Has Steve Bannon been arrested yet?

[Tacan]

Or are we just going to forget about it?

[MineralMan]

1. No, he hasn't. But, we'll let you know when he IS arrested.

How's that?

[gab13by13]

15. Ever watch

Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner? The select committee can issue all of the subpoenas it wants, if DOJ can't indict a low hanging fruit like Steve Bannon who was not in Trump's administration why should anyone who is subpoenaed by the select committee comply?

Also, this isn't about winning and losing with the seditionists, it's about delaying. Too many people don't get that. It took 2 years to get Don McGahan to testify. Do you think 2 years is an OK time frame?

[MineralMan]

23. Again, you'll know when it happens, won't you?

My point is that I don't see the usefulness of people making daily posts asking the same question. Clearly, Bannon has not yet been arrested, which means that the DOJ has not completed its investigation and believes it has enough evidence to get a grand jury to indict him and then to convict him in federal court.

Do you have such evidence that you could present to a grand jury or trial jury? No doubt Bannon will have a competent defense attorney, as well, if and when the case goes to trial. Also, there is no doubt that the DOJ will take a weak case to trial or even to a grand jury.

So, the answer to this daily question will remain no, until we learn that the DOJ is proceeding. That will be in the news, I am quite certain. So, again, what is the point of asking the question on a daily basis?

[gab13by13]

24. I am at a total loss here,

maybe I am just too slow to get it. Bannon was issued a lawful subpoena. Bannon did not show up for a lawful subpoena where he could have argued A,B,C,D, why he does not have to comply. What further is there to investigate? As I said, I am at a loss.

Also I think that there are not enough posts here asking about Bannon. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for people to be putting pressure on DOJ? Complacency is what GQP seditionists want.

[MineralMan]

28. Here's a question: What pressure do you suppose that posts

here on DU put on the DOJ? I suggest that they put zero pressure on that department.

And, as I'm sure you know, that isn't the reason those daily posts are made. Nope...

[gab13by13]

39. What is the reason?

That a group of DUers realize that our democracy is hanging by a thread and realize that the coup is ongoing, that states are passing laws to rig future elections, legally, that the people who organized, financed, fomented the coup are continuing to work to overthrow our democracy and in 10 months not one big fish has been prosecuted or even arrested.

The biggest threat to our democracy is complacency, is from people who don't realize how serious this situation is. The same people who believe that GOTV will overcome voter suppression, gerrymandering, intimidation at the polls, putting coup people in charge of deciding who won elections.

Every damn post here should be about why no one has been held accountable.

[Dave says]

43. For the record

I wholeheartedly agree with Gab13by13.

For Mineralman: The tactic is to delay, delay, delay, knowing that when the Republicans are swept into office next fall all of this gets swept under the rug.

Perceptions are important, and it sure looks like the DOJ is in on this tactic. Forget Bannon for a moment, there also is the charade of letting so many from 1/6 plead down to parking tickets (ok, I exaggerate). Half the nation understands 1/6 to be a coup attempt, but not one charge yet of sedition. Not one charge of murder. Nothing significant.

You can say the wheels of justice turn slowly. But, come on, man, it’s been 10 months. Not one significant indictment?

[Scrivener7]

29. If you don't see the usefulness of those posts, you can pass them by.

[MineralMan]

32. Or, I can reply to them. I'm choosing to do that today.

Are you suggesting that DUers should not reply to posts? I cant imagine that anyone would do that, actually.

Here's another question: Why has not Nancy Pelosi and the Chair of the January 6 House Committee applied pressure to the DOJ? Or have they, but not shared that information publicly?

There are many questions, but the one that has the simplest answer is the perpetual one asking if Bannon has been arrested. Clearly, he has not, or we would know about it. So...

[Scrivener7]

34. Yes you can. As can the posters keep asking the question, "Has Bannon been arrested yet?"

Surely you're not suggesting that only a certain "kind" of poster is allowed to say their piece here.

I CAN imagine some posters doing that, actually. We see it all the time, from the same posters. One of whom is in this very thread, I am sure you will be shocked to be told.

Here's a question: What pressure do you suppose posts dismissing the question of whether Bannon has been arrested put on the posters of those questions?

I suggest that those dismissive posts add nothing to the discussion that you have already stated you are uninterested in.

But, as I'm sure you know, those dismissive posts are not made with an eye to adding to a discussion. Nope.

[MineralMan]

35. No. Anyone can post on DU, and any DUer can freely reply.

I am not suggesting that anyone should not be allowed to post. Not in any way. However, I will continue to feel free to reply to any post I wish on this site, including your post.

Does my reply put any pressure on anyone? No, it does not, nor do I expect it to. It's merely part of a thread on an online political discussion forum. It is part of the discussion.

As you said, you can simply ignore my posts as well. Your choice.

[Scrivener7]

36. This is an EXCELLENT reply to your own question:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16027345

Here's a question: What pressure do you suppose that posts

here on DU put on the DOJ? I suggest that they put zero pressure on that department.

And, as I'm sure you know, that isn't the reason those daily posts are made. Nope...

It seems like you knew the answer to your question all along!

And, again, as you say, rather than stating how disinterested you are in an OP, you can certainly move along without having to tell the OP how uninterested you are.

Have a lovely day!

[MineralMan]

37. Again, I'm sorry to say that I will not take directions regarding

my activity on DU from you. Instead, I will do as I choose.

[Scrivener7]

41. You go! You make that stand!

...though no one actually gave you any directions to take in the first place...

But still! You go!

[Cobalt Violet]

2. There has never been justice for white supremacy in this country.

Don't hold your breath.

[Lucky Luciano]

3. LOL surely you jest!

[Timewas]

4. Not Gonna Happen

They are stalling hoping for a distraction to take the spotlight.

[marble falls]

5. Regarding executive privilege :

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/politics/trump-jan-6-documents.html

A key issue yet untested. Donald Trump’s power as former president to keep information from his White House secret has become a central issue in the House’s investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Amid a new lawsuit by Mr. Trump and a move to hold Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress, here’s a breakdown of executive privilege:

What is executive privilege? It is a power claimed by presidents under the Constitution to prevent the other two branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides.

What is Trump’s claim? Former President Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the disclosure of White House files related to his actions and communications surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. He argues that these matters must remain a secret as a matter of executive privilege.

Is Trump’s privilege claim valid? We probably won’t know for a long time, if ever. The constitutional line between a president’s secrecy powers and Congress’s investigative authority is hazy. Historically, such disputes have usually been resolved through compromise, not judicial rulings.

Is executive privilege an absolute power? No. Even a legitimate claim of executive privilege may not always prevail in court. During the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring President Richard M. Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes.

May ex-presidents invoke executive privilege? Yes, but courts may view their claims with less deference than those of current presidents. In 1977, the Supreme Court said Nixon could make a claim of executive privilege even though he was out of office, though the court ultimately ruled against him in the case.

Is Steve Bannon covered by executive privilege? This is unclear. If any contempt finding against Mr. Bannon evolves into legal action, it would raise the novel legal question of whether or how far a claim of executive privilege may extend to communications between a president and an informal adviser outside of the government.

What is contempt of Congress? It is a sanction imposed on people who defy congressional subpoenas. Congress can refer contempt citations to the Justice Department and ask for criminal charges. Mr. Bannon could be held in contempt if he refuses to comply with a subpoena that seeks documents and testimony.

[RKP5637]

6. Excellent summary! K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Hotler]

11. Then screw it, let's go straight to rendition and waterboarding.

[marble falls]

13. That would be from the GOP playbook.

[gab13by13]

27. No it wouldn't,

the select committee has the power to claim inherent contempt. It can arrest and jail Bannon and hold him in a cell. What happens in that cell is a mystery, ask Jeffrey Epstein.

[MineralMan]

33. Yes, the House can do that, but did not.

Instead, they handed it over to the DOJ for investigation and possible prosecution. Did the House Committee act in error, do you think? Please explain why.

[gab13by13]

42. Because the real enemy to our democracy is delay,

Don McGahan's subpoena went to the courts and 2 years later he got to give a meaningless testimony. I expected that our justice department would realize that its decision on Bannon was time sensitive. Yes, the courts do make allowances for time sensitive decisions. I have seen appeals make it to the SC in a matter of months not years.

In 14 months these investigations may be moot if the GQP wins back Congress. If the GQP wins the Senate the filibuster will be gone in the first month. If Trump runs in 2024 and wins it won't be for 4 years.

[berni_mccoy]

17. Executive privilege doesn't cover communication with Bannon

He was not a government employee or agent of the government. It doesn’t extend to political campaign agents.

[marble falls]

19. Reread the post.

[berni_mccoy]

46. I know what your post said. I don't agree that Bannon is covered

And it’s unlikely the courts will say he is. That is assuming the court isn’t corrupt.

[gab13by13]

18. This isn't about executive privilege,

Bannon never showed up to make that claim. Executive privilege does not apply to people who are plotting to overthrow our government.

You also failed to mention that Joseph Biden is president right now and not Donald Trump and last I checked president Biden did not claim executive privilege.

[marble falls]

20. Reread the post.

[gab13by13]

25. Maybe you should reread it.

You are suggesting that people who are issued legal subpoenas don't really have to show up to argue their case. What would happen to you if you were issued a subpoena and failed to show up? Just answer that question.

All of the mumbo jumbo that is in your post would be argued after Bannon was indicted, not before.

Just come out and say it, in certain cases people don't have to show up for a valid subpoena.

[CrispyQ]

22. Shouldn't Bannon have gone to Congress & claimed his executive privilege there,

instead of thumbing his nose at the subpoena? Can't we hold him accountable for not showing, & still question if he has privilege? To me it seems like claiming privilege & ignoring the subpoena are two different actions.

[marble falls]

26. His privilege derives from 45 claiming privilege on his Jan 6 actions, 45 is testing his claims ...

... now in the courts, if he wins - Bannon wins. If he loses Bannon gets to perjure himself in front of Congress or wrap himself in his fifth amendment rights.

Trivia question: name anyone who's been in Contempt of Congress that has been prosecuted and jailed and/or fined.


"Hollywood Ten" and Susan McDougal. Are the only ones I can think of.

[gab13by13]

30. If the Nazi SC agrees with

executive privilege it doesn't just mean that Steve Bannon does not have to testify, it means that we have lost our democracy, there will no longer be checks and balances.

Bannon refused to show up to make any claim.

Trivia question: name me a time in our history when a group of people attempted to overthrow our government, to attempt to stop a duly elected president to take office that was contrived and fomented by the losing president who then attempted to stop any investigations into his attempted coup by claiming executive privilege. Ridiculous.

[Scrivener7]

7. Nope. And he and all his treasonous buddies are laughing and feeling emboldened.

Here's an important post by DUer ffr:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216024504#post2

The last time that the House referred a contempt of Congress charge to DOJ
... then-President Reagan’s prosecutors immediately brought the matter to a grand jury; it returned an indictment just nine days after the House vote.

9 days! WTF!!!

This fact shows that the contingent of "we all have to be patient, justice takes time, you're calls for action are childish!"
are just tossing around a bunch of ignorant, control-freak bullshit.

There is no reason why Bannon has not already been indicted.

[multigraincracker]

8. You never know, he just might

fall out of a window, suffer a major stroke or get hit by a choo-choo first.

I would like to see him get 3 hots and a cot paid for by our tax money.

Patience.

[multigraincracker]

9. You never know, he just might

fall out of a window, suffer a major stroke or get hit by a choo-choo first.

I would like to see him get 3 hots and a cot paid for by our tax money.

Patience.

[PJMcK]

10. Of course not!

Merrick Garland is a disappointment so far.

I guess we’ll see…

[triron]

40. I don't think so.

[Marius25]

12. Apparently the DoJ is just going to forget about it.

Garland should be fired. He's encouraging these traitors to continue committing crimes.

[Sneederbunk]

14. Any day now. Just like TFG, Giuiliani and Gaetz.

[gulliver]

16. I think his butt's still out there to be kissed by those so inclined

What a laughingstock and a coward he is.

[Lovie777]

21. I think he will . ...

meanwhile, he's pretty sure on pins and needles just like shithole and the rest of his comrades. I don't mind them looking over their shoulders and frighten, and yes all smiles truly don't cover from what they are feeling within.

[BlueJac]

31. Democrats sticking together can put pressure on the unwilling that are satisfied with what is going!

I'm not happy with criminals laughing in the face of justice! Keep everything secret and destroy this country! I thought we enforced the laws of this country, I guess I was wrong, and disappointed in the illusion of the USA. No wonder Trump kicked our ass!

[triron]

38. House subpoenas are worthless I guess.

[luv2fly]

44. I suspect DOJ is making sure their case is rock solid

I'd like an update too but on something like this, no swinging and missing on such a high profile personality.

And I think there is no need for people to keep asking this, really. If and when he is arrested, it will be all over DU and you won'y have to ask.

[Lucky Luciano]

45. Impossible to swing and miss. He willfully ignored the subpoena.

That is sufficient for an arrest. Case closed.

[traitorsgalore]

47. Likely forget about it and praise Colin Powel the war-mongering torture supporter

He'll do some apology tour and people will line up to show the world how forgiving they are, LOL.