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

So, by your logic, the Constitution is bad for America.

Brilliant.

Alright, if that is how you truly feel, and you are not being sarcastic ( if so, please advise ) then apparently you are not into that particular founding document called the Constitution of the United States because the concept of separation of powers and the enumerated ( and the implied) powers granted to congress by the Constitution would be impotent, if what you wish were true. .

 

Trivialization of 1/6 is not a merit worthy argument.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Was it stupid? Yes.

Was it insurrection? No.

 

You've made an assumption on Congress's motives subpoenaing Bannon.

I believe they are justified and honorable. Congress has a reason to believe Bannon is privy to key facts surrounding 1/6.

Jewell and Bannon are apples and oranges.

Yes, it is a fact of life that police, et al, make unwarranted arrests. yes, it is true that some prosecutors get wrong in the zealotry.

But, here's the deal, and the fallacy of your logic:

Say I get stopped, and the cop gives me a ticket. I think to myself that the ticket is bogus.

Should I, therefore, have the right to tell the officer that the ticket he gave me is unjust and I should be allowed to tear it up?

Even if it were a true fact that his ticked was bogus, I still don't have that right.

Because if the law allowed everyone who was given a ticket to be the arbiter of the merits of the ticket, if that were allowed to be, then there would be no law.

Law would be a joke.

Unwarranted tickets, subpoenas, etc, are the price a civilized society must pay in order to have ORDER.

So, what do I do? I go to court, as the ticket says I must, and argue my case. If I am right, and my evidence confirms it, the judge will side with me. But, I still MUST appear. I have no right not to appear.

Bannon MUST appear, and AFTER he appears, he can then make his case, sue, etc.

But he must appear, that is the law.

See, he is going to be charged with contempt, not whether anything which is the substance of the investigation makes him culpable in any way, and his contempt is open and shut. He did the deed, he was in contempt of congress. There is no escaping that fact.

If DOJ doesn't prosecute him, I will be surprised, and disheartened.

Now, then, that being said, it may very well be True that Bannon is loving it all, all the attention, scoring brownie points with Trump's base, etc., but that is beside the point.

 

It is mindboggling you believe the Congress has the power to conduct a criminal investigation and force people to turn over their records and emails and text to them without a judge approving a search warrant. Even a court cannot force you to testify against yourself.

 

I doubt it

 

Maybe sedition. It was definitely more than trespassing.

But, we shall see. DOJ might not want all the political landmines it would inevitably be forced to step on if it went the insurrection route,

But, in my view, they should do it, anyway..

 

Like what, insurrection is already against the law, conspiracy to commit insurrection is already against the law duh! And why would it require the testimony of Bannon or anyone in the White House?

 

Who is saying they are trying to do that? Not me.

 

You don't believe it is about finding a crime committed by him and persons in the White House hoping in particular Trump? You don't think that is what this is about?

What key facts an be specific or is this like two years of key facts that were going to prove Trump colluded with Russia to try and win the election?

Jewell and Bannon are apples and oranges.

Congress has no criminal law enforcement powers PERIOD.

Unwarranted tickets, subpoenas, etc, are the price a civilized society must pay in order to have ORDER.

Not if a judge says he doesn't have to do so.

Can the government force you to take the stand against yourself.

 

Witches don't exist.

 

It's trivial. Outside of capital Police murdering a combat veteran.

 

Best of luck finding that judge....

Correction... there are plenty of unqualified judges out there, but the final judicial ruling will place Bannon's sloppy ass in a witness chair....

 

You don't think this will go before a judge and what judge is going to rule that Congress can force someone to go under oath and give testimony they are seeking against them?

 

To hell with Democrats and Republicans. Both want to be our overlords. **** them all.

 

Unarmed? You make me laugh.

 

Their actions say that.

 

The FBI has been engaged in what some have called the biggest nationwide investigation in modern history along with other federal and local law enforcement. They have charged NO ONE with sedition. Nor insurrection. Nor overthrowing the government. With all their investigative powers and capabilities which FAR out strip a Congressional commission, why do you think this partisan commission will find evidence of sedition or insurrection. AG Garland testified last week they have not been able to charge anyone with insurrection.

You claim they should do it anyway, charge people when they don't have the evidence to do so?

 

All real ones...

 

It's a pissing contest between Republicans and Democrats. They're too busy arguing amongst themselves and keeping the nation divided to actually do anything useful. Same as the last presidency when the roles were reversed. SSDD in modern USA. I would ****ing love it if for the mid term elections and the next election if the American people voted every last one of those useless ****s out of office. Wishful thinking though, since so many Americans are brainwashed to only think along party lines these days.

 

All real ones what?

 

engaging in fools' errands is not my thing, sorry.

 

But it was what the conversation was about, responding to Kai'Stang.

My response was to answer the question posited by Kai'Stang:

Kal'Stang said: ↑
So...out of curiosity....what legislative purpose does this committee hold?


So, if you are going to respond to a comment not intended for you, directly, it is courtesy to go back a few to see what the conversation is about. All OPs have subthreads.

 

They are not conducting a criminal investigation.

Congressional investigations have subpoena powers for those who are not cooperative.

Sure, anyone who complies with a lawful subpoena can take the fifth, that is their right.

But, it will be under oath and a matter of public record. That they can do that doesn't mean Congress should not subpoena someone. Who's to say the subject might change their mind at the last minute, or answer some questions that Congress would value as important to the investigation?

It is unlawful to not comply with a congressional subpoena.