Steve Bannon Defies Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena

Not "ducking" as much as telling the Jan 6 Kangaroo Court that can wipe their asses with their subpoenas. Trump has invoke executive privilege against the Kangaroo Courts' attempted illegitimate exercise of power. If you have a beef with that, you are welcome to litigate it.

Explain to the Court why you think your Subpoena should be obeyed or take a hike.

​

Becker News reported, "Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States, has instructed four top aides to defy sweeping subpoenas issued by the partisan January 6 commission. The act of defiance is provoking desperation among ‘Never Trump’ operatives and partisan leftists who believe that the House committee lacks the political will to enforce the subpoenas."

"Liz Cheney is said cutting herself."

"one famous “Never Trump” pundit lamented in a thread that the January 6 committee is already effectively “dead.”"

They aren't the only ones.

 

Lol Bannon was an aid? I don’t recall him having a job in the admin in 2020 when he was being indicted

 

In addition he's a convicted felon that was pardoned by someone he was protecting. I guess he is banking on Trump being POTUS again to get pardoned again. I hope he never gets that wish.

 

Tell it to a Judge.

 

Bank on it.

 

Trump likes to make up his own rules, but without the Oval Office to protect him and give him the power to impede justice by pardoning others who do his bidding, that's not going to work out so well for him or them any longer.

 

Promises
Promises

 

Rule of Law, it's a real thing.

 

Show me the Judges decision backing your claim.

 

Never convicted actually

 

Seems like a strawman construct. Have you read the Constitution recently?

 

The pardon requires an inherent admission of guilt.

 

I simply asked for a judicial decision that backs your fanciful claim.

 

Fake News.

The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners expressly contemplates the possibility of "pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice."

 

No, it does not.

 

I'm getting confused and in need of a scorecard. I don't think the Constitution says anything about any Bannon indictment. What am I missing???

 

This reason you assert as invalidating, is patently false. See link to my earlier post, below.

You ever hear of Joseph McCarthy? Congress certainly does have the power to issue subpoenas, to private citizens, and answering them is not, "voluntary." I'm sure there must be some limitations on subpoenas, but not really on investigations. See my post on pg.1, #20.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-6-committee-subpoena.593040/#post-1072992694

As to what are those specific limits, in order to comply appearance: would you like to take a stab at researching it & sharing a link (or multiple ones)?

 

The HUAC was wholly unconstitutional. Precedent being what it is, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

You wandered into the wrong thread: we're talking about the House of Representatives, not the Supreme Court.

They can certainly also investigate, and they have the power to issue subpoenas (on their own). I think anyone's case, challenging the legitimacy of this, as a subject for Congress, seems rather weak. But, I guess if you've got the money for lawyers to tie this up, with a case, followed by appeals, you may be able to delay.

The unexpected thing, for me, was hearing Adam Schiff, this evening, say that Democrats actually Will contact the Justice Department, about arresting those who do not comply with their subpoenas!

About time they grew a pair (or at least one).

Thanks for the link, Lee! Even though it is focused just on Executive privilege, which should not apply here, it is the most informative article I've seen yet.

<SNIP>

The courts have long reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas. As the Congressional Research Service explained in 2017:

Congress has THREE FORMAL METHODS by which it can combat non-compliance with a duly issued subpoena. Each of these methods invokes the authority of a separate branch of government. First, the long dormant inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands.

Second, the criminal contempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of the contemnor.

Finally, Congress may rely on the judicial branch to enforce a congressional subpoena. Under this procedure, Congress may seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.

Either house of Congress can vote to hold in contempt a witness who refuses to provide testimony or produce requested documents pursuant to a congressionally authorized subpoena. As set out in 2 U.S.C. § 194, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia has the “duty [] to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” Contempt of Congress, which is a federal misdemeanor, is punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in federal prison. But if the executive branch is not inclined to prosecute a contemnor (the contemnor is a person or entity who is guilty of contempt before a judicial or legislative body), Congress will have a difficult time implementing such a penalty. Congress can also file a lawsuit asking a judge to order the witness to provide the information, raising the additional possibility of imprisonment for contempt of court.

<END SNIP>

So there are quite a selection of options. I think Schiff had mentioned the 3rd one (contacting the Justice Department, for enforcement). I am not clear if a Committee has the power to use any of these methods, or if they all require a Congressional vote (which shouldn't be a prob, in the House-- smart to hold the investigation in that chamber!).
There is just the note about, it seemed-- though it could have been clearer-- this method requiring, "the executive branch ,(to be) inclined to prosecute," and Biden had not been warm to this investigation, in the past. But, maybe ongoing actions have changed his mind, on that score.

Then, there's that last option I included, in the snip, about requesting a judge to issue an order to the subpoenaed, enabling the additional possibility of imprisonment, for contempt of COURT. I'm sure that there are judges who would be sympathetic to this. But would that make it appealable, and so capable of being overruled? The appeal, though, would presumably be to the DC Circuit, which I think still trends Liberal. And, even if this were to be appealed up to the SCOTUS, I don't see what basis there would be for a "stay," on the sentence; that is, until an overruling SCOTUS judgement, if they would even justify that, the non-compliant, "contemnor," should have to sit in prison for a good amount of time. Again, this seems something well-defined in law, so that there would be no reason for an expedited hearing from the Court, but with these Supremes, who knows?

However it plays out, it sounds like a lot of suspenseful excitement is on the way, and close at hand!

 

Trump is right. It is not American people business to know what happen on Jan 6. The only thing American people need to know is that idiots broke to the Capitol Hill and the stable genius watched this event from the TV screen.
True stable genius!!!

 

That doesn't mean that Congress does not have the right to subpoena private citizens. As a general principle, you are dead wrong on this.

 

Sounds like fake news. Give me a link and a pull quote to source for your claim that he was convicted of a felony.

 

Another misuse of the term 'fake news' but:
"In 1915, the Supreme Court indeed said, of pardons, that “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States"

 

Why did he need to get a pre-emptive pardon then, to protect damming information from surfacing on someone else maybe?

 

i) You claim that he was convicted of a felony.
ii) Now you are saying he got a 'preemptive' pardon.

What was the pardon "preempting"?