Former Trump aide sentenced to 4 months in prison

a reply to: Brassmonkey

You're completely ignoring the fact that the first suggestion was a completely independent investigation, similar to the 9-11 one. GOP stated no. 2nd suggestion, GOP suggested 5 members that we find sought pardons after Jan 6th. So basically they wanted the fox to watch the hen house. Then the GOP took their ball and went home, thinking they outsmarted the Dems and that there would then be no committee. 2 GOP did sign on. Since then the GOP has done nothing but complain that it's not fair. Guess they should've went with the first option?

How would you not have an investigation about the violent interruption of the Electoral process. You might want to take a look at the Sedition cases on the DOJ breach site, or follow someone reporting from court. They had plans to occupy the Capitol and hold it. This was not just a little dust up on a Wednesday.

that's crazy

a reply to: frogs453

No. You and Ms Pelosi are ignoring the fact that a bi-partisan review was done including a report from the FBI where there was no wrongdoing of any kind.

The current commission is a farce. The original called the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex.

35 House Republicans voted yes. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Sasse voted yes.

The Senate investigation ended June 8th. It was over. Then later in the month Pelosi created another Select Committee. There was no reason for it and it is a waste of tax payer money.

So do not say no GOP voted for it.

There also was no interruption of process. It is not like Congress was in hiding for days and weeks. 5 hours and they pushed it through.

Bannon is doing easy time and out while sentencing. No reason for this either.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Another of YOUR political opponents put in jail for daring be YOUR political opponent, and like always you keep salivating and cheering like the authoritarian you, and those like you are.

Someone else mentioned Holder being in contempt of Congress for avoiding having to testify because we found that Eric Holder, and your boss Obama
were giving American firearms to the Mexican drug cartels to then implement gun control laws in the U.S. to disarm Americans and that was the purpose of operations like "Fast and Furious." That's a real crime, among the many others, but like always those like you don't really care for the truth or actually real justice.

Just beware what you wish for, for what goes around comes around and your turn will be up sooner or later.

a reply to: frogs453

And your leftists friends in BLM, Antifa, the democrat party all have attacked U.S. Capitols, Federal buildings, and even locked police officers inside police stations blocking the exits and then setting the police stations on fire hoping to murder every police officer...

Not to mention the Democrat Party has been known to illegally hold demonstrations during voting sessions so bills would not go through, or when they wanted to push for gun control laws in which they forcibly occupied Congress for 226 hours...
Perhaps we should put every single far leftist and democrat who participated in these "insurrections in jail"?... as well as anyone who supports these violent groups like BLM, Antifa, etc. YOU all deserve jail time. That's your argument btw...

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Brassmonkey

You're completely ignoring the fact that the first suggestion was a completely independent investigation, similar to the 9-11 one. GOP stated no. 2nd suggestion, GOP suggested 5 members that we find sought pardons after Jan 6th. So basically they wanted the fox to watch the hen house. Then the GOP took their ball and went home, thinking they outsmarted the Dems and that there would then be no committee. 2 GOP did sign on. Since then the GOP has done nothing but complain that it's not fair. Guess they should've went with the first option?

How would you not have an investigation about the violent interruption of the Electoral process. You might want to take a look at the Sedition cases on the DOJ breach site, or follow someone reporting from court. They had plans to occupy the Capitol and hold it. This was not just a little dust up on a Wednesday.

And Trump was the ring leader? Was he supposed to bring the gunz? he forgot. And who the fluck is Ray Epps?

Don't worry, I think another investigation will be had to find the answers to the dificult questions, like why there was lax security when it seemed everyone knew there would be a large pissed off crowd there. And why Ray Epps did what he did, and hasn't been arrested yet. And who really was in charge of security for the Capitol. Amazingly enough those questions seem to be ones that you nor the Shamuary 6th folks care about. Wonder why.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Steve Bannon has been sentenced to four months in prison and a $6500 fine in his contempt of Congress case.

The sentence is pending appeal.

So if Bannon can continue to drag this out for another 2.5 years, he may be banking on another Presidential pardon to save him from prison.

Source

10/22/2022 (I just posted the below to Mr. Bannon's account here: gettr.com... )

Re: www.cnn.com...

Thank-you Mr. Bannon for setting the precedent that will enable the new Republican led Congress to use ARREST as a punishment for Democrats who do not comply with subpoenas, beginning just 3 month from now. (Assuming a MAGA-AmericaFirst individual is House Speaker.)
🥇

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Steve Bannon has been sentenced to four months in prison and a $6500 fine in his contempt of Congress case.

The sentence is pending appeal.

So if Bannon can continue to drag this out for another 2.5 years, he may be banking on another Presidential pardon to save him from prison.

Source

10.23.2022

Steven Bannon's conviction for disobeying a subpoena from the SHAM Jan6 Committee, is likely to be thrown out.

Even U.S. district court judge Carl Nichols recognizes that Bannon’s contempt conviction is likely to get tossed out, which is why he took the extraordinary step of issuing a stay of sentence pending appeal.

When Bannon was subpoenaed by the J-6 Committee, Trump’s lawyer sent him a letter stating that the president invoked executive privilege and therefore directed him not to testify. Trump holds the privilege, not Bannon. Under law, Bannon cannot waive it or violate it. So, on advice of his own counsel, Bannon declined to testify. It was the correct advice.

But at trial, Judge Nichols applied the wrong standard on “willful” defiance of a subpoena. He relied on an outdated 61-year-old DC circuit court case (Licavoli v. U.S., 1961) that was based on a Supreme Court decision that was later repudiated by the high court and overturned. The correct standard, as the Supreme Court has since enunciated, is that prosecutors must show that the defendant knew his actions were unlawful.

Continued at: thegreggjarrett.com...

BUT, as a civilian, Bannon's arrest set a precedent that will allow a Republican-led Congress to use the same threat of ARREST/INDICTMENT, on Government officials who thought "retiring"(Fauci), or "not running for re-election"(Kinzinger), or no longer in government(Cheney), was a PROTECTOR. Before 2022, only one civilian had ever been arrested for defying a Congressional subpoena.

NOT ANYMORE, thanks to Steve Bannon, Merrick Garland, and the Jan6th Congressional committee.

If Republicans don't release the kraken on Democrats after they gain control, its over. You know the media is going to be demanding a new "get along, let bygones be bygones" agenda after Democrats lose.

They need to go scorched earth on every former democrat that perpetrated this fraud on the American people. The DOJ needs to be gutted, and corrupt leftwing FBI agents need to do prison time. They also need to pull back on the IRS and the 87,000 new IRS terrorists they have in the wings.

a reply to: detroitnative

If McCarthy and McConnel are in charge, America will be doomed.

No exaggeration.

I'm more interested in Bannon's words to the press afterward..
"By next Tuesday, all of them(liberals) will be in prison"

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JinMI
Rita Lavelle, an EPA official, was convicted for lying to Congress in the early 1980's and sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000.

So, you don't understand the difference between perjury and ignoring an unConstitutional subpoena.

Got it...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JinMI
Rita Lavelle, an EPA official, was convicted for lying to Congress in the early 1980's and sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000.

So, you don't understand the difference between perjury and ignoring an unConstitutional subpoena.

Got it...

Just because something is not mentioned in the Constitution does not make it Unconstitutional. For it to be unconstitutional, it would have to be counter to the Constitution.

There are in fact two statutory Federal US legal codes (192 and 194) which give power to the Congress to subpoena testimony and documents under contempt of court, and to prosecute and take someone into custody for the purpose of Congressional proceedings until subpoena conditions are met.

Several people have been arrested under Congressional authority and there has never been a successful legal challenge to that authority, so there is precedent.

Perjury before Congress is covered under the same legal authority as is granted for contempt of Congress. If Congress had no authority to hold someone in contempt, then it would also have no authority to charge someone with perjury - it relates to the legal power of Congress. If Congress did not have legal power, the it could not subpoena or charge someone with perjury, and its power to enact governance would also be severely impacted.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Just because something is not mentioned in the Constitution does not make it Unconstitutional. For it to be unconstitutional, it would have to be counter to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that Congress' power of subpoena stems from and can only be exercised pursuant to legitimate investigations that serve a legislative purpose.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Just because something is not mentioned in the Constitution does not make it Unconstitutional. For it to be unconstitutional, it would have to be counter to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that Congress' power of subpoena stems from and can only be exercised pursuant to legitimate investigations that serve a legislative purpose.

Clearly the impeachment process is not legislative, yet it is expressly allowed in the Constitution.

Also, individual states have the right to subpoena, detain, and prosecute under their own law, and Congress represents the union and governance of those states, so it would be anathema for the whole to have lesser authority than its parts. If Congress were not at least equal in authority and power to any one of the states, then it would be possible for one state to have supremacy over others.

Congress pre-existed and ratified the Constitution, a diminution of the authority of the Congress would apply equally to the Constitution. The American system was set-up so that the three branches of government were in balance, and that the Federal was in balance against the states, individually, or in alliance. An attack on the authority of Congress, as if it was something separate from the system of power and authority of the US government, weakens that balance.

Trying to shift power from one branch of the US government, into another, is un-American as it destroys the balance of the system of governance. The legal purpose of the Constitution is not to encompass all potential legislation, but to provide a supreme set of standards and limits upon jurisprudence. Laws not expressly covered under the Constitution or not contrary to Constitutional principles, are not unconstitutional, and remain valid laws.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Clearly the impeachment process is not legislative, yet it is expressly allowed in the Constitution.

Ummm... wtf are you even talking about?

Yes, Impeachment is a power and process specifically delegated to Congress, which comes with its own attendant powers of subpoena.

But we aren't talking about an Impeachment, are we?

Also, individual states have the right to subpoena,

More irrelevancies. We aren't talking about a State investigation.

Does it hurt?

Congress pre-existed and ratified the Constitution,

You poor thing.... yes, it pre-existed it, but it had nothing to do with its ratification - that had to be done by a majority of the existing State Legislatures.

Snipped the rest of your totally irrelevant commentary.