Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2021 Trump-Incited Insurrection at Capitol Building

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J6C has charged Bannon with contempt of Congress furthering along a building constitutional crisis over executive privilege and political revenge.

    Comment


    • Marjorie Taylor Greene fights with House colleagues during vote to hold Bannon in contempt

      Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) exchanged harsh words on the House floor amid Thursday's vote to hold former Trump strategist Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress.

      Why it matters: The exchange is emblematic of the divisive and emotionally charged nature around the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

      Details: “This is a joke,” Greene said on the House floor, presumably about the vote. “Why don’t you care about the American people?” she asked Raskin, a member of House Jan. 6 Select Committee.
      • “You represent the American people,” he responded.
      • “You represent Congress,” Greene replied.
      At that point, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), one of two Republicans who sit on the select committee, said something unintelligible.
      • Greene replied to Cheney: “You’re done. You’re a joke, Liz. Your party rejected you.”
      • Cheney responded that Greene was a joke, and asked whether she needed to be focusing on her “anti-Semitic space lasers," a source familiar with the conversation told Axios.
      • Greene replied that she'd never said that.
      • Greene said later in a statement to Axios: “Democrat Liz Cheney, Russia hoaxer [Rep.] Adam Schiff [D-Calif.] and disheveled Jamie Raskin were giggling together and patting each other on the back in the well of the House. I had to let them know that their J6 witch hunt committee is an absolute joke.”
      What’s next: The House voted to hold Bannon in contempt, mostly among party lines — but with nine Republicans voting "yes" with Democrats.
      • The Justice Department will now consider bringing criminal charges against Bannon.
      • The vote itself marks a significant escalation in the Jan. 6 committee's efforts to enforce subpoenas against Trump allies who refuse to cooperate.
      ______________

      Ol' Marjorie went down the "Rothschild" anti-Semitic dog whistle road and then tried to deny it. How typical....

      And it turns out there's a grand total of 9 Republicans that believe that Congress can subpoena witnesses to investigate a violent assault (on themselves no less!) to over turn the results of an election.


      Click image for larger version

Name:	Es13VVhXAAAYPj-.jpg
Views:	121
Size:	261.2 KB
ID:	1577800
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • Weird games afoot on both sides. Cheney said publicly she thinks Bannon is involved in planning J6. This implies he is in legal jeopardy. So he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. Normally the person shows up and please the 5th. Don't know what Bannon is angling for.

        Congress might make him King For a Day but I'm not sure if the question of can Congress do that has been definitively answered. If I were him I would still plead the 5th until DoJ signed off on the grant of immunity.

        Then there are the executive privilege claims. That needs to be decided before any one is called to testify. Former presidents maintain control of their own archives and presumably this includes candid advice giving by others. Letting new administrations sure the dirty laundry of political rivals sets up a really bad precedent and will not help national comity. Even with a grant of immunity I would not answer anything not pre-cleared by the former presidents lawyers until there was a definitive court judgment.

        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=982653

        Comment


        • Here we go with the “on both sides” nonsense again.
          Aside from the fact that refusing to provide evidence under subpoena is, in fact, an actual crime, the United States House of Representatives is not … a court of law.
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Then there are the executive privilege claims. That needs to be decided before any one is called to testify. Former presidents maintain control of their own archives and presumably this includes candid advice giving by others. Letting new administrations sure the dirty laundry of political rivals sets up a really bad precedent and will not help national comity. Even with a grant of immunity I would not answer anything not pre-cleared by the former presidents lawyers until there was a definitive court judgment.

            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=982653
            Executive privilege applies only to the serving executive, in this case Joe Biden.

            "Executive privilege is a doctrine that has grown up to protect, generally, the internal communications within the White House and with the president of the United States."

            Donald Trump has no executive privilege, as he is not president nor does he have internal communications within the White House. He is no different than any other private citizen with the exception of some nifty financial perks and Secret Service protection. "Under our system, the authority attaches to the office, not the human"

            Steve Bannon is also a private citizen who is employed by neither Trump nor the White House, and indeed ceased being a White House employee on 18 August 2017.

            Steven Bannon could most certainly plead the Fifth Amendment to nearly every single question asked of him. (However according to Donald Trump, this means he's both guilty and a member of the Mob: “The mob takes the Fifth, If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”).

            What Mr. Bannon cannot do is refuse a subpoena to appear in front of Congress. Not without legal consequences, in any case.

            Also, former presidents do not maintain physical control of their archives. That control is the domain of the National Archives. "If there is a request for what would otherwise be privileged material regarding a prior presidency, representatives of the prior president are supposed to consult with representatives of the current president, and then the current president decides."

            "In 1977, the Supreme Court recognized the limited scope of former presidents’ constitutional interest in their confidential papers. Explaining why Richard Nixon, who brought the case, lost, the Court explained that “the incumbent President” was “in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch,” and hence “to support invocation of the privilege.” That is, even if a former president has an interest in the confidentiality of his or her official papers, it’s up to the incumbent president to decide on how and when that interest is honored. This remains the law. Indeed, a 2009 executive order, which Trump never changed, plainly puts the Oval Office incumbent in charge of disclosure decisions (and denies former president any right to sue)."

            Opinion | Trump Can’t Keep His Jan. 6 Documents Secret. And Biden Can Help.

            Harvard Law Can Donald Trump still assert executive privilege?


            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • 1. And yet both of Trump's immediate predecessors both invoked post-presidency claims of executive privilege. Its a question for the courts.

              2. There is no statutory requirement that the president's advisors be on the government payroll to be shielded by the president/ ex-president's claims of privilege. Private citizens serve as advisors all the time. In fact if you think about it, such a requirement would defenestrate the president's ability to get candid advice because anyone in the private, commercial, or NGO sector who wanted to advise the president according to their particular industry or specialty would automatically be creating a conflict of interest under federal law unless they first resigned and put said interests into a blind trust and then joined the government.

              What is executive privilege and can a former president use it? - CNNPolitics

              Comment


              • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                1. And yet both of Trump's immediate predecessors both invoked post-presidency claims of executive privilege. Its a question for the courts.
                Neither George W. Bush's nor Barack Obama's claims of executive privilege in those cases were invoked post-presidency. Bush's was invoked in 2007 and Obama's was invoked in 2012.

                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                2. There is no statutory requirement that the president's advisors be on the government payroll to be shielded by the president/ ex-president's claims of privilege. Private citizens serve as advisors all the time. In fact if you think about it, such a requirement would defenestrate the president's ability to get candid advice because anyone in the private, commercial, or NGO sector who wanted to advise the president according to their particular industry or specialty would automatically be creating a conflict of interest under federal law unless they first resigned and put said interests into a blind trust and then joined the government.
                Executive privilege covers communication within the White House. Bannon left the White House in 2017 and was once again a private citizen, liable to subpoenaed before Congress. Ex-aides to the president do not retain an immunity from the law.

                In any case, the point is moot: Executive privilege, as stated, applies only to the serving executive. Not ex-Presidents. Donald Trump has no claim to executive privilege as a private citizen.

                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  Neither George W. Bush's nor Barack Obama's claims of executive privilege in those cases were invoked post-presidency. Bush's was invoked in 2007 and Obama's was invoked in 2012.


                  Executive privilege covers communication within the White House. Bannon left the White House in 2017 and was once again a private citizen, liable to subpoenaed before Congress. Ex-aides to the president do not retain an immunity from the law.

                  In any case, the point is moot: Executive privilege, as stated, applies only to the serving executive. Not ex-Presidents. Donald Trump has no claim to executive privilege as a private citizen.
                  Might want to jump in your time machine and go back and tell Bush ( settled in 2009) and Obama (not settled until 2019) that....

                  Trump is more than just a private citizen, you and I don't have a SS escort after all.

                  There is no requirement that candid advice begiven by only designated advisors or inside the White House.... Imagine the idiocy of that. A president is on AF1, or over seas, in another state and some crisis arises and he needs info now. Sorry, Mr. President we have to wait until you are safely ensconced behind the resolute desk before you can talk to any one.

                  Bannon is absolutely liable to be subpoenaed, he should be pleading the fifth and then demurring until he has immunity backed by the DoJ and the court cases are settled before saying a word.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Might want to jump in your time machine and go back and tell Bush ( settled in 2009) and Obama (not settled until 2019) that....
                    You claimed that they invoked claims of executive privilege post-presidency, not that their cases were settled.
                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    1. And yet both of Trump's immediate predecessors both invoked post-presidency claims of executive privilege.
                    They did not invoke claims of executive privilege post-presidency. Your claim is factually incorrect.

                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Trump is more than just a private citizen, you and I don't have a SS escort after all.
                    I already stated that. I didn't think I had to keep repeating it.
                    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    He is no different than any other private citizen with the exception of some nifty financial perks and Secret Service protection.
                    In any case, SS escort (and financial perks) are irrelevant to what we're talking about: Executive Privilege. Which is reserved solely for sitting presidents.

                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    There is no requirement that candid advice begiven by only designated advisors or inside the White House.... Imagine the idiocy of that. A president is on AF1, or over seas, in another state and some crisis arises and he needs info now. Sorry, Mr. President we have to wait until you are safely ensconced behind the resolute desk before you can talk to any one.
                    "White House" in this case, does not refer to the physical building. It's a common metonym for the Executive Office of the President, e.g. "The White House declined to comment...".

                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Bannon is absolutely liable to be subpoenaed, he should be pleading the fifth and then demurring until he has immunity backed by the DoJ and the court cases are settled before saying a word.
                    And Bannon has been subpoenaed and has informed Congress that he will not cooperate in any way with the Committee, because he claims he is shielded by Trump's "executive privilege", which does not exist because Trump is not the Chief Executive of the United States. Which is why he is being held in Contempt of Congress and thus subject to up to one year in prison and up to $100,000 in fines.
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • Pesky facts can ruin a good conspiracy theory faster than greased lightning...
                      Trust me?
                      I'm an economist!

                      Comment


                      • And just an FYI...

                        Presidential Records belong to the American people per the Presidential Records Act of 1978

                        https://www.archives.gov/presidentia.../1978-act.html

                        Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978


                        The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents, and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations. The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions.

                        Specifically, the PRA:
                        • Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
                        • Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
                        • Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
                        • Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
                        • Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
                        • Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
                        • Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
                        • Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.
                        • Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489).
                        • Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489.
                        • Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
                        • Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.


                        President George W. Bush tried to change that through an Executive Order but that was undone by President Obama on the first day of his administration by rescinding that E.O.

                        https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/60542

                        At Last Bush's Restrictions on Presidential Records Are Lifted


                        by Anna K. Nelson

                        Ms. Nelson is Distinguished Historian in Residence at American University in Washington, D.C. In 2007 she testified before Congress about the necessity of overturning President's Bush's executive order restricting access to presidential records.

                        For more than seven years, the research community has worked to defeat Executive Order (E.O.) 13233 which President George W. Bush imposed a year after he took office. Then, with the stroke of a pen, President Obama nullified that E.O. on the first day of his presidency.

                        The Bush E.O. basically over turned some of the most important provisions of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). After 1978, and the passage of the Act, the records of presidents following Jimmy Carter became government property. The goal of the PRA was not only to ensure that presidential records would not be destroyed but that they would be released to the public in a timely manner. The Act provided the president with an interval of 12 years before releasing his records to the public. More important, the PRA removed decisions of access to the records from the president’s heirs or executors of his estate.

                        Bush decided that presidential papers needed added protection before becoming public. His E.O. allowed past presidents continued control of their papers by allowing them to refuse public access, basically giving past presidents a kind of retroactive executive privilege. While past presidents had 90 days to decide if access would be granted, the incumbent president could take months or a year if he so desired, frustrating one of the chief goals of the PRA. Also directly refuting the provisions of the PRA, the president’s heirs or executors were again responsible for decisions on access after his death. Every researcher who worked in a presidential library has seen first hand the effect of protective families. Bush had turned the PRA on its head.

                        Bush claimed he was clarifying provisions of the PRA but suspicious historians wondered if he was not ensuring the protection of his father’s papers as well as his own. Not forgotten was the possible involvement of Vice-President George H.W. Bush in Iran-Contra.

                        That this issue was regarded as part of the transparency that Obama promised the American people was no accident. Lee White of the National Coalition for History had walked the halls of congress, educated the staff of important members and called in other historians when necessary. Testimony in open hearings caught the attention of editors of major newspapers. Political scientists and journalists joined with historians to publicize this distortion of the PRA and urge its repeal. Led by the efforts of the National Coalition for History, the research community illustrated the effectiveness of pro-active action when the basic sources of American history are threatened.

                        Although a victory for the cause of history, there is some disappointment that President Obama did not give more authority to the Archivist of the U.S. instead of vesting many decisions in the Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel. Finally, if there are some terms of access in the PRA that need modifying, it should be done by statute. If one president can restore the Act to its original purpose, the next one can once again nullify it.

                        Meanwhile, let’s celebrate this victory for history.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • Opinion | Why Is Merrick Garland Going Easy on Jan. 6 Defendants?
                          Leniency is not necessarily a bad thing, but politically selective leniency belies the guiding principle of equal justice under law.

                          Last week, the Justice Department obtained its 100th guilty plea in its investigation of the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland opened his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee with a prebuttal of sorts: telling members that the riot constituted an “intolerable assault” on the peaceful transfer of power and that he had “great confidence in the prosecutors” who are investigating and prosecuting people in connection with the day’s events. His remarks come in the context of a vigorous debate — among politicians, judges, and legal commentators — over whether the alleged rioters are being treated too leniently or too harshly.

                          That question is complicated to answer in the abstract, in part because of the many stages of the criminal process and the corresponding ways in which defendants can be treated comparatively well or poorly. Considerations include the manner in which defendants are brought to court, whether defendants are detained prior to trial (and if so, under what conditions), what defendants are charged with, what sorts of plea deals the department is offering, how aggressive the government’s sentencing recommendations are, and what sentences the defendants ultimately receive from judges.

                          There is also the critical question of what the benchmark is. The federal criminal justice system is not exactly a wellspring of generosity under ordinary circumstances. Prosecutors can be overly aggressive at every step, the sentencing guidelines are often too punitive and there is a pro-government tilt throughout the courts.

                          Many members of the public may just now be learning this and, not unreasonably, bristling at some of the treatment that they are reading about without being able to place it in the broader context of a federal system that is generally harsh. For others, however, particularly conservative pundits and politicians, who should theoretically know better, much of the outrage appears performative and opportunistic — part of a broader effort led by Donald Trump to downplay the events of Jan. 6 and, ridiculously, to suggest that it is the charged participants, and conservatives more generally, who are the true victims.

                          In fact, there are several significant ways in which the Justice Department appears to be treating the Jan. 6 defendants better than most defendants.

                          To start, the department has taken a relatively generous approach to charging and to negotiations in the plea agreements that it has so far reached. According to an analysis by BuzzFeed’s Zoe Tillman, the “vast majority of guilty pleas — 80 out of 100 — have involved defendants charged solely with misdemeanor crimes from the start,” such as disorderly conduct or “parading, demonstrating, or picketing” in the Capitol, which generally carry maximum terms of six months in prison. Five people were initially “charged with a felony but pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.”

                          It is hard to square this with the Justice Department’s official charging and plea bargaining policies. Prosecutors are supposed to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offenses” — defined as “those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence.” And when pleading a case out, they are supposed to include “the most serious readily provable charge” consistent with the facts.

                          As others have noted, pretty much anyone who entered the Capitol could be charged with more serious crimes than the lowest-level misdemeanors. They include entering or remaining in a restricted building (a misdemeanor with a maximum one-year term) or obstruction of an official proceeding (a felony). These charges subject defendants to the application of the sentencing guidelines and their various enhancements, which can quickly stack up and which can exert an anchoring effect at sentencing, even if the judges ultimately reject the government’s recommendation. A felony conviction also comes with all sorts of serious collateral consequences, including a prohibition on possessing firearms.

                          The government appears to have reserved more serious charges for cases with overt or particularly potent indicia of the defendants’ intent — like social media messages or, say, taking Vice President Mike Pence’s seat after he fled the building — but it is far from obvious that this approach is necessary. The notion that any “Stop the Steal” participants thought that they might have been allowed in the Capitol on that day strains credulity, and there is no shortage of evidence that could be used to establish that the purpose was to obstruct the congressional certification of the election results. (Some defendants have challenged the obstruction charge on vagueness grounds, but their arguments are not particularly strong.)

                          Second, prosecutors appear to be accepting pleas even when the defendants are feigning acceptance of responsibility. This is another major prosecutorial no-no, since defendants get a break under the sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility, and they are not supposed to be getting that break if they are not sincere.

                          One judge recently observed that “many of the defendants pleading guilty do not truly accept responsibility” but are instead “trying to get this out of the way as quickly as possible, stating whatever they have to say … but not changing their attitude.” This particular problem has been apparent since literally the first Jan. 6 sentencing, when a woman avoided prison time after tearfully apologizing in court one day and then the next day went on Fox News to minimize the mayhem of the Capitol riot.

                          Lastly, regarding the government’s actual sentencing recommendations after a plea is entered, a recent story from the Wall Street Journal reported that Garland “has told other” department officials that “he is concerned that jailing rioters who weren’t hard-core extremists for extensive periods could further radicalize them.” The story went on to say that Garland “has left recommending sentences to the prosecutors directly involved,” but it is hard to believe that the attorney general’s views on the matter would not make their way to line prosecutors — particularly when he is expressing them to other officials and they have been reported in a national newspaper. (Asked about this during his testimony on Thursday, Garland said that his reported comments had been taken from a “different context.”)

                          The Journal reported that Garland’s concern with the effects of long-term incarceration is “a concern he has expressed more broadly about defendants entering the criminal justice system,” but it was not reflected in Garland’s jurisprudence and has not been matched (yet) by any broader sentencing reform efforts. In fact, prosecutors generally do not concern themselves with the effects of long-term incarceration on recidivism — risks that exist for virtually every federal criminal defendant.

                          No one is getting the book thrown at them yet, though a judge just issued a 14-month sentence — the longest so far for a Jan. 6 defendant — to a man who had made incendiary remarks on social media during and shortly after the riot (and who also had 17 prior criminal convictions). This is partly a selection issue since, generally speaking, the cases being sentenced right now are the relatively less serious ones, and that is going to start to change.

                          Meanwhile, some of the most prominent arguments that the Jan. 6 defendants are being treated too harshly have been borderline ridiculous. Judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed to the D.C. District Court bench in 2017 after a brief stint as a senior official in Trump’s Justice Department earlier that year, has suggested that the department went easy on violent protestors in the capital in the wake of the George Floyd killing last year and said recently that “the U.S. attorney would have more credibility if it was even-handed in its concern about riots and mobs in this city.”

                          The particular claim — echoed by right-wing media and members of Congress — is absurd for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that “the U.S. attorney” last year was an entirely different person — who had been hand-picked by then-Attorney General William Barr, who happily pursued some of the department’s most brazenly corrupt objectives and who got into a very public spat with Washington’s Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, after she complained that the office was not responding aggressively enough to violent protesters at the time.


                          This is not to say that there are no credible arguments in favor of the department deviating from standard practice toward an overall more forgiving posture. The court system in D.C. could be overloaded otherwise, and prosecutors may want to push these cases through quickly so that they do not go on forever and so that the government can prosecute other crimes. One could also argue that the difference between a low-level felony and a misdemeanor is not that great and that prosecutors would be right to worry about the political volatility of the situation.

                          The problem is that these arguments are at odds with the “rule of law” ethos — that the Justice Department should treat like cases alike irrespective of who defendants are or what their political affiliation is — that Garland otherwise relies upon so heavily in his public rhetoric, including at the hearing on Thursday, and that is reflected in written department policy itself.

                          There is a way to bridge this gap. The Justice Department should be forthright about what it is doing and why it is doing it, and Garland should use this opportunity to generate more public, cross-partisan support for reform efforts. Indeed, the rigidity and severity of the department’s charging and plea-bargaining policies are dubious; sentencing guidelines are in need of further reform; and the department ought to be more concerned with the effects of long-term incarceration.

                          These are concerns that should be addressed seriously and broadly, and that should be applied to every federal defendant — not just the ones who were involved in the shameful events of Jan. 6.
                          _________
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • GOP Rep. Booted Off Jan. 6 Panel Is Running a Shadow Probe
                            Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) was one of the two Republicans that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) booted from the Jan. 6 Committee in July, but Donald Trump’s staunch ally appears to be using his brief association with the panel to run a shadow investigation of his own.

                            According to two sources familiar with the situation, Banks sent letters to many of the same federal agencies that the select committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), has contacted for information regarding the U.S. Capitol attack.

                            The group of federal agencies that Banks has contacted includes the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security—among others. And one of those sources said that recipients also included social media companies, like Facebook, which had also been targets of extensive evidence requests.

                            Representatives of these agencies and companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Beast.

                            In at least one of those letters, Banks identified himself as the “Ranking Member”—a congressional term for the top member of the opposition party on a committee—of a committee on which he never served. Although he acknowledged that House Democrats blocked him from the panel in July on the grounds that he objected to the 2020 election, Banks insisted he still had a right to the information the committee was requesting.

                            The Daily Beast obtained one of the letters, sent on Sept. 16 to Interior Department secretary Deb Haaland, in which Banks requested “any information” the agency had given to the subcommittee, along with future updates and briefings.

                            You are receiving this letter because the House of Representatives Select Committee to Investigate the events of January 6th may have sent you a request for information,” Banks wrote in the letter, which was first reported by CNN. “The House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy appointed me to serve as the Ranking Member of the Select Committee. Yet, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to allow me to fulfill my duties as Ranking Member.”

                            Banks continued that, according to House rules, the minority party in Congress retains rights to the same information that is provided to the majority party. “For those reasons, I ask that you provide me any information that is submitted to the Select Committee. Additionally, please include me on any update or briefing that you provide,” Banks said.

                            In a statement provided to The Daily Beast, a Banks spokesperson also identified the congressman as the Ranking Member on the committee, which he is not. The statement later contradicted that very claim, saying that the committee “doesn’t have a Ranking Member.”

                            “The letter clearly states that Rep. Banks was refused the opportunity to fulfill his duties as Ranking Member. This is a bizarre Democrat narrative meant to distract from the actual contents of Rep. Banks’ letter and to avoid talking about the actual activities of the Select Committee, which are partisan, authoritarian and indefensible,” the statement said. (The committee made headlines Thursday when the House voted to hold former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon in contempt for snubbing a committee subpoena.)

                            The statement went on to confirm that Banks had requested that “the minority party receive access to information shared with the Select Committee,” and questioned why “[Committee vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY)] and House Democrats think they’re the only ones who deserve to receive information from the executive branch.”

                            “Liz Cheney isn’t the Ranking Member. She is the vice-chair because she was appointed by Democrats,” the spokesperson added. “This is the first Select Committee in American history that doesn’t have a Ranking Member and is entirely partisan. Rep. Banks chose to highlight the unprecedented exclusion of the minority party in his letter.”

                            Two members of the minority party, Cheney and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), are serving on the panel after accepting appointments from Pelosi. The other seven members of the panel are Democrats.

                            Last year, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals ruled that minority members of a congressional committee can sue for information from executive agencies. The court did not guarantee that members would win those suits, however—and further, it is not clear whether Banks would even have standing to make that claim. He is not on the committee, and the committee already has Republican members.

                            While McCarthy recommended Banks to serve as the top Republican on the committee in July, that nomination carried no official force. Ultimately, Banks—along with fellow election objector Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)—was rejected by Pelosi.

                            She said in a statement at the time that she harbored “concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members,” which might compromise “the integrity of the investigation” and its “insistence on the truth.”

                            After Banks and Jordan were blocked, McCarthy pulled his other three nominations, leaving the appointment of Republicans to Pelosi. But because the members she eventually named—Cheney and Kinzinger—have long been isolated from the GOP mainstream for advocating an investigation, McCarthy’s wing of the party effectively lost all insight into the committee’s knowledge and work behind the scenes.

                            Banks’ demands for information came to light as the select committee made one of its first big moves: holding Bannon in contempt of Congress for defying the panel’s subpoena for testimony. The House approved the contempt resolution on Thursday, with nine Republicans joining all Democrats in voting yes, formally referring the matter to the Justice Department.

                            In a floor speech on Thursday—the day that the panel approved the contempt resolution— Cheney, the vice chair of the bipartisan panel, cited the letters in response to Banks’ protestation earlier that day that he was in fact not a committee member. Cheney also indicated then that Banks had sent similar letters to a number of federal agencies.

                            House Republicans have revolted against the select committee, which has targeted some of their own.

                            In late August, CNN reported that the panel had asked telecommunications companies to preserve phone records for a number of members, most specifically those who participated in the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally on the National Mall. That list also included McCarthy.

                            And two weeks after Banks sent the letters, the panel subpoenaed a Republican House staffer: Maggie Mulvaney, senior adviser to Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) and the niece of former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Maggie Mulvaney was listed as “VIP Lead” on a Jan. 6 event permit.
                            _______________

                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • House holds Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress
                              The House voted on Thursday to hold Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress, over his refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack.

                              The approval of the contempt citation, by 229 votes to 202 against, escalates the select committee’s efforts to punish Bannon for his non-compliance as they intensify their inquiry into whether then-president Trump helped plan or had advance knowledge of the insurrection.

                              The House select committee chair, Bennie Thompson, the Democratic congressman from Mississippi, said the authorization of the criminal referral against Bannon signalled their determination to deploy their most aggressive measures to take action both against Bannon and any other Trump aides who might ultimately defy subpoenas.

                              “We need to make it clear that no person is above the law, we need to take a stand for the committee’s investigation, and for the integrity of this body,” Thompson said on the House floor.

                              “What sort of precedent would it set for the House of Representatives if we allow a witness to ignore us, flat out, without facing any kind of consequences? What message would it send to other witnesses in our investigation? I’m not willing to find out,” he added.


                              The move to request the justice department to prosecute Trump’s former chief strategist also marks a stinging personal rebuke to Bannon, and opens a new legal front in the select committee’s efforts to pursue information from inside the White House and Trump circles before 6 January.

                              Members on the select committee recommended that the House hold Bannon in criminal contempt after they unanimously rejected the notion that Trump’s former chief strategist could claim absolute immunity from congressional oversight on grounds of executive privilege.

                              The select committee had issued subpoenas last month to Bannon and top Trump administration officials – including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, his deputy Dan Scavino, and former defense department aide Kash Patel – under the threat of prosecution.

                              But directed by Trump and his attorney to defy the orders, Bannon ignored his subpoena in its entirety, infuriating the select committee that then moved immediately to vote to recommend that the House find him in contempt of Congress.

                              The referral arrived on Thursday evening at the office of the US attorney for the District of Columbia. That office, attorney general Merrick Garland and the Office of Legal Counsel are required by law to weigh a prosecution and present the matter before a grand jury.

                              Should the justice department secure a conviction against Bannon, the consequences could mean up to a year in federal prison, $100,000 in fines, or both – though it would still not force his compliance and pursuing the misdemeanor charge could take years.

                              The select committee views Bannon’s testimony as crucial to their investigation, since he was in constant contact with Trump in the days and weeks leading up to the Capitol attack.

                              Bannon was one of the key architects – alongside Trump’s first chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and lawyer John Eastman – of the plan to stop the certification of Joe Biden election’s win and attempt the extraordinary move of returning Trump to the Oval Office, according to a source familiar with the matter.

                              That meant Bannon was involved in meetings with the Trump campaign – and potentially even Trump himself – at the Trump International hotel and the Willard hotel in Washington the night before the Capitol attack.

                              Bannon also appeared to predict the Capitol attack itself, saying on his War Room podcast the day before the insurrection that left five dead and 140 injured, including dozens of police officers, and lawmakers and staff in fear for their lives: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”

                              In opening remarks before the vote to recommend Bannon’s prosecution, the Republican vice-chair of the select committee, Liz Cheney, suggested the reason for his non-compliance might be because he was fearful of compromising Trump.

                              “Mr Bannon’s and Mr Trump’s privilege arguments do appear to reveal one thing, however: they suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6th. And we will get to the bottom of that,” Cheney said.

                              But despite the high stakes, Bannon informed the select committee he would not cooperate with his 23 September subpoena, and claimed the materials and testimony requested by the panel were protected by executive privilege and could not be turned over to Congress.

                              The select committee rejected that argument on Tuesday.

                              Bannon’s legal argument also faces a steep uphill struggle, with the Biden justice department appearing inclined to adopt a narrow interpretation on executive privilege, previously allowing top Trump justice department officials to testify to Congress about 6 January.

                              In the contempt report for Bannon, the select committee noted that they had requested documents and testimony regarding his contacts with members of Congress and the Trump campaign, which could not conceivably be covered by a White House secrecy protection.

                              The contempt report noted that even if the select committee accepted his executive privilege claim, it would still not have allowed him to ignore the subpoena since the protection exists for White House officials – and Bannon was fired by Trump in 2017.

                              _______
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment


                              • Whomis Ray Epps?

                                From most wanted fugitive and leader of the mob to uncharged and purged from the public files in secret....

                                Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol -

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X