https://www.foxnews.com/politics/steve-bannon-found-guilty-contempt-congress-ignoring-january-6-hearing-subpoena

It looks like he'll serve around a month or two in prison

how much did eric holder serve in prison for his contempt of congress ?

i thought he just rated out trump?

This sets a great precedent that republicans will definitely never exploit, surely. Particularly the bit where Bannon was given a show trial, disallowed from presenting a defense
History is littered with examples of regimes that invented crimes to lock up political opponents, the more decadent a society the more likely to engage in passive aggressive pretense of legitimacy to their despotism. Hit a real stride in the english reformation for example. American history, however, has been mercifully light on it. We mostly went through our formative years with the vindictive spirit being brushed aside in the name of civility, with a few notable exceptions like the sedition act. We started up again during the red scare, but none other than albert einstein shamed the mccarthyists into dropping their witchhunt of du bois.

American democracy rests upon two principles: One is following the law, the agreement that the rules govern, that what prerogatives held by congress and states respectively can be exercised as written in the constitution. But the other, and more important, is a shared civic spirit. One that says that we do not engage in the reckless game theory min/maxing of positions to exploit the rules to their fullest to spite the other side. Because the law as written is deeply flawed to its core, reliant on human interpretation, and when you try to exploit it, it breaks.

When Republicans raised their sound and fury over Benghazi and Hillary's emails and Gunwalking and so on, they clanged their pots and pans and made a racket. But they didn't burn down the house. Democrats, on the other hand, are now using the levers of government to persecute rival politicians and pundits. Going after Navarro, going after sitting members of congress from the opposing party. Weaponizing the subpoena power and denying executive privilege. When Eric Holder exerted it over Fast and Furious, Republicans didn't test the fabric of our democracy. Democrats, on the other hand, are the party of arsonists.

Zero because he wasn't convicted like the criminal, Steve Bannon.



Equating a civilian with the Attorney fucking General as it relates to executive privilege is one of the dumber things I've seen. C'mon man, you're not THIS dumb. If Rachel Maddow exerts executive privilege if she's subpoenaed and openly defies Congress, we should DEMAND that the book gets tossed at her.

It's really simple: stop being a criminal. Is it really that hard? Just stop. I'd say the same thing to all the negros in your neighborhood. Just stop committing crimes.

And an important perspective: In what way does this help anyone, of any side, or the nation as a whole?

Now we've set a precedent for congress to lock up the opposition. But Democrats don't give a fart about what happens to Steve Bannon, the individual. He's no threat to them or anyone. Nor will it compel testimony from him, or coerce anyone. Nor is there any testimony they could be given that would be useful, the facts were never in doubt, nothing to investigate in the first place. It won't win anyone over to the democrats side, its not going to energize them at the polls, its not going to motivate anyone who wasn't already a fanatic. They're simultaneously willing to be tyrants and unwilling to exploit that tyranny towards any self-serving goal. They're setting a precedent they know will come back to bite them in the ass when Republicans take power, which is very soon. And worse yet, one which can be exercised without the presidency, which changes that window from years to months.




Executive privilege clearly extends beyond government employees and to close contacts and confidants of the president during his deliberations, which is precisely what the January 6th committee was subpoenaing. They weren't issuing a subpoena for Steve Bannon to testify about his trip to an ice cream parlor as a teenager. They were demanding he testify about his privileged conversations with the president.
That's right out of the 1997 Paula Jones case, where while accepting the prosecutor's argument of merit over the claim of privilege, they acknowledged the existence of executive privilege applying to communications involving the president and communications made by presidential advisors in their role of advice for the president, in both cases including communications with parties beyond just the presidential staff. The president talking to someone for solicited advice, whether or not they are on an executive branch payroll, is explicitly included in privileged communications


The only arguments that could be made against Bannon having privilege are either this new and batshit insane idea that former presidents can't have privilege, which besides violating most every precedent of continuation of government also attacks the core civility of our system- and the argument that Bannon's claim to privilege is outweighed by congress's need. Which could have been tested in court. But instead of seeking to hash out civil disagreement over the law, they sough to imprison a political rival.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jul 22 2022 01:44pm

No one has gone to jail for contempt of congress for 6 decades. Bannon getting 30-60 days at club fed will be a dumb breach of sentencing precedent



https://apple.news/AAXc722SGSO28enc8a84XHQ

That just shows you how unprecedented his actions were! It was easy to convict him because the case was so straightforward. He literally asked for it so that he could martyr himself.

This post was edited by thundercock on Jul 22 2022 01:42pm

ignoring a subpoena is unprecedented? just look at the nonsense the government spews here:



our government does not work because they don’t even play by the rules they set! In what universe does it make sense for Congress to have the authority to subpoena people in a made up ‘court of law’ (of which the legislature is NOT) when they cannot prove that person is interfering with their “legislative duty”?! When it comes to their authority, they cannot even pass basic legislation on their own time!!!!!!

You're not this stupid. Try again.