Two related questions: Why isn't Bannon in a cell and why won't the House

[Atticus]

exercise its INHERENT CONTEMPT powers?

[BlueJac]

1. Good question.

I shake my head every day.

[Atticus]

3. Maybe read our TOS, OK? nt

[leftieNanner]

4. Buh-bye!

[Runningdawg]

5. Because unfortunately contempt is usually charged as misdemeanor

and in this case no one has contested that charge. Even if found guilty, it's very likely he won't serve time.

[Baltimike]

7. tell that to Susan McDougal. nt

[iemanja]

9. Hers wasn't Contempt of Congress

The Special Prosecutor charged her.

[Baltimike]

11. Oh damn, I thought it was. i stand corrected. Happy to follow facts. nt

[totodeinhere]

6. Because under our legal system the judge within certain guidelines gets

to decide whether to offer bail or whether to release an individual on their own recognizance or whether to remand them to custody immediately. Remember that Bannon, just like any other defendant, is presumed innocent until or unless he is convicted in a court of law, which has not happened yet. The judge decided he was not a flight risk or a risk to himself or others so he was released pending trial. In another case, Jussie Smollett was released even though he was convicted pending a sentencing hearing. That's just how our legal system works.

[Atticus]

8. The inherent contempt power of each chamber of the US Congress would not invlove

"our legal system" or a "judge". Look it up.

Each house has the inherent authority to DIRECTLY enforce it's own subpoena power. As I understand it, the Sergeant At Arms could be directed to arrest and detain---for example---Bannon and seek to compel compliance by any reasonable means.

I believe the House powers in this regard are much like what "grounds for impeachment" are: "Whatever the House decides they are."

To those who will offer reasons why this can't be done: please don't trot out that old "hasn't been done for a long time" nonsense.

[totodeinhere]

12. But they referred it to the Justice Department so now this case is winding itself

through the legal system. You are not disputing that a judge released him are you?

[Atticus]

14. Of course I am not disputing that "a judge released him". Are you disputing

that BOTH criminal contempt AND inherent contempt can proceed at the same time?

[totodeinhere]

15. No, but for whatever reason that is not happening. n/t

[Atticus]

17. And THAT was the point of the OP. Thank you. nt

[totodeinhere]

18. Point taken. n/t

[bluestarone]

10. This is true BUT

The judge COULD HAVE put him under STRICTER rules, Like NO COMMUNICATION with the internet plus ANYBODY under subpoena for the Jan 6th terrorist attack! bannon wanted exactly what he got, so he could motor mouth everyday!

[totodeinhere]

13. Yes, like I said the judge has discretion. You can disagree with the judges discretion but that

is how the system works.