Steve Bannon Defies Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena

Lol, someone is in for a big disappointment if they actually try looking this up.

There have been hundreds of audits, recounts, and canvassing. Your loser is still a loser. The hardware you are talking about would have been a security risk to turn over to private firms with no experience that had already ruined millions of dollars worth of equipment at taxpayer expense in their braindead "audit" that produced nothing. And even the request for the hardware had no basis. It was pure tinfoil hat garbage.

 

They've outlined their legislative purpose, the White House has refused to exert EP in this situation (and for good reason), and Bannon's conversations in particular are not subject to EP and never have been. They are just stalling for time to try to keep the public from knowing the truth.

 

It has nothing to do with EP. Bannon was fired/resigned long before this occurred. Congress simply does not have the constitutional power to subpoena regular citizens outside of the impeachment process. Jan 6 is a criminal matter that falls into the authority of the executive and judicial branches. Congress cannot step in and usurp the authority of the executive branch.

 

Unless issued for an investigation tied to a legislative purpose, it is outside the jurisdiction of Congress, hence unlawful. Certainly a person could voluntarily comply, but Congress does not have within its purview the power to investigate private citizens.

 

I disagree that a legislative process requires subpoena's. I also think that's too broad and would give them the power to subpoena anyone for anything by simply making up that they want to make legislation for something.

Furthermore, they are subpoening radio hosts and speech and social platforms. The legislative reason, for sending subpoenas, is to regulate speech and pass unconstitutional law. Their intent is as unconstitutional as their act.

 

Congress clearly has the power to subpoena: just not private citizens.

 

Yes I think we agree. They can subpoena officials under the executive branch as part of their duties to be a check and balance on the executive branch as well as to manage powers they delegated to the executive branch via legislation. Ie.. immigration, war, taxes.

 

A subpoena is legally binding. You think you’re coming up with legal theory nobody else thought of?? Lol

 

You’re aware they’ve had subpoena powers for awhile now right? This isn’t new?

 

A subpoena issued without jurisdiction, however, is basically a request. Sure they can issue it, but compliance is voluntary.

 

So you don’t think congress has jurisdiction over congress and its duties??
They didn’t storm a record store, they stormed Congress while congress were carrying out their constitutional duties. But you say congress has no jurisdiction….over congress??

 

Correct. Congress has no jurisdiction over criminal matters involving private citizens. The USSC has affirmed this over and over.

If members of Congress believe private citizens have been involved in criminal activity, they can certainly refer the matter to the appropriate authorities.

 

They aren’t conducting a criminal investigation. If they can investigate the mafia, they can investigate a bunch of yahoo’s breaking to stop them from carrying out their constitutional responsibilities.

 

Can you link or cite the SCOTUS ruling that says it in such a cut-and-dried fashion (hopefully with their elaboration on what they consider an, "active on-going lawmaking activity")?
Thanks.

 

I'm not interested in arguing that point-- not out of fear, but because it is really irrelevant to my main point: subpoena recipients need to SHOW UP.


I'll only note that I don't know of any case of a person "invoking," this right, without stating that this was his intention. One might wonder, if he said nothing, how anyone could be sure that he was, indeed, claiming this Constitutional protection, as opposed to not just not refusing to answer (which might be grounds for a charge of contempt), or hard of hearing, or having a stroke. But, as I said, this was not an important element, in the main idea of my post.

 

“Though the Select Committee welcomes good-faith engagement with witnesses seeking to cooperate with our investigation, we will not allow any witness to defy a lawful subpoena or attempt to run out the clock, and we will swiftly consider advancing a criminal contempt of Congress referral.
https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/thompson-cheney-statement-subpoena-deadline

 

I must admit I enjoy proving you wrong. It's not difficult.

Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches
https://www.lawfareblog.com/congres...ve-privilege-coming-showdown-between-branches

The only dubious grounds Trump et al had to stand on has been torched by Joe.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/08/bannon-jan-6-subpoena-515681

 

Of course Steve can take the 5th at a congressional inquiry. I simply said that tactic would be abominably stupid.

 

Nothing SCOTUS says or does is ever cut and dried. IIRC SCOTUS has ruled on congressional subpoenas 3 or 4 times, always ending up with the same result but with different twists and nuances.

 

Well, we will find out won't we? He's already been pardoned for crimes once.

 

First of all by saying I am wrong you are asserting that the supreme court has never ruled the congressional subpoenas must have a legislative purpose. That is a little like asserting the sun does not rise in the east. Secondly your sophomoric attempt to back up your claim cites an article by some legal wag that says, and I quote, "The power of Congress to investigate and obtain information is very broad [and]................ the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress." Really odd and inexplicable.

Then you throw some more mud against the wall by citing Biden's assertion that he can decide which of the previous administration documents can be shielded by executive privilege. Biden might be correct or could be wrong. It'll depended on the archivist and/or the courts, although this has nothing directly to do with the question of legislative function rulings by the courts. SCOTUS greatly prefers for congress and the executive branch to leave the court out of it and work out differences between themselves. What are true legislative functions is not clearly defined by anybody. Neither is which documents, conversations or knowledge should come under executive privilege clearly defined although courts usually (always?) give the executive side the benefit of the doubt.

 

I hate to have to but I need to clear up a couple of things. 1. Congress can subpoena private citizens in carrying out its legislative duties. 2. Congress has no criminal jurisdiction over anyone, private citizen or public official or entity.

 

They are legally binding only if and when a court says they are legally binding.

 

I accept that answer as correct. I would add that, when the subpoenas involve the Executive Branch, the SCOTUS prefers to stay out of the matter. Now, of course, this is not the case; but the Trump factor may "complicate," the issue, for some on the Court.

But, based on your answer, you are contradicting the certainty you'd displayed, in your OP (to which I'd replied) that these subpoenas, "are...not binding or legal." At most, according to your reply, here, you could maintain that they might not be deemed to be binding. But, in fact, the, "same result," to which you refer, without elaboration-- unless you are thinking of intra-governmental squabbles between branches-- I would suspect was to support the force of Congressional subpoena, to compel testimony (or at least appearance).

If, however, we take just the speculation that there is real doubt as to the legitimacy of these subpoenas, and they get held up for adjudication, it would cause such a delay in the House investigation, that these witnesses would likely not be heard before the midterm elections (so would, therefore, not play a part in affecting those results, theoretically putting the future of those investigations into doubt). It should be added that there is, nevertheless, still an active Justice Department investigation.

But, taking your implied answer, on your word, that the SCOTUS has ruled against Congress on some subpoena issues, I wonder if this case would be one of those, based on my hearing the former Chairman of the RNC (Republican National Committee)-- that's for others' benefit, Rod-- from 2009-2011, Michael Steele, strongly asserting the same argument that I'd already made, here: that Congress absolutely has the power but, frustratingly, Democrats don't have the will, or the Republican-gumption, to use it.

 

Can't disagree with any of this. But the odds, history and logic is very solid that these subpoenas will not hold up. On the other hand the best probability of predicting any court ruling is an absolute 50/50.