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

Yes, it would be a fool's errand. Past instances of these "investigations" have proven that.

 

Like what?

How many insurrections (events) of the order of magnitude of 1/6, one inspired by the President of the United States, has history seen in the last 100 years?

Zero.

Surely, because of this fact, writ large, there are some new things that need to be looked at and legislatively addressed. It would be incompetent and derelict by Congress to assume otherwise.

That's what.

Double ****ing DUH!

 

The answer is none.

 

Still beating that dead horse.

 

Congress has an obligation to get to the bottom of the hows, whys and wherefores of 1/6.
That is what this is about.

Here are the relevant facts to your question, because the actual answer to your question is irrelevant to the matter at hand, but there remains some relevance, nevertheless, insofar as.....

Criminal Investigations have three possible SUCCESSFUL outcomes:

1. To clear the air of any wrongdoing under suspicion.
2. To indict
3. combinations of #1 and #2.

In the case of Mueller, it's unique because of the OLC memo, so the purpose is a report to congress, and they can proceed from there.

Either of the outcomes indicates a successful investigation and any of the three IS the objective.

Investigations are not done willy nilly, there must be predication, hence #1.

However, the congressional investigation is not a criminal investigation, it's purpose is to get to the bottom of the hows, whys and wherefores of 1/6, and make any legislative recommendations, and produce any criminal referrals if such are encountered.

They have the power of subpoena, incarceration in the event of inherit contempt, and power of ordering contempt of congress, and power of criminal referrals to DOJ if such are encountered.

There is a criminal referral to the crime of 'Contempt of Congress'.
It will be up to the DOJ to decide whether or not to prosecute, either make that determination by the DOJ or by Grand Jury.
Once decision to prosecute is made, if it is made, then a trial will occur if the defendant pleas not guilty.

What will the judge to? He or she will do what judges do. Rule on motions, etc., etc, etc. I sincerely doubt a judge is going to thwart a congressional contempt order (on a motion to dismiss) after congress, a grand jury, and the DOJ has decided there is grounds for a prosecution.

Question is irrelevant.

While, if subpoenaed, you have the right to take the fifth, you do not have the right to not comply with a lawful subpoena.

Just because members of congress expect Bannon to claim the 5th, if he does appear, doesn't mean they shouldn't subpoena him.

Why? People change their minds all the time, once the hearing commences. Also, he might claim the 5th on some questions, but not others.

 

Metaphors do exist.

 

I don't know what universe you live in, but 1/6 is anything but trivial.

It is a watershed event, the symptom of factors welling up like volcanic matter under plate tectonics and, depending on whether congress gets it right, could be the turning point of two possible outcomes

1. America gets to the bottom of 1l6, self - corrects and heals.

2. Fails on #1, and declines into a quagmire of chaos leaving the country ripe for a right wing demagogue to take over, repeating history in other countries in which something similar happened.

Anyone who fails to see the above is blind to the reality that is before us.

 

Team Trump did, in point of fact, attempt to delay the certification with the scheme of postponing it beyond the deadline so as to throw the vote to the house.

Sedition could easily be a more complex plot.

That is the reason for the committee. To probe.

 

Your opinion, to which you are entitled.

But, I disagree.

 

so?

That doesn't mean congress should not investigate.

The purpose isn't to charge anyone, it's not a criminal investigation.

The purpose is to get to the bottom of the hows, whys and wherefores and possibly recommend legislation.

 

No, they have proven success.

Remember, an investigation has three successful outcomes:

1. Clear the air of suspicion.
2. Indict
3. Combinations of #1. and #2.

If #1 is achieved, it's successful.

You seem to think that if #1 is achieved, the entire investigation wasn't necessary.

But, you fail to realize that it's not enough to assume that is the outcome, if there is predication, it must be arrived at via investigation, because not until then will the air of suspicion be cleared.

But, alas, Mueller resulted in #3.

 

That is your answer, but it is wrong.

 

to confused souls, apparently it must be beaten.

 

Metaphorical demonic apostates? Lol

 

The one outside of left wing propagandas and victim narratives.

But feel free to drink your Kool-Aid.

 

Mueller is not a part of the HoR. And his investigation was conducted by the proper investigative authority to actually put out indictments. The HoR cannot put forth any indictments. They can recommend, but that is it. And even then they had to have had a legislative reason to even conduct an investigation. If they are conducting an investigation looking for crimes to indict then that is an abuse of power.

And that is what is being talked about here. These "investigations" of theirs is purely about pinning blame. Doesn't matter if it's this 1/6 committee or the Benghazi committees. None of them have, or will, come out with any new legislation linked to these investigations. Because they're nothing more than political BS meant to smear and propagandize the opposition. That is it. We already have a branch of government dedicated to investigating crimes and indicting people. We don't need politicians investigating crimes.

 

One more thing.

An investigation by our legislative branch does not have those three outcomes. The outcomes by our legislative branch should only have two outcomes.

1: Legislation made and passed/rejected.
Or
2: Legislation not made.

The criteria you used is the criteria for our Executive Branch. NOT our Legislative Branch.

That you think it applies to this "investigation" is only evidence that this is about politics.

 

Better than the kook-aid you guzzle

 

I repeat:

1/6 committee investigation is not a criminal investigation.

The only criminal referrals will be those who commit a crime in real time, i.e., refuse to comply with a lawful order to appear before congress.


The inescapable truth is as follows:

1. The capitol was attacked.

2. Congress would be derelict if it did not investigate.


Any thing beyond that simple fact is YOUR political baggage.

I suggest you cast it aside so you can see clearly without political bias.

 

Oh, cut the crap. Congressional investigations, historically speaking, are a tad deeper than that.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

Okay, I'll redo it: The purpose of Congressional investigations is, per George Mason:


George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.

Now, once accomplished, two possible outcomes:

1. Legislation recommendations, rules, policy recommendations and reports of the inquisition's results therefrom ( from said conduct ).
2. Or they may deem legislation is not necessary, and just produce a report with findings with rules and policy recommendations for the guidance of official conduct.

Either outcome is a successful outcome.

The bottom line is that Congress has a duty to get to the bottom of things regarding the wayward conduct of government officials in the various branches of government.

If the chips fall more to one side of the political spectrum, that isn't Congress's fault. But that doesn't mean Congress shouldn't investigate just because one side of the political spectrum fears they are more culpable.

Let the chips fall where they may. That is the operative rule for any investigation, but you are trying to turn it into a political one, 'as if there is only intent to find republicans at fault'. Nothing can be further from the Truth. Should any democrats be complicit in the 1/6 event, they will be investigated as well. Rest assured that the two republicans on the committee will see to it.

But, 1/6 as a mighty big wrong, and someone or some persons are responsible. Congress can't help it if those persons are republicans.

Perhaps they shouldn't be causing **** like 1/6, then Congress wouldn't need to investigate.

 

You're right. It's not a criminal investigation. It's a farce meant to garner political points for Democrats.

And no, it would not be a dereliction because it is not thier jobs to investigate crimes. Which is what 1/6 is about. Crimes. That is the Executive Branches job.

Yes, I know. This is about crafting legislation to prevent another attack. Blah blah blah. The same excuse used for Benghazi. No legislation ever came of it. Just like no legislation will come of this.

It's all about smears. You can pretend otherwise. But you can't fool anyone with this claptrap.

 

Would it have been trivial if they had succeeded in preventing Biden from being installed?

Will it be trivial if the same kind of thing happens the next time a Republican is elected?

 

a hyper partisan opinion. congratulations.

What part of 'it is not a criminal investigation' do you not understand?

(repeat from a similar post: )

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

The purpose of Congressional investigations is, per George Mason:


George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.

Now, once accomplished, two possible outcomes:

1. Legislation recommendations, rules, policy recommendations and reports of the inquisition's results therefrom ( from said conduct ).
2. Or they may deem legislation is not necessary, and just produce a report with findings with rules and policy recommendations for the guidance of official conduct.

Either outcome is a successful outcome.

The bottom line is that Congress has a duty to get to the bottom of things regarding the wayward conduct of government officials in the various branches of government.

If the chips fall more to one side of the political spectrum, that isn't Congress's fault. But that doesn't mean Congress shouldn't investigate just because one side of the political spectrum fears they are more culpable.

Let the chips fall where they may. That is the operative rule for any investigation, but you are trying to turn it into a political one, 'as if there is only intent to find republicans at fault'. Nothing can be further from the Truth. Should any democrats be complicit in the 1/6 event, they will be investigated as well. Rest assured that the two republicans on the committee will see to it.

But, 1/6 as a mighty big wrong, and someone or some persons are responsible. Congress can't help it if those persons are republicans.

Perhaps they shouldn't be causing **** like 1/6, then Congress wouldn't need to investigate.

 

That’s a new one. Y’all will come up with any conspiracy.

 

Which is nothing?