Posted on Jul 22, 2022
D.C. Jury Swiftly Convicts Steve Bannon for His Defiance of Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena
529
18
10
5
5
0
That was fast…
“ Former President Donald Trump’s ex-chief strategist Steve Bannon was convicted on Friday following a brief jury trial on two counts of contempt of Congress, multiple news outlets have reported.”
“ Former President Donald Trump’s ex-chief strategist Steve Bannon was convicted on Friday following a brief jury trial on two counts of contempt of Congress, multiple news outlets have reported.”
D.C. Jury Swiftly Convicts Steve Bannon for His Defiance of Jan. 6 Committee Subpoena
Posted from lawandcrime.com
Donald Trump
Election 2020
Conspiracy Theories
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
I've had breath mints that lasted longer than those deliberations. Must have been a very easy call.
(4)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
It was. I don't AGREE with the law here, but they didn't ask me. And the law is pretty clear. Plus he basically offered no defense.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
He was found guilty of Contempt of Congress. A couple points on that...
1) I don't think this should be illegal. Considering Congress's approval rating, I think it would be fair to say that MOST Americans contempt Congress. And we have that right in the 1St Amendment.
2) Yes, I know that is not what the charge actually means. But if you are going to make something illegal, you should state what is ACTUALLY illegal. Really this is not contempt, but rather DISOBEDIENCE of Congress.
3) Even that should not be illegal. 4th Amendment grants the right to be secure in our person's, except when presented with a warrant. 5th Amendment prevents deprivation of liberty without due process. Congress should NOT have subpoena authority on private citizens - which is what Bannon is right now. Subpoena someone who is part of the federal government as part of your oversight, sure (and, of course, give the government provided legal counsel, and full reimbursement for travel, and count the ENTIRE trip as working hours, so beaucoup OT if not salaried). But private citizens? Violation of 4A and 5A.
I am sure someone will find a way to argue that it isn't. Some technical loophole or precedent somewhere. Ut read the VERY PLAIN text of 4A and 5A. And tell me a non-warranted, no due process subpoena doesn't violate them.
And a ton of people will argue that they NEED that authority to do their investigation. But.... Investigating things isn't their job. We have a Federal Bureau for that. It's almost like Investigations is in their title, or something.
Of course, if it was me, I would show up and refuse to provide meaningful answers. Because, yes, I have nothing but contempt for our current Congress. And, yes, that applies to both parties.
1) I don't think this should be illegal. Considering Congress's approval rating, I think it would be fair to say that MOST Americans contempt Congress. And we have that right in the 1St Amendment.
2) Yes, I know that is not what the charge actually means. But if you are going to make something illegal, you should state what is ACTUALLY illegal. Really this is not contempt, but rather DISOBEDIENCE of Congress.
3) Even that should not be illegal. 4th Amendment grants the right to be secure in our person's, except when presented with a warrant. 5th Amendment prevents deprivation of liberty without due process. Congress should NOT have subpoena authority on private citizens - which is what Bannon is right now. Subpoena someone who is part of the federal government as part of your oversight, sure (and, of course, give the government provided legal counsel, and full reimbursement for travel, and count the ENTIRE trip as working hours, so beaucoup OT if not salaried). But private citizens? Violation of 4A and 5A.
I am sure someone will find a way to argue that it isn't. Some technical loophole or precedent somewhere. Ut read the VERY PLAIN text of 4A and 5A. And tell me a non-warranted, no due process subpoena doesn't violate them.
And a ton of people will argue that they NEED that authority to do their investigation. But.... Investigating things isn't their job. We have a Federal Bureau for that. It's almost like Investigations is in their title, or something.
Of course, if it was me, I would show up and refuse to provide meaningful answers. Because, yes, I have nothing but contempt for our current Congress. And, yes, that applies to both parties.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CW4 Guy Butler I would ask what the "valid legislative purpose" is for this committee. Which laws are they looking at creating, amending, or striking?
Absent that, the subpoena is not valid, per both Watkins and Quinn v. US
And yes, I know this was brought up. The Judge on the trial didn't give a fig and said it wasn't a valid defense at pre-trial. I wasn't there for the arguments so I cannot say whether that was decided rightly or wrongly. Just that the Judge made his decision.
But all of that is beside the point. I see what case law says. But it still smacks of 4A and 5A violation. They are removing liberty and seizing persons (a subpoena is a gentle way to do this, but it is no less of a deprivation of liberty) with no warrant, no due process, and no recourse.
Absent that, the subpoena is not valid, per both Watkins and Quinn v. US
And yes, I know this was brought up. The Judge on the trial didn't give a fig and said it wasn't a valid defense at pre-trial. I wasn't there for the arguments so I cannot say whether that was decided rightly or wrongly. Just that the Judge made his decision.
But all of that is beside the point. I see what case law says. But it still smacks of 4A and 5A violation. They are removing liberty and seizing persons (a subpoena is a gentle way to do this, but it is no less of a deprivation of liberty) with no warrant, no due process, and no recourse.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CW4 Guy Butler P.S. but thank you for providing the case law. Even though I argue against it, I appreciate you providing it.
(1)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
SFC Casey O'Mally I’d say determining the causes of the Jan 6 insurrection and determining ways to prevent something similar from occurring in the future constitutes a legitimate legislative purpose. It’s no different from, say, the Benghazi investigations.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CW4 Guy Butler I understand the argument. Personally, I think it is hogwash. That is *not* what the committee is doing. They are playing pin the crime on the Trump. They started with a pre-determined cause of the riot. Then they went in search of proof for what they already "knew." And they have NO interest in preventing something like this in the future - unless you consider "something like this" as Trump being President. If they were REALLY looking prevention, they would be looking at actions of Capitol Police, the Sergeants at Arms, the denials of reinforcements, the staffing, procedures, and response of Capitol Police, etc.
The big difference between this and the Benghazi investigations (which I thought were ridiculous, BTW), is that they were conducting legislative oversight on an executive branch function. Congress has both a right and a responsibility to oversee the executive branch. And that investigation looked specifically at governmental actions and inactions. Jan 6 committee is looking at just about everyone EXCEPT government. Well, except for Trump - whose actions were already addressed through impeachment.
I had a lot more typed, but it was tangential diatribes. But, IMHO, there is no valid LEGISLATIVE purpose here.
Certainly a valid POLITICAL purpose. But not a single law will be created, amended, or stricken as a result of these hearings. Which means they serve no legislative purpose.
The big difference between this and the Benghazi investigations (which I thought were ridiculous, BTW), is that they were conducting legislative oversight on an executive branch function. Congress has both a right and a responsibility to oversee the executive branch. And that investigation looked specifically at governmental actions and inactions. Jan 6 committee is looking at just about everyone EXCEPT government. Well, except for Trump - whose actions were already addressed through impeachment.
I had a lot more typed, but it was tangential diatribes. But, IMHO, there is no valid LEGISLATIVE purpose here.
Certainly a valid POLITICAL purpose. But not a single law will be created, amended, or stricken as a result of these hearings. Which means they serve no legislative purpose.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google