Steve Bannon's subpoena case is taking longer than we want it to. That's a good thing.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

I trust Joyce Vance on this

Link to tweet

There’s an old saying prosecutors like to repeat to one another: If you shoot at the king, you’d best not miss. Roughly translated, that means don’t indict a suspect before your evidence is in place. The government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof we use in our legal system, and to meet that burden, the prosecution must have admissible evidence of guilt. Prosecutors can’t rely on what everyone thinks they know or what people believe. Ensuring they have evidence to establish every element of a crime, even in a matter that seems as self-proving as this one, takes time and effort.

Silence doesn’t mean inaction. Frustratingly, it means we don’t know what work is or isn’t in progress. Likely, we will learn about the outcome if the Justice Department either discloses an indictment or, perhaps, it advises Congress that it won’t take any action on its referral. Our system, for good and well-established reasons, doesn’t give the public a window inside the process while prosecutors are at work. Whether the system should change and provide more transparency may be up for future debate, but it won’t change for this investigation.

The basics of preparing to indict, including obtaining evidence the prosecution needs in an admissible form, can take time. Subpoenas have to be authorized, cut and served on people and entities from which prosecutors seek information. It takes time for subpoenaed materials to be returned to the grand jury. While there’s no way to know whether the Justice Department is using grand jury subpoenas to compile evidence in this case, it’s entirely possible. That process can add weeks before prosecutors have the essential evidence they need to indict.

Prosecutors typically provide defendants with discovery materials at or soon after arraignment on an indictment. This means they must have sufficient time, once their investigation is complete, to compile the evidence they must turn over in a form that can be released to defense counsel. Because the government has significant ethical obligations, including the requirement that it turn over exculpatory evidence, it’s important to have sufficient time to prepare.

[Mr. Ected]

1. I tend to hang on every one of Joyce Vance's words

If she is saying this, I'm listening. I still don't trust a damn thing that's going on at DOJ, but if Joyce isn't sounding the alarms, I'll keep mum for now as well.

[leftstreet]

2. Not as long as Bush/Cheney's indictments n/t

[mcar]

3. Joyce White Vance knows much more than random posters on social media

[PSPS]

4. cough ... mueller ... cough ... fitzmas ... cough

[njhoneybadger]

6. Exactly

[treestar]

7. There were indictments

Roger Stone was one of them. I recall there were a few and some went to jail.

[SheCat]

5. Another Thought

I have been thinking that the issue may be that Bannon is close to being indicted for a litany of other crimes we are unaware of and bringing this indictment alone would interfere in some way.

[former9thward]

8. Some of the things she said are completely wrong.

"there is no way to know whether the Justice department is using grand jury subpoenas to compile evidence". False. These things are not secret. People being brought before the grand jury talk to friends and associates. It is quickly known. Their lawyers talk to other lawyers of potential witnesses or defendants.

That is how the real world works in my experience as both a criminal defense attorney and a prosecutor working for a major city.

The Bannon case is very simple and there is little investigating to be done. The only real decision is a political decision by the DOJ whether to proceed or not. That is why it is taking this length of time.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Are you a member of the Bar?

I am not a criminal lawyer but I do trust Vance.

[former9thward]

10. Yes, in two states.