Assuming all the subpoenaed witnesses show up and testify...

[StarfishSaver]

What new information do you think the committee will learn from them?

[Bev54]

1. I am not sure anything with testimony, I believe they will take the 5th

It is the documents that will provide a lot and I suspect some of the lesser people that will provide more information.

[PoliticAverse]

2. I suspect the committee will learn it was a waste of time, but I can be cynical. n/t

[kentuck]

3. I'd say that is quite an assumption.

Since Trump is pressuring them to claim "executive privilege"?

[StarfishSaver]

4. This thread isn't for arguing about WHETHER they'll testify

My question is: IF they testify, what will the committee learn from them?

[kentuck]

5. Assuming they testify...

...the Committee will probably learn that they are still taking orders from their former boss? What happens if they claim "executive privilege", in your opinion?

[StarfishSaver]

6. It depends

Only some of them are entitled to claim executive privilege, which doesn't apply to every communication a president has, but only those communications he has with his executive staff.

For example, Bannon was not a government employee When he was communicating with Trump about January 6th so executive privilege would not prevent him from testifying. If Trump tried to invoke that and it got to court, I suspect a court would knock that down pretty quickly.

As for any employees who were actually part of Trump's staff at the time, I think it will be difficult to sustain such a defense, especially since the current administration would likely argue against it and their argument would carry significant weight - far more than any argument Trump would make.

Now, back to my question. Could you be more specific about what you think the committee would learn from these witnesses?

[kentuck]

8. In my opinion, they are trying to put the evidence together in regards to what the CinC...

...was doing as they were being attacked by his mob of supporters.

Also, I don't think the subpoena was very strongly worded, in that they were looking for information as to how and why the insurrection happened and how to prevent it from happening again? I think that is about the extent of their investigation, at this time.

My suspicion is that it will end up in the courts. Their attempt to delay and obstruct, legally of course, is to keep the people from knowing what happened.

That is why I think the hearings should be public viewing.

I think there is a lot to learn from these witnesses, even if they say nothing.

[StarfishSaver]

12. The subpoena was worded perfectly

The Committee's charge is to investigate how and why the insurrection happened and to determine how to prevent such a thing from happening again. That's the extent of the committee's jurisdiction. It's important that the subpoena be worded as broadly as possible while fitting squarely within the committee's stated jurisdiction.

This language does does exactly that.

Do you think any of these witnesses will provide information that the committee hasn't already obtained or can't otherwise get from other sources (witnesses or documents)?

[kentuck]

21. I agree that is the right approach for them to take.

They are inviting cooperation. Those that refuse to cooperate must have a reason they don't want people to know?

In some ways, it is a PR battle. As Nancy Pelosi is fond of saying, with public sentiment there is a lot that can be done.

[StarfishSaver]

23. I don't think they're inviting cooperation

They led with the subpoenas, and not an invitation, as is common practice. They're not playing.

My point about the wording of the subpoenas is that they needed to be as broad as possible to encompass all manner of information they are seeking while also staying within the four corners of the committee's jurisdiction so that the witnesses couldn't contest them on the ground that they are overly broad or outside of the committees purview.

[kentuck]

25. I think they would prefer that witnesses cooperate but...

...they did not hesitate to show that they are ready to subpoena some of the most powerful people in the previous Administration. It does show that they mean business, in my opinion.

I suspect Bannon will claim executive privilege just to get the ball rolling. Everything will be thrown at the wall to see what sticks and what will distract the people from the facts at hand.

[dweller]

7. There is no executive privilege

since THEfatnixonGUY is still not pResident

✌🏻

[StarfishSaver]

9. There actually is executive privilege for communications he had when he was president.

He has a right to invoke it, but I don't think it will work in this case.

[kentuck]

11. Would it not work in this case, because it is a criminal investigation?

I guess it might be hard to claim "executive privilege" for something we all saw with our own eyes on January 6th?

[StarfishSaver]

13. Executive privilege doesn't protect criminal activity

Also, I don't think all of these witnesses would fall within the executive privilege protection.

[kentuck]

15. Right. I do not think Bannon would fall under any executive privilege protection...

...but he is so brazen, he will probably be the first to declare it?

I do not see how a judge could rule in their favor if they take it to court. It should be quickly resolved, would you agree?

[StarfishSaver]

16. Yes, I agree on all counts

Bannon would not qualify for executive privilege, he'd be the first to try to hide behind it, and the courts would bounce it out pretty quickly.

[kentuck]

18. That would be nice to see.

[kentuck]

10. Of course...

...but does that stop them from taking it to court? And how much time can they buy with their delay and obstruct strategy?

[StarfishSaver]

14. They can go to court, but I don't think they can drag it out the way it was done in the Trump yea

First of any claims of executive privilege are very tenuous in this case and would likely not require much litigation in the courts .

Also, and perhaps most important, the sitting president is not going along with the executive privilege argument, which I think would bear substantial weight with a court.

[kentuck]

17. Perhaps that is why we got the statement from the White House, thru the Washington Post...

...that Biden may release all the White House communications for that time period?

They are playing some hardball politics, it seems?

[StarfishSaver]

19. Yes, I think ao

As I've been saying, just because we can't see exactly what they're up to doesn't mean they're not carefully strategizing this

[kentuck]

20. Yeah, it seems it is getting down to the nitty gritty...

Do you think the DOJ will become visibly involved?

[StarfishSaver]

22. I agree

I don't think they'll get involved initially. This will be between Congress and the witnesses. But if the witnesses defy the subpoenas (which is different than invoking executive privilege), I think Congress will cite them for contempt and then refer the matter to DOJ for prosecution. At that point I think DOJ will dive in headfirst.

[dsc]

29. Bannon and Patel just plain can't under any theory

Bannon wasn't an employee at all, Patel was a Pentagon employee. The other two at least have a sort of arguable case but neither are even sort of good.

[DET]

24. Depends

It’s hard to say what ‘new’ information the committee would learn since we don’t know what they know now, except that it’s probably a lot more than the general public knows. And if Biden releases whatever information the executive has regarding the insurrection, the committee should have a pretty clear picture of how things went down.

Personally, I think the primary benefit of these very high profile seditionist’s testimony would be the PR value of seeing them questioned and lying on the stand, assuming the testimony was broadcast live. It could be a long shot, but it might open some people’s eyes.

[kentuck]

26. I think the White House would prefer not to get involved...

...so as to avoid the claim of "playing politics" but it was shot over the bow of the U.S.S. Trump. They will not hesitate to release their info to the Committee if the Trump sycophants try to block a necessary investigation.

[bluestarone]

27. Asking this as a person that does NOT understand legal issues here.

Wouldn't THIS whole mess be a GREAT (possibly the perfect) time to use the old INHERENT CONTEMPT? I DO NOT understand it all BUT something has to be done to hold these people until the truth comes out!

[kentuck]

28. If it were going to happen?

It couldn't happen to a nicer criminal than Steve Bannon.

[bluestarone]

30. AGREE!

He COULD be the drunken weak link?

[StarfishSaver]

31. Inherent contempt sounds great but is virtually unworkable in practice

Under its Inherent Contempt powers, Congress can try to compel witnesses to appear through two enforcement mechanisms - arrest and monetary fines.

In order to arrest someone, Congress would cite the witness for Contempt of Congress and issue an arrest warrant, ordering the Sergeant-at-Arms to take them into custody and bring them before the Committee or detain them until they agree to appear.

However, the Sergeant-at-Arms' jurisdiction is limited by statute to the Capitol complex and a tight radius around it. The SAA did deputize someone to make an arrest in Ohio nearly 90 years ago and the court upheld the arrest, but that case probably wouldn't be binding today for a couple of reasons. First, that occurred before the SAA jurisdiction was limited by statute and second, and importantly, the defendant in that case challenged the SAA's subject-matter jurisdiction (the right to arrest), but not it's geographical jurisdiction (where that arrest can be done). The distinction is rather complicated but critical - in short, they argued that the House didn't have the power to arrest them at all. The court rejected that argument and said the House did have the power to have them arrested. But they didn't claim - so the court didn't rule on the issue - that the SAA didn't have jurisdiction to arrest them in Ohio, off of Capitol grounds

If the House orders someone arrested, as soon as the warrant is issued, the subject would immediately go to court challenging the inherent contempt authority in general and the arrest in particular and get an injunction preventing the arrest during the pendancy of the litigation. And one of the arguments the defendant would use to prevent the arrest is that the SAA lacks the jurisdiction to arrest them unless they're within a specific perimeter of the Capitol. And since it's unlikely that any of the witnesses would be wandering around the Capitol complex, this alternative is not workable.

The other alternative for enforcement under the Inherent Contempt power is to impose a fine. But, just as an arrest warrant would be challenged, the minute a fine is imposed, the witness would immediately go to court to contest it and the case would end up being litigated for some time.

Bottom line, even if the House tries to use its inherent contempt authority to arrest or fine someone, no one will be arrested any time soon and no fine will be collected in the near future.

As I said, Inherent Contempt sounds good, but it would not have the results many people think it would have. It would really be just a waste of time.

[bluestarone]

33. Could i try one more time while we are addressing this process?

Ok i'm thinking that the inherent contempt could be issued, THEN i'm sure these four at some time would show up to vote, THEN, arrest them? Having a standing arrest warrant READY. Is this possible? In Texas they treated our Dems. BADLY. I just want the favor RETURNED to these yahoo's! TY for your time!

[StarfishSaver]

34. Members of Congress can't be arrested on their way to vote or while attending a session

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically prohibits it.

[bluestarone]

35. Well there's that.

TYVM!

[StarfishSaver]

36. ...

As I keep saying, it's much more complicated than it may first appear ...

[PRETZEL]

32. Maybe more than we realize

I suspect that both Meadows and Scavino will try really hard to invoke EP, but as been said, that may be quickly resolved. If they take the 5th, then from a public opinion standpoint, it will be very telling.

Neither Bannon or Patel can make any EP claims, and (making a big assumption) they don't claim 5th Amendment rights, I would suspect testimony from Bannon would provide evidence on how and who funded the event and through what organizations were the plans filtered through.

From Patel, (making the same assumptions from Bannon) could very well lead as to others within the government were involved and in what capacity.

We could easily learn a lot of new information as long as those subpoenaed actually provide testimony.

[StarfishSaver]

37. Interesting

Thanks for responding.