Three weeks since the House voted on contempt of Congress charges against Bannon

[JohnSJ]

[SoCalDavidS]

1. Patience

They're working hard on it as we speak.

Or not.

Who the fuck cares anymore. I don't. I DO NOT expect ANY accountability. Never have.

[njhoneybadger]

3. They don't call the DOJ "The Chickenshit Club" for nothing.

[PortTack]

2. Here's what a couple of experts have to say

Link to tweet

?s=21

Link to tweet

?s=21

[berni_mccoy]

4. 9 days.

That’s how long it took the DOJ under Reagan to enforce a prosecution of a congressional subpoena.

I don’t want anymore excuses. Garland needs to move or be held accountable.

[FBaggins]

6. How long did the last several referrals take?

nt

[berni_mccoy]

8. Completely irrelevant

[FBaggins]

11. So the Reagan DOJ is the only relevant metric?

[berni_mccoy]

18. I have no idea what referrals you are talking about

Perhaps be more specific and you’d get a better response.

[FBaggins]

28. Obviously

The last several criminal contempt referrals from Congress have not resulted in prosecutions - particularly when a claim of privilege exists.

I presume that your "9 Days" reference above (implying that this was the appropriate amount of time before Garland's DOJ was dragging their feet) was for Rita Lavelle's prosecution (eventually convicted and sentenced to six months and a $10k fine). But late in the preceding year, there was another referral that took four months before the US Attorney declined to prosecute.

With a privilege claim in the mix, we might hear something tomorrow... and we might still be waiting six months from now.

[berni_mccoy]

32. " last several criminal contempt referrals from Congress"

You left off under a corrupt doj.

As I said, completely irrelevant.

[FBaggins]

33. I didn't consider the Obama administration to be corrupt

But you do you.

[berni_mccoy]

35. Again you are being vague

Last several referrals could be the ones Congress sent to Barr when they were requesting documents in the Ukraine hearings and in the Insurrection hearings. But you do you. Keep being vague and dodgy.

[FBaggins]

38. Eric Holder? Lois Lerner?

You're the one making the declarations re: how long is too long. Surely you actually know something about the subject?

I guess it's just an odd coincidence that the example you cited was the only person in decades who was actually indicated at all (let alone within three weeks)?

[berni_mccoy]

40. Why don't you post a specific criminal referral

Or are you simply full of shit and want to argue?

[FBaggins]

41. Why don't you provide a few other examples of 3 weeks being enough time to bring a prosecution?

Same caveat.

[berni_mccoy]

42. When pointing out that something isn't true

One only needs a single counter example. You don’t need a million other cases. That is logic.

[FBaggins]

43. Then why didn't you give up several posts back?

I pointed out that what you implicitly claimed (that three weeks was too long and Garland needed to be held accountable) was not true... and that all of the other contempt votes going back decades would have failed your imaginary standard.

"Logic" would imply that when there have been dozens of contempt votes and you can only find a single indictment during that time... the quick indictment isn't the standard.

What you stumbled upon (surely by chance?) was the “exception that proves the rule”

[PortTack]

15. So you disagree with these 2 experts because Reagan did it?

If they don’t get it right then what, they really will walk scott free!

[berni_mccoy]

17. How have I disagreed with them?

It’s hard to disagree with people making excuses for someone not doing their job.

[PortTack]

21. How do you know they are not doing their job?

[berni_mccoy]

22. Results. Specifically, timely results. The lack of them speaks volumes.

And btw, you’d disagree with other experts who think Garland is not doing his job? Like Rep. Schiff and an entire legal organization comprised of former prosecutors?

[Firestorm49]

5. Perhaps, but SDNY, or whomever's jurisdiction it is, has been working on these cases for

a long, long, time. The ducks have been in a row long enough to have 🐥 chicks.

[JohnSJ]

20. The only duck we are talking about here is ignoring a congressional subpoena. There is nothing to

line up

[JustAnotherGen]

29. Exactly

This is strictly for 1/6 Commission - IIRC.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. Perception is reality.

Many do not expect the DOJ to prosecute TFG's goons. They see the apparent lack of action as vindication of this expectation.

But here's the thing: that expectation didn't pop up out of nowhere. We have a long history of letting criminal officials off the hook. The effect there has been twofold: 1) the lack of accountability is actually encouraging criminal behavior, and 2) many in the public have no faith in the justice system.

This is our bed. Now we gotta lie in it.

[MineralMan]

10. Well, perception is not necessarily the actual reality.

It is a person's expectation of reality, particularly if it is perceived before the facts are known.

So, many people expect the DOJ not to act against Bannon. I expect to wait and see how the DOJ actually disposes of that case.

Since I have no "perception" of that reality, in the end, I will be correct, since I have not predicted either an action of lack of action in the end.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. It's prose, MM.

"Perception is reality" doesn't mean what people perceive is literally reality. It means we have to deal with those perceptions as if they are reality.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes, I understand.

However, many perceptions end up as misperceptions. That's why it's a mistake to simply accept someone's perceptions as accurate predictions of reality.

Many Republicans, for example, "perceive" the last election as rigged. For them, it is what they believe to be the fact. The reality, however, is just the opposite.

For myself, skepticism of people's "perceptions" of things is my standard, until the facts are revealed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. I have not suggested we accept anyone's perceptions as reality.

The fact of the matter is a fair number of people accept their perceptions as reality and no amount of "WELL ACKSHULLY" is going to convince them otherwise. Like it or not, those people, in sufficient number, have leverage. Those perceptions, ergo, must be addressed or contended with, regardless of how accurate they may or may not be.

[JohnSJ]

19. When someone blatantly refuses a subpoena, what ducks are there to line up?

[DeeNice]

37. That is where I am. Either he complied or he didn't. And obviously he didn't. nt

[The Magistrate]

24. The Problem With That, Sir

Is that all this review ought to have been completed and in hand already, ought to have been begun well before the contempt vote in Congress. It was known there would be a subpoena, it was known it would not be heeded, and the tenuous grounds on which ignoring it would rest were known as well.

The paperwork ought to have been ready to go ten minutes after the vote.

This is a fight, a serious fight, and the essence of success in any combat is to get 'inside' your opponent's composure, to act quicker than he can, to upset his expectations, and thus ensure he can only react to what you have already done.

I must question whether Mr. Garland knows how to win a fight, or whether he understands he is in one, and holds a key position on which success or failure in it depends.



"It's said that when John Paul Jones cried 'I have not yet begun to fight!' on the shot-swept decks of the Bonhomme Richard, a Marine growled in disgust 'There's always some sonuvabitch slow to get the word.'"

[msfiddlestix]

39. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️

Absolutely Spot On.

Prepared in advance on every predictable and obvious angle. Swift action based advanced preparation for every angle, and yeah I share the same question, Does he even KNOW or Understand he's in a fight? it' like we're watching the house of cards collapsing right in front us and there is eff all we can do about it.

It's almost as bad as the insurrection itself in some ways.

[Silent3]

47. Exactly

Important and complicated aren't always the same thing. This is an important case, but it's also straight-forward. At the very least, Bannon should have showed up in front of the committee and pleaded the fifth or made his (bogus) claims of executive privilege in person. Just blowing off Congressional subpoenas in a fairly uncomplicated example of not just contempt, but explicit utter contempt.

There aren't many ducks here. There aren't many "i"s that need dotting or "t"s that need crossing.

[lees1975]

9. THIS is why people get frustrated with Democrats

Bannon committed treason against the United States. He should be arrested and held without bond until his speedy trial.

[2naSalit]

12. +1

[JohnSJ]

23. It isn't even about that. It is his blatant refusal to honor a congressional Subpoena

The question is about the power of Congress to issue subpoenas

[BlueJac]

16. Damn we can't even see the entire Mueller report...

After how many years? Trump will probably die before his goons are held accountable! Just saying.

[rso]

25. Bannon

The House needs to use its “Inherent Contempt” authority to detain people who defy its subpoenas.

[JohnSJ]

26. Didn't they? They referred it to the DOJ

[rso]

46. Bannon

No, inherent contempt is an authority that the House has which does not require going to the DOJ. They can send out the Sergeant at Arms to bring in and detain those who refuse to honor subpoenas.

[JohnSJ]

48. Thanks

[Tribetime]

27. 👍This

[Patton French]

31. It is becoming increasingly difficult to remain patient.

This apparent inaction is sending the wrong message IMO.

[Mr. Ected]

34. The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly

But the wheels of fascism burn rubber and kick up dust and leave justice in its trail.

There will be no time left on the clock for justice to grind exceedingly fine this time.

[EndlessWire]

36. I always thought

that if you were lawfully subpoenaed, you could be arrested for not showing up. What's that got to do with lining up the ducks? The act to be arrested for is for him not to show up. Even if he challenged the subpoena, he would still have to show up. Lining up the ducks should have occurred BEFORE the subpoena was issued, unless there is a statute of limitations involved.

I think they are waiting to see if he runs.

I am so tired of these jerks thumbing their noses at the laws. They think the law is not for them, and that they are above the law. You or I, well, we'd be in jail.

[lamp_shade]

44. Only 3 weeks. Patience.

[JohnSJ]

45. Patience? After the midterms?