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

The Reuters article talks about 2 FBI officials and 2 former FBI officials.

It also talks about that scant evidence. There were two groups that made plans to enter the Capitol Bldg. However they made no plans beyond that.

It also talks about Trump and his associates. They found no evidence of Trump being involved in any way. That includes his associates. At least 2 anyway as the article only mentions a couple. But it does imply any associates. But it most definitely clears Trump.

And while yes the Reuters story has been cited by many outlets (with their own spin) I don't believe that the government would cite it if there was nothing to it. But they do. When I get off work I can show you a link to the .gov site. Simply putting it on a .gov is an admission in and of itself, at least to me it is. They don't do that for any ole' story.

 

None of what you wrote undermines a thing that I wrote.

Bluesguy’s statement was false.

Based on the stories he linked to, here is something that is true
“FBI agents say there is evidence of an organised attempt to overthrow the government.”

 

No, that's not what it said.

Link: HMKP-117-GO00-20210902-SD004.pdf (house.gov)

You are basing your entire statement on the title of an article. Not the substance. Article titles are meant to catch the eye. Nothing more. And even then the article title doesn't even mention the words "overthrow the government". Indeed the only time that the article mentions the words "overthrow the government" was when it talked about senior officials at the DOJ having talked about it in weeks after the attack. And haven't really talked about it since. And they have not charged anyone with the related crimes of such. That much you can verify on your own.

The substance of the article reveals that the only evidence of any sort of coordination was between two far right wing groups. The Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. And they only planned as far as getting into the capitol building. There were no plans to overthrow the government.

And according to the article there was even a Democratic source admitting that the Senior lawmakers believing results of the investigation as credible.

And while you may try and twist what the article talks about into what you want it to say it not only does not say that it being listed under house.gov lends far more credibility to the article being accurate than any suppositions that you may have.

 

1. I asked Bluesguy to give a link proving his statement was true.
2. You jumped in to say he had proved it was true.
3. I showed that the links he provided - the links that you claimed proved his statement was true - actually proved that his statement was false.
4. You are now trying to deflect away from the fact that Bluesguy’s assertion was false, and that you were obviously wrong in claiming he had proved it to be true.

His assertion was false. Do you accept that now?

 

Sorry, but the assertion was that the FBI did not find any evidence of anyone trying to overthrow the government. Exact words: "The FBI has said there was no evidence anyone was attempting tonover throw the government." That assertion is correct. It is not my problem that you wish to ignore everything that I have provided you. The evidence has been shown. You are quite free to bring forth your own evidence showing that the FBI has said that there is evidence. Using your links or ours. Per your words...

"Based on the stories he linked to, here is something that is true
“FBI agents say there is evidence of an organised attempt to overthrow the government.”"

No where in my link or the links that @Bluesguy provided shows the FBI saying that there is evidence of an organized attempt to overthrow the government. Go ahead and try and show where it says that. Its your claim. Back it up. You can try and ignore my link if you want since you have moved the goal post to ONLY try and talk about his links, thereby ignoring the actual substance, but you'll find nothing in his links saying that "FBI agents say there is evidence of an organised attempt to overthrow the government.". Quite the opposite actually.

Anyways, time for bed. Working overnight shifts is rather tiring.

 

If the assertion is correct, then the FBI has said something. Please provide a link to the FBI statement.

As for backing up my assertion that “FBI agents say there is evidence of an organised attempt to overthrow the government”, it is literally in the first sentence of the Reuters article.

“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.”

The evidence is scant, but it has been found. And it disproves Bluesguy’s assertion.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex...ol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/

Precision of language can be your friend.
1. A few agents saying something anonymously is not the same as the FBI saying something.
2. Scant evidence is not the same as no evidence.
3. A few people trying to overthrow the government, having been organized in advance is not the same as none.

 

No. Trump has asserted privilege. If the kangaroo court conducting yet another showtrial think they have an actual legitimate legislative purpose for issuing this subpoena, they are free to plead their case to the Court.

 

Why would they need to assert EP?
What are they hiding?

 

Charged with what? Not showing up for a congress abusing its power?

 

While George Washington was the first president to tell a prying congress to go Biden themselves, it was Ike in the modern era that coined the term Executive Privilege to describe the long tradition.

During Senator Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against communism, Ike told the Witch Hunting Congress that they could essentially go straight to hell, informing every Cabinet members and other advisors that if they testified to the witchhunt Congress that they would be fired by nightfall. In this Great Constitutional Liberal Democracy we have a long tradition of allowing advisors to speak freely to the President without the threat of a subpoena.

Bill Clinton invoke privilege 14 times. Some held up, some fell under judicial scrutiny, that is one of the functions of the Court to resolve competing assertions among the co-equal branches.

Obama tried to assert privilege, and his assertion was rejected by a federal court. If your Kangaroo Committee thinks they have a legitimate legislative purpose to question Bannon, take Trump's assertion of privilege to court. How hard is that? Do you have any idea how many attorneys Congress has available to them to make these filings?

 

Who has been charged, where is the evidence that brought charges?

 

I gave you three reports that no evidence has been found of this asserted grand conspiracy to overthrow the government. One reporter desperate to make something here framed it as "scant" evidence. What exactly is "scant" evidence? Since when do we declare grand insurrections on "scant evidence"? Since when do we throw people in jail.on asserted "scant evidence". Since when dobwe have special Congressional commissions based on "scant evidence"?

I stand by my previous statement there has been no evidence produced or claimed that there is evidence of this gtreat plot to overthrow the government.

 

They are hangin' their hats on a single Reuter's report as a source. The FBI has made no conclusive statement or released any reports regarding the Jan 6th failed seditious conspiracy.

 

That wasn’t your previous statement. As expected, you’re trying to weasel out of your previous statement by softening it. By being less definitive.

You 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.

And as for your “three stories” - there was only one. Te Reuters story. The other stories were just repeating (and spinning) the Reuters story.

 

You did an excellent job of outlaying the argument that presidents have used executive priviledge in the past.
But there are a lot more intances of presidents not invoking exective priviledge and cooperating with investigations.
They are investigating a significant event in history, one that, imo, needs to be investigated as it was aimed at subverting the central core of our democractic republic, that we have duly elected people representing the citizens. There was questionable activity and statements made in the days around Jan 6th. Not just centered around Trump, for example, why some officers and possibly other officials might have let people in locked doors. And many more questions. If Trump and company did nothing wrong, why not show up and state what, why and when? I don't buy the argument that they will not have a fair hearing. Sounds like a guilty person's fear. Also a little odd from the self-proclaimed "most transparent administration ever".
Seems that they have referred it to the Justice Department, so we should get a ruling and see what happens. I don't think exective priviledge can be used for possible criminal activity, at least shouldn't be.
Sad that we have to even have this conversation..
I had to testify in court fairly recently, and the opposition brought up a text message that I had sent and completely forgotten about. It was unclear what the intention of the message was, so when asked about it, I explained what it meant. Took all the wind out of that sail. If I had something to hide or evaded the question, it would have looked like it meant what the opposition tried to make it sound like, and in closing arguments they had to sort of concede the point. Show up, look them in eye and answer the questions. If the question is worded unfavorably, word your answer to correct it. I don't think Bannon and the rest are naive to court rooms. I think that's why they don't want to appear. They know they did something shady and want to cover up for it. Almost every guilty person does this. t
That's my opinion, the only people who have the power to change my mind are those individuals. I do think people, regular citizens all the way to the top, should be accountable. It's what I try to teach my kids.

 

Correct. The two sides of the balance:
i) Congress is not the crime investigating body, their subpoena must be related to a legitimate legislative purpose, and cannot be a fishing expedition for criminal charges.
ii) The Executive can't assert it in order to cover up criminal behavior.

Not really. We have Courts to resolve such disputes between the co-equal branches.

You presume guilt at the refusal to submit to what you view as an illegitimate exercise of power. I don't. I never submit to an unjust exercise of power. For example, should a police officer ask me permission to look in my trunk, even though there is nothing in my truck, my answer is "No." If he has a right to, he will anyway, if he doesn't have a right to, then I'm not going to enable him to dick around with me needlessly rather than actively detect and suppress crime, the task we hire and equip him to perform. The same goes for Congress.

If Congress has a legitimate purpose, the Court will recognise that and order Bannon to comply with Congress, if Congress does not have a legitimate purpose, then Bannon is right to tell them to stuff it and not assist them in dicking around with witch hunts and show trials rather than working fruitfully in the interests of the American People.

 

Check back with us after the Congressional elections next year.

 

Do you believe Bannon will get off?

They voted 229 to 202 and it will stick no matter what you say.

 

How would you explain it?

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...r-steve-bannon-doj-possible-criminal-n1282064
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/14/politics/steve-bannon-deposition-deadline/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/steven-bannon-contempt-charge-vote-10-21-21/index.html

• The House voted to approve the Jan. 6 committee's report recommending Trump ally Steve Bannon be held for criminal contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena to appear before the panel.
• The referral is now with the Justice Department. Attorney General Merrick Garland will make the final decision on whether to prosecute.
• Today's vote marked another critical milestone in the Capitol riot investigation as the panel hopes even the remote threat of jail time prompts other Trump-aligned witnesses to cooperate.

They're doing it and they'll get their way. Don't say Steve Bannon is innocent and There is the probability that is is not and those may be true facts. If there are Criminal charges against Bannon, then That's what's going to happen. The DOJ and these other people are going to have Bannon in contempt. He can be charged with a crime for this and you can hope that Bannon will be found innocent but I doubt it. Bannon could end up be a fugutive from justice. Bannon is a crook and there isn't any two ways about it and there is no stopping it Congress could and will have authority to compel someone and they might do it. If they do, then what happens from there? It can happen. Who is going to stop congress form obtaining authority

 

Easy. It’s a clown show.

 

I agree with some of what you said, but I don't presume guilt, I do presume the need for an investigation. Let's hear what the people involved have to say under oath. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that if you're assumed ultimate goal is the preservation of our country.
Aren't you, as a citizen of the usa, interested in what happened to cause hundreds or thousands ot people to protest so violently that over 200 capital police were injured who were protecting the congress of this country, including the vice president? I get it that you think Trump was innocent of any wrongdoing. Then testify and clear it up, because right now there are a lot of good questions about shady looking circumstantial evidence. There are already a lot of facts that indicate the need for an investigation. They all know they at least pushed the envelope of right and wrong. The proof of that is too obvious. They held a large rally near the Capitol building on that day for a reason. They wanted to stop the legal process of certifying the votes. They succeeded at delaying it. I would think as a person who holds the constitution up and loves this country you wouldn't want to know what happened. The only reason you don't want to know is because you think it may not look good for the "home team"
My guess is that not much will happen to actually make any difference. As long as Trump wields the sword his followers give him, this may happen again. I think we as a country have to be on guard against someone just forcing their will over the will of the voters in elections. no matter the source. It's one of the things that has kept this country together for 246 years.
Your scenario you describe above only serves one purpose, to cover for the refusal to testify. Let's see what is/was going on. Of course, that's just my humble opinion.

 

No. This clown show is not a real investigation. It’s sole purpose is for sound bites for the gullible.

 

Don't know if he will or not. I'm not in the habit of using crystal balls.

And yes, its already been acknowledged that the HoR voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. What you tried to assert though is that they are a "special court". They are not. And that will stick no matter what you say. It will also stick that they must refer it to the DOJ and they must decide to prosecute for it to be even considered as an actual possible violation. And it will also stick that it then must go to a regular, already established, federal court and then THEY decide on the ultimate outcome.

There is no special court. Period.

And here's a bit more of knowledge for you. Even IF this committee decides to claim that Trump was responsible for an insurrection it will be meaningless. They will have to refer it to the DOJ and then they decide if there is actually anything there to prosecute. And then, ultimately, its up to a judge/jury to decide. Why? Because again, the HoR is not some "special court". They have no prosecutorial powers. And they have no power to legally try anyone. They are a political legislative body. Nothing more. And they will decide things based on political expediency. Not impartiality.

 

Yes, the first paragraph says that. And then the rest of the article shows that there was NONE. Why discard the rest of the article? Scant evidence is certainly not something that they are going to use in a court of law. Scant evidence can also mean something as small as one person saying "yes, I thought about wanting to over throw the government". But is there evidence that the person actually tried? You're hinging your argument on one word. A word that means extremely little. And in politics that could "little" could be spun to fit any narrative.

Look at the evidence in totality. Not just one small tiny word. That word does not define the entire article.