11/15/2021

33 Responses to “Bannon Surrenders”

1. 1) I think that attempting to stonewall an investigation of Jan 6th is likely to backfire.

   2) Whether it backfires will depend on how partisan the proceedings appear.

   3) I doubt that any lawyer for Bannon (or anyone else) would simply acquiesce to Biden’s unprecedented waiver of Trump’s expectation of privilege. It would not seem to be in their client’s interest to assume the waiver would be upheld.

   4) Until the waiver is upheld, this indictment is premature.

   Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:03 am

   
   

2. Even though I would like to see Trump imprisoned for an attempted coup, process matters.

   Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:06 am

   
   

3. no ham sandwich is safe

   JF (e1156d) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:15 am

   
   

4. In other news Ted Cruz notices that there is little sunlight between GOPe and D’s

   frosty (f27e97) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:16 am

   
   

5. There is little sunlight between Trump and Benedict Arnold.

   Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:31 am

   
   

6. That’s where NT, GOPe, and so called RINOS have failed…holding TedToo by the ankles off an even higher balcony than he was held from after the 2016 RNC.

   urbanleftbehind (c4a7d7) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:35 am

   
   

7. Speaking of partisan operators who refused subpoenas for documents…

   Alex Jones has now been found liable in all four defamation lawsuits brought by the parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

   A Connecticut judge issued rulings in a fourth defamation lawsuit brought against Jones on Tuesday, following a previous ruling by Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin, who found him liable for damages in three similar defamation lawsuits.

   As reported by the New York Times, the Connecticut judge found Jones found guilty by default because he refused to turn over documents ordered by the courts, including financial records.

   Paul Montagu (5de684) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:38 am

   
   

8. frosty:

   I am confused — does opposing Trump mean you re for subsidized day care and the climate change mantra. Does noticing that January 6 was pretty awful mean you want that 3 trillion in extra spending?
   Good golly Miss Molly!!

   I guess if you dislike Biden you must be pro coup d’etat. Judging by the logic I’m seeing deployed here.

   Appalled (1a17de) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:55 am

   
   

9. Kevin M —

   #1 If this were about Mark Meadows, I think you have a point. Bannon isn’t a formal adviser to the President, and his 1-5 podcast suggested foreknowledge of a wild day in the capitol.

   There is plenty of reason to call him to a hearing and a lot he knows that would not be covered by even purported Trumpy privelege.

   Appalled (1a17de) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:01 am

   
   

10. Criminal contempt for Eric Holder. Criminal contempt for Hillary Clinton.

    Some animals are more equal than others.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:09 am

    
    

11. “does opposing Trump mean you re for subsidized day care and the climate change mantra.”

    WHY DO PEOPLE ASSUME I’M FOR LIBERAL POSITIONS WHEN I SHAMELESSLY JOINED THE LIBERAL COALITION AGAINST THE CONSERVATIVE LEADER?

    “Does noticing that January 6 was pretty awful mean you want that 3 trillion in extra spending?”

    Does using weasel-words like a Democrat lead people to conclude that you’re probably one of their fellow-travelers?

    “Good golly Miss Molly!!”

    Please use adult swears when not speaking to children.

    “I guess if you dislike Biden you must be pro coup d’etat. Judging by the logic I’m seeing deployed here.”

    The degree to which Biden actually and openly committed every unforgivably authoritarian act that you falsely accused Trump of means that yes, you should. Especially if you were encouraging removing Trump BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY earlier.

    DeKevinator (1c64d2) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:18 am

    
    

12. the process is the punishment

    just like the mueller nonsense

    JF (e1156d) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:18 am

    
    

13. All In on blocking any investigation of January 6. Why is that, do you think?

    Because Trump is.

    And Trump can;t come out looking good. If it clarifies what Trump did not do, it also clarifies what he did do.

    It will, among other things, draw attention to the wrongness of his election complaints.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:49 am

    
    

14. one count related to his refusal to appear for a deposition

    For that, he culd also take the 5th amendment, and no one can stop him unless they give him immunity, which Oliver North proved, is unlimited even if they try to make it use immunity. Adam Scgiff said the committee would pay atention to the Department of Justice (which may not want him to have immunity, in case he’s one of the prime guilty persons for riot)

    and another related to his refusal to produce documents to the House committee investigating January 6

    Documents are not covered by the 5th amendment, which applies only to testimony. By the defendant or potential defendant.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:53 am

    
    

15. eported by the New York Times, the Connecticut judge found Jones found guilty by default

    in a civil lawsuit (where there is no immunity against testifying unless someone fears a separate criminal investigation) the word is “liable”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html

    Alex Jones Liable by Default in All Sandy Hook Defamation Suits

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:57 am

    
    

16. Appalled (1a17de) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:01 am

    his 1-5 podcast suggested foreknowledge of a wild day in the capitol.

    Bannon said:

    “ALL HELL IS GOING TO BREAK LOOSE TOMORROW.”

    But that could mean anything.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:02 am

    
    

17. A house fire.
    A car wreck.
    A fashion plate [if you like goulash.]
    A case of media indigestion.
    A show.

    And ‘folks’ will slow down, turn their heads– and look.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:04 am

    
    

18. People expected a fight between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators, and the mayor of DC and others, were successful in preventing a counter-rally.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:09 am

    
    

19. People expected a fight between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators, and the mayor of DC and others, were successful in preventing a counter-rally.

    Can they do that? It seems like content-based rules.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:12 am

    
    

20. #1 If this were about Mark Meadows, I think you have a point. Bannon isn’t a formal adviser to the President

    That may be. Dunno the rules on the “kitchen cabinet.” Or if there are any formal distinctions. This is pretty much a judge-created rule, so all the fine print is probably yet to be developed.

    Bannon could have showed up and just repeatedly declined to answer based on this or that privilege. It may be he just wants to be a martyr to The Cause and this isn’t a legal strategy at all.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:17 am

    
    

21. I think my problem is that Biden here is being just as disingenuous as Trump, asserting that he’s has bind and release powers over all prior president’s privileged communications. Going back how far, one wonders? Can a future president release papers showing FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming or LBJ was buying funeral suits on November 21st?

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:21 am

    
    

22. I see the Bannon contempt and the indictment for it, both, as payback for the border wall fraud pardon he got from Trump. Payback by him to Trump and payback by the government to him.

    Rafael Eduardo Cruz should move back to Canada. Backwards.

    nk (1d9030) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:46 am

    
    

23. “I think my problem is that Biden here is being just as disingenuous as Trump, asserting that he’s has bind and release powers over all prior president’s privileged communications. Going back how far, one wonders? Can a future president release papers showing FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming or LBJ was buying funeral suits on November 21st?”

    Poor argument. That information should have been released as a matter of routine 5 decades later.

    There’s a strong reasonable expectation of a statute of limitations for official secrecy on events that happened 50-75 years ago, specifically to prevent either partisan hagiographies or permanent official lies. Even now, the piecemeal drip ‘release’ of tiny parts of the JFK and proceedings by official agencies seems suspicious and

    Ditching secrecy rules on extremely recent administrations with obvious partisan motivation has no such justifications. Especially since it’s unlikely to be a blanket release and more likely to be piecemeal partisan drip releases, probably with huge ‘redacted’ sections to avoid context, as has happened from the ‘independent’ (of any public oversight) DOJ.

    DeKevinator (ded666) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:46 am

    
    

24. Two predictions:

    1) The courts will rule for Trump on the Executive privilege claim, for those things properly claimed.

    2) The Democrats and the MSM (birm) will call this political hackery and agitate again for diminishing the courts.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:57 am

    
    

25. 19.

    the mayor of DC and others, were successful in preventing a counter-rally.

    Not by refusing a permit, and people wouldn’t have necessarily sought any permit, but by contacting people who would organize it, help organize it, or participate, and the general public, arguing against it, so any attempt to do so fizzled. (I don’t know how exactly they did it. Maybe they did deny a permit.)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 12:05 pm

    
    

26. 20. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:17 am

    Bannon could have showed up and just repeatedly declined to answer based on this or that privilege.

    But they also wanted documents. No 5th amendment there.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 12:06 pm

    
    

27. I think there’s some law governing executive privilege.

    J. Edgar Hoover was warned that the Japanese were cosidering bombing Pearl Harbor by the British double agent Dusko Popov code named TRICYCLE (in many ways the original model for James Bond – in lifestyle) but he didn’t believe him and threatened him with prosecution under the Mann Act because he had taken a girl with him to Hawaii. He never told FDR.

    Later on, in 1946, in an article in the Reader’s Digest, he took credit for discovering the microdot, even though Popov had handed it over to him.

    Popov was used to give the Germans very minimal intelligence approved by the FBI so much so that it threatened his credibility and he went back to Europe.

    As late as 1982/3, in the American Hiatorical Review there were still people in the FBI defending J. Edgar Hoover.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 12:16 pm

    
    

28. What the guy who likes under age black tranny hookers (d.c. madam’s note book) means is the now populist republican party has chased the neo-con vietnam war draft dodging chicken hawk war mongers over to the democrat party.

    asset (984d44) — 11/15/2021 @ 12:51 pm

    
    

29. From a relatively thorough, but very partisan, website:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/no-former-presidents-cannot-assert-executive-privilege-at-least-not-meaningfully

    There’s no precedent, but they say the law is against Trump:

    …There are three key reasons for this misconception. The first lies in the basic fact that the legal landscape in 2021 is different than the legal landscape in 1977. When the Supreme Court was adjudicating Nixon v. GSA, the Presidential Records Act did not exist yet. The Act now does exist, and it explicitly provides the incumbent president the decisive authority over whether the privilege will be asserted for the executive branch…..

    …Second, the position of the incumbent president in Nixon v. GSA was substantially different from the position of the incumbent in Trump v. Thompson, and so was the nature of the challenge by the former president. The question before the court in 1977 was the constitutionality of a predecessor statute which required former President Nixon to transfer all his presidential records to the Archivist for review and cataloguing. The nature of the challenge proved critical in that case, because Nixon was not actively fighting against a particular disclosure; he was challenging the statute on its face. Therefore, while the court did opine that any interest Nixon might have in confidentiality was reduced by the fact that President Ford had signed the law and President Carter was defending the law, that statement was still made in the context of a facial challenge to a statute, not a request for a specific disclosure…

    It is a legal truism that a legal privilege is held by the party to whom its benefit accrues. A client benefits from the attorney-client privilege because it allows the client to candidly seek and obtain legal advice…With this in mind, it is clear that Nixon v. GSA already answered this question: “the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic.”

    … Just as a former CEO lacks the legal authority to prohibit a corporation’s in-house counsel from releasing information if the current CEO expressly waives the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the corporation, a former president lacks the legal authority to prohibit an executive branch official from releasing information if the incumbent president expressly waives the executive privilege on behalf of the executive branch.. [but there’s more of an expectation of continuity by a corporate executive -SF]

    …the Supreme Court stated in 1977 that a former president might sue, not that he would ever win. That’s why we make the distinction that even if a former president can assert executive privilege, they can’t do so meaningfully. In other words, a former president can make a claim that something is covered by executive privilege, but only with the support of the incumbent president.

    The Supreme Court had stated in 1977 that the privilege survives the individual President’s tenure. What if they are political oponents? But does a president have aright to release material that a former president does not want released? I think he probably does.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 11/15/2021 @ 1:16 pm

    
    

30. And not a soul in the d.c. jail has been charged with insurrection.
    FBM

    mg (8cbc69) — 11/15/2021 @ 2:12 pm

    
    

31. I think my problem is that Biden here is being just as disingenuous as Trump, asserting that he’s has bind and release powers over all prior president’s privileged communications. Going back how far, one wonders? Can a future president release papers showing FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming or LBJ was buying funeral suits on November 21st?

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/15/2021 @ 11:21 am

    Well, first of all, there’s a question over whether many of the communications in question ARE, in fact, privileged.

    But even assuming they all were — an assumption I will grant for the sake of argument — the answer should be “all the way back to Washington.” What the president does in his official capacity is ultimately our business. There may be some limited exceptions to this. (Matters of national security come to mind, where there would be no way to let the American people know without letting our enemies know.) But the communications of the White House on 1/6 seem highly pertinent to me.

    And of course, whoever follows Biden into the office will be able to release HIS official communications, however scandalous they may be. Which I hope he bears in mind when deciding which precedents to set.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 11/15/2021 @ 2:38 pm

    
    

32. I don’t believe that “executive privilege” has any basis in law, other than what Congress authorized. It’s not mentioned in the index to America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live ByAmerica’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By by Akhil Reed Amar (Basic Books, 2012) nor in his previous book America’s Constitution: A Biography (random House, 2005) which should indicate what anovel concept it really is.

    There are also questions about Congress’ right to subpoena anything, aside from the purpose of impeachment/

    Both of these are truly unsettled law, which is why they have often been resolved by compromise, and one reason why presidents have waived it in the case of investigations of themselves, like Iran Contra and, I think, the Plame affair.

    Executive priveiege can be invoked by a president, but it’s purpose is to protect the adviser or apointee, and the appointee can testify if he or she wants to. It just gives him authority to refuse.

    It does not require him to, although some winesses seem to think so, and even refuse to testify before they hear that a president has decided not to waive it in order, they say, to give a president an opportunity to invoke it.

    A subpoena trumps all claims of confidentiality against the witness and maybe even classified information, if the full House or Senate chooses to override it.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 7:37 pm

    
    

33. Banon had his surrender livestreamed and referred to the Biden Administration as the regime a la Rush Limbaugh with – must have been Obama.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 11/15/2021 @ 7:39 pm