Second bit of legal news relating to the GREAT ORANGE MENACE.
Steve Bannon, the criminal who was pardoned by Trump, was subpoenaed for the January 6 Committee, but he has publicly refused to do so. Remember, he did this during Trump's term, because he knew Trump would shield him from prosecution.
Today, the Committee announced that it will vote on whether to make a recommendation to have the Justice Department charge Steve Bannon with criminal contempt.
Now, I am no expert, but based on my research, this is how the process will go:
(1) the Democratic-lead Committee will vote on whether Bannon should be charged with Criminal Contempt, a charge that can be punished with up to one year in jail. At you can see, the Republicans' refusal to have a joint committee is back to haunt them. If they had worked with Pelosi to have a joint committee, then an equal number of Republicans and Democrats would be on the committee, and they could have potentially shielded Bannon here. However, their obstruction will have consequences here, as the committee has more Democrats and sane Republicans (yes, in this instance, Cheney is considered "sane" as it relates to her view on Trump.) So I foresee that the committee will vote to have Bannon charged here. If they don't, then they pretty much lose any authority over future witnesses.
(2) Next, the House votes on whether Bannon is referred to the Justice Department. As Pelosi and the Democrats control the House, it is likely his case will be sent to the Justice Department, even if no Republicans do so (It is a simple majority vote.) Thankfully, the vote DOES NOT go to the Senate, so there is nothing that McConnell the obstructionist can do.
(3) If the Justice Department gets the referral, they look at the case and take the appropriate action (AKA-an indictment).
Now, this process will take time. Although the case law is pretty settled on this matter, Bannon (and, by extension, Trump) will do the usual "file frivolous motions to delay the case" tactic. Yes, Bannon is claiming that he is not required to respond to the subpoena because Trump is claiming executive privilege even though Biden is now President and has not asserted that privilege, etc. etc. etc. Complete garbage. But that is not the point. What is the point is that Bannon hopes that if he delays the process long enough, he can hope Trump can win back the White House and then shield him again.
This tells me that Trump is definitely running for 2024. After all, why else would Bannon try this unless he had assurances that Trump would save him again? We know that Biden (or, if he dies in office, Harris) will never pardon Bannon. Nor would any other Democratic candidate who may run in 2024. And Trump has done all he can to ensure that he is the frontrunner for 2024 even at the expense of other Republican potentials. (I suspect that if Trump runs and yet somehow fails to get the Republican nomination, he will convince his terroristic followers not to vote for Republicans period as a means to punish Republicans).
Somehow, I don't see Bannon agreeing to go to jail for one year to save Trump. He is a opportunistic weasel, not a devoted follower.
So, this is bad news for America and the world at large. We can only hope that events will transpire that will hopefully prevent Trump from running again.
@allyn you noted : "Somehow, I don't see Bannon agreeing to go to jail for one year to save Trump. He is a opportunistic weasel, not a devoted follower." If memory serves me correctly, someone here once saw Bannon turning on the tiny hand that fed him. I can't recall if that was during the firsy or second impeachment to know where to begin looking for that prediction. He may try to protract things in court, but there are split vuews on whether Mango has chosen to run again. Some say his ego can't handle the thought of another defeat. There's also the legsl issues he faces which could derail any plans. Bannon won't take the fall for him. Plus there's always hope that there will be more judges who put time limits on any motions like they did today for 45.
Which brings me to another issue- 45 has been telling former staffers to ignore the subpoenas being issued. He's now a private citizen, not a government official. Isn't this considered witness tampering which could bring criminal charges?
Hi everyone, I wasn't sure where to post this article, but thought maybe this story of how New Zealand voters changed their government style from First Past the Post to MMP might be of interest.
quote from Helen Clark former PM
“By the early 90s, people just had a gut full of being told one thing – or not being told anything much – and then getting a radical reform agenda thrust down their throats,” Helen Clark told Stuff.
Labour and National lost their monopoly on power in the early 1990s, as voters sick of radical reform installed MMP over two emphatic referendums. (Labour is similar to Democrats and National would be similar to Republicans)
No one in any kind of power in 1990 wanted MMP.
But a referendum on electoral reform had been promised by the PM who was publicly not a fan of the Mixed Member Proportional system himself, preferring a new upper house instead. 80 per cent of all the MPs in Parliament were opposed because the old system, which gave governments, that never won more than half of the vote, all of the power, had delivered well for MPs.
Both parties when they were in government, Labour in 1980’s then the Nationals in 1990’s had used that absolute control to deregulate and privatise. Voters had got sick of that.
They held referendums on whether to change from First Past the Post to a different style of government.
They included MMP, but also three other possible systems: preferential voting, single transferable vote, and supplementary member. MMP being Mixed Member Proportional the West German style of government which gave the world Angela Merkel. (Preferential voting is what Australia has)
This article gives the story in 4 parts, the last part will be tomorrow and I will post the link for that then.
Once New Zealand changed to the new system in the past 25 years of having MMP 3 of the 5 Prime Ministers have been female. Jennifer Shipley 1997-1999, Helen Clark 1999-2008, and Jacinda Adern from 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_lists_in_the_2020_New_Zealand_general_election
To give an idea of how many political parties were in NZ for the last election in 2020
Hope you find it of interest
Regards to all
Steve Bannon has had a rough day
and Congress wants to hear his full say
He’s no longer protected
his privilege rejected
I think that smug asshole will pay.
sorry about the colorful language but it’s warranted here :-)
Andrew McCabe will get his full retirement benefits after a legal settlement against the Justice Department. He was fired by Trump in a retaliatory move just 2 days short of his official retirement in 2018. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ex-fbi-official-andrew-mccabe-fired-trump-hours-retirement-will-n1281617
Technically, you are correct. The Justice Department could potentially charge Trump with conspiracy. But they won't, for several reasons. First, it will look political, and the Justice Department is waiting with the rest of us and hopes that Trump will soon be indicted by New York for tax fraud, as those charges are alleged to have happened prior to him being president and thus are immune to all of Trump's usual "executive privilege" and "I am the real president and the election was stolen from me" garbage.
But more realistically, a conspiracy charge means that you have to prove "intent." And that means trying to figure out the intent of Trump, whose sanity is clearly lacking at this point. The only way you would get a conspiracy charge is for one of his con-conspirators to say "Trump came to me and told me to withhold the evidence/testimony because he wanted to deliberately keep the committee from investigating his crimes. And this was the reason I did so." In short, it isn't worth the time and the effort.
It would be far more logical to subpoena Trump himself to present testimony to the Committee. After all, no one can deny that he is the central figure and thus would have vital information as to what happened behind the scenes.
Obviously, Trump won't attend. But that's not the point. Democrats can simply get on TV and imply that Trump the traitor won't come because he knows he did a crime. Otherwise, why would he avoid it?
This will cause Trump to go to rallies and address the situation himself to his deluded devotees. He will either (1) admit that he wanted his followers to overturn the election results via intimidation and force, which would be considered evidence against him as a statement against his interests, and thus can be used in future indictments, or (2) deny that he ever wanted his followers to go to the capitol, which will confuse them and cause problems in the future for them should Trump attempt to do it again. He may lose a few followers who genuinely believe that he gave them his blessing (remember, this is a defense used by many of those who are facing charges for January 6, 2021). Can you imagine a defendant hearing Trump say "I never told them to do that!" and the defendant's attorney telling the defendant that they can no longer rely on that evidence as a defense?
I truly wish someone will hurry up and charge him with something. I truly want him out of our lives. I don't much care how, at this point, as he is so toxic that his absence will do more good than his presence has ever done. Period.
He will either (1) admit that he wanted his followers to overturn the election results via intimidation and force, which would be considered evidence against him as a statement against his interests, and thus can be used in future indictments, or (2) deny that he ever wanted his followers to go to the capitol, which will confuse them and cause problems in the future for them should Trump attempt to do it again
There's also option 3 whereby he admits that he wanted his followers to overturn the election via intimidation and force and then deny he wanted them to overturn the election via intimidation and force - and then talk about his mental acuity by reciting "Person Woman Man Dog Cake" (or whatever the hell it is). And then the people will cheer him on. And post about Biden having dementia.
Kidding aside, honestly I think you're right here - anything that comes up has to be airtight and the wheels of justice will grind slowly until it's an open and shut case. And it's far more likely to come from New York (or Georgia) because we all know he's been making it all up as he goes.
The point is karmically - the scales will balance. We just have to hang in there a little longer.
I get worked up about this and then I calm myself down because - it'll happen.
In the meantime @Allyn I want you and everyone on this thread to watch this 2 minute clip on YouTube because you will only be able to smile and feel calm by watching it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkj4zTlHcDY (P.S. Turn up the sound.)
Here's a great piece of news:
NOTE: Reader View will get you around the ad blocker if you're using one. Just have to be quick to hit it.
A bit of balance to the appointments made during the Former Guy's presidency.
My favorite quote toward the end:
Some conservatives are raising alarms about Biden's impact on the courts.
Carrie Severino, the president of the right-leaning Judicial Crisis Network, said liberal groups that spent "millions of dollars to help elect Joe Biden have become quite vocal in demanding judicial nominees who will help promote their liberal policy aims from the bench, and he has shown a willingness to do whatever he can to appease those groups."
Boo freaking hoo.
This is very, very interesting and while we all knew this at the time (remember when they were all saying they’d be pardoned?)