THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6"
Conn Carroll
8/20/2021
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI.
Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
…
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
"Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized."
"But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
None of this excuses the violent riot that happened on Jan. 6.
The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots.
Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn't won’t make the Capitol any safer.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-c ... ar-AANxOuQ
AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
REUTERS
"White House tells Democrats corporate tax hike unlikely -congressional source"
By Reuters Staff
OCTOBER 20, 2021
Oct 20 (Reuters) - The White House told Democratic lawmakers in a meeting on Wednesday that a proposed hike in corporate taxes is unlikely to make it into a final reconciliation bill, according to a congressional source familiar with the discussions.
President Joe Biden had proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, which would unwind the tax cuts enacted under Republican former President Donald Trump.
(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Leslie Adler)
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-inf ... SW1N2M9054
"White House tells Democrats corporate tax hike unlikely -congressional source"
By Reuters Staff
OCTOBER 20, 2021
Oct 20 (Reuters) - The White House told Democratic lawmakers in a meeting on Wednesday that a proposed hike in corporate taxes is unlikely to make it into a final reconciliation bill, according to a congressional source familiar with the discussions.
President Joe Biden had proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, which would unwind the tax cuts enacted under Republican former President Donald Trump.
(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Leslie Adler)
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-inf ... SW1N2M9054
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 20, 2021 AT 10:50 AM
Paul Plante says:
Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose and Jen Psaki!
What do they all have in common?
Mildred Elizabeth Gillars (November 29, 1900 – June 25, 1988), nicknamed “Axis Sally” along with Rita Zucca, was an American broadcaster employed by Nazi Germany to disseminate Axis propaganda during World War II.
Tokyo Rose was a name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda.
And Biden-ista Jen Psaki follows in their footsteps by disseminating CULT OF JOE propaganda here in the United States as she did just yesterday ( https://theglobalherald.com/news/trumps ... jen-psaki/ ) with her very ridiculous and absurd statement that Donald Trump posed a ‘unique and existential threat to our democracy,’ a statement so bizarre as to be totally unbelievable and which has American citizens who are not Biden or Psaki KOOL-AID DRINKERS now comparing Jen, America’s favorite bobble-head, to Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, known as “Baghdad Bob,” Saddam’s Minister of Information as the bobble-head Jen is Joe Biden’s MINISTER OF INFORMATION, who in March of 2003, like Jen today, was everybody’s favorite inadvertent comedian.
Sporting a kicky black beret and delightfully bombastic lexicon, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf appeared on TV daily to predict American failure and deny the Baghdad invasion — sometimes even as U.S. tanks appeared behind him.
“He’s great,” President George W. Bush said of Sahaf, admitting that he occasionally interrupted meetings to watch Sahaf’s briefings.
“Someone accused us of hiring him and putting him there.”
“He was a classic.”
And people, today, our very own Jen is also a classic with her line in response to Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, that “Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection,” which idiotic statement is Bizarre Beyond Belief (BBB), given a Washington Examiner story sixty-one (61) days earlier, a story Jen apparently missed or disregarded since it did not agree with the BIDEN-ESQUE PROPAGANDA she is spewing, entitled “FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6” by Conn Carroll on 8/20/2021, where we had another completely different version of reality than the mythical horse**** Jen is spewing, to wit:
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
“Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized.”
“But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots.
Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn’t won’t make the Capitol any safer.
end quotes
But people, disregard that, because what Jen says is THE TRUTH, while everybody knows the FBI lies, which takes us back to “Baghdad Bob” who became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure.
Will our very own Jen achieve the greatness of a “Baghdad Bob” and herself became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure?
Will we see bobble-head dolls of Jen riding on the dashboards of American cars all over the nation right up there next to the Plastic Jesus?
I don’t care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jen
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my plastic Jen I’ll go far.
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Plastic Jen doesn’t hear
‘Cause she has a plastic ear
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-448957
Paul Plante says:
Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose and Jen Psaki!
What do they all have in common?
Mildred Elizabeth Gillars (November 29, 1900 – June 25, 1988), nicknamed “Axis Sally” along with Rita Zucca, was an American broadcaster employed by Nazi Germany to disseminate Axis propaganda during World War II.
Tokyo Rose was a name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda.
And Biden-ista Jen Psaki follows in their footsteps by disseminating CULT OF JOE propaganda here in the United States as she did just yesterday ( https://theglobalherald.com/news/trumps ... jen-psaki/ ) with her very ridiculous and absurd statement that Donald Trump posed a ‘unique and existential threat to our democracy,’ a statement so bizarre as to be totally unbelievable and which has American citizens who are not Biden or Psaki KOOL-AID DRINKERS now comparing Jen, America’s favorite bobble-head, to Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, known as “Baghdad Bob,” Saddam’s Minister of Information as the bobble-head Jen is Joe Biden’s MINISTER OF INFORMATION, who in March of 2003, like Jen today, was everybody’s favorite inadvertent comedian.
Sporting a kicky black beret and delightfully bombastic lexicon, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf appeared on TV daily to predict American failure and deny the Baghdad invasion — sometimes even as U.S. tanks appeared behind him.
“He’s great,” President George W. Bush said of Sahaf, admitting that he occasionally interrupted meetings to watch Sahaf’s briefings.
“Someone accused us of hiring him and putting him there.”
“He was a classic.”
And people, today, our very own Jen is also a classic with her line in response to Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, that “Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection,” which idiotic statement is Bizarre Beyond Belief (BBB), given a Washington Examiner story sixty-one (61) days earlier, a story Jen apparently missed or disregarded since it did not agree with the BIDEN-ESQUE PROPAGANDA she is spewing, entitled “FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6” by Conn Carroll on 8/20/2021, where we had another completely different version of reality than the mythical horse**** Jen is spewing, to wit:
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
“Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized.”
“But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots.
Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn’t won’t make the Capitol any safer.
end quotes
But people, disregard that, because what Jen says is THE TRUTH, while everybody knows the FBI lies, which takes us back to “Baghdad Bob” who became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure.
Will our very own Jen achieve the greatness of a “Baghdad Bob” and herself became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure?
Will we see bobble-head dolls of Jen riding on the dashboards of American cars all over the nation right up there next to the Plastic Jesus?
I don’t care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jen
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my plastic Jen I’ll go far.
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Plastic Jen doesn’t hear
‘Cause she has a plastic ear
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-448957
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"Terry McAuliffe shuts down interview and chides reporter for not asking 'better questions'"
Asher Notheis
20 OCTOBER 2021
Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, shut down an interview while complaining about the questions.
ABC 7, a D.C.-area affiliate, interviewed McAuliffe and his GOP rival, Glenn Youngkin, on Oct. 13 and 14 respectively.
The outlet said both were given 20 minutes to talk about how they would lead Virginia if elected next month.
McAuliffe ended his interview after a little more than 10 minutes, telling interviewer Nick Minock he "should have asked better questions early on."
The ABC 7 transcript shows he ended it after a member of the Democrat's team claimed they were out of time.
"Hey, I gave you extra time," McAuliffe told the interviewer as he stood up and left.
"C’mon, man."
"You should have asked better questions early on."
"You should have asked questions your viewers care about.”
Prior to cutting the interview short, McAuliffe told the outlet if he is elected he will work to raise the minimum wage and create paid sick days.
He also warned viewers of Youngkin being "a Donald Trump right-wing agenda" who would ban abortions.
In his interview, Youngkin warned of McAuliffe, who previously served as Virginia governor from 2014 to 2018, wanting to "make your life difficult" for those who do not vaccinate against COVID-19.
Youngkin also said McAuliffe stands for himself and big government, while he stands for Virginians and individual freedom.
A recent poll from the Trafalgar Group found McAuliffe at 48% among likely voters, in a dead heat with Youngkin.
The election is set for Nov. 2.
McAuliffe's campaign did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment on the interview.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
"Terry McAuliffe shuts down interview and chides reporter for not asking 'better questions'"
Asher Notheis
20 OCTOBER 2021
Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, shut down an interview while complaining about the questions.
ABC 7, a D.C.-area affiliate, interviewed McAuliffe and his GOP rival, Glenn Youngkin, on Oct. 13 and 14 respectively.
The outlet said both were given 20 minutes to talk about how they would lead Virginia if elected next month.
McAuliffe ended his interview after a little more than 10 minutes, telling interviewer Nick Minock he "should have asked better questions early on."
The ABC 7 transcript shows he ended it after a member of the Democrat's team claimed they were out of time.
"Hey, I gave you extra time," McAuliffe told the interviewer as he stood up and left.
"C’mon, man."
"You should have asked better questions early on."
"You should have asked questions your viewers care about.”
Prior to cutting the interview short, McAuliffe told the outlet if he is elected he will work to raise the minimum wage and create paid sick days.
He also warned viewers of Youngkin being "a Donald Trump right-wing agenda" who would ban abortions.
In his interview, Youngkin warned of McAuliffe, who previously served as Virginia governor from 2014 to 2018, wanting to "make your life difficult" for those who do not vaccinate against COVID-19.
Youngkin also said McAuliffe stands for himself and big government, while he stands for Virginians and individual freedom.
A recent poll from the Trafalgar Group found McAuliffe at 48% among likely voters, in a dead heat with Youngkin.
The election is set for Nov. 2.
McAuliffe's campaign did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment on the interview.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
NEWSWEEK
"Psaki Says Trump 'Incited Insurrection,' Pressured DOJ to 'Propagate Lies'"
BY JUSTIN KLAWANS ON 10/18/21 AT 5:26 PM EDT
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded Monday to a reporter who attempted to compare the recent actions of President Joe Biden to the usage of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) by former President Donald Trump.
During the daily White House press briefing, Psaki was asked by Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, about a promise President Biden had made during the campaign that he would not use the DOJ in a similar manner.
"What's changed since last year when [President Biden] said 'I will not do what former President Trump does and use the Justice Department as my vehicle to insist that something happened,'" Doocy asked.
In answering Doocy's question, Psaki stated that the former president had used his office to his personal advantage by citing the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, as well as pressuring DOJ officials to lie about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
"Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection, he put political pressure on senior DOJ officials to propagate lies about the election to the point where they threatened to resign en masse," Psaki replied.
"I think there's hardly a comparison there," she continued.
Psaki and Doocy have had a contentious relationship since the Biden administration took office, and have clashed over numerous policies and subjects, including immigration and COVID vaccines, among other issues.
Doocy's question was in response to President Biden's remarks Friday in which he stated that the DOJ should go after people that ignored subpoenas from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.
The president told CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins that "I hope that the committee goes after [those people] and holds them accountable."
Collins then asked President Biden if he believed the DOJ should then prosecute those individuals criminally, to which the president replied "I do, yes."
Jen Psaki White House briefing
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question from Fox News reporter Peter Doocy Monday, stating that former President Donald Trump incited the January 6 insurrection and used the Justice Department to his advantage.
Here, Psaki can be seen in the White House Press Briefing Room.
While the president made his opinion on the matter known, Psaki reiterated that any action taken by the DOJ would be done in a manner independent from White House interference.
"That would be up to the Department of Justice, and it would be their purview to determine."
"They're an independent agency," Psaki said at a press briefing on October 8.
"They're independent."
"They would — they would determine any decision on criminal prosecutions."
"I'd point you to them and, of course, the committee."
Psaki did not elaborate on whether or not President Biden had discussed any possible criminal outcomes with DOJ officials, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Steve Bannon, a high-profile member of former President Trump's cabinet, made headlines earlier in October when he defied his subpoena from the House Select Committee.
The Washington Post said that the Committee was planning to "aggressively enforce" its subpoenas, including Bannon's.
Additionally, Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, told CNN's Jake Tapper that subpoenaing the former president was not off the table.
"If we subpoena all of a sudden the former president, we know that's going to become kind of a circus so that's not necessarily something we want to do up front," Kinzinger said.
"But if he has pieces of information we need, we certainly will."
Newsweek has reached out to the White House press office for comment.
https://www.newsweek.com/psaki-says-tru ... es-1640073
"Psaki Says Trump 'Incited Insurrection,' Pressured DOJ to 'Propagate Lies'"
BY JUSTIN KLAWANS ON 10/18/21 AT 5:26 PM EDT
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded Monday to a reporter who attempted to compare the recent actions of President Joe Biden to the usage of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) by former President Donald Trump.
During the daily White House press briefing, Psaki was asked by Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, about a promise President Biden had made during the campaign that he would not use the DOJ in a similar manner.
"What's changed since last year when [President Biden] said 'I will not do what former President Trump does and use the Justice Department as my vehicle to insist that something happened,'" Doocy asked.
In answering Doocy's question, Psaki stated that the former president had used his office to his personal advantage by citing the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, as well as pressuring DOJ officials to lie about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
"Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection, he put political pressure on senior DOJ officials to propagate lies about the election to the point where they threatened to resign en masse," Psaki replied.
"I think there's hardly a comparison there," she continued.
Psaki and Doocy have had a contentious relationship since the Biden administration took office, and have clashed over numerous policies and subjects, including immigration and COVID vaccines, among other issues.
Doocy's question was in response to President Biden's remarks Friday in which he stated that the DOJ should go after people that ignored subpoenas from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.
The president told CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins that "I hope that the committee goes after [those people] and holds them accountable."
Collins then asked President Biden if he believed the DOJ should then prosecute those individuals criminally, to which the president replied "I do, yes."
Jen Psaki White House briefing
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question from Fox News reporter Peter Doocy Monday, stating that former President Donald Trump incited the January 6 insurrection and used the Justice Department to his advantage.
Here, Psaki can be seen in the White House Press Briefing Room.
While the president made his opinion on the matter known, Psaki reiterated that any action taken by the DOJ would be done in a manner independent from White House interference.
"That would be up to the Department of Justice, and it would be their purview to determine."
"They're an independent agency," Psaki said at a press briefing on October 8.
"They're independent."
"They would — they would determine any decision on criminal prosecutions."
"I'd point you to them and, of course, the committee."
Psaki did not elaborate on whether or not President Biden had discussed any possible criminal outcomes with DOJ officials, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Steve Bannon, a high-profile member of former President Trump's cabinet, made headlines earlier in October when he defied his subpoena from the House Select Committee.
The Washington Post said that the Committee was planning to "aggressively enforce" its subpoenas, including Bannon's.
Additionally, Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, told CNN's Jake Tapper that subpoenaing the former president was not off the table.
"If we subpoena all of a sudden the former president, we know that's going to become kind of a circus so that's not necessarily something we want to do up front," Kinzinger said.
"But if he has pieces of information we need, we certainly will."
Newsweek has reached out to the White House press office for comment.
https://www.newsweek.com/psaki-says-tru ... es-1640073
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
FORBES
"‘We Won’t Take No For An Answer’: Jan. 6 Committee Recommends Holding Steve Bannon In Criminal Contempt"
Joe Walsh, Forbes Staff
Oct 19, 2021
TOPLINE - A House committee investigating the Capitol riot on Tuesday recommended charging Steve Bannon with contempt of Congress, as lawmakers pressure former President Donald Trump’s ally to comply with a subpoena — and threaten to push for criminal charges if he defies them.
KEY FACTS
The select committee’s seven Democrats and two Republicans voted unanimously Tuesday evening to pass a report encouraging the House to hold Bannon in contempt over his refusal to testify or hand over documents tied to the January 6 riot.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) — the committee’s chair — said lawmakers believe Bannon has pertinent information and wants to deter other witnesses from refusing subpoenas: “Left unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow Mr. Bannon down the same path.”
The committee accused Bannon of playing a “multi-faceted role” in the leadup to the riot: He backed Trump’s voter fraud claims, and he purportedly met with other Trump allies at a hotel near the White House ahead of the riot, the committee’s report claims.
Bannon also predicted on the eve of the January 6 riot that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” which lawmakers interpreted in their report to mean Bannon “had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next day.”
Bannon claims he can’t testify or turn over records because Trump has asserted “executive privilege,” a legal doctrine allowing presidents to keep certain internal communications secret, but lawmakers argued this concept doesn’t apply to Bannon because he was a private citizen at the time of the Capitol riot.
Forbes has reached out to Bannon’s attorney for comment.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“It's a shame that Mr. Bannon has put us in this position, but we won't take no for an answer,” Thompson said Tuesday evening.
“We believe Mr. Bannon has information relevant to our probe, and we'll use the tools at our disposal to get that information.”
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The entire House of Representatives will vote on whether to hold Bannon in contempt.
If the measure passes the Democrat-controlled House, it’s up to the Department of Justice to weigh criminal charges, which could result in fines and 12 months in jail.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
It’s unclear whether the DOJ plans to seek criminal charges.
The select committee has argued prosecutors have a “duty” to seek an indictment from a grand jury if Congress refers a contempt charge to them, but the DOJ has asserted in the past that it can choose not to send contempt allegations to a grand jury or pursue criminal charges.
President Joe Biden said last week he believes the DOJ should prosecute witnesses who fail to comply with the January 6 committee’s subpoenas, but the DOJ told several news outlets it “will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law.”
KEY BACKGROUND
Tasked with investigating the Capitol riot and its immediate runup, the January 6 committee has subpoenaed a range of Trump administration officials and outside allies.
It has requested scores of White House documents tied to both the violence at the Capitol and Trump’s months-long gambit to overturn his 2020 reelection loss, and lawmakers asked Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several other staffers to hand over records and sit for testimony.
Bannon’s subpoena directed the political operative and ex-White House strategist to sit for a deposition and produce a range of records, including any communications with Trump about January 6 and discussions with the former president and his legal team about efforts to contest the 2020 election.
Trump has argued many of the records sought by the committee are protected by executive privilege, and Bannon’s attorney told lawmakers earlier this month he can’t comply with their subpoena because he “must accept [Trump’s] direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege,” leading the committee to threaten to pursue contempt.
SURPRISING FACT
Thompson said Bannon currently “stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena,” but the committee will pursue contempt of Congress against any other witnesses who refuse to testify or turn over records.
TANGENT
Trump wants the Biden administration to shield certain White House records he claims are subject to executive privilege, but Biden rejected this argument for an initial wave of documents requested by the select committee earlier this month.
This week, Trump filed a lawsuit against the committee and the National Archives and Records Administration, seeking to block what his attorneys described as a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration.”
Joe Walsh
I am a breaking news reporter at Forbes. I previously covered local news for the Boston Guardian, and I graduated from Tufts University in 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 ... 56a527082c
"‘We Won’t Take No For An Answer’: Jan. 6 Committee Recommends Holding Steve Bannon In Criminal Contempt"
Joe Walsh, Forbes Staff
Oct 19, 2021
TOPLINE - A House committee investigating the Capitol riot on Tuesday recommended charging Steve Bannon with contempt of Congress, as lawmakers pressure former President Donald Trump’s ally to comply with a subpoena — and threaten to push for criminal charges if he defies them.
KEY FACTS
The select committee’s seven Democrats and two Republicans voted unanimously Tuesday evening to pass a report encouraging the House to hold Bannon in contempt over his refusal to testify or hand over documents tied to the January 6 riot.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) — the committee’s chair — said lawmakers believe Bannon has pertinent information and wants to deter other witnesses from refusing subpoenas: “Left unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow Mr. Bannon down the same path.”
The committee accused Bannon of playing a “multi-faceted role” in the leadup to the riot: He backed Trump’s voter fraud claims, and he purportedly met with other Trump allies at a hotel near the White House ahead of the riot, the committee’s report claims.
Bannon also predicted on the eve of the January 6 riot that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” which lawmakers interpreted in their report to mean Bannon “had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next day.”
Bannon claims he can’t testify or turn over records because Trump has asserted “executive privilege,” a legal doctrine allowing presidents to keep certain internal communications secret, but lawmakers argued this concept doesn’t apply to Bannon because he was a private citizen at the time of the Capitol riot.
Forbes has reached out to Bannon’s attorney for comment.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“It's a shame that Mr. Bannon has put us in this position, but we won't take no for an answer,” Thompson said Tuesday evening.
“We believe Mr. Bannon has information relevant to our probe, and we'll use the tools at our disposal to get that information.”
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The entire House of Representatives will vote on whether to hold Bannon in contempt.
If the measure passes the Democrat-controlled House, it’s up to the Department of Justice to weigh criminal charges, which could result in fines and 12 months in jail.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
It’s unclear whether the DOJ plans to seek criminal charges.
The select committee has argued prosecutors have a “duty” to seek an indictment from a grand jury if Congress refers a contempt charge to them, but the DOJ has asserted in the past that it can choose not to send contempt allegations to a grand jury or pursue criminal charges.
President Joe Biden said last week he believes the DOJ should prosecute witnesses who fail to comply with the January 6 committee’s subpoenas, but the DOJ told several news outlets it “will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law.”
KEY BACKGROUND
Tasked with investigating the Capitol riot and its immediate runup, the January 6 committee has subpoenaed a range of Trump administration officials and outside allies.
It has requested scores of White House documents tied to both the violence at the Capitol and Trump’s months-long gambit to overturn his 2020 reelection loss, and lawmakers asked Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several other staffers to hand over records and sit for testimony.
Bannon’s subpoena directed the political operative and ex-White House strategist to sit for a deposition and produce a range of records, including any communications with Trump about January 6 and discussions with the former president and his legal team about efforts to contest the 2020 election.
Trump has argued many of the records sought by the committee are protected by executive privilege, and Bannon’s attorney told lawmakers earlier this month he can’t comply with their subpoena because he “must accept [Trump’s] direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege,” leading the committee to threaten to pursue contempt.
SURPRISING FACT
Thompson said Bannon currently “stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena,” but the committee will pursue contempt of Congress against any other witnesses who refuse to testify or turn over records.
TANGENT
Trump wants the Biden administration to shield certain White House records he claims are subject to executive privilege, but Biden rejected this argument for an initial wave of documents requested by the select committee earlier this month.
This week, Trump filed a lawsuit against the committee and the National Archives and Records Administration, seeking to block what his attorneys described as a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration.”
Joe Walsh
I am a breaking news reporter at Forbes. I previously covered local news for the Boston Guardian, and I graduated from Tufts University in 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 ... 56a527082c
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
REUTERS
"U.S. House committee rejects Bannon 'privilege' argument in Jan. 6 probe"
By Patricia Zengerle and Jan Wolfe
October 19, 2021
WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. congressional committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol said on Monday that it rejected Steve Bannon's arguments for failing to cooperate with the probe, as the panel pursues a contempt of Congress charge against the long-time adviser to former President Donald Trump.
Trump has claimed that materials and testimony sought by the House of Representatives Select Committee are covered by executive privilege, a legal doctrine that protects the confidentially of some White House communications.
Bannon, through his lawyer, has said he will not cooperate with the committee until Trump's executive privilege claim is resolved by a court or through a settlement agreement.
In its report released on Monday making the case for criminal contempt charges against Bannon, the committee said Bannon "relied on no legal authority to support his refusal to comply in any fashion," and said his testimony is critical because he appears to have "had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur" on Jan. 6.
According to the report, Bannon in a podcast on Jan. 5 told his listeners, "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow..."
"So many people said, 'Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'"
"Well, this is your time in history."
The Select Committee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday evening to vote on the report recommending that the House cite Bannon for criminal contempt of Congress and refer him to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
The U.S. Justice Department has not said whether it plans to prosecute Bannon for contempt of Congress, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Bannon's attorney, Robert Costello, did not respond to a request for comment on the committee's argument.
The attack on the Capitol by thousands of Trump supporters took place as Congress met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's election victory over Trump, delaying that process for several hours as then-Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress, staff and journalists fled.
More than 600 people face criminal charges stemming from the event.
The committee also said that Bannon has "had multiple roles" relevant to its investigation, including helping to construct and participate in the "stop the steal" public relations effort that helped motivate the Jan. 6 attack.
"Stop the steal" refers to Trump's false claims that Biden's victory was the result of widespread fraud.
Multiple courts, state election officials and members of Trump's own administration rejected those claims as false.
Reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington; Editing by Aurora Ellis, Matthew Lewis and Cynthia Osterman
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-hou ... 021-10-18/
"U.S. House committee rejects Bannon 'privilege' argument in Jan. 6 probe"
By Patricia Zengerle and Jan Wolfe
October 19, 2021
WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. congressional committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol said on Monday that it rejected Steve Bannon's arguments for failing to cooperate with the probe, as the panel pursues a contempt of Congress charge against the long-time adviser to former President Donald Trump.
Trump has claimed that materials and testimony sought by the House of Representatives Select Committee are covered by executive privilege, a legal doctrine that protects the confidentially of some White House communications.
Bannon, through his lawyer, has said he will not cooperate with the committee until Trump's executive privilege claim is resolved by a court or through a settlement agreement.
In its report released on Monday making the case for criminal contempt charges against Bannon, the committee said Bannon "relied on no legal authority to support his refusal to comply in any fashion," and said his testimony is critical because he appears to have "had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur" on Jan. 6.
According to the report, Bannon in a podcast on Jan. 5 told his listeners, "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow..."
"So many people said, 'Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'"
"Well, this is your time in history."
The Select Committee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday evening to vote on the report recommending that the House cite Bannon for criminal contempt of Congress and refer him to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
The U.S. Justice Department has not said whether it plans to prosecute Bannon for contempt of Congress, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Bannon's attorney, Robert Costello, did not respond to a request for comment on the committee's argument.
The attack on the Capitol by thousands of Trump supporters took place as Congress met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's election victory over Trump, delaying that process for several hours as then-Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress, staff and journalists fled.
More than 600 people face criminal charges stemming from the event.
The committee also said that Bannon has "had multiple roles" relevant to its investigation, including helping to construct and participate in the "stop the steal" public relations effort that helped motivate the Jan. 6 attack.
"Stop the steal" refers to Trump's false claims that Biden's victory was the result of widespread fraud.
Multiple courts, state election officials and members of Trump's own administration rejected those claims as false.
Reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington; Editing by Aurora Ellis, Matthew Lewis and Cynthia Osterman
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-hou ... 021-10-18/
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE INDEPENDENT
"Liz Cheney says Trump appears to have been ‘personally involved in planning’ 6 Jan insurrection - Bannon ‘appears’ to have had ‘substantial advance knowledge of the plans for January 6th’"
Namita Singh
20 OCTOBER 2021
Steve Bannon’s refusal to cooperate in the investigation of the 6 January Capitol riots suggests that former president Donald Trump “was personally involved in the planning and execution” of the insurrection, Liz Cheney said on Tuesday.
The Republican representative’s statement came during a meeting of the House committee investigating the violent insurrection.
The committee voted unanimously to hold the former White House advisor in contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena for documents and testimony concerning the attacks.
Ms Cheney, who is the committee’s vice-chair and one of two Republicans serving on it, said their investigation has shown that Mr Bannon “appears” to have had “substantial advance knowledge of the plans for January 6th and likely had an important role in formulating those plans.”
“Mr Bannon was in the war room at the Willard on January 6th."
" He also appears to have detailed knowledge regarding the President’s efforts to sell millions of Americans the fraud that the election was stolen,” said the Republican representative from Wyoming.
In its report, the committee argued that Mr Bannon made statements suggesting he knew ahead of time about “extreme events” on 6 January, when Congress was scheduled to certify Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election.
In his podcast on 5 January, Mr Bannon said: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”
The next day, thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol and clashed with the police.
It left five people dead, including a Capitol police officer, while hundreds were injured.
“In the words of many who participated in the January 6th attack, the violence that day was in direct response to President Trump’s repeated claims — from election night through January 6th —that he had won the election,” Ms Cheney added.
American people are entitled to Mr Bannon’s first-hand testimony about all these relevant facts, but Mr Bannon is refusing to provide it, said Ms Cheney.
She then added that Mr Bannon’s refusal to comply with the subpoena left the committee “no choice but to seek consequences”.
The conservative podcast host, who served as White House Chief Strategist for seven months in 2017, was served with the subpoena last month, and had been ordered to produce documents and appear for a deposition before the committee on 8 October.
But in a 13 October letter to committee’s chairman, representative Bennie Thompson, Mr Bannon’s attorney, said his client, acting on orders from attorneys for Mr Trump, would “not be producing documents or testimony” until the former president’s executive privilege claim is resolved by a court or through a settlement agreement.
While the legal doctrine of executive privilege protects certain communications between a president and his advisers, the contempt resolution rebuff’s Mr Bannon’s assertion saying he was fired from his White House job in 2017 and was a private citizen when he spoke to Mr Trump ahead of the attack.
Mr Bannon and Mr Trump’s privilege arguments “appear to reveal one thing,” said Ms Cheney.
“They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6th."
"And this committee will get to the bottom of that.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 41608.html
"Liz Cheney says Trump appears to have been ‘personally involved in planning’ 6 Jan insurrection - Bannon ‘appears’ to have had ‘substantial advance knowledge of the plans for January 6th’"
Namita Singh
20 OCTOBER 2021
Steve Bannon’s refusal to cooperate in the investigation of the 6 January Capitol riots suggests that former president Donald Trump “was personally involved in the planning and execution” of the insurrection, Liz Cheney said on Tuesday.
The Republican representative’s statement came during a meeting of the House committee investigating the violent insurrection.
The committee voted unanimously to hold the former White House advisor in contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena for documents and testimony concerning the attacks.
Ms Cheney, who is the committee’s vice-chair and one of two Republicans serving on it, said their investigation has shown that Mr Bannon “appears” to have had “substantial advance knowledge of the plans for January 6th and likely had an important role in formulating those plans.”
“Mr Bannon was in the war room at the Willard on January 6th."
" He also appears to have detailed knowledge regarding the President’s efforts to sell millions of Americans the fraud that the election was stolen,” said the Republican representative from Wyoming.
In its report, the committee argued that Mr Bannon made statements suggesting he knew ahead of time about “extreme events” on 6 January, when Congress was scheduled to certify Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election.
In his podcast on 5 January, Mr Bannon said: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”
The next day, thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol and clashed with the police.
It left five people dead, including a Capitol police officer, while hundreds were injured.
“In the words of many who participated in the January 6th attack, the violence that day was in direct response to President Trump’s repeated claims — from election night through January 6th —that he had won the election,” Ms Cheney added.
American people are entitled to Mr Bannon’s first-hand testimony about all these relevant facts, but Mr Bannon is refusing to provide it, said Ms Cheney.
She then added that Mr Bannon’s refusal to comply with the subpoena left the committee “no choice but to seek consequences”.
The conservative podcast host, who served as White House Chief Strategist for seven months in 2017, was served with the subpoena last month, and had been ordered to produce documents and appear for a deposition before the committee on 8 October.
But in a 13 October letter to committee’s chairman, representative Bennie Thompson, Mr Bannon’s attorney, said his client, acting on orders from attorneys for Mr Trump, would “not be producing documents or testimony” until the former president’s executive privilege claim is resolved by a court or through a settlement agreement.
While the legal doctrine of executive privilege protects certain communications between a president and his advisers, the contempt resolution rebuff’s Mr Bannon’s assertion saying he was fired from his White House job in 2017 and was a private citizen when he spoke to Mr Trump ahead of the attack.
Mr Bannon and Mr Trump’s privilege arguments “appear to reveal one thing,” said Ms Cheney.
“They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6th."
"And this committee will get to the bottom of that.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 41608.html
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
NPR
"U.S. House approves criminal contempt referral for Steve Bannon"
CLAUDIA GRISALES
October 21, 2021
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a criminal contempt report against Steve Bannon, the ally of former President Donald Trump, for defying a subpoena from a House panel probing the Jan. 6 attack.
The 229 to 202 vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber was largely along party lines, with nine GOP members joining Democrats.
It followed a day of contentious debate, with Democrats and Republicans trading barbs.
Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., led the effort for the Republicans, criticizing the probe and its efforts to investigate a private citizen.
"Steve Bannon was a private citizen before, after and during January 6," Banks said.
"So why is the select committee interested in Steve Bannon?"
"It's simple."
"He's a Democrat party boogeyman."
But Banks' statement backed up the crux of the committee's argument, with its lawmakers claiming that as a private citizen, executive privilege does not apply to Bannon.
For his part, Banks was one of five Republicans initially appointed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to serve on the panel, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ultimately rejected Banks and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
As a result, McCarthy pulled all five, and decided to largely boycott the effort.
That left Pelosi to appoint Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., to the committee.
The two joined the seven Democrats on the committee in defending the effort to pursue a criminal charge against Bannon.
And Cheney took aim at her GOP colleagues downplaying the riot.
"There are people in this chamber right now, who were evacuated with me, and with the rest of us on that day during that attack," Cheney said on the House floor ahead of the final vote.
"People who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on our Constitution, the assault on our Congress."
"People who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for this committee, for this investigation or for this subpoena."
Cheney and other members of the panel said Bannon was a key witness, who said on his podcast released Jan. 5 that "all hell" would break loose the next day.
"We will not allow anyone to derail our work because our work is too important," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the committee.
What happens next?
Now that House has adopted the contempt report against Bannon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi must certify it to the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia.
The matter could involve the highest levels of the Justice Department, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The Justice Department could launch their own investigation, and a grand jury could consider the case as well.
If it reaches an ultimate conviction, Bannon could face fines or jail time.
Bannon's attorney, Robert Costello, had previously pointed to former President Trump's claims that his client was also shielded by executive privilege.
However, the panel told Costello that Bannon was not covered by such a legal shield and was in "defiance" of his subpoena.
A Bannon spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Earlier this week, Trump filed a lawsuit against the panel, challenging its probe.
However, the committee's members have argued that protection rests with President Biden, who waived the privilege regarding an earlier document request.
They also argued that Bannon's case especially does not apply since he was a private citizen as of Jan. 6 and not part of the Trump administration.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/10480510 ... eve-bannon
"U.S. House approves criminal contempt referral for Steve Bannon"
CLAUDIA GRISALES
October 21, 2021
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a criminal contempt report against Steve Bannon, the ally of former President Donald Trump, for defying a subpoena from a House panel probing the Jan. 6 attack.
The 229 to 202 vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber was largely along party lines, with nine GOP members joining Democrats.
It followed a day of contentious debate, with Democrats and Republicans trading barbs.
Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., led the effort for the Republicans, criticizing the probe and its efforts to investigate a private citizen.
"Steve Bannon was a private citizen before, after and during January 6," Banks said.
"So why is the select committee interested in Steve Bannon?"
"It's simple."
"He's a Democrat party boogeyman."
But Banks' statement backed up the crux of the committee's argument, with its lawmakers claiming that as a private citizen, executive privilege does not apply to Bannon.
For his part, Banks was one of five Republicans initially appointed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to serve on the panel, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ultimately rejected Banks and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
As a result, McCarthy pulled all five, and decided to largely boycott the effort.
That left Pelosi to appoint Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., to the committee.
The two joined the seven Democrats on the committee in defending the effort to pursue a criminal charge against Bannon.
And Cheney took aim at her GOP colleagues downplaying the riot.
"There are people in this chamber right now, who were evacuated with me, and with the rest of us on that day during that attack," Cheney said on the House floor ahead of the final vote.
"People who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on our Constitution, the assault on our Congress."
"People who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for this committee, for this investigation or for this subpoena."
Cheney and other members of the panel said Bannon was a key witness, who said on his podcast released Jan. 5 that "all hell" would break loose the next day.
"We will not allow anyone to derail our work because our work is too important," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the committee.
What happens next?
Now that House has adopted the contempt report against Bannon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi must certify it to the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia.
The matter could involve the highest levels of the Justice Department, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The Justice Department could launch their own investigation, and a grand jury could consider the case as well.
If it reaches an ultimate conviction, Bannon could face fines or jail time.
Bannon's attorney, Robert Costello, had previously pointed to former President Trump's claims that his client was also shielded by executive privilege.
However, the panel told Costello that Bannon was not covered by such a legal shield and was in "defiance" of his subpoena.
A Bannon spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Earlier this week, Trump filed a lawsuit against the panel, challenging its probe.
However, the committee's members have argued that protection rests with President Biden, who waived the privilege regarding an earlier document request.
They also argued that Bannon's case especially does not apply since he was a private citizen as of Jan. 6 and not part of the Trump administration.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/10480510 ... eve-bannon
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 20, 2021 AT 6:22 PM
Paul Plante says:
According to the news out this morning, the WITCH HUNTERS have voted to send Steve Bannon to the gallows, so to speak euphemistically, and now the games begin anew as the referral of Bannon to face very serious criminal charges comes before the full House for debate before the matter can then be further referred to Joe Biden’s “Justice” Department so they can try Bannon as a criminal and get him convicted, so he can do some hard time as a reminder to anyone else out there in America who might think of flouting the power and majesty of Democrat Bennie Thompson and his Pelosi-ite WITCH HUNTERS committee, and that brings us back to John T. WATKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Supreme Court, 354 U.S. 178, No. 261, argued March 7, 1957, decided June 17, 1957, Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivering the opinion of the Court, and the language of the fatally flawed Authorizing Resolution of Nancy Pelosi, as follows:
Having exhausted the several possible indicia of the ‘question under inquiry,’ we remain unenlightened as to the subject to which the questions asked petitioner were pertinent.
Certainly, if the point is that obscure after trial and appeal, it was not adequately revealed to petitioner when he had to decide at his peril whether or not to answer.
Fundamental fairness demands that no witness be compelled to make such a determination with so little guidance.
Unless the subject matter has been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto.
end quotes
Which takes us back to the question of how anything Steve Bannon might say can be pertinent to an inquiry into something the FBI says never happened, which is an insurrection.
This whole thing is so stupid it boggles my mind.
“Mr. Bannon, even though there really was not an insurrection, we are demanding that you tell us everything you know about the insurrection or you will rot in jail!”
Getting back to Watkins:
To be meaningful, the explanation must describe what the topic under inquiry is and the connective reasoning whereby the precise questions asked relate to it.
end quotes
And there is something I hope we all get to see with Bennie Thompson in court under oath being asked to do exactly that, which takes us back to Watkins, to wit:
The statement of the Committee Chairman in this case, in response to petitioner’s protest, was woefully inadequate to convey sufficient information as to the pertinency of the questions to the subject under inquiry.
end quotes
I wonder how Bennie Thompson will handle that query under oath, and I hope it is televised when Bennie gets called to testify at Bannon’s criminal trial.
Going back to Watkins again, we have:
Petitioner was thus not accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction is necessarily invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
We are mindful of the complexities of modern government and the ample scope that must be left to the Congress as the sole constitutional depository of legislative power.
Equally mindful are we of the indispensable function, in the exercise of that power, of congressional investigations.
The conclusions we have reached in this case will not prevent the Congress, through its committees, from obtaining any information it needs for the proper fulfillment of its role in our scheme of government.
The legislature is free to determine the kinds of data that should be collected.
It is only those investigations that are conducted by use of compulsory process that give rise to a need to protect the rights of individuals against illegal encroachment.
That protection can be readily achieved through procedures which prevent the separation of power from responsibility and which provide the constitutional requisites of fairness for witnesses.
A measure of added care on the part of the House and the Senate in authorizing the use of compulsory process and by their committees in exercising that power would suffice.
That is a small price to pay if it serves to uphold the principles of limited, constitutional government without constricting the power of the Congress to inform itself.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the indictment.
It is so ordered.
end quotes
And such is how American history is made!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-449117
Paul Plante says:
According to the news out this morning, the WITCH HUNTERS have voted to send Steve Bannon to the gallows, so to speak euphemistically, and now the games begin anew as the referral of Bannon to face very serious criminal charges comes before the full House for debate before the matter can then be further referred to Joe Biden’s “Justice” Department so they can try Bannon as a criminal and get him convicted, so he can do some hard time as a reminder to anyone else out there in America who might think of flouting the power and majesty of Democrat Bennie Thompson and his Pelosi-ite WITCH HUNTERS committee, and that brings us back to John T. WATKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Supreme Court, 354 U.S. 178, No. 261, argued March 7, 1957, decided June 17, 1957, Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivering the opinion of the Court, and the language of the fatally flawed Authorizing Resolution of Nancy Pelosi, as follows:
Having exhausted the several possible indicia of the ‘question under inquiry,’ we remain unenlightened as to the subject to which the questions asked petitioner were pertinent.
Certainly, if the point is that obscure after trial and appeal, it was not adequately revealed to petitioner when he had to decide at his peril whether or not to answer.
Fundamental fairness demands that no witness be compelled to make such a determination with so little guidance.
Unless the subject matter has been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto.
end quotes
Which takes us back to the question of how anything Steve Bannon might say can be pertinent to an inquiry into something the FBI says never happened, which is an insurrection.
This whole thing is so stupid it boggles my mind.
“Mr. Bannon, even though there really was not an insurrection, we are demanding that you tell us everything you know about the insurrection or you will rot in jail!”
Getting back to Watkins:
To be meaningful, the explanation must describe what the topic under inquiry is and the connective reasoning whereby the precise questions asked relate to it.
end quotes
And there is something I hope we all get to see with Bennie Thompson in court under oath being asked to do exactly that, which takes us back to Watkins, to wit:
The statement of the Committee Chairman in this case, in response to petitioner’s protest, was woefully inadequate to convey sufficient information as to the pertinency of the questions to the subject under inquiry.
end quotes
I wonder how Bennie Thompson will handle that query under oath, and I hope it is televised when Bennie gets called to testify at Bannon’s criminal trial.
Going back to Watkins again, we have:
Petitioner was thus not accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction is necessarily invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
We are mindful of the complexities of modern government and the ample scope that must be left to the Congress as the sole constitutional depository of legislative power.
Equally mindful are we of the indispensable function, in the exercise of that power, of congressional investigations.
The conclusions we have reached in this case will not prevent the Congress, through its committees, from obtaining any information it needs for the proper fulfillment of its role in our scheme of government.
The legislature is free to determine the kinds of data that should be collected.
It is only those investigations that are conducted by use of compulsory process that give rise to a need to protect the rights of individuals against illegal encroachment.
That protection can be readily achieved through procedures which prevent the separation of power from responsibility and which provide the constitutional requisites of fairness for witnesses.
A measure of added care on the part of the House and the Senate in authorizing the use of compulsory process and by their committees in exercising that power would suffice.
That is a small price to pay if it serves to uphold the principles of limited, constitutional government without constricting the power of the Congress to inform itself.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the indictment.
It is so ordered.
end quotes
And such is how American history is made!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-449117