Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

marble falls

(57,103 posts)
3. Has 45's claims of executive privivlege been finally refuted yet? No. Bannon's free ...
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:09 PM
Nov 2021

... until 45's appeals are done. He's lost all the way up to Federal District court, I believe he's got just one more level and then the SCOTUS gets it.

Can you wait until the legal process is gone through? Or should we just lynch them?

Crunchy Frog

(26,587 posts)
5. Is this actually going through the federal court system?
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:14 PM
Nov 2021

I thought it was basically up to Merrick Garland.

marble falls

(57,103 posts)
6. So far 45 has lost three(?) appeals as well as the sitting President's thumbs down on ...
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:24 PM
Nov 2021

... privilege. 45 claims whatever conversations he had on January 6 or about Jan 6 are covered by executive privilege. Within a month or so, depending on whether the SCOTUS decides to take the case and when it gets put on the calendar he'll have played out his string.

Once it's decided to either not take the case leaving the last court ruling against 45 stand, or they take and rule against 45 - then Bannon's got no cover and if he again refuses, he's actually in locked into Contempt of Congress and Garland will go after him (no doubt in my mind). Right now his claim hinges on 45's claims.

Personally, I can't wait till stinky gets hauled in front of the committee and he has to explain himself.

Beastly Boy

(9,375 posts)
12. In no event is it up to Garland.
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:40 PM
Nov 2021

It has to go through the federal justice bureaucravy. The House referral was actually forwarded to the DC Attorney General's office, not to Garland. This office is responsible for bringing the charges to a grand jury The grand jury has an option to either indict or not indict. But before the case even gets to the grand jury, there are legal barriers within the DC AG office that may prevent it from referring the case to the grand jury. In either event, Garland has very little say in what will eventually happen.

Here is an article that goes into the whole thing in more detail: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/litman-don-t-be-too-sure-about-the-doj-s-duty-to-indict-bannon/ar-AAPQAeq

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
11. That was the "legal process" under the regime of the bag of pus who LOST the last
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:32 PM
Nov 2021

election.

It was not the "norm" and we should not acquiesce in returning to it. A similar referral during the Nixon administration produced an indictment in eight days.

Was the subpoena valid? Yes.

Was the subpoena served on Bannon? Yes.

Has Bannon refused to comply with the subpoena? Yes.

DING, DING, DING! Indictment to issue!

Waiting for a determination of the validity of tfg's childishly silly "executive privilege" claim makes about as much sense as waiting to see if some court somewhere will declare him Grand Poobah For Life.

The midterms are less than a year away so, no, I can't "wait" until these fascist bastards run out the clock under tfg's "system of justice", close down the investigation and tell us "Nothing to see here---move along!"

Fiendish Thingy

(15,624 posts)
7. Not as simple of a question as one might presume:
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:29 PM
Nov 2021
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-justice-department-taking-so-long-indict-steve-bannon

Apparently there are prior DOJ/OLC legal opinions that may be complicating this process, and the committee’s subpoena language may have been too vague and broad, and could be interpreted as encompassing a president’s official duties, in addition to personal/political activities.

Scrivener7

(50,955 posts)
10. Nope. And he won't. Because everyone is bending over backwards to justify why he can't be.
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:31 PM
Nov 2021

If he were a Democrat, he would have been indicted three weeks ago.

But no.

Gaugamela

(2,496 posts)
13. Fourteen months until a Republican House shuts down the 1/6 committee, and another 24
Thu Nov 11, 2021, 05:44 PM
Nov 2021

until they re-install TFG in the White House. Then we’ll start seeing subpoenas enforced.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Has Bannon been indicted ...