Bannon played or it he played any part out at all. We'll have to see what evidence there is and how it will be used when the time comes. If you still believe that Bannon is innocent, That's OK for now if you want to believe it. That's all I'll say on this matter for now.

 

Well first show me who has been so charged?


" The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.


"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.""
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex...ol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

The FBI comes up empty-handed in its search for a Jan. 6 plot
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...p-empty-handed-in-its-search-for-a-jan-6-plot

FBI finds no evidence Capitol riot was coordinated
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...apitol-riot-attack-fbi-evidence-b1906060.html

FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-january-6

 

I understand you are not aware of the case law.

 

He is not charged with a crime and that would have happened long ago. What’s happening now is a clown show for sound bites.

Congress has no authority to compel someone to appear unless it is for a legislative purpose and nothing about this is for legislation.

 

15 days and counting since the "swiftly considered".

It's all fake news, lies and "messaging".

THERE IS ONLY ONE CURE FOR THIS: Dirtbag Garland confirms no one who participated in January 6th has been charged with insurrection.

 

What special court is that? I have not heard of a special court being made?

 

Something tells me that you don't keep with these certain events.

 

He could be charged and if that were to happen remains to be seen. I won't be surprised either way.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics/steve-bannon-house-contempt-vote/index.html
The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to hold Steve Bannon, one of former President Donald Trump's closest allies, in criminal contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena from the committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
The vote was 229-202.
The vote was 229 to 202 and that included nine Republicans. How do you explain this?

 

That’s not what the FBI said. If you maintain they did, prove it. And don’t weasel out of it by watering down your claim.

 

Hate to break it to you buuuutttt.....the HoR is not a "special court". Its a legislative body. They don't even have the power to enforce that. They have to refer it to the DoJ and they are the ones that decide to actually charge someone with it or not. If they decide to then it goes before a regular, already established, court to see if it will stick or not. There is no "special court" involved.

I would suggest that you learn how our system works before continuing to display your ignorance of it.

And just for the record, I support the move. I may think this whole "investigation" by that committee to be nothing more than political posturing but people should still follow the laws.

 

In regards to the FBI saying that there is no evidence that shows anyone trying to overthrow the government: He already proved it. 8 posts above your post. He provided several links. If however you don't like those I can provide a .Gov site for you after I get off work and don't have to use my phone.

 

Refer to my previous post.

 

Thanks for posting that video! I watched the whole thing. Listened to every word..I didn't hear a "wack job" I heard a person who made their assessment of what they were presented with.
She did make an assumption as to what Bannon's comments and behavior meant, but I think Bannon's non-compliance had a little to do with it. If there is some other truth other than what she is describing, then Bannon should show up and testify and clear that up.
If he doesn't, why not? If you feel strongly that you are in the right on something important, wouldn't you show up to state your case?

 

Bold: Not necessarily. For me at least it would depend on the circumstances. In this particular case I would imagine that Bannon is thinking that Dems are not to be trusted and will twist whatever he says into something other than what it is. I think he would be right in that assessment. It's all they've done for the last 5 years.

Mind you I personally would have still shown up. Whether or not I would answer any questions however is a different matter.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/bob-woodward-finds-seven-conspiratorial-202500017.html
Hopefully the truth will come out in the end.
I don't know how many of you have testified in court, but it has a way of inspiriing humility. I have always looked forward to the opportunity to speak my piece, and I question someone who isn't.

 

Read the link. How exactly did Woodward get the exact quotes that he claims Bannon made? And how does he know Bannon was speaking directly with Trump? He doesn't claim anything about having some kind of recording or anything like that. And I'm sure he wasn't there. So how'd he get those quotes? Sure hope he's got solid evidence on this...and no...his book is not evidence.

 

I understand your point about partisan politics, but we need to move back towards truth being the truth

I'm not claiming it as evidence. I'm pointing out that there is a good reason why they would like to ask Bannon some questions. And a good reason why the American people should have some answes.
Woodward is proabably left leaning, but he seems to be the honest type. If there is nothing to hide, why hide?

 

The 1/6 fiery but mostly peaceful protest is a nothing burger.

People shouldn't even bother cooperating with such a nonsensical investigation.

America has moved on.

 

The problem is determining what exactly is the truth.

I never meant to imply or claim that you meant it as evidence. Sorry if it came out that way.

As for him being honest? Perhaps at one time he was. But after the last 5 years I really don't trust anyone in the media. I want actual hard evidence of things. Not "evidence" that happens to be written in a book he wrote to make money off of.

And I certainly don't think we should be basing investigations on claims made in that same book.

 

Ok. A few things here. Bluesguy claimed
“The FBI has said there was no evidence anyone was attempting tonover throw the government.”

“The FBI has said”. That means an announcement from the FBI. An official FBI position. There isn’t one. There is a single story from Reuters (that has been quoted and spun by other publications). No announcement from the FBI. So - even though the Reuters story is based on anonymous sources - it might be ok to claim “One FBI agent has said”, it is false to claim “The FBI has said”.

“there was no evidence”. The story itself does not say no evidence. It refers to “scant evidence”. Some evidence. Not a lot, but more than none.

“anyone was attempting to overthrow the government.” Anyone. Bluesguy says “anyone”. That’s not what the story says. It says there was little evidence of pre-planning and organization. 95% of the individuals trying to overthrow the government were not pre-organized to participate.

So I’m sorry but that’s a three-part fail.
1. No statement from FBI.
2. There is evidence of planning and organization.
3. People were there to overthrow the government (prevent Biden, the legitimate winner of the election, from being installed as president), but few of them had a pre-organized plan.