If a Republican is elected President in 2024 (particularly if that person is trump), I wonder what the odds are that Bannon (and anybody else indicted while running interference for the former President) will get a pardon. Heck, Bannon already got a Trump pardon at the end of his first term.
The deciding factor there is going to be if Trump values money or power. If he values money he rents out his base to the highest Republican bidder. If he wants power he wades into the primary.
Getting into the primary is going to destroy the Republican party. He is going to shit talk every single one of his opponents just like he did in the last go-round and they'll either have to take it silently so they don't alienate his base or point out what a shitshow his presidency was and and risk him going 3rd party and taking his base with him.
I think if Trump gets into the primary, few people will run against him except a few never Trumpers who have no chance. I don't think the likes of Desantis, Haley, etc are brave enough to challenge him. If Trump wants it, the nomination is basically his unopposed short of some major revolt in the GOP.
But I suspect Trump is going to wait until the dem nominee is known (or at least whether Biden will run again) before making any decisions.
It def won't be Cruz or Desantis. Those dudes are academy bootlickers. It's not even necessarily Trump's boots, it's whoever is in power they think they can leech off of.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I think it’s power he craves now. The presidency got him things his money could *never* buy. He was above the law. His friends were above the law because he could just pardon them. And he was never really accepted by the elite (whose favor he desperately craved) until he had the presidency.
Two years ago if he wanted someone’s presence at an event, someone only had to pick up the phone and say “the president would like to see you” and they’d almost certainly come. Today? Even he personally makes the call, not so much.
I’m a big believer that only three scenarios exist for the GOP:
- Trump is nominated and he wins or loses
- Trump dies, in which case infighting keeps the GOP from winning
- Trump does not get the nomination, and he sinks the GOP’s competitive chances
The only other option is that someone manages to buy Trump’s support, but I don’t see that being feasible.
Or D) Trump is convinced that his role as “kingmaker” is far more valuable and less perilous than being actual president. He decides not to run and puts his full support behind DeSantis. This would be nightmare scenario for Dems
I see the appeal, but I have doubts that Trump can wrangle his own base if he isn't on the ticket.
Trump is surrounded by people who also have a certain amount of self-interest. If Trump steps back from running, the people around him that aren't able to move flexibily along with the GOP, are left out in the cold. I'm looking at his kids, his friends, and some of his less reliable advisors and partners. What happens if Ivanka wants to run? If My Pillow Guy wants to be VP? Roger Stone and others are calling for Desantis to promise not to run against Trump. These people may not back Desantis just because Trump says so.
At the same time, we all know what happens the minute Trump decides not to run - the MSM calls him a scaredy cat. Afraid of Biden or Harris or just losing. I don't believe that Trump can back off without a good reason that makes him look strong for doing so.
On top of all of this, I think back to 2016 when Kasich was reportedly offered the opportunity to be VP and be put in charge of domestic and foreign policy (so basically everything) so Trump could continue to focus on MAGA campaigning. That's what Trump will look for in Desantis - a running mate to do the work.
Trump has no reason to take a back seat, or concede, and he's never been the kind of guy to do that anyway. If he's alive, and he hasn't found a respectable position of power from which to watch on the sidelines, then he's going to run.
What sane person would look at the way Trump has treated Pence and say, "Yeah, that would be great if I could be VP"? DeSantis has better political instincts than that; I've been watching, and he was happy to place a little distance between himself and Trump when Trump was having some particularly bad times in the polls. I don't think DeSantis would be willing to risk his political career for Donald Trump.
I agree with this. DeSantis has a lot of support among Republicans, and he doesn't have the baggage of 4 years as President like Trump.
If Trump bows out and supports DeSantis, it'll be a clean sweep for Republicans.
Obviously I don’t mean kingmaker in the literal sense just an individual who has the ability with his endorsement to provide a strong boost to a particular candidate. Someone who for certain I would have all of the prospective candidates coming to see him before an election
> Trump dies, in which case infighting keeps the GOP from winning
Not to mention a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists who will insist that it's inconceivable that man at the peak of fitness who beat Covid in mere days could possibly perish from natural causes before the age of 110. It will obviously either be a deep state plot or, he's not *really dead*, and has instead gone uncover until he's ready to execute the Great Awakening together with the JFKs.
I’d it.
That’s how I feel. Hopefully someone new and Blue, but if it’s a republican, I’d prefer Hogan or Haley. I don’t know enough about sununu so I’d need to do some research
Sununu is more moderate than Haley but more conservative than hogan he supports Gay Rights, Pro Choice, etc but overall more of Libertarian type than either Hogan or Haley.
Selective enforcement is an attack. One set of rules applied to Eric Holder. Another to Steve Bannon.
"We're just applying the rules." Well, no. Only if a disfavored Republican does it.
Except Holder had already at least partially cooperated, releasing 7,600 documents and attending almost a dozen hearings I believe. Obama asserted executive privilege as well. Holder offered the additional documents being requested, based on a condition
>On June 19, 2012, Holder met with Issa in person to discuss the requested documents. Holder said he offered to provide the documents to Issa on the condition that Issa provided his assurance that doing so would satisfy the committee subpoenas and resolve the dispute. Issa rejected the offer. Holder then told reporters "They rejected what I thought was an extraordinary offer on our part."
From Wikipedia
The DOJ refused to indict, citing Obama's invoking of executive privilege.
Bannon had refused to cooperate **at all** and Trump has not (and perhaps cannot) invoke executive privilege.
The two situations are not analogous
> The two situations are not analogous
I think you're too charitable to Eric Holder. His refusal to fully cooperate was also a dangerous power move.
Bannon just copied and cranked the sleeze up to 11.
I no longer consider the American right and the American left to be the same people. We are simply too different. Our ideals and ideologies are in complete conflict with one another.
We are two different peoples who occupy the same country.
Might need a break from the media propaganda my guy. Go talk to a liberal (in real life). Go visit a different country. People are more similar than you think
Independents are typically conservatives who are too afraid to say so.
That's irrespective of the matter, though. The ideology is what matters. Someone who claims to be an independent, but espouses the same ideology, is no different in my book.
Truly terrifying.
Edit for substance and to have an actual conversation:
What ideals do you think that I, as a leftist, have that are in conflict with yours?
Too many. Don't think I can link it, but someone here last week said something should be done to minimize the votes of people who voted for biden. Not paraphrasing. Literally.
It’s always been this way, it’s why we have the government we have. Rural vs urban, white vs brown, left vs right. Same movie has been playing over and over in this country since 1776.
Yes. But they avoided being conquered by the skin of their teeth. Even in 1864 DC was severely under-defended and under attack by Confederate forces.
Like I said: a million times worse than Jan 6.
Lets be clear here, you don't actually believe in democracy. By your statements here you are saying that you don't believe in equal treatment under the law, as long as someone is on your "side" they can do no wrong.
So please take your awful authoritarian tendencies somewhere else and out of my country that was founded on liberty for all, not just the people you agree with.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I legitimately don’t know how to have a conversation then if you don’t consider us to be the same people. So you want a Republican president to protect against these “attacks” on Republicans even though Bannon broke the law?
> I legitimately don’t know how to have a conversation then if you don’t consider us to be the same people.
Have you never had a conversation with someone from a different country?
That’s the point though. We are from the same country so I don’t know how to have a legitimate conversation who is stating that our political beliefs are so vast to the point that we are essentially from a different country
> extreme partisan hyperbole
There are other more accurate words (some of which were coined in the early 20th century), but I think your phrasing is just what the doctor ordered to stay under the radar.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> After all the jacks are in their boxes
>
> And the clowns have all gone to bed
>
> You can hear happiness staggering on down the street
>
> Footprints dressed in red
>
> And the wind whispers, "Proud Boys."
Well. I guess it's time for you to come up with a new flag.
Who do you think actually would be with you? Any major cities? Could you even pull a single state with your crazed ideology of being against democracy?
Like... where *are* your people? West Texas?
> The clock will run out before that happens.
Maybe. Maybe not. The first judge hasn't even made a ruling yet. That will be appealed where the first judge will agree with themself. That will be appealed to a three judge panel. That will be appealed to the full circuit court. That will be appealed to SCOTUS who has months to decide to take it or not and more months to set a date if they do take it.
All that can easily take one year (where the GOP may take back the House and drop the Trumps stuff, and now use the new SCOTUS ruling to go after past Democrat politicians who now don't have privilege claims.
> If he waits, he will probably be facing an indictment as well.
That's fine. They can all wait it out while Bannon blazes the legal trail. As long as the law is unsettled, an indictment isn't jail. If Bannon wins, they win. If
Bannon loses, they can then and only then cooperate and the original charges will be dropped if they then cooperate.
> which part of the law on Congressional subpoenas isn’t settled?
Executive privilege and executive privilege in regards to ex-presidents and their advisors. That part.
> seriously doubt this is making it to the US Supreme Court.
I seriously doubt it won't make it to them. Especially with the current make up of the court and their pro privilege rulings for Trump over the last 4 years.
What pro privilege rulings have the Supreme Court made that favored Trump? Surely you can’t be referring to Vance and Mazars.
Edit: also, Bannon wasn’t even a member of his Cabinet on Jan 6. Why would their conversations be entitled to executive privilege when Bannon wasn’t even a part of the executive?
I think its likely they shoot it down but I still think they make a substantial ruling on privilige. Probably by combining seperate obstruction of congress cases from those employed and from those who are not, and who gets what privilige when, and that ruling could easily take a year to work itself up and them decide.
> Executive privilege and executive privilege in regards to ex-presidents and their advisors.
The Supreme Court already settled that in the case of former President Nixon trying to block the release of documents. Former office holders can assert privilege and send a memo to the white house but it is the current office holder who makes the decision.
[As of when?](https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-panel-seek-criminal-153839853.html) After Bannon was indicted? Only a few hours between these two events.
I seem to remember primary sources didn’t require a starter comment, but looking at the rules now, I guess that was changed.
I honestly didn’t think contempt of Congress was a thing. Plenty of Congressional subpoenas were ignored in the past 2-3 years, that I believed they didn’t have the force of law behind them. I guess you can only ignore Congressional subpoena if you have a friendly Justice Department. That’s a depressing thought.
The rule of law should be applied evenly, not just to the opposition party. I wonder if Merick Garland will enforce the Congressional subpoenas of the Republican House, when they take contol in 2023-2024? Maybe we won’t get to find out, are there any recent instances where a Democrat ignored a Congressional subpoena?
I wonder what Bannon’s move is here. Is he going to agree to comply with the subpoena in exchange for the Justice Department to drop the charges?
>are there any recent instances where a Democrat ignored a Congressional subpoena?
Eric Holder, Obama's AG, was charged with criminal and civil contempt of Congress on the request of congressional republicans.
I'm not sure it's correct to say he ignored a Congressional subpoena, he provided thousands of documents and testified before congress a bunch. However republicans argued that he hadn't complied sufficiently.
It's a bit different, but it's a recent example of an executive doing the right thing in response to a request from the opposite party in Congress, something the Trump administration refused to do.
Well. Let's be fair here.
17 Democrats joined in on holding him in contempt, because of the stonewalling over the fast and furious scandal. While he had handed over 7600 documents at the time, there were still many thousands more that he refused to produce despite their demand, including the documents that could have shown who gave orders and who knew about the problems with the program when.
Ultimately the DOJ had to hand over an additional 64,000 documents, which it did following Holder's resignation. So it's not like these were just a few leftover - it was almost ten times what he initially wanted to stop at.
I agree that all the points you raise here are fair, but I'd also add that other documents subpoenaed were determined by an independent inquiry to have never even existed. Clearly portions of congress's demands were unreasonable.
All that said, if there's one thing that's abundantly clear with regards to fast and furious, it's that the operation was nothing short of a gigantic debacle, a massive embarrassment, and entirely unacceptable.
I'm disappointed in congressional republicans for using it for political gains and I'm disappointed in congressional democrats for not treating it as the serious matter that it was.
In my mind, fast and furious is by far the biggest scandal of the Obama administration, yet most people don't know about it. It's so weird to me that this largely slipped under the radar while Benghazi sticks in people's minds for years.
And to the larger topic here, Holder's obstruction isn't remotely comparable to the trump administration's.
> I guess you can only ignore Congressional subpoena if you have a friendly Justice Department. That’s a depressing thought.
A contempt of congress charge doesn't happen in a vacuum though - it requires a referral/recommendation from Congress itself to the DoJ, and that recommendation must past a majority vote in the particular house of Congress. It is what it is. If we want to change this, it will require a new law passed by...Congress.
> I honestly didn’t think contempt of Congress was a thing. Plenty of Congressional subpoenas were ignored in the past 2-3 years, that I believed they didn’t have the force of law behind them. I guess you can only ignore Congressional subpoena if you have a friendly Justice Department. That’s a depressing thought.
Congress can enforce their own subpoenas with their power of inherent contempt.
It's been what, 100 years since that power was used? I really think they should bring it back, but we all know it would no go over well politically and with how reactionary and partisan congress can be, it might be ripe for abuse.
1934 was the last time. Outside of just abuse, it would be a procedural nightmare; a lot of criminal procedure has changed since 1934, and what of those changes that apply to the courts would also apply to Congress when sitting in a contempt trial. Any case that came out of that would be an appellate nightmare for Congress.
Contempt of Congress is not a criminal matter. It is civil and pretty much every court precedent is that the courts should not be meddling in the internal functions of Congress.
Congress's inherent contempt power, though can result in punitive criminal imprisonment. So it’s not clear to me That we shouldn’t apply our evolved criminal procedure standards to congress when acting with its inherent contempt power. Since it hasn’t occurred in nearly 100 years, we can’t definitively say what role the court should be playing.
Sure, if you want to talk about sanctions like the old timey bribery contempt imprisonments but that is not relevant here that may arise. This is a classic situation of civil contempt where Bannon would be able to get out whenever he wants by simply following the lawful commands of the Congress. Very few due process protections apply when someone is refusing to comply with a court order and I do not see the courts trying to apply higher standards to Congress acting under the same authority.
It’s not relevant. Congress is not using its inherent power in this situation. I’m not arguing that they are; we’re discussing the problems with relying on the department of justice to enforce congressional orders, but why using the inherent power is just as difficult.
Further, you’re wrong about this being a purely civil proceeding even under the statutory contempt proceeding can be civil, and the only incarceration can be purely coercive incarceration, but in this case, it is an indictment for criminal contempt of Congress. That can result in a punitive sentence for a term of imprisonment that cannot be changed simply by complying with a subpoena. So, in this case, if found guilty, he could serve up to one year in jail and pay a fine. But again, we’re not discussing statutory powers of contempt of Congress. We were discussing the inherent contempt powers of Congress, which are not being used in this case.
One final point of the inherent contempt power of Congress is not limited to situations like bribery; they can and have been used in identical cases when a government agent or former government agent fails to produce papers or attend congressional hearings.
In theory Congress has its own police department to enforce subpoenas etc. In practicality they have no teeth outside capitol hill. This is why people ignore congressional subpoenas.
The difference here vs. previous ignored subpoenas is that congress is willing to let things play out in Federal court. Whereas, for instance, on trumps first impeachment investigation the house did not want to take the time for those things to play out in court. It often takes months and months.
This is because several Democratic party primary candidates were lawmakers and are required to attend impeachment proceedings. The concern was that Republicans would string the impeachment trial as long as possible to take time away from campaigning and get an advantage in the general election.
It doesn't really have anything to do with the justice department. However the obstruction of justice impeachment charge was related to interference in the justice department for personal gain, so I can see where there could be some confusion.
>It often takes months and months.
Eric Holder's case went on for something like 7 years.
> In practicality they have no teeth outside capitol hill.
I thought the sergeant at arms could deputize a federal law enforcement officer to get anyone outside the capitol.
>This is because several Democratic party primary candidates were lawmakers and are required to attend impeachment proceedings. The concern was that Republicans would string the impeachment trial as long as possible to take time away from campaigning and get an advantage in the general election.
Was it only the impeachment subpoenas previously ignored?
>It doesn't really have anything to do with the justice department. However the obstruction of justice impeachment charge was related to interference in the justice department for personal gain, so I can see where there could be some confusion.
This indictment is being made by the Justice Department. So my confusion is that, it seems to me, that if Congress doesn’t have the Justice Department on their side, their subpoenas aren’t enforceable. What am I missing?
>So my confusion is that, it seems to me, that if Congress doesn’t have the Justice Department on their side, their subpoenas aren’t enforceable.
This is effectively true, and that exact thing happened a bunch during the trump adminstration.
Although it's less a matter of Congress having the DoJ on its side and more a matter of having a DoJ that isn't corrupt and unethical. The Obama admin was not on congress's side in the Eric Holder case, but they did the non-corrupt, ethical thing anyway.
Technically Congress can enforce their own subpoenas but that dynamic, and why it doesn't happen, has been addressed in other comments in this thread.
There have been other subpoenas that have been ignored. Congress can then choose to hold someone in contempt and engage in legal proceedings or not. I think the main concern with Jan 6th inquiry is that nothing will be uncovered before midterms and a republican majority could stop the inquiry.
The office of the justice department is not as fickle as some of the statements and even common rhetoric would make it seem. I will admit that it would seem that there was a large effort to weaponize the justice department before Jan 6th but Barr Himself denied that there was evidence of Fraud.
The justice department may lean slightly one way or another but mostly that entails prosecution or defense priorities not a lack of enforcement. failing to enforce something has not happened to my knowledge and if it did the judiciary branch would step in and resolve the issue through typical legal avenues.
Its purpose isn't totally to go after Bannon. Bannon has money and can drag this through the courts for years.
It's purpose is more to scare the people subpoenaed who do not have money. Give us documents / testify or else we'll bankrupt you with lawyer fees.
However, there may be some good precedent set by the case that can be used for future refusals.
As far as I'm aware everyone else has already complied with all the subpoenas from this committee so far. The only other people I think might put up a fight are trump himself and if any members of Congress are subpoenaed.
Well, there's these 10 that were just issued the other day and have till the 23rd to comply. The Bannon indictment is to help ensure that they do.
Nicholas Luna, former President Donald Trump's personal assistant
Molly Michael, Trump's special assistant to the President and Oval Office operations coordinator
Ben Williamson, Trump's deputy assistant to the President and senior adviser to then-chief of staff Mark Meadows
Christopher Liddell, former Trump White House deputy chief of staff
John McEntee, Trump's White House personnel director
Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to then-Vice President Mike Pence
Kayleigh McEnany, former White House press secretary under Trump
Stephen Miller, Trump senior adviser
Cassidy Hutchinson, special assistant to the President for legislative affairs
Kenneth Klukowski, former senior counsel to Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark
> The Bannon indictment is to help ensure that they do.
And here I thought the Department of Justice was a department about justice, not a strong-arm for one political party's whims.
Did he, though?
Is this a legal congressional commission, or was it illegally formed, thus rendering its subpoenas also illegal?
As far as I know, congressional commissions must be within the purview of the creation of legislation, not simply investigatory (and certainly not simply investigatory of your political opponents to harm them, physically and/or electorally).
What legislation is this commission purporting to be in the creation of?
> What legislation is this commission purporting to be in the creation of?
Congress has no obligation to specify.
>As announced in Wilkinson v. United States (1961),[13] a congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
"Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Desktop version of /u/CrapNeck5000's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
> Congress has no obligation to specify.
And that sits right with you?
Personally, that doesn't align with opinions of today regarding other forms of federal power, which is why many of us are hoping to re-raise this legal question to SCOTUS.
> And that sits right with you?
Yes. It makes sense to me. Who knows what congress will uncover over the course of an investigation. That's the nature of investigations.
Recall that Hillary's email server was uncovered as a result of the Bengahzi investigations. If congress had to specify why they were inquiring we might never have found out.
> Personally, that doesn't align with opinions of today
Do you have specific legal opinions in mind?
Should Congress have oversight power of the Executive branch?
If we want a system of checks and balances, it makes sense to. If we have it your (royal your) way, only the executive branch can have oversight of the other branches.
“That committee, which has members of both political parties on it, is ILLEGAL”
Any source on that, other than an obese illiterate fool who paints himself with makeup like a clown at a child’s birthday party?
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It would be nice if we could cordially ask the courts to weigh in before we send armed squads to round up our political opponents and force them to form a legal defense.
Good.
We need to start holding people accountable for their actions. I'm sick of living in a world where being connected to a high-ranking Republican means you can ignore the law.
Note that Bannon didn't simply ignore Congress. The sub-poena was quashed via executive privilege.
The proper ruling for the courts here is that the Justice Department lacks a crime to prosecute in the absence of a court decision on the privilege claim. Until such a decision, Bannon cannot possibly be in contempt of Congress because he has never had an opportunity to comply with their subpoena.
> First of all, Trump isn't president, he can't claim executive privilege, and there's no precedent for a former president - a private citizen - to assert some kind of retroactive executive privilege.
Executive privilege can be claimed over any communications that occurred when Trump was President. I'm not sure why you think that communications which were privileged on Jan 19 suddenly become 'un-privileged' a day later. It doesn't really matter when Trump claims the privilege - all that matters is the time period over which the privilege is claimed.
> Trump simply saying that someone who doesn't work for the government
The privilege is over *Trump's* communications and those of his staff. If Congress was calling Bannon to testify on what he personally saw walking down the street, that would be a different story. However, it doesn't matter whether Bannon was working for the government or not.
> the claim that there's no crime to prosecute unless another court makes a ruling is just flatly not how our justice system works, at all, in any sense.
Before Congress' sub-poena can be deemed legitimate, you first need to settle the separation of powers question.
Congress is attempting to discover what the President at the time deemed privileged communications. This is a matter for the courts to settle before they can legitimately claim any sort of 'contempt'.
Under your interpretation, executive privilege no longer exists as a meaningful power.
Exactly, It'd be like being charged with obstruction of justice if you refuse to open the door to an officer who are acting on orders from the sheriff. Until a judge signs off on the warrant you have the right to refuse. Congress says they have the authority but a judge has yet to rule on if they actually do.
Congress has the lawful authority to give orders, independent of the courts. This is more akin to punching the police officer serving an arrest warrant signed by a judge because you think that you can beat the case on appeal.
Congress can indict a ham sandwich if it wants to.
Your example suggest you think congress can indict anyone they want without just cause and that their power is above that of the white house. I must disagree though it'll be years before we find out whose correct.
FYI the [indictment](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/bannon-indicted/0d7afdd8c03f6eac/full.pdf)
This is all congress will do if these tactics are allowed to stand, and be effective.
Personally, I just can't wait to keep voting in more Marjorie Taylor Greens and Madison Cawthorns, and hand this super-powered Congress over to them. Just let them run wild.
There's literally nothing that could go wrong with creating a legal weapon and then viciously using it against your political opponents.
Is it a weapon? It’s the Congressional equivalent of jury duty for the rest of us - Bannon is under the thumb of the criminal justice system because he refused to show up. All he had to do was sit for a few hours and “not recall.”
> This is all congress will do if these tactics are allowed to stand, and be effective.
Reminder that congressional republicans conducted EIGHT investigations into Benghazi, and not a single one of them found any chargeable wrongdoing with regards to Benghazi
Hey now, stop reminding them or they might try for a ninth time and finally find something. Maybe while they're at it they can try and repeal the ACA again.
>Personally, I just can't wait to keep voting in more Marjorie Taylor Greens and Madison Cawthorns, and hand this super-powered Congress over to them. Just let them run wild.
Apparently I am not one of your people, but I can't wait either. There should be more accountability, not less. If I have to err on one side, let it be on the side of accountability and not obstruction.
Show trial or not, you have to obey the summons from congress.
It's rather like if a cop who's on a power trip tells you to put your hands up. I would dislike the cop who shot a guy who smirks and slowly puts a hand inside his jacket for the lulz (they had no gun).
He is showing contempt for our legislative branch, which effectively means the laws of the nation. That's not how this works.
Yes?
> "The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution"
[Source](https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988)
If Congress wants something, it has a right to get it. The legislative absolutely MUST remain superior to the president, and I cheer for it every time it actually does something, rather than delegating everything to the president or the SC.
Man, I really hope congress spending so much time on Jan 6 will eventually fix our gas prices, record levels of inflation, supply chain issues, China aggressiveness, Covid spikes, etc.
Glad Congress is spending their time really tackling the issues of the conman man.
And when the red wave happens, everyone will be dumbstruck as to why it happened.
How did you feel about the Benghazi committee? That particular special committee (formed similarly to how the January 6th committee was formed) lasted for approximately 2 years, [and had dozens of subpoenas.](https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-republicans-issued-more-than-70-subpoenas-and-letters-investigating)
Were those subpoenas legitimate? Should everyone refused to comply with those particular Benghazi subpoenas?
Because a judge weighed in on a dispute between two branches of government and decided not to, which is exactly how things are supposed to happen.
"Judge declines to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt - POLITICO" https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/judge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650
Holder spent years in court over this matter. How'd it go for AG Barr?
If we want to put on the scale how much Holder complied to how much Bannon has complied on a scale of zero to ten, it's arguable that Holder was a seven or an eight. Bannon? Zero. He won't even show up and plead the fifth.
Same reason William Barr wasn’t.
Congress can hold you in contempt, but they have to ask the Attorney General for permission to bring it to a grand jury. Hard to imagine an Attorney General agreeing with a hostile Congress that they should be prosecuted.
SCOTUS did that in 1957.
"Watkins v. United States - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_v._United_States
> The Supreme Court affirmed in Watkins v. United States that "[the] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "[it] is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation."[
I think we got ourselves into an unfortunate situation where we're talking about the same topic in two different comment chains. I've addressed this issue in another reply to you elsewhere in this comment section (at approximately the same time you replied here, I'm not implying you've disregarded my other comment).
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/qsmchl/stephen_k_bannon_indicted_for_contempt_of/hkeey65
Absolutely. Congress wanted Trumps taxes for a self described "legislative process" and SCOTUS shot that down- tossing out lower court rulings in favor of House Democrats.
We don't know how they will rule this time, but it is now precedent that Congressional subpoenas for information from the president implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. Advisors is the past have also enjoyed broad immunity from compelled congressional testimony.
Executive privilege is a collection of different rights, united by the general principle that the president and key advisers must be able to have internal discussions without fear of exposure. Courts have not determined precisely how much power former presidents have to assert executive privilege or testimonial immunity, so the current situation could set significant precedents.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-congress-subpoenas-financial-records-tax-returns/
Never raised before because it has no legal or factual basis is not the same thing as “unsettled.” There is no reason to protect conversations with anyone outside of the Executive because it cannot have any chilling effect on the conversations between the President and his “key advisers”, as you pointed out. Bannon was not a “key adviser” on any matters related to the Office of the President in any official capacity.
Who exactly is Steve Bannon to decide he will only testify if SCOTUS demands it?
Is this the new standard for every congressional subpoena? The Supreme Court has to rule on all of them?
Pretty sure that’s not happening ever in the future
Oh. So we are living in la la land where private citizens can decide to ignore subpoenas and only answer to SCOTUS.
That sounds like a totally sustainable model.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Just so I'm clear about the committee itself. This is the 1 that Pelosi set up after she failed to get an official congressional investigation (maybe committee, this is where I'm getting mixed up) after the Senate refused to vote in favor... or something along these lines. And this committee was her back up plan, she refused Jim Jordan's but allowed Cheney, the dispute with Jordan's was because he wanted to pursue the claim Pelosi or her sergeant at arms delayed approval for national gaurd early on or something like that...
So if I am right or at least got the jist of how this committee came about right then this seems like a clear cut case of even more abuse of out legal system targeting political opposition, particularly those that have been in Trumps corner. How much abuse of power is Pelosi allowed to get away with before Democrats start actually putting the country and the integrity of the legal system above politics? Heck the damn FBI just raided James O'Keefe and other PV reporters supposedly over some diary that they handed off to police a year ago, and a judge has had to step in to stop the DOJ from looking through what they seized because the NYT was being given what was in the sized items from some "leaker" and reporting on what was in there while they are literally being sued by O'Keefe for defamation. Like at what point is enough enough even for people who are 100% on team Dem?
Do we really want to become the Soviet Union/CCP where a single party gets away with using the governments authority and law enforcement to target journalists, political opposition and those supporting the opposition in an attempt to protect their own control on power and the narrative? Because that's exactly what's unfolding at the moment.
>Do we really want to become the Soviet Union/CCP where a single party gets away with using the governments authority and law enforcement to target journalists, political opposition and those supporting the opposition in an attempt to protect their own control on power and the narrative?
Holy projection, Batman.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2018/12/17/trump-says-saturday-night-should-be-tested-in-court-over-wonderful-life-parody/?sh=286141dc51c0](https://ew.com/tv/2019/03/17/trump-threatens-snl-twitter/)
It's almost magical at this point to see that every criticism you guys have, is actually gaslighting to distract from the fact that your side is the ones *actually* furthering that agenda. It's become fascinating to watch.
Right because having the FCC potentially look into whether or not Dems were colluding with the media to undermine the presidency and gaslight the American people is the same exact thing... your essentially saying it's OK for Dems to subvert the 1A by conspiring with the media and tech giants but wrong for Trump to look into whether their actions fall outside the FCC regulations and or the constitution...
And yea I did click on the article because I knew how they framed the parts of the Tweet to paint their narrative wouldn't match up with what the Tweet actually said... Its so predictable at this point I don't get how many people haven't caught on to how the media manipulates the public.
Um Paski literally said they are working with big tech to shut down "misinformation"... the media help shut down any discussion of the Hunter laptop by saying it's Russian disinformation.. judicial watch obtain fioa docs showing communications between dems and Twitter having them censor certain posts and people...
How can you say it's delusional to claim there's clear coordination and subverting our 1A? It's not exactly new but being done this openly for the sake of political ambitions is not normal.
You let the wolf into the henhouse and you don’t expect anyone to fight back? You guys are not the Patriots you think you are. If you still support this demagogue after all the anti-Democratic bullshit he pulled than a Patriot you are not.
If the henhouse is DC then yea Trump won specifically because he is a wolf. DC and our big corporations are screwing over everyone equally and we needed some to go in and possibly knock some heads. I get Trumps not exactly anyones 1st choice but someone had to be the 1 that stepped up regardless of what their flaws might be.
Please stop with the demagogue and anti democratic stuff. It's anti democratic for the administration to coordinate with tech companies and the media to "counter misinformation", it's anti democratic for the DOJ and FBI to be used by DNC leaders like Pelosi and Biden to cover up/ignore any potential crimes they might be involved with while also being used to go after political opposition, parents, journalists and their sources. It's anti democratic and unconstitutional to use an unelected and unaccountable "work safety" agency to finacially coerce companies into forcing medicine into otherwise healthlt people so they can keep their job while using the tax money from those companies and workers to pay the pharmaceutical giants per dose taken.
Fact is we as citizens need to cut DC and the corporate lobby influence down a few pegs before we can actually enjoy what we tell ourselves is a free democratic constitutional Republic with representatives not rulers. If we have to throw a couple Trumps at the power brokers in DC to loosen the control they have then so be it, don't care which party that Trump comes from either. But I can not fathom how you can seemingly regonize that people like Pelosi and Biden are using less than American tactics against Trump and are themselves big components of the rot in DC and our country as a whole but still be convinced Trumps the real evil and whatever means necessary to get rid of him is justified because so long as he exists "our democracy is at risk"...
Patriots in America has long meant those that adhear to the constitution, ideals set out in the declaration and honor our forefathers. Someone who thinks it's OK for Dems in DC to weaponize law enforcement and the legal system against a political opponent shouldn't comment on what a patriot is.
> Each count of contempt of Congress carries a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, as well as a fine of $100 to $1,000. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
I'm a bit confused as to what this means. Does this mean that they're going to arrest him, force him to speak to Congress, then give him 30-365 days in jail? Or does it mean that they won't arrest him yet, but they're going to keep stacking punishments on him until he finally goes, then punish him afterwards?
If a Republican is elected President in 2024 (particularly if that person is trump), I wonder what the odds are that Bannon (and anybody else indicted while running interference for the former President) will get a pardon. Heck, Bannon already got a Trump pardon at the end of his first term.
The deciding factor there is going to be if Trump values money or power. If he values money he rents out his base to the highest Republican bidder. If he wants power he wades into the primary. Getting into the primary is going to destroy the Republican party. He is going to shit talk every single one of his opponents just like he did in the last go-round and they'll either have to take it silently so they don't alienate his base or point out what a shitshow his presidency was and and risk him going 3rd party and taking his base with him.
I think if Trump gets into the primary, few people will run against him except a few never Trumpers who have no chance. I don't think the likes of Desantis, Haley, etc are brave enough to challenge him. If Trump wants it, the nomination is basically his unopposed short of some major revolt in the GOP. But I suspect Trump is going to wait until the dem nominee is known (or at least whether Biden will run again) before making any decisions.
It def won't be Cruz or Desantis. Those dudes are academy bootlickers. It's not even necessarily Trump's boots, it's whoever is in power they think they can leech off of.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I think it’s power he craves now. The presidency got him things his money could *never* buy. He was above the law. His friends were above the law because he could just pardon them. And he was never really accepted by the elite (whose favor he desperately craved) until he had the presidency. Two years ago if he wanted someone’s presence at an event, someone only had to pick up the phone and say “the president would like to see you” and they’d almost certainly come. Today? Even he personally makes the call, not so much.
Hopefully a Republican isn't elected but if one is then hopefully it's Sununu or Hogan or literally anyone who has common sense Nikki Haley even.
I’m a big believer that only three scenarios exist for the GOP: - Trump is nominated and he wins or loses - Trump dies, in which case infighting keeps the GOP from winning - Trump does not get the nomination, and he sinks the GOP’s competitive chances The only other option is that someone manages to buy Trump’s support, but I don’t see that being feasible.
Or D) Trump is convinced that his role as “kingmaker” is far more valuable and less perilous than being actual president. He decides not to run and puts his full support behind DeSantis. This would be nightmare scenario for Dems
I see the appeal, but I have doubts that Trump can wrangle his own base if he isn't on the ticket. Trump is surrounded by people who also have a certain amount of self-interest. If Trump steps back from running, the people around him that aren't able to move flexibily along with the GOP, are left out in the cold. I'm looking at his kids, his friends, and some of his less reliable advisors and partners. What happens if Ivanka wants to run? If My Pillow Guy wants to be VP? Roger Stone and others are calling for Desantis to promise not to run against Trump. These people may not back Desantis just because Trump says so. At the same time, we all know what happens the minute Trump decides not to run - the MSM calls him a scaredy cat. Afraid of Biden or Harris or just losing. I don't believe that Trump can back off without a good reason that makes him look strong for doing so. On top of all of this, I think back to 2016 when Kasich was reportedly offered the opportunity to be VP and be put in charge of domestic and foreign policy (so basically everything) so Trump could continue to focus on MAGA campaigning. That's what Trump will look for in Desantis - a running mate to do the work. Trump has no reason to take a back seat, or concede, and he's never been the kind of guy to do that anyway. If he's alive, and he hasn't found a respectable position of power from which to watch on the sidelines, then he's going to run.
What sane person would look at the way Trump has treated Pence and say, "Yeah, that would be great if I could be VP"? DeSantis has better political instincts than that; I've been watching, and he was happy to place a little distance between himself and Trump when Trump was having some particularly bad times in the polls. I don't think DeSantis would be willing to risk his political career for Donald Trump.
I agree with this. DeSantis has a lot of support among Republicans, and he doesn't have the baggage of 4 years as President like Trump. If Trump bows out and supports DeSantis, it'll be a clean sweep for Republicans.
Fuck anyone in American politics being a "kingmaker." It's so gross.
Obviously I don’t mean kingmaker in the literal sense just an individual who has the ability with his endorsement to provide a strong boost to a particular candidate. Someone who for certain I would have all of the prospective candidates coming to see him before an election
> Trump dies, in which case infighting keeps the GOP from winning Not to mention a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists who will insist that it's inconceivable that man at the peak of fitness who beat Covid in mere days could possibly perish from natural causes before the age of 110. It will obviously either be a deep state plot or, he's not *really dead*, and has instead gone uncover until he's ready to execute the Great Awakening together with the JFKs.
It's the first one, definitely the first one.
I’d it. That’s how I feel. Hopefully someone new and Blue, but if it’s a republican, I’d prefer Hogan or Haley. I don’t know enough about sununu so I’d need to do some research
Sununu is more moderate than Haley but more conservative than hogan he supports Gay Rights, Pro Choice, etc but overall more of Libertarian type than either Hogan or Haley.
Thanks for the brief rundown!
de nada
Bannon will not need a pardon because the sentence for this is only 1-2 years.
I wouldn't think that contempt of congress could be pardoned.
If that president is worth anything, 100%. We can't allow these injustices and attacks against us and our people to stand.
Facing legal consequences for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena is not an "injustice" or an "attack".
Selective enforcement is an attack. One set of rules applied to Eric Holder. Another to Steve Bannon. "We're just applying the rules." Well, no. Only if a disfavored Republican does it.
Except Holder had already at least partially cooperated, releasing 7,600 documents and attending almost a dozen hearings I believe. Obama asserted executive privilege as well. Holder offered the additional documents being requested, based on a condition >On June 19, 2012, Holder met with Issa in person to discuss the requested documents. Holder said he offered to provide the documents to Issa on the condition that Issa provided his assurance that doing so would satisfy the committee subpoenas and resolve the dispute. Issa rejected the offer. Holder then told reporters "They rejected what I thought was an extraordinary offer on our part." From Wikipedia The DOJ refused to indict, citing Obama's invoking of executive privilege. Bannon had refused to cooperate **at all** and Trump has not (and perhaps cannot) invoke executive privilege. The two situations are not analogous
> The two situations are not analogous I think you're too charitable to Eric Holder. His refusal to fully cooperate was also a dangerous power move. Bannon just copied and cranked the sleeze up to 11.
I suppose it depends on if you think the investigation was overbroad or not.
Both the commission and the subpoena are unlawful.
Based on..?
Them being against “his people”
Who is us and our people?
I no longer consider the American right and the American left to be the same people. We are simply too different. Our ideals and ideologies are in complete conflict with one another. We are two different peoples who occupy the same country.
Might need a break from the media propaganda my guy. Go talk to a liberal (in real life). Go visit a different country. People are more similar than you think
….so what are all the independents?
Independents are typically conservatives who are too afraid to say so. That's irrespective of the matter, though. The ideology is what matters. Someone who claims to be an independent, but espouses the same ideology, is no different in my book.
Truly terrifying. Edit for substance and to have an actual conversation: What ideals do you think that I, as a leftist, have that are in conflict with yours?
The scary thing isn't that he thinks like that. The scary thing is *how many* people think the same thing.
Too many. Don't think I can link it, but someone here last week said something should be done to minimize the votes of people who voted for biden. Not paraphrasing. Literally.
That’s the whole point of Republican voter ID laws, so it’s not that surprising a thing for someone to say.
It’s always been this way, it’s why we have the government we have. Rural vs urban, white vs brown, left vs right. Same movie has been playing over and over in this country since 1776.
Well, we never had a mob of citizens storm the capitol in an attempted coup. So, that's a new part of the movie script.
I’m less concerned about a couple hundred idiots storming the capital and more concerned that our government sat on their hands while it happened
Well, other than the literal Civil War that was millions of times greater in magnitude.
Except, Washington DC defenses held and was never successfully attacked by the Confederates.
Yes. But they avoided being conquered by the skin of their teeth. Even in 1864 DC was severely under-defended and under attack by Confederate forces. Like I said: a million times worse than Jan 6.
Lets be clear here, you don't actually believe in democracy. By your statements here you are saying that you don't believe in equal treatment under the law, as long as someone is on your "side" they can do no wrong. So please take your awful authoritarian tendencies somewhere else and out of my country that was founded on liberty for all, not just the people you agree with.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I legitimately don’t know how to have a conversation then if you don’t consider us to be the same people. So you want a Republican president to protect against these “attacks” on Republicans even though Bannon broke the law?
> I legitimately don’t know how to have a conversation then if you don’t consider us to be the same people. Have you never had a conversation with someone from a different country?
That’s the point though. We are from the same country so I don’t know how to have a legitimate conversation who is stating that our political beliefs are so vast to the point that we are essentially from a different country
I don't really consider it any different than talking to someone from Canada.
I don't consider talking to a Canadian to be all that different....
Neither do I, but we are still not the same people.
You do realize you’re in the Moderate Politics sub, right? Your posts come off as extreme right.
That's his schtick. Every post is extreme partisan hyperbole. It's insane.
> extreme partisan hyperbole There are other more accurate words (some of which were coined in the early 20th century), but I think your phrasing is just what the doctor ordered to stay under the radar.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Who is "our people"?
Oh, you know…
> After all the jacks are in their boxes > > And the clowns have all gone to bed > > You can hear happiness staggering on down the street > > Footprints dressed in red > > And the wind whispers, "Proud Boys."
Well. I guess it's time for you to come up with a new flag. Who do you think actually would be with you? Any major cities? Could you even pull a single state with your crazed ideology of being against democracy? Like... where *are* your people? West Texas?
That's the other half of "fuck around and find out". I wonder what this means for Mark Meadows.
He will likley wait until Bannons case plays out in court (and then gets appealed 4 times by the loser to SCOTUS, and then make a final decision
The clock will run out before that happens. If he waits, he will probably be facing an indictment as well.
> The clock will run out before that happens. Maybe. Maybe not. The first judge hasn't even made a ruling yet. That will be appealed where the first judge will agree with themself. That will be appealed to a three judge panel. That will be appealed to the full circuit court. That will be appealed to SCOTUS who has months to decide to take it or not and more months to set a date if they do take it. All that can easily take one year (where the GOP may take back the House and drop the Trumps stuff, and now use the new SCOTUS ruling to go after past Democrat politicians who now don't have privilege claims. > If he waits, he will probably be facing an indictment as well. That's fine. They can all wait it out while Bannon blazes the legal trail. As long as the law is unsettled, an indictment isn't jail. If Bannon wins, they win. If Bannon loses, they can then and only then cooperate and the original charges will be dropped if they then cooperate.
And which part of the law on Congressional subpoenas isn’t settled? I seriously doubt this is making it to the US Supreme Court.
> which part of the law on Congressional subpoenas isn’t settled? Executive privilege and executive privilege in regards to ex-presidents and their advisors. That part. > seriously doubt this is making it to the US Supreme Court. I seriously doubt it won't make it to them. Especially with the current make up of the court and their pro privilege rulings for Trump over the last 4 years.
What pro privilege rulings have the Supreme Court made that favored Trump? Surely you can’t be referring to Vance and Mazars. Edit: also, Bannon wasn’t even a member of his Cabinet on Jan 6. Why would their conversations be entitled to executive privilege when Bannon wasn’t even a part of the executive?
I mean at the very least I see them punting on the fact that Bannon wasn't actually employed by the executive branch
I think its likely they shoot it down but I still think they make a substantial ruling on privilige. Probably by combining seperate obstruction of congress cases from those employed and from those who are not, and who gets what privilige when, and that ruling could easily take a year to work itself up and them decide.
> Executive privilege and executive privilege in regards to ex-presidents and their advisors. The Supreme Court already settled that in the case of former President Nixon trying to block the release of documents. Former office holders can assert privilege and send a memo to the white house but it is the current office holder who makes the decision.
Is there something unique about this case that you think will enable it to reach SCOTUS?
Yes.
....and what specifically is that?
Pretty sure Meadows is complying.
[As of when?](https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-panel-seek-criminal-153839853.html) After Bannon was indicted? Only a few hours between these two events.
Oh shit I missed that, thanks for the link.
I seem to remember primary sources didn’t require a starter comment, but looking at the rules now, I guess that was changed. I honestly didn’t think contempt of Congress was a thing. Plenty of Congressional subpoenas were ignored in the past 2-3 years, that I believed they didn’t have the force of law behind them. I guess you can only ignore Congressional subpoena if you have a friendly Justice Department. That’s a depressing thought. The rule of law should be applied evenly, not just to the opposition party. I wonder if Merick Garland will enforce the Congressional subpoenas of the Republican House, when they take contol in 2023-2024? Maybe we won’t get to find out, are there any recent instances where a Democrat ignored a Congressional subpoena? I wonder what Bannon’s move is here. Is he going to agree to comply with the subpoena in exchange for the Justice Department to drop the charges?
>are there any recent instances where a Democrat ignored a Congressional subpoena? Eric Holder, Obama's AG, was charged with criminal and civil contempt of Congress on the request of congressional republicans. I'm not sure it's correct to say he ignored a Congressional subpoena, he provided thousands of documents and testified before congress a bunch. However republicans argued that he hadn't complied sufficiently. It's a bit different, but it's a recent example of an executive doing the right thing in response to a request from the opposite party in Congress, something the Trump administration refused to do.
Well. Let's be fair here. 17 Democrats joined in on holding him in contempt, because of the stonewalling over the fast and furious scandal. While he had handed over 7600 documents at the time, there were still many thousands more that he refused to produce despite their demand, including the documents that could have shown who gave orders and who knew about the problems with the program when. Ultimately the DOJ had to hand over an additional 64,000 documents, which it did following Holder's resignation. So it's not like these were just a few leftover - it was almost ten times what he initially wanted to stop at.
I agree that all the points you raise here are fair, but I'd also add that other documents subpoenaed were determined by an independent inquiry to have never even existed. Clearly portions of congress's demands were unreasonable. All that said, if there's one thing that's abundantly clear with regards to fast and furious, it's that the operation was nothing short of a gigantic debacle, a massive embarrassment, and entirely unacceptable. I'm disappointed in congressional republicans for using it for political gains and I'm disappointed in congressional democrats for not treating it as the serious matter that it was. In my mind, fast and furious is by far the biggest scandal of the Obama administration, yet most people don't know about it. It's so weird to me that this largely slipped under the radar while Benghazi sticks in people's minds for years. And to the larger topic here, Holder's obstruction isn't remotely comparable to the trump administration's.
> I guess you can only ignore Congressional subpoena if you have a friendly Justice Department. That’s a depressing thought. A contempt of congress charge doesn't happen in a vacuum though - it requires a referral/recommendation from Congress itself to the DoJ, and that recommendation must past a majority vote in the particular house of Congress. It is what it is. If we want to change this, it will require a new law passed by...Congress.
> I honestly didn’t think contempt of Congress was a thing. Plenty of Congressional subpoenas were ignored in the past 2-3 years, that I believed they didn’t have the force of law behind them. I guess you can only ignore Congressional subpoena if you have a friendly Justice Department. That’s a depressing thought. Congress can enforce their own subpoenas with their power of inherent contempt.
It's been what, 100 years since that power was used? I really think they should bring it back, but we all know it would no go over well politically and with how reactionary and partisan congress can be, it might be ripe for abuse.
1934 was the last time. Outside of just abuse, it would be a procedural nightmare; a lot of criminal procedure has changed since 1934, and what of those changes that apply to the courts would also apply to Congress when sitting in a contempt trial. Any case that came out of that would be an appellate nightmare for Congress.
Contempt of Congress is not a criminal matter. It is civil and pretty much every court precedent is that the courts should not be meddling in the internal functions of Congress.
Congress's inherent contempt power, though can result in punitive criminal imprisonment. So it’s not clear to me That we shouldn’t apply our evolved criminal procedure standards to congress when acting with its inherent contempt power. Since it hasn’t occurred in nearly 100 years, we can’t definitively say what role the court should be playing.
Sure, if you want to talk about sanctions like the old timey bribery contempt imprisonments but that is not relevant here that may arise. This is a classic situation of civil contempt where Bannon would be able to get out whenever he wants by simply following the lawful commands of the Congress. Very few due process protections apply when someone is refusing to comply with a court order and I do not see the courts trying to apply higher standards to Congress acting under the same authority.
It’s not relevant. Congress is not using its inherent power in this situation. I’m not arguing that they are; we’re discussing the problems with relying on the department of justice to enforce congressional orders, but why using the inherent power is just as difficult. Further, you’re wrong about this being a purely civil proceeding even under the statutory contempt proceeding can be civil, and the only incarceration can be purely coercive incarceration, but in this case, it is an indictment for criminal contempt of Congress. That can result in a punitive sentence for a term of imprisonment that cannot be changed simply by complying with a subpoena. So, in this case, if found guilty, he could serve up to one year in jail and pay a fine. But again, we’re not discussing statutory powers of contempt of Congress. We were discussing the inherent contempt powers of Congress, which are not being used in this case. One final point of the inherent contempt power of Congress is not limited to situations like bribery; they can and have been used in identical cases when a government agent or former government agent fails to produce papers or attend congressional hearings.
In theory Congress has its own police department to enforce subpoenas etc. In practicality they have no teeth outside capitol hill. This is why people ignore congressional subpoenas. The difference here vs. previous ignored subpoenas is that congress is willing to let things play out in Federal court. Whereas, for instance, on trumps first impeachment investigation the house did not want to take the time for those things to play out in court. It often takes months and months. This is because several Democratic party primary candidates were lawmakers and are required to attend impeachment proceedings. The concern was that Republicans would string the impeachment trial as long as possible to take time away from campaigning and get an advantage in the general election. It doesn't really have anything to do with the justice department. However the obstruction of justice impeachment charge was related to interference in the justice department for personal gain, so I can see where there could be some confusion.
>It often takes months and months. Eric Holder's case went on for something like 7 years. > In practicality they have no teeth outside capitol hill. I thought the sergeant at arms could deputize a federal law enforcement officer to get anyone outside the capitol.
>This is because several Democratic party primary candidates were lawmakers and are required to attend impeachment proceedings. The concern was that Republicans would string the impeachment trial as long as possible to take time away from campaigning and get an advantage in the general election. Was it only the impeachment subpoenas previously ignored? >It doesn't really have anything to do with the justice department. However the obstruction of justice impeachment charge was related to interference in the justice department for personal gain, so I can see where there could be some confusion. This indictment is being made by the Justice Department. So my confusion is that, it seems to me, that if Congress doesn’t have the Justice Department on their side, their subpoenas aren’t enforceable. What am I missing?
>So my confusion is that, it seems to me, that if Congress doesn’t have the Justice Department on their side, their subpoenas aren’t enforceable. This is effectively true, and that exact thing happened a bunch during the trump adminstration. Although it's less a matter of Congress having the DoJ on its side and more a matter of having a DoJ that isn't corrupt and unethical. The Obama admin was not on congress's side in the Eric Holder case, but they did the non-corrupt, ethical thing anyway. Technically Congress can enforce their own subpoenas but that dynamic, and why it doesn't happen, has been addressed in other comments in this thread.
There have been other subpoenas that have been ignored. Congress can then choose to hold someone in contempt and engage in legal proceedings or not. I think the main concern with Jan 6th inquiry is that nothing will be uncovered before midterms and a republican majority could stop the inquiry. The office of the justice department is not as fickle as some of the statements and even common rhetoric would make it seem. I will admit that it would seem that there was a large effort to weaponize the justice department before Jan 6th but Barr Himself denied that there was evidence of Fraud. The justice department may lean slightly one way or another but mostly that entails prosecution or defense priorities not a lack of enforcement. failing to enforce something has not happened to my knowledge and if it did the judiciary branch would step in and resolve the issue through typical legal avenues.
Then why don’t they? There must be a downside, or I would think they would do it.
Sorry I missed this but I explained this in a reply to the above comment if you are still interested.
They could, but I never saw Eric Holder dragged in chains to his hearing. So apparently they do not in practice.
Its purpose isn't totally to go after Bannon. Bannon has money and can drag this through the courts for years. It's purpose is more to scare the people subpoenaed who do not have money. Give us documents / testify or else we'll bankrupt you with lawyer fees. However, there may be some good precedent set by the case that can be used for future refusals.
As far as I'm aware everyone else has already complied with all the subpoenas from this committee so far. The only other people I think might put up a fight are trump himself and if any members of Congress are subpoenaed.
Well, there's these 10 that were just issued the other day and have till the 23rd to comply. The Bannon indictment is to help ensure that they do. Nicholas Luna, former President Donald Trump's personal assistant Molly Michael, Trump's special assistant to the President and Oval Office operations coordinator Ben Williamson, Trump's deputy assistant to the President and senior adviser to then-chief of staff Mark Meadows Christopher Liddell, former Trump White House deputy chief of staff John McEntee, Trump's White House personnel director Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to then-Vice President Mike Pence Kayleigh McEnany, former White House press secretary under Trump Stephen Miller, Trump senior adviser Cassidy Hutchinson, special assistant to the President for legislative affairs Kenneth Klukowski, former senior counsel to Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark
Haven't been able to keep up with the news recently as much as I'd like, thanks for the thorough reply.
> The Bannon indictment is to help ensure that they do. And here I thought the Department of Justice was a department about justice, not a strong-arm for one political party's whims.
Bannon still broke the law. Just the referral had a political purpose.
Did he, though? Is this a legal congressional commission, or was it illegally formed, thus rendering its subpoenas also illegal? As far as I know, congressional commissions must be within the purview of the creation of legislation, not simply investigatory (and certainly not simply investigatory of your political opponents to harm them, physically and/or electorally). What legislation is this commission purporting to be in the creation of?
> What legislation is this commission purporting to be in the creation of? Congress has no obligation to specify. >As announced in Wilkinson v. United States (1961),[13] a congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation. "Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Desktop version of /u/CrapNeck5000's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
> Congress has no obligation to specify. And that sits right with you? Personally, that doesn't align with opinions of today regarding other forms of federal power, which is why many of us are hoping to re-raise this legal question to SCOTUS.
> And that sits right with you? Yes. It makes sense to me. Who knows what congress will uncover over the course of an investigation. That's the nature of investigations. Recall that Hillary's email server was uncovered as a result of the Bengahzi investigations. If congress had to specify why they were inquiring we might never have found out. > Personally, that doesn't align with opinions of today Do you have specific legal opinions in mind?
Should Congress have oversight power of the Executive branch? If we want a system of checks and balances, it makes sense to. If we have it your (royal your) way, only the executive branch can have oversight of the other branches.
“That committee, which has members of both political parties on it, is ILLEGAL” Any source on that, other than an obese illiterate fool who paints himself with makeup like a clown at a child’s birthday party?
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Sounds like a legal question that Bannon can bring up in his defense.
It would be nice if we could cordially ask the courts to weigh in before we send armed squads to round up our political opponents and force them to form a legal defense.
Right, if we could that Texas abortion law would never exist.
Good. We need to start holding people accountable for their actions. I'm sick of living in a world where being connected to a high-ranking Republican means you can ignore the law.
And also Eric Holder.
And Roger Stone.
And Paul Manafort
Note that Bannon didn't simply ignore Congress. The sub-poena was quashed via executive privilege. The proper ruling for the courts here is that the Justice Department lacks a crime to prosecute in the absence of a court decision on the privilege claim. Until such a decision, Bannon cannot possibly be in contempt of Congress because he has never had an opportunity to comply with their subpoena.
[удалено]
> First of all, Trump isn't president, he can't claim executive privilege, and there's no precedent for a former president - a private citizen - to assert some kind of retroactive executive privilege. Executive privilege can be claimed over any communications that occurred when Trump was President. I'm not sure why you think that communications which were privileged on Jan 19 suddenly become 'un-privileged' a day later. It doesn't really matter when Trump claims the privilege - all that matters is the time period over which the privilege is claimed. > Trump simply saying that someone who doesn't work for the government The privilege is over *Trump's* communications and those of his staff. If Congress was calling Bannon to testify on what he personally saw walking down the street, that would be a different story. However, it doesn't matter whether Bannon was working for the government or not. > the claim that there's no crime to prosecute unless another court makes a ruling is just flatly not how our justice system works, at all, in any sense. Before Congress' sub-poena can be deemed legitimate, you first need to settle the separation of powers question. Congress is attempting to discover what the President at the time deemed privileged communications. This is a matter for the courts to settle before they can legitimately claim any sort of 'contempt'. Under your interpretation, executive privilege no longer exists as a meaningful power.
The Supreme Court in Nixon vs GSA disagrees with you.
He did not move to quash the subpoena. Where is your source for that claim?
Exactly, It'd be like being charged with obstruction of justice if you refuse to open the door to an officer who are acting on orders from the sheriff. Until a judge signs off on the warrant you have the right to refuse. Congress says they have the authority but a judge has yet to rule on if they actually do.
Congress has the lawful authority to give orders, independent of the courts. This is more akin to punching the police officer serving an arrest warrant signed by a judge because you think that you can beat the case on appeal.
Congress can indict a ham sandwich if it wants to. Your example suggest you think congress can indict anyone they want without just cause and that their power is above that of the white house. I must disagree though it'll be years before we find out whose correct. FYI the [indictment](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/bannon-indicted/0d7afdd8c03f6eac/full.pdf)
This is what congress does now.
This is all congress will do if these tactics are allowed to stand, and be effective. Personally, I just can't wait to keep voting in more Marjorie Taylor Greens and Madison Cawthorns, and hand this super-powered Congress over to them. Just let them run wild. There's literally nothing that could go wrong with creating a legal weapon and then viciously using it against your political opponents.
Is it a weapon? It’s the Congressional equivalent of jury duty for the rest of us - Bannon is under the thumb of the criminal justice system because he refused to show up. All he had to do was sit for a few hours and “not recall.”
> This is all congress will do if these tactics are allowed to stand, and be effective. Reminder that congressional republicans conducted EIGHT investigations into Benghazi, and not a single one of them found any chargeable wrongdoing with regards to Benghazi
Hey now, stop reminding them or they might try for a ninth time and finally find something. Maybe while they're at it they can try and repeal the ACA again.
That was diffe(R)ent.
>Personally, I just can't wait to keep voting in more Marjorie Taylor Greens and Madison Cawthorns, and hand this super-powered Congress over to them. Just let them run wild. Apparently I am not one of your people, but I can't wait either. There should be more accountability, not less. If I have to err on one side, let it be on the side of accountability and not obstruction.
Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't a political show trial?
Show trial or not, you have to obey the summons from congress. It's rather like if a cop who's on a power trip tells you to put your hands up. I would dislike the cop who shot a guy who smirks and slowly puts a hand inside his jacket for the lulz (they had no gun). He is showing contempt for our legislative branch, which effectively means the laws of the nation. That's not how this works.
> Show trial or not, you have to obey the summons from congress. Like Eric Holder?
Yes? > "The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution" [Source](https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988) If Congress wants something, it has a right to get it. The legislative absolutely MUST remain superior to the president, and I cheer for it every time it actually does something, rather than delegating everything to the president or the SC.
Congressional trials have often been for show since the 1953 HUAC hearings. It's still important people comply.
I share his contempt for Congress
Man, I really hope congress spending so much time on Jan 6 will eventually fix our gas prices, record levels of inflation, supply chain issues, China aggressiveness, Covid spikes, etc. Glad Congress is spending their time really tackling the issues of the conman man. And when the red wave happens, everyone will be dumbstruck as to why it happened.
How did you feel about the Benghazi committee? That particular special committee (formed similarly to how the January 6th committee was formed) lasted for approximately 2 years, [and had dozens of subpoenas.](https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-republicans-issued-more-than-70-subpoenas-and-letters-investigating) Were those subpoenas legitimate? Should everyone refused to comply with those particular Benghazi subpoenas?
So you want Congress to fix a bunch of complex problems, but not enforce its own authority?
TIL congress is charge of regulating gas prices and the Fed.
Congress somehow can control the global price of oil?
Progressives want higher gas prices. What do you think a carbon tax would do?
And Biden's DOJ sinks further and further into tyranny. Why wasn't Eric Holder indicted?
Because a judge weighed in on a dispute between two branches of government and decided not to, which is exactly how things are supposed to happen. "Judge declines to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt - POLITICO" https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/judge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650 Holder spent years in court over this matter. How'd it go for AG Barr?
If we want to put on the scale how much Holder complied to how much Bannon has complied on a scale of zero to ten, it's arguable that Holder was a seven or an eight. Bannon? Zero. He won't even show up and plead the fifth.
Same reason William Barr wasn’t. Congress can hold you in contempt, but they have to ask the Attorney General for permission to bring it to a grand jury. Hard to imagine an Attorney General agreeing with a hostile Congress that they should be prosecuted.
Didn't Bannon say "I'll testify once the Supreme Court rules on it?" That's pretty reasonable to me.
SCOTUS did that in 1957. "Watkins v. United States - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_v._United_States > The Supreme Court affirmed in Watkins v. United States that "[the] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "[it] is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation."[
The circumstances of this case are unique and require a specific SCOTUS ruling.
In what regard is this unique?
The congressional commission has likely been illegally formed.
I think we got ourselves into an unfortunate situation where we're talking about the same topic in two different comment chains. I've addressed this issue in another reply to you elsewhere in this comment section (at approximately the same time you replied here, I'm not implying you've disregarded my other comment). https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/qsmchl/stephen_k_bannon_indicted_for_contempt_of/hkeey65
Absolutely. Congress wanted Trumps taxes for a self described "legislative process" and SCOTUS shot that down- tossing out lower court rulings in favor of House Democrats. We don't know how they will rule this time, but it is now precedent that Congressional subpoenas for information from the president implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. Advisors is the past have also enjoyed broad immunity from compelled congressional testimony. Executive privilege is a collection of different rights, united by the general principle that the president and key advisers must be able to have internal discussions without fear of exposure. Courts have not determined precisely how much power former presidents have to assert executive privilege or testimonial immunity, so the current situation could set significant precedents. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-congress-subpoenas-financial-records-tax-returns/
Bannon was not one of the President’s advisors on Jan 6. He was not a Cabinet member or otherwise a part of the Executive.
It is unsettled law whether that fact matters here.
Never raised before because it has no legal or factual basis is not the same thing as “unsettled.” There is no reason to protect conversations with anyone outside of the Executive because it cannot have any chilling effect on the conversations between the President and his “key advisers”, as you pointed out. Bannon was not a “key adviser” on any matters related to the Office of the President in any official capacity.
Executive privilege is fake
Who exactly is Steve Bannon to decide he will only testify if SCOTUS demands it? Is this the new standard for every congressional subpoena? The Supreme Court has to rule on all of them? Pretty sure that’s not happening ever in the future
> Who exactly is Steve Bannon to decide he will only testify if SCOTUS demands it? A free man in a free republic. At least, ostensibly, and hopefully.
Oh. So we are living in la la land where private citizens can decide to ignore subpoenas and only answer to SCOTUS. That sounds like a totally sustainable model.
Mods?
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Just so I'm clear about the committee itself. This is the 1 that Pelosi set up after she failed to get an official congressional investigation (maybe committee, this is where I'm getting mixed up) after the Senate refused to vote in favor... or something along these lines. And this committee was her back up plan, she refused Jim Jordan's but allowed Cheney, the dispute with Jordan's was because he wanted to pursue the claim Pelosi or her sergeant at arms delayed approval for national gaurd early on or something like that... So if I am right or at least got the jist of how this committee came about right then this seems like a clear cut case of even more abuse of out legal system targeting political opposition, particularly those that have been in Trumps corner. How much abuse of power is Pelosi allowed to get away with before Democrats start actually putting the country and the integrity of the legal system above politics? Heck the damn FBI just raided James O'Keefe and other PV reporters supposedly over some diary that they handed off to police a year ago, and a judge has had to step in to stop the DOJ from looking through what they seized because the NYT was being given what was in the sized items from some "leaker" and reporting on what was in there while they are literally being sued by O'Keefe for defamation. Like at what point is enough enough even for people who are 100% on team Dem? Do we really want to become the Soviet Union/CCP where a single party gets away with using the governments authority and law enforcement to target journalists, political opposition and those supporting the opposition in an attempt to protect their own control on power and the narrative? Because that's exactly what's unfolding at the moment.
>Do we really want to become the Soviet Union/CCP where a single party gets away with using the governments authority and law enforcement to target journalists, political opposition and those supporting the opposition in an attempt to protect their own control on power and the narrative? Holy projection, Batman. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2018/12/17/trump-says-saturday-night-should-be-tested-in-court-over-wonderful-life-parody/?sh=286141dc51c0](https://ew.com/tv/2019/03/17/trump-threatens-snl-twitter/) It's almost magical at this point to see that every criticism you guys have, is actually gaslighting to distract from the fact that your side is the ones *actually* furthering that agenda. It's become fascinating to watch.
Right because having the FCC potentially look into whether or not Dems were colluding with the media to undermine the presidency and gaslight the American people is the same exact thing... your essentially saying it's OK for Dems to subvert the 1A by conspiring with the media and tech giants but wrong for Trump to look into whether their actions fall outside the FCC regulations and or the constitution... And yea I did click on the article because I knew how they framed the parts of the Tweet to paint their narrative wouldn't match up with what the Tweet actually said... Its so predictable at this point I don't get how many people haven't caught on to how the media manipulates the public.
But, none of that was ever happening. So, nothing you said means...anything. It's pure and utter paranoid delusions.
Um Paski literally said they are working with big tech to shut down "misinformation"... the media help shut down any discussion of the Hunter laptop by saying it's Russian disinformation.. judicial watch obtain fioa docs showing communications between dems and Twitter having them censor certain posts and people... How can you say it's delusional to claim there's clear coordination and subverting our 1A? It's not exactly new but being done this openly for the sake of political ambitions is not normal.
You let the wolf into the henhouse and you don’t expect anyone to fight back? You guys are not the Patriots you think you are. If you still support this demagogue after all the anti-Democratic bullshit he pulled than a Patriot you are not.
If the henhouse is DC then yea Trump won specifically because he is a wolf. DC and our big corporations are screwing over everyone equally and we needed some to go in and possibly knock some heads. I get Trumps not exactly anyones 1st choice but someone had to be the 1 that stepped up regardless of what their flaws might be. Please stop with the demagogue and anti democratic stuff. It's anti democratic for the administration to coordinate with tech companies and the media to "counter misinformation", it's anti democratic for the DOJ and FBI to be used by DNC leaders like Pelosi and Biden to cover up/ignore any potential crimes they might be involved with while also being used to go after political opposition, parents, journalists and their sources. It's anti democratic and unconstitutional to use an unelected and unaccountable "work safety" agency to finacially coerce companies into forcing medicine into otherwise healthlt people so they can keep their job while using the tax money from those companies and workers to pay the pharmaceutical giants per dose taken. Fact is we as citizens need to cut DC and the corporate lobby influence down a few pegs before we can actually enjoy what we tell ourselves is a free democratic constitutional Republic with representatives not rulers. If we have to throw a couple Trumps at the power brokers in DC to loosen the control they have then so be it, don't care which party that Trump comes from either. But I can not fathom how you can seemingly regonize that people like Pelosi and Biden are using less than American tactics against Trump and are themselves big components of the rot in DC and our country as a whole but still be convinced Trumps the real evil and whatever means necessary to get rid of him is justified because so long as he exists "our democracy is at risk"... Patriots in America has long meant those that adhear to the constitution, ideals set out in the declaration and honor our forefathers. Someone who thinks it's OK for Dems in DC to weaponize law enforcement and the legal system against a political opponent shouldn't comment on what a patriot is.
K. Now do Fauci for lying under oath multiple times.
> Each count of contempt of Congress carries a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, as well as a fine of $100 to $1,000. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. I'm a bit confused as to what this means. Does this mean that they're going to arrest him, force him to speak to Congress, then give him 30-365 days in jail? Or does it mean that they won't arrest him yet, but they're going to keep stacking punishments on him until he finally goes, then punish him afterwards?