Garland’s Bannon Indictment: A Self-Defeating Act of Politicized Prosecution
By: By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A ttorney General Merrick Garland waxed self-reverential after indicting Trump confidant Steve Bannon last week. “Since my first day in office,” he droned, “I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people, by word and deed, that the Department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law, and pursues equal justice under the law. Today’s charges reflect the Department’s steadfast commitment to these principles.”
No, they don’t. Last Friday’s indictment of Bannon for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena is a sop to the Democrats’ Trump-deranged base.
The criminal-contempt charges, on which Bannon surrendered on Monday , stem from a House January 6 Committee subpoena directing him to testify and produce documents. The Justice Department has rarely brought such an indictment in American history and hasn’t tried to do so in nearly 40 years . Nor has it escaped notice that DOJ has shown no interest in prosecuting government officials who, for example, misled the FISA Court on Russiagate or refused to cooperate in Congress’s probe of such Obama-era scandals as the IRS’s harassment of conservative groups and the ATF’s “gun-walking” debacle.
While the Bannon indictment was met with glee in the media-Democrat complex, it will confirm in the minds of half the country that the Biden/Garland Justice Department is a crude weapon of the political Left — with no real interest in “equal justice under the law.” Politics aside, the indictment is counterproductive, and not just because the case is weak. If the real objective is to obtain Bannon’s testimony about the Capitol riot, then even a stronger indictment at this juncture would have been self-defeating.
Bannon will fight the case for months, maybe even for a couple of years. And now, he can add his Fifth Amendment privilege to Trump’s still-live executive privilege as a basis for refusing to cooperate. Meantime, the courts are already rapidly ruling against Trump’s privilege claim. That litigation elucidates that (a) Bannon has a legally defensible argument for declining to testify until the courts rule on the privilege claim, but (b) Bannon would lose, and probably soon, if the committee were to press its subpoena in court, as the Supreme Court encouraged Congress to do in last year’s Trump v. Mazars ruling. Thanks to the indictment, though, he is now better positioned to avoid testifying at all.
This is not about Bannon, Donald Trump’s formerly estranged White House adviser, who has groveled his way back from presidential punching bag to pardon grantee to Mar-a-Lago courtier. The issue here is the politicization of the Justice Department.
Bannon v. J-6 Committee on Executive Privilege
Let’s stipulate that executive privilege protects from disclosure not just communications between presidents and their advisers, but also the “deliberative process” — i.e., communications between executive subordinates who carry out the president’s policies.
The committee is correct that, even if Trump’s privilege claim were persuasive, much of what it wants to ask Bannon about would not conceivably be covered. Bannon was not a government official during the post-election controversy. Even assuming arguendo that communications between presidents and their private (nongovernment) advisers fit within the privilege’s carapace, the protection would be narrower than for communications involving actual government officials. More to the point, the committee wants to grill Bannon on his own actions and nonpresidential communications; on such matters, an executive-privilege claim is frivolous.
Still, the committee clearly does want to inquire into Bannon’s communications with Trump. In addition, it appears to be taking the legally untenable position that, as a former president, Trump may not assert executive privilege in an effort to block congressional inquiries into his communications during his presidency.
In a perfect world, Bannon would be required to show up for the committee deposition and, on a question-by-question basis, refuse to answer if he believes Trump’s privilege invocation applies, but otherwise respond. Analogously, regarding subpoenaed documents, he should be required to itemize, category by category, documents he is refusing to disclose on privilege grounds, but turn over any responsive documents as to which no privilege arguably applies.
Of course, we’re not in a perfect world: Bannon and Trump have an extravagant notion of what the privilege covers; the committee, on the other extreme, does not believe a former president may assert privilege at all, and even if he arguably may in some instances, he may not with respect to communications with nongovernment officials (such as Bannon was at the relevant time). Plainly, this disagreement is going to have to be sorted out by the judiciary. It would thus be more just and more efficient to get a court ruling before the questioning proceeds. And it is common for committees and prosecutors to litigate privilege claims that way — i.e., to assume that the witness will refuse to answer all questions, rather than going through the motions of making a question-by-question record before proceeding to court.
To be clear, Bannon should lose in the end. He is entitled, however, to argue that the privilege applies and to litigate its application in the courts. That is how due process works. We don’t tell a defendant that he can’t have a trial or move to suppress evidence just because the facts and law appear to be against him. The Justice Department’s obligation is to do justice, not win one for the Democrats. It is the guardian of a system in which we give people their day in court when there is a real legal dispute.
And here, there is such a dispute. Bannon and Trump are not fabricating an executive privilege for former presidents out of whole cloth. They are relying on an explicit, if ill-conceived, Supreme Court opinion.
A Low-Risk Soap Box for Bannon
There are two criminal contempt counts in the indictment. Yet, contrary to DOJ’s bombast, they are just misdemeanors. The indictment is not a real threat to Bannon; it is a low-risk soapbox. For his burgeoning career as MAGA’s media majordomo, the indictment is a coup. On the other side of the equation, Bannon stands a good chance of acquittal (for reasons we’ll come to). Even if he were finally convicted, after a year or two of trial and appeals, he would be facing no more than a month or three in jail.
Ergo, his incentive is to jump with both feet into a public battle against a committee that Republicans overwhelmingly disfavor — seeing it as a partisan hatchet job designed either to persecute Trump (according to the GOP’s pro-Trump faction), or to keep Trump relevant while Biden flails (according to the GOP’s growing “I wish Trump would just fade away” faction).
Now, why do I say Bannon has a good chance of beating the case? Because a contempt charge is not easy to prove.
The controlling statute requires prosecutors to establish that the defendant acted willfully in defaulting on a congressional subpoena. In any criminal case, the government must establish the defendant’s criminal intent ( mens rea ) beyond a reasonable doubt. Of the criminal law’s various gradations of mens rea , willfulness is the toughest one to prove. As explained by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court in Ratzlaf v. United States (1995), to demonstrate that a defendant acted willfully, the government must show that he knew what the law required and acted with a bad purpose to disobey that mandate.
With that in mind, let’s turn to the indictment. It recounts that when Bannon refused to produce documents as directed by the subpoena on October 7, 2021, his attorney informed the committee of former President Trump’s instruction that he was asserting executive privilege and that Bannon should withhold testimony and documents “to the fullest extent permitted by law ” (emphasis added).
Take note of that, for it is the antithesis of a bad purpose to break the law. Bannon did not say he was unwilling to comply with what the law required. Rather, in subsequently explaining why he would not appear to testify on October 14, Bannon’s counsel advised the committee that his client would stand down “until such time as you reach an agreement with President Trump or receive a court ruling as to the extent, scope and application of executive privilege.”
How could it be willful noncompliance with the law to say, in effect, “I will follow the directive of a court of law” — especially when, as we shall see, the Supreme Court has both invited the privilege claim at issue and indicated that any dispute over its scope is properly resolved by courts?
Bannon’s position is no different from that taken by some Republican witnesses during the House impeachment proceedings in 2019 (e.g., former Trump national-security adviser John Bolton and his deputy, Charles Kupperman ). House Democrats grumbled but took no action to censure or sue those witnesses — plainly fearing they’d lose in court.
In other instances, moreover, House Democrats have insisted that sweeping assertions of executive privilege should be resolved by the courts — exactly what Bannon claims here. For example, the House Judiciary Committee went to court to try to force former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to testify about privileged communications with President Trump in one of its impeachment investigations. And after Biden took office, that committee even acceded to White House demands for strict limitations on what McGahn could be asked — notwithstanding that (a) Trump was no longer in office, and (b) while in office, Trump had waived his privilege to allow McGahn to cooperate with the Mueller probe.
Bannon’s defense has a lot to work with here.
Do Former Presidents Retain Executive Privilege?
As I have explained , I believe the constitutional claim of confidentiality for executive communications, which is rooted in separation of powers, is a privilege that belongs only to the incumbent president. A former president — a private citizen who has no executive power — should not be able to claim a privilege that belongs not to a person (i.e., not even to Joe Biden, who is president at the moment) but to the executive branch of the United States government , to be invoked only by the sitting chief executive .
Thus, if we were writing on a blank slate, I’d agree with the January 6 Committee that former President Trump has no business asserting executive privilege. But we’re not on tabula rasa . The Supreme Court has explicitly said that former presidents retain executive privilege.
To be sure, the scope of this privilege depends on the circumstances, such as the nature and importance of the inquiry, the subject matter of the communications at issue, and whether the incumbent president supports the privilege claim. But the fact that post-presidential executive privilege is a valid claim is not open to credible dispute. In addition, because fixing the scope of the privilege in any particular situation calls for a variegated, fact-intensive inquiry, it is reasonable — and certainly not contemptuous of Congress — to maintain that court intervention is warranted.
A constitutional conservative can empathize with the committee’s exasperation (though not with the Justice Department’s heavy-handedness). Again, former presidents should have no right to claim executive privilege. For the Supreme Court to have said otherwise undermines the unitary executive — the theory that the Constitution reposes all executive power in one officer, the president, which was memorably articulated in Justice Antonin Scalia’s famous Morrison v. Olson (1988) dissent, and reaffirmed last year by Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Seila Law v. CFPB . Nevertheless, the Court has endorsed the concept that former presidents retain executive privilege — albeit a very qualified privilege. As Justice William Brennan, writing for the majority, put it in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977):
The confidentiality necessary to this exchange [of information between a president and his advisers] cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President’s tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President’s tenure. [Emphasis added.]
The Justice Department’s Disingenuous Indictment
Garland’s indictment of Bannon relates that committee chairman Bennie G. Thompson rejected the privilege claim when Bannon raised it, pointing out that “President Trump had not made any privilege assertion to the Committee.” This is remarkably disingenuous.
As the DOJ well knows, the issue is not that a congressional committee, which is controlled by partisan Democrats who badly want the information at issue, has unsurprisingly rejected the Trump privilege claim. The issue is that the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the privilege claim on which Bannon is relying. Yet nowhere in the nine-page indictment does the DOJ see fit to mention Nixon v. Administrator .
Moreover, how can the DOJ suggest in its indictment that “President Trump has not made any privilege assertion to the Committee,” when the DOJ knows well that President Trump has sued the committee in federal court precisely over his privilege claim? The case, in fact, is laboriously titled “ Donald J. Trump v. Bennie G. Thompson in his official capacity as Chairman of the United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol .”
Not only that. Three days before Bannon’s indictment was announced, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, an Obama appointee to the federal district court in Washington, D.C., issued a 39-page opinion, in which she acknowledged that the Supreme Court had “found, as a threshold matter that [executive] privilege survives the end of a president’s term in office.” That is, Judge Chutkan conceded that Trump’s claim of privilege was not improper, but that it had to be weighed against the competing considerations — which considerations, she proceeded exactingly to show, outweighed the executive branch’s interest in confidentiality.
That’s the bottom line. Trump’s privilege claim is not entitled to win, but it is entitled to be asserted and weighed by the courts against the committee’s demands for information.
If that were not made clear enough by the district court’s opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the lower-court ruling to enable Trump to litigate his privilege claims on appeal. Given the DOJ’s misleading assertion in the Bannon indictment that Trump has not asserted executive privilege, it is worth quoting from the short order — issued the day before the attorney general personally announced the indictment. Garland’s former colleagues on the D.C. Circuit bench stated that, “The purpose of this administrative injunction is to protect the court’s jurisdiction to address [Trump’s] claims of executive privilege ” [emphasis added].
One of a federal prosecutor’s most important tasks is to provide the grand jury with objective instructions on points of law. To obtain Bannon’s indictment, prosecutors would have to have instructed the grand jury that Bannon’s alleged contempt was willful — i.e., that (a) he knew the law required him to provide testimony and documents, and (b) he refused to do so with bad intent.
In point of fact, Bannon, with advice of counsel, informed the committee that the former president had in fact asserted a privilege against disclosure. Thus, Bannon’s position was that he did not know what the law required under the circumstances — the legislative branch was ordering him to appear while insisting that Trump could not assert a privilege covering communications with Bannon, while Trump insisted that his presidential communications with Bannon should be withheld from Congress under a former president’s privilege recognized by the Supreme Court.
Bannon did not outright refuse to testify , as the Justice Department alleges. He represented that he was willing to testify and provide documents if the court ruled that the privilege had been overcome (or if Trump and the Committee came to an agreement about the scope of disclosure).
Given all that, it would be interesting to know exactly what legal instructions Garland’s prosecutor gave the grand jury regarding the required mens rea element of willfulness . Was the grand jury told — notwithstanding the indictment’s suggestion to the contrary — that Trump had asserted privilege and was currently litigating that assertion against the committee in court? Was the grand jury told that Supreme Court jurisprudence, for over 40 years, has said former presidents may assert executive privilege? Was the grand jury told that, in past instances, Congress has disagreed with such assertions and turned to the courts to resolve them — as Bannon was asking the committee to do?
Conclusion
The Biden Justice Department’s highly unusual and patently politicized congressional contempt indictment of Steve Bannon is a doleful development on every level. It will exacerbate Republican disillusion about the House January 6 Committee. On the other hand, if you believe a congressional investigation of the Capitol riot is important, and that the committee should get Bannon’s evidence, the indictment makes that less likely.
Meanwhile, Bannon has a good chance of beating the rap, after long delay. The Justice Department, which has to know this prosecution will be tough to win, brought it anyway, even though doing so was certain to bolster the belief that Democrats are weaponizing law enforcement — a belief gripping much of the country after Attorney General Garland’s inexcusable threat of federal investigations against parents protesting progressive indoctrination in the schools.
Joe Biden ran as the candidate who would bridge America’s deep divide. He has made things much worse, and his Justice Department’s Bannon prosecution will make them worse still.
Andrew C. McCarthy III is an American columnist for National Review . He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York . A Republican , he led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. [5] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy
Tags
Who is online
98 visitors
Is McCarthy envisioning Bannon fighting a principled battle here?
Is legal precedent on his side?
Can I have an executive summary of that novel?
I guess as much of a precedent as preventing Garland from becoming a SCOTUS Justice....
That was a 5 minute read for you Buzz and I know that you read it carefully. I don't worry about those who don't want to read the seeds. It's like William F Buckley used to say: Who reads it is all that matters.
I guess as much of a precedent as preventing Garland from becoming a SCOTUS Justice....
Oh man! Here we go......
Whataboutisms. It's what's for breakfast. LOL
Goose......Gander......
I prefer eggs and toast.
Thankfully he will never be a justice.
Says you?
Not so fast, Louie
Based on the above statement, McCarthy envisions fantasy rather than principle.
YOU of all people should acknowledge that the DOJ did prosecute an FBI agent that mislead the FISA court. Oh AND the fact that for the other events, there were referrals for Contempt of Congress. Since none of us, including you and the author, know whether those referrals were brought before a grand jury, NONE of us can say what the DOJ did or didn't do.
Oh and BTFW, I note that the author of your seed didn't even mention that AG Barr AND Sec. of Commerce Ross were BOTH found in Contempt of Congress. Based on your author's standards, Trump's DOJ showed 'no interest' in prosecuting them.
Wha? That doesn't involve a congressional subpoena. Try to stay on point.
My comment IS on point Vic. YOU opened your seed in part with this statement:
Even you should recognize that my comment directly addresses that quote. If you have an issue, it's with the author of your seed, not me.
Now, how about you address the facts of my comment.
The Constitution gives the power of subpoena to Congress. Ignoring a congressional subpoena is a crime. In my opinion way too many people have been ignoring them. They should ALL be prosecuted. Nobody should be above the law. Not Bannon. Not Trump. Not Biden.
Tell me Vic, If definitive evidence of Bill Clinton having sex with minors on Epstein Island comes up do you think he should be able to hide behind executive privilege?
So we draw the line here?
Nobody should be above the law. Not Bannon. Not Trump. Not Biden.
But Holder, Lerner, Brennan and Comey evidently were above the law!
Tell me Vic, If definitive evidence of Bill Clinton having sex with minors on Epstein Island comes up do you think he should be able to hide behind executive privilege?
That would ultimately be for the Courts to decide. Right now all I'm looking for is consistency from the DOJ. In the recent past the DOJ has done nothing about congressional subpoena's being ignored. If it was ok for Eric Holder to ignore it why would there be punishment now?
My point is that it was not ok for Eric Holder to ignore it. The DOJ should determine if a crime has been committed and if there's enough evidence to prosecute. If the answers to both is yes they should absolutely prosecute.
In the case of Bannon? He got a subpoena. He didn't show up. Sounds like a slam dunk to me.
That's very nice of you, but he didn't get punished, nor did a host of others on the left.
Claiming that you now want the DOJ to change policy and follow the letter of the law does not impress me.
I'm not here to impress you or anybody else.
Mission accomplished
"Ignore" Vic? The Obama/Holder DOJ released over 7,600 documents and filed documentation for WHY they were refusing to release the other documents. Ironically, for some of the documents, the reason was the ACTUAL POTUS claimed Executive Privilege.
Show me where either Bannon or Meadows did that. In FACT, show me where they complied with the subpoenas in ANY way Vic.
Oh and BTFW, Holder was held in CIVIL contempt of Congress and censored, which is MORE of a punishment than Barr or Ross received from the 2019 GOP controlled Congress OR the Trump/Barr DOJ.
I seem to remember that someone here said something about the punishment needing to be consistent...
July 3, 2012
Should the House have held Eric Holder in contempt? The question is not whether they should have; the question is why they did not do it earlier.
Despite the attempts by the Democrats to spin this into something it is not, the contempt is very straightforward: Darryl Issa's committee issued a subpoena for documents relating to the Fast and Furious scandal. Congress, like the courts, has subpoena power. A subpoena is simply an order to appear at a certain date at a certain time to give testimony. A subpoena can also command someone to bring items or documents with them for their testimony. This is what has been happening in the House of Representatives.
When someone receives a subpoena, they can either comply or challenge the subpoena on certain legal grounds or claim the documents are privileged. What they cannot do is ignore the subpoena and that is what Holder did. For months, Holder has ignored the subpoena. When Darryl Issa asked if the documents had been assembled within the Justice Department, Holder refused to answer. In short, he was thumbing his nose at the committee.
Contempt is what is called a remedial power. If you fail to comply with a subpoena, you can be jailed until you do comply. You can also be jailed for contempt as a separate offense . Not shockingly, the most corrupt administration since the Nixon administration quickly announced after the contempt vote that it would not prosecute Eric Holder for contempt.
I see you're having trouble posting an original thought and have devolved to posting the unfounded opinion of the likes of Judson Philipps, a fraud and disbarred lawyer.
GREAT reference Vic. /s
I think this needs to be kept in mind:
"Not only that. Three days before Bannon’s indictment was announced, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, an Obama appointee to the federal district court in Washington, D.C., issued a 39-page opinion, in which she acknowledged that the Supreme Court had “found, as a threshold matter that [executive] privilege survives the end of a president’s term in office.” That is, Judge Chutkan conceded that Trump’s claim of privilege was not improper, but that it had to be weighed against the competing considerations — which considerations, she proceeded exactingly to show, outweighed the executive branch’s interest in confidentiality.
That’s the bottom line. Trump’s privilege claim is not entitled to win, but it is entitled to be asserted and weighed by the courts against the committee’s demands for information."
Steve Bannon hasn't presented any evidence that Trump claimed executive privilege. NONE.
Secondly, Bannon's lawyers made utterly ridiculous legal claims in the letter they sent the Committee.
Hilariously, you hang your hat on the author citing a truncated line from Nixon v. GSA.
Here is what the VERY next paragraph [citing the Nixon ruling] Judge Chutkan states:
Congress has the same 'substantial public interests' to get to the facts about what lead to the Capitol attack and THAT is the bottom line.
We know that Bannon was in on the planning of 1/6/21 and so was McCarthy - why are they dodging the subpoenas if they have nothing to hide?
McCarthy and Bannon planned it?????
Stop the presses!!!! That is a bombshell!
Link please
Well, here it is 8 hours later and nothing. I don't think anyone is surprised.
Funny thing is...
Those 8 hours are during regular working hours, so you know she was on here the entire time.
Two days later, still nothing….
Then you should be able to prove it.
You cannot do so.
I think this is just some made-up crap you pulled from some far left "news" site or just invented.
Whatshisname is not/was not a King and executive privilege no longer applies.
Who decides that?
Who decides that Trump is not King???? Are you that far around the bend?
Let's not play games. Who decides executive privilege?
He knew what I meant.
Who decides that executive privilege no longer applies. See post 3.0. It is up to the courts- not Garland and his TDS driven DOJ.
Executive privilege NO LONGER APPLIES. It ended the day he waddled out of the White House.
Says who?
Then learn to format your comments better. Not playing word games just responding to the wording of your question.
Judge Tanya Chutkan
You also seem confused over who is POTUS. Since Trump is not POTUS, he cannot exert something he no longer has.
United States v. Nixon, also known as the Watergate Scandal, has established that even a President has a legal duty to provide evidence of one’s communications with his aides when the information is relevant to a criminal case. By requiring the President to turn over recordings of private conversations that he had with his aides, the Court’s decision has helped frame how to define executive privilege in judicial setting. Even before the Nixon decision, however, some courts have required the executive branch to provide governmental records and documents prepared for the President.
It certainly looks like a loser but it is to be asserted and weighed by the courts.
That's how the process works.
The incumbent POTUS and the SCOTUS, who have BOTH ruled on this issue.
Trump has NOT formally asserted executive privilege for Bannon's testimony OR documents.
Even had Trump done so, DOJ's indictment clearly states why Bannon still has to comply with the Congressional Subpoena. You should read it.
I see you are ignoring all the times it has already been "weighted" by the courts.
The courts decide and until they do decide, no contempt indictment is legitimate? Bannon is within his rights to follow legal council and wait for a court to direct him to comply or say he is protected by his commander in chiefs executive privilege.
One look no further than the two tier justice system on display between BLM and Antifa rioters and the Jan 6th rioters. Garland and the DOJ has no problem with hunting down every last person involved in the Jan 6th riot; no matter how minor their involvement or infraction; and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. Garland has no problem with holding the Jan 6th rioters in prison until he can drum up some charges to file against them. Meanwhile he is releasing BLM and Antifa rioters guilty of doing far worse w/o charges.
Republicans need to send a clear message to Garland that his partisanship will not be tolerated. After midterms Republicans must bring impeachment procedures against Garland using the same rules that Democrats did against Trump; which means closed questioning with limited to no Democrat participation allowed.
That is a violation of their rights to a speedy trial. How long has it been now, 10 months?
I think that as soon as we get a Republican President a settlement may be in order.
Thanks for the links.
Republicans need to send a clear message to Garland that his partisanship will not be tolerated. After midterms Republicans must bring impeachment procedures against Garland using the same rules that Democrats did against Trump; which means closed questioning with limited to no Democrat participation allowed.
I'm counting the minutes. They better do it!
Actually, what THAT is is bullshit.
Your opinion only...........well maybe a few other people with no clue what they "want to find out what happened" bullshit. Everyone KNOWS what happened. We have recordings ad nauseum showing what happened. It's only a matter of butt hurt prejudice that make them want soooooo FUCKING badly to somehow pin the "planning" and execution on anyone GOP and especially, their 24/7/365 head resident, Donald John Trump. Ain't gonna happen cupcake.
Did Donald Trump know that elements of the far far right, such as Oath Keepers and Proud Boys , and others prone to violence, would be at the Jan 6 "rally" ? Yes of course he knew. Yet, still, he incited the crowd at his rally to "fight" for him when they walked up to the Capitol Building.
While the riot was going on Trump was watching on tv, well pleased with what he had done.
Try to learn something about what is going on in the world.
They're doing this for ME!
Ya, at his incitement - his domestic terrorist mob 'Stormed the Capitol' 'It's a Revolution!'
Perhaps you can share a link or two showing that he was pleased at what was going on eh John? Credible none of the fucking " on condition of anonymity" bullshit. Thanks
There are multiple recountings of the last days of the Trump presidency that relate this.
I'm not responsible for you reading or learning about books.
BTW, Trump hasnt denied the accuracy of any of these accounts.
So you can't provide any. Thanks. And if that is the case, he should be arrested on suspicion of inciting a riot.
I'm sorry. I missed the links these multiple recounts of the last days of the Trump presidency that Jim ask for.
I dont cater to RWNJs.
There are at least a half dozen behind the scenes books that relate Trumps inaction regarding the insurrection. Look them up. There is also the phone call with Kevin McCarthy where McCarthy asks Trump to say something to the rioting mob and Trump answers that the rioters 'care more about the election than you do Kevin'.
================================
www.mprnews.org /story/2021/01/06/amid-capitol-violence-facebook-twitter-remove-trump-video
Amid violence, Trump says, 'Remember this day forever'
The Associated Press 5-6 minutes
Updated: 8:33 p.m.
President Donald Trump appeared to excuse the violent occupation of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters Wednesday, hours after they stormed the symbol of American democracy in an effort to disrupt the formalization of his electoral defeat.
Trump, who had encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol to protest lawmakers' actions, expressed empathy for the mob, which violently forced its way inside, clashed with police and forced lawmakers into hiding.
“Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!” Trump wrote in a message that was later deleted by Twitter.
In an earlier video he had praised the protesters as “special” people and said he understood their pain. Twitter later locked his account for the first time as it demanded he remove the tweets and threatened “permanent suspension."
Trump's response to the violence underscored his obsession with trying to overturn the results of the election. He is spending the final days of his presidency angrily stewing and lashing out at Republicans for perceived disloyalty.
Trump spent much of Wednesday afternoon watching the insurrection on television from his private dining room off the Oval Office. But aside from sparing appeals for calm issued at the insistence of his staff, he was largely disengaged as the nation’s capital descended into unprecedented scenes of chaos as a mob of thousands tried to halt the peaceful transition of power.
Instead, a White House official said, most of Trump’s attention was consumed by his ire at Vice President Mike Pence, who said he would not overturn the will of voters in the congressional electoral count. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter and spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
Trump has been single-mindedly focused on his electoral defeat since Election Day, aides said, at the expense of the other responsibilities of his office, including the fight against the raging coronavirus. Indeed, it was Pence, not Trump, who spoke with the acting defense secretary to discuss mobilizing the D.C National Guard on Wednesday afternoon.
Trump only reluctantly issued the tweets and taped a video encouraging an end to the violence. The posts came at the insistence of staff and amid mounting criticism from Republican lawmakers urging him to condemn the violence being perpetrated in his name, according to the official.
Earlier in the rally, his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, had advocated what he had called “trial by combat.”
The violence, coupled with the president's tepid response, appeared to drive many Republicans to the breaking point after years of allegiance to Trump. In a sign of growing frustration, a number of White House aides were discussing a potential mass resignation, according to people familiar with the conversation, although some harbored concerns about what Trump might do in his final two weeks in office if they were not there to serve as guardrails when so few remain.
Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s chief of staff and a former White House press secretary, submitted her resignation Wednesday, but declined to say what has prompted her move.
Trump's tweets and video also drew the attention of the social media giants he has frequently maligned. The video was removed by Facebook, “because on balance we believe it contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence,” said the site’s head of integrity, Guy Rosen. Twitter took a more punitive approach, locking Trump's account and warning, “Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.”
Before Trump released the video, Republican lawmakers and former administration officials had begged the president to intervene as the violence spiraled. Pence, who was ushered out of the Senate chamber to a secure location as protesters breached the building, also called for protesters to disperse.
“The violence and destruction taking place at the US Capitol Must Stop and it Must Stop Now,” he tweeted. “Anyone involved must respect Law Enforcement officers and immediately leave the building.”
You make MPR News possible. Individual donations are behind the clarity in coverage from our reporters across the state, stories that connect us, and conversations that provide perspectives. Help ensure MPR remains a resource that brings Minnesotans together.
As you post a questionable link. You're getting there. Baby steps.
No Jeremy, it's NOT just my opinion.
There is empirical evidence that proves that NONE of the Jan. 6th rioters are being held 'until he can drum up some charges to file against them.'
I posted the fucking link.
We have NO recordings of showing what happened in the WH, do we Jim? There may however be emails and texts that can enlighten us. There may also be call logs and visitor logs that tell us who else was involved in the decision making.
Use my forum name Jim.
Use mine. I am not Jeremy as your reply states.
Don't give a fuck about WH recordings or anything else. WE all saw the results of the day and it matters the fuck NOT who did what. What ya gonna do make 'em pay for the windows and the clean up of Ashli's blood from the floor?
\And decision making of what? A fucking failed supposed coup? We know who planned the rally and protest pretty much. LMMFAO those fuck wads couldn't have held up a 7-11.
And that wasn't even CLOSE to a coup attempt. No fire power, no military, they had a snowball's chance in hell of changing anything and once into the Capital, they calmed way down and acted like "wow we're in here, this is awesome" like a bunch of school kids.
The Associated Press is not a questionable news source.
[Deleted]
At least mine was a good faith mistake. Yours, not so much.
Yes, I know, you've made that obvious. Mores the pity.
Yet you and yours were all in on Benghazi and the Durham 'investigation'.
Prosecution for conspiracy comes to mind.
Who PAID for it Jim?
Why did Trump wait HOURS to send in the NG?
Did Trump eat McDonalds or KFC while he watched Capitol Police officers being beaten by his supporters?
For you. But then again, you still think CNN is reputable.
And I'm sure they will as, it seems, will you and the others here at NT who are obsessed with tying this to Trump himself. That is the ONLY reason...........well maybe a few others in the GOP but that is not the main fucking prize you're after now is it JR. Be honest..............................
It's just unreal how some folks think that trumpturd had nothing to do with 1/6 and his incitement since he lost up until the day of his domestic terrorist mob doing his bidding.
Are you actually claiming that the Jan 6th rioters are being held in prison WITHOUT charges Ronin?
Your own fucking links state that the Trump appointed US Attorney for Oregon dismissed those cases.
UTTER FAIL!
Reading is fundamental- I said Garland and the DOJ. Garland has done jack shit of nothing to prosecute far leftist rioters across the US guilty of doing far worse than the Jan 6th rioters did.
We all know the left has no problem with the two tier justice system they are creating. Their goal is to turn the US into the next China.
Ya, I read that Ronin. Unlike YOU, I also read and comprehended the information in YOUR links.
YOU stated that Garland was 'releasing BLM and Antifa rioters guilty of doing far worse w/o charges.'
THAT is false, as YOUR own link clearly state. So if you're desperate to blame someone, blame Barr since it was his DOJ did that, NOT Garland's.
Again, it was Barr that failed to prosecute those who were arrested for federal crimes in 2020, NOT Garland.
BTFW, can you point me to your seed decrying Barr's failure to prosecute them, or do you just want to admit that you didn't give a fuck about it until Biden took office?
Those domestic terrorists belong in prison until trial. They cannot be trusted.
Trial for what and when?
Capitol Breach Cases | USAO-DC | Department of Justice
That link has been posted here ad nauseum. Avail yourself of the facts therein and stop asking that ridiculous question Vic.
So all 600+ are being charged with Capitol Breach? I think not. How about the rest of the story?
Jim, I posted a link to the DOJ charges. WTF else do you want? Adult and go READ it for yourself.
Show me the charges
Link please
I presume you are asking for a link to the charges against Bannon.
If so, it merely proves that you don't follow the links in your own seed.
People should understand something about this article. The writer Andrew McCarthy is a heavily ideological advocate for right wing causes. He writes almost exclusively on legal matters and will 100% of the time take the right wing position on any issue. It is impossible to read any of his opinions without the realization that he is heavily biased.
There has been reporting from credible sources that Steve Bannon had his fingers heavily in the Jan 6 pie, had communicated with both rioters/insurrectionists and with President Trump. There has been reporting that Bannon told Trump something to the effect of "we will destroy Joe Biden tomorrow." That was on Jan 5.
Of course the Jan 6 committee in Congress needs to interrogate Bannon. That is a given to get at the truth.
Defending Bannon in this case is defending the insurrection.
And here I thought he was the Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York who prosecuted terrorists. It's always a good idea to smear the author./S
There has been reporting from credible sources that Steve Bannon had his fingers heavily in the Jan 6 pie, had communicated with both rioters/insurrectionists and with President Trump. There has been reporting that Bannon told Trump something to the effect of "we will destroy Joe Biden tomorrow." That was on Jan 5.
Are they the same credible sources that told us that Trump colluded with Russia or that Russia has bounties on the heads of US service members?
Of course the Jan 6 committee in Congress needs to interrogate Bannon. That is a given to get at the truth.
And everyone else connected to Donald Trump
Defending Bannon in this case is defending the insurrection.
Nope. The point here is the politization of the DOJ.
Your ignorance about anything and everything related to Trump is nothing short of astonishing.
Are you familiar with the old "bizarro" world of the Superman comics? Everything is backwards and upside down from reality. That is what reality is like for Trumpsters.
Trump wanted to be "named" president of the United States on Jan 6. There are any number of people close to Trump or less close to Trump who were in the mix of this "conspiracy".
Out of curiosity, what do you make of the Eastman memo?
Well, you're the expert on Trump/S
Are you familiar with the old "bizarro" world of the Superman comics? Everything is backwards and upside down from reality. That is what reality is like for Trumpsters.
Are you familiar with George Orwell's 1984?
Trump wanted to be "named" president of the United States on Jan 6.
What does that have to do with the current DOJ's handling of a congressional subpoena? Are you saying that we should suspend all legal precedent in cases invoving anyone connected to Donald Trump?
There are any number of people close to Trump or less close to Trump who were in the mix of this "conspiracy".
You mean everyone who supported him, right?
Out of curiosity, what do you make of the Eastman memo?
For those who never heard of this "memo" that progressives use as a talking point: Constitutional scholar John Eastman argued that the Constitution gives the vice president the authority to determine how to resolve any conflicts when states send dueling slates of electors, and to disregard any statute that says otherwise. Thus Pence would be on solid ground in throwing out Biden’s victories in seven states, with the result that Trump would be declared the victor.
There are two main problems with Eastman’s view: The Constitution gives no such power to the vice president, and even if it did, the states had not sent dueling slates of electors.
Does that answer your question?
Now my question: What has been the DOJ's practice when dealing with those who defy congressional subpoena's?
Both Trump and Eastman advocated that Pence take this action in their last ditch comments to the crowd on Jan 6.
Eastman even communicated to Pence aides while the riot/insurrection was going on, blaming Pence for what was happening because he was refusing to comply with the plan.
The idea that Trump is "innocent" in all this is insane.
I didnt even read most of the seeded article. I dont care what a far right lawyer says. Lawyers could argue both sides of whether or not hell is hot.
We need to get to the bottom of what happened on Jan 6.
Right, because what McCarthy was and did before 2003 is much more relevant than what he IS and does NOW. /s
All you seem to have is false equivalencies.
EVERYONE Vic?
Pffft.
That's rich Vic.
Again, where was your outrage when the DOJ took a pass on the Congressional referral for Barr and Ross? Or is it your ridiculous posit that Trump's DOJ giving them a pass wasn't political?
If you would have paid attention to Andy McCarthy, you would have saved yourself a ton of embarrassment the last five years.
I'm not sure anything could have saved you from the embarrassment you have suffered given the path you have taken since 2016.
"Defending Bannon in this case is defending the insurrection."
Ya! So true!
Like I said, we know he was involved with the planning of 1/6 and also responsible, like whatshisname, for inciting his domestic terrorist mob since whatshisname lost bigly in November, up until 1/6.
You see, Tess, no matter what Bannon may have done, the rule of law as has been practiced by the DOJ must be consistent. Otherwise we have a corrupt DOJ.
Then the DOJ should have indicted Barr and Ross...
Garland is not corrupt. Barr on the other hand, corrupt as can be.
By prosecuting these government "officials" would expose so much corruption on the part of the Democrats that it would destroy everything for the democrats.
Trump's DOJ had 4 YEARS to investigate any and every government official they so chose Jeremy.
WHERE are the indictments?
So did the ethics committees of both the House and Senate in the first 2 YEARS of Trump's term.
WHERE are the sanctions from Congress?
Are you referring to the same DOJ that had to lie to FISA courts to get warrants for a hoax concoted by the democrats?
Good luck at getting a factual honest answer. Nothing but dodges and projection, deflection, and denial.
Far be it from me to refer to anything connected to your fantasies Jeremy.
BTFW, I see that you failed to answer my questions and instead deflected.
No deflection. Asking for clarification. Once you clarify that you are referring to the same DOJ that lied to FISA Courts then we can move on from there.
Of course it's deflection because you don't have an answer, or facts.
Bullshit Jeremy.
Unless you're admitting to being utterly ignorant of the chronology of events, you need no clarification from me.
So now:
Where are the indictments and the congressional sanctions Jeremy? Because if there are none, your posit drips with hypocrisy.
I'll ask 1 more time. Are you referring to the same DOJ that had to lie to FISA courts to get warrants for a hoax concocted by the democrats? It is a simple yes or no question.
You're merely deflecting AGAIN.
WTF makes you think that I should answer your question AFTER you refuse to answer mine?
I do not accept the premise of your question, though the pretext is obvious Jeremy.
Why are you dodging my question? It seems you are trying to dictate the direction of the conversation like I'm one of your mindless mass of lemmings. Unlike them, I don't play those games.
It is amazing, stunning actually, that Jeremy believes he is winning this argument. This is disconnection from reality at an extremely high level. Trump controlled the DOJ from Jan 17 to Jan 21. His attorney generals were Jeff Sessions and William Barr, both of whom had very favorable opinions of Trump.
All the so called damning information about Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Clinton, and others who supposedly masterminded the "Russia hoax" came to light during Trump's control of the DOJ. Yet NONE of these supposed traitorous criminals were indicted. Trump was virtually begging that they be indicted but there was no evidence to support it.
And here comes Jeremy with the ridiculous demand that people answer his inane and fruitless question
The answer is no. A DOJ led by Sessions and Barr is not the same DOJ that existed under Obama. Can we stop with this annoying crap now?
It is painful to even read some of these exchanges where the right wingers here are spouting aggressive ignorance.
Ya and we're still waiting on those Durham indictments on the entire Obama administration. What's that ugly slacker Durham been doing for five years now?
WTF makes you think that I should answer your question AFTER you refuse to answer mine?
Why are you dodging my questions?
Ditto.
I have a dog and 3 cats. I have no lemmings, mindless or otherwise.
'Our readers' can come to their own conclusions about who started this 'game'. I'll merely note that I asked YOU questions first.
While Jeremy's question IS both inane AND fruitless, IMHO, you missed one relevant point; it's based on a false premise.
Jeremy is attempting to indict an entire Agency of the US government for the alleged act of one employee. I refuse to accept that indictment, none of us should.
It's ironic that the RW hang their hat on the FBI Agent that submitted an altered document to the FISA court, yet they ignore the FACT that the FISA court issued the first 3 warrants before that happened. This means that the DOJ proved to the FISA court TWICE that they were garnering relevant intelligence from the warrants and that the warrant should be extended.
It's also telling that employees of that very same Agency investigated, uncovered and prosecuted the ONE wrongdoer, yet STILL Jeremy insists that the ENTIRE Agency is culpable.
Conversely, the RW here argue ad nauseum, that one 'bad apple' [of which there is a LONG list] in the Trump campaign or Administration doesn't sully the Trump Administration in any way.
It drips with hypocrisy.
BTW John, you missed the illustrious tenure of Matthew Whitaker as Acting AG. /s
FFS you won't answer my question so I'm going with YES, IT IS THE SAME DOJ THAT LIED TO FISA COURTS TO GET WARRANTS FOR A HOAX CONCOCTED BY THE DEMOCRATS.
That alone should answer YOUR question about why there were not indictments. They were too busy pulling fictitious story after fictitious story out of their asses to do anything else.
wow. That's a whole lot of fiction in there. Unless, you know, you can provide something to back it up. Not that I'm holding my breath.
You repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true.
Why do you keep spouting something so nonsensical?
Still waiting for you to prove it as such.
FFS, you won't answer MY questions so I'm going with there were NO indictments because the Trump DOJ found NOTHING to prosecute and despite all of his whining, they had to tell Trump to pound sand.
I'm also going with the reason that the Republican run Congress failed to impose sanctions against any Democrats in Congress was that NO credible allegations were presented to them.
Of course there WERE Federal charges [by the Trump's DOJ] of Republicans in Congress, weren't there Jeremy.
In short, your bullshit is all just deflection.
Again, you're trying to force me to accept your fantasy about the events and chronology. I AGAIN refuse because it flies in the face of the FACTS.
Secondly, between Sessions, Rosenstein and Whitaker, Trump's DOJ was actually busy throwing out legal justifications for Trump's most heinous actions.
BTFW, I note that you failed to answer my question that you block quoted above...
Not at all Jeremy. Unlike yours, mine is an opinion founded on YOUR comments and other RW members here on NT.
All 'our readers' need do is read your comments and come to their own conclusions Jeremy. I invite them to do so.
Then you can give a link.....
[ deleted ]
Here is the link you asked for:
There's no link.
Oh but there is and it clearly cites why my comment is opinion, NOT fiction.