Steve Bannon Defies Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena

Why was Steve Bannon pardoned by Donald Trump? What were the charges against Bannon?

 

Not it isn't. I use of the term was both accurate and flawless. Your information is 106 years old.

The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners expressly contemplates the possibility of "pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice", which I provided a link, from the Justice Manual, was updated in April 2018.

 

You claimed that he was CONVICTED of a felony. I asked for the date of conviction and a link to a source for your claim. Where is the requested information?

 

What were the criminal charges against Steve Bannon? Why was he pardoned before a trial and ruling? Does the acceptance of a pardon infer guilt of a crime or crimes?

 

I suspect the source of your confusion is a SC ruling there must be a legislative purpose to Congress obtaining Trump's personal financial records as a way to show Congress' subpoena power is not limitless. Seeking Bannon's testimony as part of the coup investigation is not overreach. And now that Biden has waived EP for materials related to the investigation Bannon's argument is specious.

 

It's your claim that he was convicted of a felony. Why are you asking me for the answers to 1 and 2? I think your claim is false.

As for 3. the answer is no. The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners expressly contemplates the possibility of "pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice".

 

Bannon was not involved. And the others who will attend will do what Democrats do, and I approve this, dodge, refuse to talk and wind up wasting the committee time as once again, Democrats do daily.

 

Democrats spent 4 years trying to remove trump by coup. So why worry so much. The think they still can get the job done.

 

I agree, but there is a real personal hazard with them going up there to testify. The committee wilt try to make them look and sound very bad (which is the primary purpose of the Committee) and, with the media's ardent help, will succeed.

 

As to investigations, this nation has a body that investigates. The Justice department does it.

Congress in the act of creating laws or other legislation may investigate all it wants on legislative issues.

Democrats have made it clear that this is more witch hunts directed at the former president.

 

How have Democrats shown that they are unconcerned with the National Security, & domestic terrorism dimensions, here? You know that the heads of our intelligence agencies have testified that white nationalist groups are, by far, our chief domestic security threat, right? And you are not in denial about some of these very same groups, taking part in the January 6th riot, are you? Or about the large overlap of Trump supporters and white nationalists? If you understand these basic facts, there is no argument against this being a legitimate subject for Congressional investigation. That Trump seems to be at the center of this assault on our Capitol, does not nullify the importance of Congressional hearings.

 

I will defend my words. I am not going to defend your words. I did not mention national security. I did not blast whites as you do.
We have had during Trump mighty violent clashes with blacks and Democrats were quite pleased so they say.

If you show me the huge bonfires on January 6, that I saw last year in various cities, where blacks burned and looted businesses, we can try to compare that crap to what happened on January 6.
What about the enormous black population who do actually riot being tied into the Democrats?

 

In other words, you decline to debate the FACTS. You tried to suggest that the investigation into Jan. 6 was a sham, nothing more than a way to attack or discredit Trump. I pointed to the legitimate National Security concerns posed by attacks like this, on our government (or like the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, that was,thankfully, thwarted). There are common themes here, of militaristic/violent opposition, and of it not being confined to protesting some policy, or appendage of government, but of a rejection of governmental authority, in general. And there are a large number of organized groups of people with these beliefs. That is why the FBI director cited them as our #1 domestic terrorism threat. So much for your argument that this is none of Congress's concern.

I know that, as you state, you, "did not mention National Security." That was your own, glaring oversight, which I was explaining to you, in hopes of correcting your apparent misunderstanding. As the largest such criminal action, and with it being directed at our federal government, to ignore the Capitol would be criminal negligence, by our legislature.

Instead of discussing the actual subject of this thread, you want to play the whataboutism game; as if it would be at all reasonable to NOT look into a clear threat, due to it being surpassed, in bonfire size, by some other, random criminal activity. Director Chris Wray did not see anything from the BLM incidents, that made him believe there was any serious, organized effort, to conduct terrorist activities; that is good enough for me.

Of course these criminal arsonists should be held accountable, if it is discovered who they are. But THAT is the type of case in which Congress has no real purpose: these are matters for local law enforcement. What would be hoped to be gained by such an exercise, other than to try to score political points, by portraying a huge movement as represented by a few who were with the crowds (and not even, necessarily, active in the BLM movement)? What governmental policy, do you suggest-- since you claimed that you would defend your words-- might be implemented, to combat destructive acts, undertaken by random individuals, when they happen to feel inspired, or think that the police might be too busy to respond?

Speaking of your words, I will end by addressing your charge, of dubious sincerity, that I, "blast(ed) whites." I did no such thing. I reiterated the assessment of our national security experts, that the top domestic threat we face, by a wide margin, comes from groups that could be termed White Nationalist. Perhaps you see that term, and the reference to Caucasians, in general ("whites") as synonymous-- that would be very telling. But, more likely, I assume that you are merely reflecting your being a debater analog, for those who rioted in protest, because they did not like the result of a fair election: neither you, nor they, are willing to abide by the agreed upon rules for civil disagreement.

 

The right in America is being radicalized by their politicians and mouth pieces. The line has been crossed, this is no longer politics as usual.

 

That is a fatuous, demonstrable, factual inaccuracy and a deflection. Board rules prevent me from using a more direct term. If Bannon believes his subpoena does not serve a legislative purpose he has a funny way of showing it since that is not the basis for his refusal to testify.

The House select committee probing the deadly Capitol riot said Friday it could soon advance a referral to hold former Trump advisor Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress over his refusal to comply with a subpoena.

Bannon, who departed then-President Donald Trump’s White House years before the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol, “has indicated that he will try to hide behind vague references to privileges of the former President,” the House panel said in a statement.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/ste...aces-possible-criminal-contempt-referral.html

You really never do tire of being wrong do you.

 

Jan. 6 Committee Prepping To Immediately Hold Bannon In Contempt For Likely No-Show

The House Jan. 6 select committee is already preparing to make good on its threat to hold former White House senior adviser Steve Bannon in criminal contempt ahead of his scheduled hearing on Thursday, according to CNN.

The panel is planning to draw up a criminal referral for the Justice Department against Bannon “immediately,” in CNN’s words, if he refuses to show up.

It appears that Bannon does indeed plan to skip the deposition on Thursday after ex-President Donald Trump’s legal team urged him to do so, citing “executive privilege.”

Bannon’s lawyer, Robert Costello, sent the committee a letter on Wednesday reaffirming the ex-White House adviser’s refusal to comply with its subpoena for both testimony and documents relevant to uncovering the extent of Trump’s potential involvement in the Capitol insurrection.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...ly-hold-bannon-in-contempt-for-likely-no-show

If not for the Orange Insurrectionist Steve would already be facing jail time.

 

This reminds me of the old hanging judges. This is not legal, it is political.

It is a way for Democrats to take eyes off Biden and keep them on Trump. I believe your assessment is correct.

 

Democrats are operating as did Hitler when his punks captured some students and beheaded them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/...gns-of-a-role-in-silencing-nazis-critics.html

 

DOJ standards don't overrule SCOTUS cases. Thanks for playing.

 

I recall Hillary Clinton testifying for 10 hours in front of a Congressional committee presided over by Trey Gowdy where she was attacked by Devin Nunez, Jim Jordan and others. Obama who was President at the time did not “order” her or anyone else not to testify before congress or anywhere else. Trump, on the other hand seemed to be continually encouraging or ordering several people to not cooperate with congress or law enforcement. What’s up with that?

 

Were Gowdy, Jordan and Nunes acting like Hitler when they dragged Hillary Clinton before their committee in 2015? Did Obama order her not to testify? As usual, your assertion is hyperbolic, ultra partisan bullshit.

 

For what?

 

If “I don’t recall” is someone’s idea of testimony?

 

How the hell do you know what Obama did?
The media pulls hard for Democrats. And one imagines that makes you proud.

 

Individual 1 has no standing to claim EP nor does he have the power to order anyone to do anything.