Will the four subpoenaed witnesses "take the 5th"?

[kentuck]

Or will they claim "executive privilege"?

Or will they answer the Committee's questions?

Or will they challenge the Committee's authority and not even show up?

It's a good bet that the Committee has plenty of questions to ask each of these conspirators. Taking the "5th" will not stop them from asking their questions. It only stops the witness from having to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate him. The same portrait can be painted with or without the witness answering the questions. The viewer will infer what they wish from the questions.

I think we may be getting close to Merrick Garland time?

[gojoe12]

1. Who are they

and what are you talking about?

[Ohioboy]

6. They would be these guys...

[Escurumbele]

7. These are the four people who have been subpoenaed by the Jan 6 commission

The committee issued its first subpoenas on Thursday to Mark Meadows; former Pentagon official and longtime House Intelligence Committee aide Kash Patel; former top White House adviser Steve Bannon; and longtime Trump social media chief Dan Scavino. It marks a turning point in the investigation as lawmakers begin homing in on Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election results.

[ananda]

3. Or will they even show up?

?

[Sherman A1]

8. That is the first question to be answered

After that the rest come into play.

[blueinredohio]

58. Nope, not going to show up

and if the select committee lets this go and doesn't jail them there's no point of any more investigations. If no one has to follow the rules.

[ananda]

62. Also my thinking. They need to put teeth in these subpoenas.

Period

[gab13by13]

4. Joe Biden is president,

according to impeachment lawyer Dan Goldman, only president Biden can declare executive privilege. They may try but should not be able. Trump may sue and claim executive privilege and that will have to go through the courts.

I have no idea just my opinion, they will take the 5th.

Not showing up can get them in legal trouble now that Trump's personnel lawyer Bill Barr is gone.

Remember, I am just an internet lawyer, but on the other hand there have been opinions given here by more experienced people who have been wrong, like not to worry about 1/6, it's just a formality.

[StarfishSaver]

17. Trump can also claim executive privilege

The court isn't likely to accept his claim - it will more likely rely on Biden's determination of whether the communications should be protected by the privilege, but Trump still has the legal standing as a former president whose communications are at issue to claim the privilege.

[kentuck]

26. So long as it isn't related to the investigation...?

...but I could not envision any judge agreeing with the right to hide information through executive privilege if the information is related to such a serious and critical investigation?

He's just blowing smoke and obstructing and delaying the process, it appears?

[StarfishSaver]

28. I agree

I don't think any judge will go along with a claim that these communications deserve any protection under executive privilege since the communications at issue had nothing to do with his duties as president and were probably criminal in and of themselves.

[ashredux]

5. They will all say "make me"!

[KS Toronado]

9. Mark Meadows will show up and answer questions

The other 3 will fight tooth & nail not to. IMO

[RVN VET71]

12. Echoes of Alexander Butterfield!

If just one of the four opens up, the floodgates will crack open.

But Butterfield was facing angry senators of both parties. He was in deep and knew that if he withheld information of lied, he’d go to prison. Meadows will be looking behind him at the Fat Man’s fascist army, already angry that he’s even appearing, warning him that even prison is better than what they might do if he squawks.

We’ll see. I pray you’re right.

[StarfishSaver]

60. That would be interesting since he has the strongest claim of the four for executive privilege

It still doesn't apply in this case, but a claim of executive privilege for the president's chief of staff is stronger than for the others.

[FakeNoose]

66. Hasn't Steve Bannon already testified several times?

I think Bannon loves being on the hot seat.
He'll talk because he thinks he's smarter than the lawyers.

[Joinfortmill]

68. 👍

[BlueJac]

10. The cowards will not show

[johnthewoodworker]

11. Democrats are like the Colonial soldiers against the Americans in the Revolutionary war.

Democrats will try and fight fascism with antiquated laws like the British tried regular war against guerrilla war fare. Republican/Nazis will never fear, or obey, the law. This Republican/Nazi shit won't be solved in a hundred years. Oh, but democrats will make loud speeches about law.

[RVN VET71]

13. Even one year ago I would have berated your use of "Republican/Nazi"

Now I applaud it.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Exactly which "antiquated laws" are Dems fighting with, which ones do you think should they ignore

and how will violating those particular laws help them combat Republican Fascism,?

Please be specific.

[Tadpole Raisin]

14. If Ds are serious and they don't show up or claim executive privileges

well there’s always the Sergeant at Arms. Rs know that in the past there were no consequences. Let’s change that.

And if they plead the fifth as is their right but Ds have strong evidence of criminality don’t mess around and forward this to DOJ for criminal prosecution. No negotiable, no dragging things out past the midterms so Rs can squash it if they regain control.

Don’t know if it would do anything but after the faux outrage some would realize this isn’t a game anymore and maybe would cooperate. If not they can spend the next 10-20 years paying off their lawyer.

[StarfishSaver]

19. If they don't show up, there's no need for the Sergeant-at-Arms to get involved

They can just cite them for contempt and turn it over to DOJ for prosecution

[Tadpole Raisin]

29. Thanks. Though rarely done I thought the Sergeant At Arms could arrest and detain people who

defy a congressional subpoena. It would raise eyebrows but would get their attention. I was looking at the 1920s Teapot Dome affair. Either way I’d like action.

Maybe using Sergeant at Arms is considered outside normal protocol plus at high risk of abuse and possible retribution by Rs later that they wouldn’t want to go that route.

I appreciate your patience explaining the law as well to those of us so frustrated we want something done that just can’t happen!

[StarfishSaver]

48. Trying to use the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest people is very complicated and probably won't ever work

The only reason it came up is an issue a couple of years ago was because the Justice Department wouldn't enforce any of the subpoenas and people were grasping at straws trying to come up with other alternatives for enforcement.

The law regarding the Sergeant-at-Arms' power has changed significantly since the 1920s and they do not have jurisdiction to arrest anyone off the Capitol complex grounds. So unless a recalcitrant witness is wandering around the west front lawn or east front plaza or up and down the halls of one of the House or Senate office buildings, or thereabouts, the Sergeant-at-Arms couldn't lay a hand on them anyway.

The whole "arrest them under inherent contempt" sounds good, but it's not a viable alternative.

[kentuck]

49. We still hear some Congressmen talking about "inherent contempt"...

and putting them in a cell in the Capitol building, but that does sound a bit far-fetched, I would agree.

[StarfishSaver]

51. Yes. It's a lot of blustering that doesn't mean anything.

[kentuck]

15. When does Merrick Garland enter the game?

Will they be held in criminal contempt?

Then, if they did not show up, could they be fined and imprisoned?

[StarfishSaver]

20. If they defy the subpoena and don't have valid grounds (executive privilege or 5th Amendment)

Congress can cite them for contempt and then refer it to the U.S. attorney (who, of course reports to Garland) for prosecution for Contempt of Congress.

The U.S. attorney would charge them with contempt and obtain a court order for them to appear. If they still refuse to appear, they are no longer simply in contempt of Congress but are then in contempt of court and the court can either fine them or order the U.S. Marshals to take them into custody until they agree to appear.

[kentuck]

22. Thanks for that info.

Makes sense.

[Aviation Pro]

16. Bannon will be taking a fifth of vodka

….

[keithbvadu2]

18. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017602194

Video

“The mob takes the Fifth,” Trump said after Hillary Clinton aides invoked their right against self-incrimination. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

[StarfishSaver]

21. They can't invoke executive privilege

That privilege belongs to the current president or the former president whose communications are being sought, in this case, Trump. One or both of them would have to assert it for the privilege to be an excuse to refuse to testify.

[kentuck]

23. So, it appears their options are either to testify or to take the Fifth.

It was destined to end up in court.

But Trump cannot take it to Court if he is not charged? Is that correct?

[StarfishSaver]

24. This isn't a criminal matter so Trump being charged isn't an issue

As a former president whose communications are being sought, Trump can assert executive privilege, which could result in the issue being litigated in court. But he likely wouldn't bring the case (although he could) - Congress likely would. I think if it does end up in court, it would be resolved VERY quickly so ce having the right to assert the privilege doesn't mean the court will accept it - and I think the court would bounce him out on his butt and fast on this one.

[kentuck]

30. I would hope that would be the case.

But Trump and the Republicans have corrupted and abused the justice system more than once. They must consider it their own?

[StarfishSaver]

33. The courts have proven to be pretty fair in these cases

Trump has rarely won a case, even in front of judges he appointed.

[Midnight Writer]

32. That's my fear; that this will end up in court and take a year or two to process.

Trump and his people are masters at running out the clock.

I hope you are right and he doesn't get away with it this time.

[StarfishSaver]

34. I don't think it will take anywhere near that long

Trump is in a very different position legally than he was even a year ago. A former president doesn't have the power or resources (financial or official personnel-wise) to gum up the works the way a sitting president can.

But even if litigation on these subpoenas dragged sour, which I don't think will happen, the information sought is not that critical. The committee likely has volumes of evidence and information and doesn't really need the testimony of these four people, who probably won't tell them mich even when they do testify, to get to the bottom of all of this.

[kentuck]

37. A lot of us are skeptical of the justice system's ability to move quickly.

Because, like the rest of America, they have become divided by partisan politics, also. At least, that is the perception as I see it.

[StarfishSaver]

39. I understand. But in reality, the courts have moved very quickly and fairly in most of these cases

Just look at the post election cases last year. Those cases moved along very quickly and virtually every one of those courts ruled against Trump.

I think this would be disposed of just as expeditiously.

[kentuck]

41. The Don McGahn case left a bad taste in our mouths...

Of course, AG Barr was in charge then. Let us hope the judicial process moves quickly and does not delay the Committee getting the information they need and justice being done.

[StarfishSaver]

43. That was one case and yes, things are very different now

Trump was invoking executive privilege, and as the sitting president, that invocation was taken much more seriously by the courts than any attempt he would make now to assert the privilege. I don't think there's any way it would drag out - especially since Biden will likely tell the court that disclosure of those communications will not negatively impact his ability to make decisions or govern.

[lark]

25. 'C'

They will not show up, they don't support democracy or our laws and will just blow them off like all rich white repugs who think they are entitled to do anything and everything they want and that the laws don't apply to them.

[kentuck]

31. Is that when it is referred to the DOJ...

And Merrick Garland explains the rule of law to them?

[lark]

35. I hope so and I hope it's done behind some vertical bars.

[StarfishSaver]

36. Merrick Garland probably won't be publicly involved in this at all

The U.S. Attorney would handle it.

Although it's a big deal to some of us, this kind of case would be small potatoes to DOJ and would likely be dealt with at the US. Attorney level.

[kentuck]

38. But wouldn't Garland have to give his approval.. ?

for a US Attorney to get involved?

[StarfishSaver]

40. Not necessarily

Most US attorneys have a great deal of autonomy and don't have to get approval for every case. They often do get approval for very complicated, high profile, or politically prickly cases. But this would be a pretty run-of-the-mill situation - a contempt of Congress citation, while having political overtones, is very straightforward.

But even if Garland needed to approve the prosecution, that would be done behind the scenes - It could be a simple as a phone call between the US Attorney and Garland, or even the DOJ chief of staff. There'd be no need for Garland to get involved publicly.

[kentuck]

42. This seems like it would be a very high profile and "politically prickly" case...?

from my perspective?

Our democracy may hang in the balance?

[StarfishSaver]

44. That's why I said that it's possible that the US attorney would seek Garland's approval

But as I said, that's no big deal. That could be done with just a phone call. But Garland is not likely to get publicly involved in this. There's no need for him to and he shouldn't.

[kentuck]

45. Is there an instance where you could see him getting publicly involved?

But I could see how it would be that the US Attorneys would only need his stamp of approval to proceed. Unlike Barr, I would not anticipate him blocking the investigation in any way.

[StarfishSaver]

50. I don't see him ever getting publicly involved in a contempt of Congress prosecution

It's just too small potatoes for the Attorney General to be visible in. The AG needs to reserve his public profile in cases like this for the big fish and more consequential cases. Depressing public know that when the attorney general makes an appearance to discuss a case, it's a BFD. If he's turning up to make public statements about every twist and turn in the case, It would water down the impact of him stepping up to speak on more important issues. Some former presidential confidantes testifying before Congress may be interesting to all of us but it's really not a big deal in the larger legal scheme.

[kentuck]

55. What if they subpoenaed Donald Trump?

And he refused?

Would that be a big deal?

[StarfishSaver]

59. If he refused without exerting a privilege, yes, that would be a big deal

Refusing to testify on the basis of a privilege - for example, under the Fifth Amendment or executive privilege - isn't contempt of Congress.

But if you just refuses, that would be grounds for contempt and if referred to the US attorney, I think Garland would definitely be involved in a high-profile way given the unprecedented nature of prosecuting a former president for contempt.

[Hotler]

46. I say a little rendition trip to a black site in the mideast and a little waterboarding

to soften them up a bit would help their testimony. Remember waterboarding is not torture say Cheney.

[Bettie]

47. They won't show up

if there's anything we learned in the last four years it is that.

Will Garland enforce a subpoena? Who knows?

[kentuck]

52. They may do that to test the resolve of the Committee.

I don't think it will work for very long. A contempt of Congress would be referred to the DOJ, I would suspect.

[StarfishSaver]

53. Is the committee issues a contempt of Congress citation, the U.S. Attorney will no doubt enforce

[Bettie]

54. I'll believe it when I see it

they seem to be exempt from every law and norm.

If it happens, good, but my expectations are pretty low at this point.

[kentuck]

56. I think you are an example of how much many people have lost faith in our Justice System.

It has been damaged in ways we do not yet understand, in my opinion.

[Bettie]

57. In my opinion, our justice system and our government only works

when both sides believe that laws are a thing.

One side believes in laws.

The other side believes that laws don't apply to them. At. All.

And it appears to be true in most cases.

[H2O Man]

61. Recommended.

It will be a struggle to get them to show up. If one or more does show up, it is by far most likely that they will take the 5th. (In Bannon's case, he'll drink a fifth.) But that's okay. The committee will have the documents, be able to ask pointed questions, and those witnesses will be exposed much like the mob was back in the 1950s, taking the 5th when RFK asked pointed questions.

[kentuck]

64. If they show up...

I'm sure incriminating questions will be asked and they will take the 5th. In some minds, taking the 5th is a sign of guilt, although they have every right to do so.

Bannon is a special kind of nut. He might not take the 5th. He thinks he can outwit them and anyway, he has done nothing wrong. Deny everything and admit nothing.

[meow2u3]

63. The 1/6 Committee has the Trumpers over a barrel

If they testify, they'll be lying like rugs, but if they take the 5th, despite their Constitutional right to do so and the legal presumption of innocence, they'll be convicted in the court of public opinion.

If they thumb their noses at the subpoenas as they did during the tRUmp regime, or if they don't bother to show up, they'll likely face criminal contempt or inherent contempt charges.

[StarfishSaver]

65. You broke it down like a lawyer

Nice encapsulation.

[Joinfortmill]

67. 👍