Jan. 6 panel votes to hold Steve Bannon in contempt

[George II]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection voted unanimously Tuesday to hold former White House aide Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress after the longtime ally of former President Donald Trump defied a subpoena for documents and testimony.

Still defending his supporters who broke into the Capitol that day, Trump has aggressively tried to block the committee’s work by directing Bannon and others not to answer questions in the probe. Trump has also filed a lawsuit to try to prevent Congress from obtaining former White House documents.

But lawmakers have made clear they will not back down as they gather facts and testimony about the attack involving Trump’s supporters that left dozens of police officers injured, sent lawmakers running for their lives and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Tuesday that Bannon “stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena” and the panel will not take no for an answer.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/steve-bannon-donald-trump-joe-biden-lawsuits-capitol-siege-ae89c4e35695efe3cd10b1256eb989a8

[Scrivener7]

1. .

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

[SheltieLover]

3. Will he be locked up, or will this bounce around for gawd knows how long?

[ShazzieB]

8. Here's how CNN describes the next steps.

"Following Tuesday's meeting, the report is then referred to the House for a vote. If the vote succeeds, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi certifies the report to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Under law, this certification then requires the United States attorney to 'bring the matter before the grand jury for its action,' but the Justice Department will also make its own determinations for prosecution."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/19/politics/steve-bannon-criminal-contempt-referral/index.html

As I said in another comment, it's a complicated and cumbersome process. *weary sigh*

It remains to be seen how long this will take, but I was very impressed with the committee's determination and resolve. I'm trying to focus on that for now. Ymmv.

[SheltieLover]

10. Ty, ShazzieB!

Ridiculously slow process!

And, imo, quite iffy. There should be no if to it. Should be automatic: no show, ass gets locked up. Just like a no show anywhere else.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. Chris Cuomo said months maybe not years. All they want is past midterms. nt

[ShazzieB]

4. I watched the whole thing, cheering inwardly the whole time.

This whole process is much more complicated and cumbersome than I ever realized, but this committee obviously means business. Glad I got to watch this. Go, January 6 Select Committee! Kick some Pigpen, err, I mean Bannon, ass!

[monkeyman1]

16. you were rite on the first one-"pigpen " !

[BigmanPigman]

5. Schiff just said that this should go to The House soon

and not get dragged out. That is good news.

[George II]

6. I think the vote will be on Thursday.

[SheltieLover]

11. Good!

Ty!

[NullTuples]

7. The penalty for contempt of Congress is

"The criminal offense of contempt of Congress sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not more than $100,000 or less than $100"

However,

"...although the Federal Constitution does not explicitly provide for Congressional power to hold individuals in contempt, such power is considered implied because without it, Congress could not effectively carry out its duties. [...] The U.S. Supreme Court summarized this principle in the 1917 case Marshall v. Gordon, stating, “in virtue of the grant of legislative authority, there would be a power implied to deal with contempt insofar as that authority was necessary to preserve and carry out the legislative authority given.”

(from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress )

So with the current Supreme Court...well, all bets are off.

[lees1975]

19. That's a standing ruling on precedent

I don't think Bannon has the option of appeal to the Supreme Court. The DOJ is free to enforce the law and I hope he gets the max.

[jalan48]

9. Bennie Thompson did a great job.

[JohnSJ]

12. Essentially it will now be up to the DOJ

[marieo1]

13. Lock them all up.

The first one they need to lock up is DJT............and the rest of these traitors all need to be locked up. On my list DJT would be #1......

[40RatRod]

15. I was watching it on CNN and wondered if FOX was carrying it so...

...when I went to FOX, they were not. Guess they thought their sensitive followers should not have to hear some of the facts presented.

[monkeyman1]

17. don't forget that they don't have the attention span !!

[COL Mustard]

18. Great, Now Look His Sorry Ass Up

Without delay!!!

[AdamGG]

21. Didn't Haldeman & Ehrlichman do time for lying to Congress?

They were also convicted of organizing the Watergate burglary, but wasn't their perjury to Congress a part of it? John Dean told the truth and the tapes backed him up and the others all lied their asses off.

My point is, if there's a precedent for Presidential officials doing time for lying under oath to Congress, shouldn't refusing a summons be a slam dunk, if Biden's DOJ is willing to prosecute it?

[MyOwnPeace]

22. So, let me ask.......

how is Susan McDougal DIFFERENT from Steve Bannon?

" Susan McDougal, President Clinton’s Whitewater investment partner, was imprisoned for contempt of court Monday for refusing to answer prosecutors’ questions about whether Clinton had knowledge of criminal wrongdoing in connection with the Whitewater resort development."

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/10/us/susan-mcdougal-goes-to-jail-for-not-testifying-on-clinton.html

Regardless of the "validity" of the charges, we have one "Presidential operative" who refuses to comply with subpoenas. She spent 18 months in jail.

So, I ask, when does Bannon get his "LOCK HIM UP!"

[George II]

23. The process is different between a court and Congress.

[MyOwnPeace]

25. And..............

Come on - tell me more.
How is it that a person who will not testify is different from a person who will not testify?

OK - a Congress wants a person to testify. What can they do about it?
And yet, a 'court' wants a person to testify. I'm guessing we know what they can do about it.

HOW did the 'difference' occur?

Just asking -

[FBaggins]

26. There are a some significant differences

In the alternative case, it isn't just a court "wanting" a person to testify. It's the executive branch (in the person of the prosecutor) who wants the testimony and then the judicial branch (in the person of the judge) approving the subpoena to testify. And potentially a grand jury approving the subpoena... and the judge's decision to enforce the subpoena can be appealed to at least two higher courts. Here there's no second branch of government validating the subpoena and no process of appeal prior to the "court" deciding the witness is in contempt.

Another significant difference is the privilege claim. A potential witness is being told by a former president that the conversation is privileged and simultaneously being told by Congress that it isn't. The claim seems ridiculous, but it isn't unreasonable for the witness to throw his hands up and ask a court to tell him what to do.

[mcar]

24. As they said they would