And here we go, another week gone by and Bannon still not complying with the subpoena or

[Silent3]

15. What the fuck ever happened to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

But critically, the question for a prosecutor deciding whether or not to charge Bannon with a crime is not whether Bannon’s interpretation of the law is correct or not. It is whether the department can prove to a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Bannon did not believe his assertion of privilege to be credible. After all, it is not inappropriately stubborn conduct to refuse to testify in the presence of a valid assertion of privilege. The burden is thus on the prosecution to prove that Bannon could not in good faith believe his assertion of privilege to be valid.

Why the fuck should it matter whether Bannon thinks he's privileged to act in this contemptuous way, rather than what the law says he can or cannot do?

I sure as fuck wouldn't get that kind of leniency if I violated the law, but you couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the I personally knew my crime was actually illegal.

Even at the most generous allowance for what Bannon "thinks" (really, what he pretends to think while he damned well knows the game he's playing), I see no excuse for him not to show up IN PERSON IN FRONT OF CONGRESS to play this game of feigned privilege not to testify.

I'll take Lawrence Tribe's word for it, thank you very much, that this issue isn't really so complicated and Garland should have acted by now.