January 6 Hearings and Fallout

[worstblogever]

Bannon was a strategist and advisor to Trump, he was never a government official.

The details from that trial running parallel to the Jan. 6th hearings could be a big deal. We'll find out what the feds have as far as info about the goings-on at the Willard Hotel in the days leading up to the Capitol Attack. Bannon was there.

[CaptainEurope]

Bannon was a strategist and advisor to Trump, he was never a government official.

That is incorrect, according to Wikipedia:

Upon his inauguration, Trump appointed Bannon to be his chief strategist, a newly created position. The title made him a counselor to the president, nearly equivalent in authority to the chief of staff.[99] As a staff member in the Executive Office of the President, the position did not require Senate confirmation.[

[babyblob]

One of the reasons Bannon claimed he wouldnt go before the committee was he had Executive privilege because he was a government employee.

[Tami]

One of the reasons Bannon claimed he wouldnt go before the committee was he had Executive privilege because he was a government employee.

Which Government? It sure wasn't the US Government, despite what Trump did.

[babyblob]

Which Government? It sure wasn't the US Government, despite what Trump did.

He claimed the US Government. But that was one of the many reasons he gave for not showing up. I remember the Legal Eagles on CNN talking about it at length one night. Then it just got kind of dropped.

[Kirby101]

That is incorrect, according to Wikipedia:

Wiki agrees with me. He did not hold an official government position, he was akin the Jared, a senior advisor but not like a Secretary. He had whatever authority Trump gave him and his power was only what Trump conceded.

It is those government officials Garland seems shy to move against.

[Mister Mets]

Wiki agrees with me. He did not hold an official government position, he was akin the Jared, a senior advisor but not like a Secretary. He had whatever authority Trump gave him and his power was only what Trump conceded.

It is those government officials Garland seems shy to move against.

Legally, he has a stronger claim to executive privilege if he's asked about anything that happened from January 20, 2017 – August 18, 2017 when he was White House Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President.

This is not a shield he can use regarding January 6, as that's about stuff that happened three and half years after he left.

[Kirby101]

Legally, he has a stronger claim to executive privilege if he's asked about anything that happened from January 20, 2017 – August 18, 2017 when he was White House Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President.

This is not a shield he can use regarding January 6, as that's about stuff that happened three and half years after he left.

True. I was talking mainly about Garland's reluctance to go after senior White House officials.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

True. I was talking mainly about Garland's reluctance to go after senior White House officials.

I wonder why that he’s reluctant?

[CaptainEurope]

Wiki agrees with me. He did not hold an official government position, he was akin the Jared, a senior advisor but not like a Secretary. He had whatever authority Trump gave him and his power was only what Trump conceded.

It is those government officials Garland seems shy to move against.

Are positions in the Executive Office of the President not "official government positions" or are they just positions that do not require approval by the senate?

[CaptainEurope]

I wonder why that he’s reluctant?

We actually do not know for sure if he is, or if he just wants the cases to be airtight before he makes them public. Both possibilities are speculation.

[CSTowle]

And this is a thread for discussion and speculation. If anyone here is an investigative reporter with a real scoop they're choosing the wrong venue to break it (though I'm sure it would be appreciated).

As to why Garland would be hesitant, we have to remember that this is still politics and Biden and his team are still operating with reverence for the system and precedent. That means, like the old joke about the boy and his girlfriend's father, "anything you do to her I'll do to you". They might be in a similar position in a few years (though likely in a manufactured scandal like Benghazi, but still) and expect whatever rules and norms they abide by will be courtesies extended to them.

I know that sounds insane and naive, but I believe that's the calculation. Ducks in a row, no bending the rules, trust the system.

[Kirby101]

About Garland, many people are frustrated with his seeming lack of action, including members of Congress, Legal experts and at times, President Biden https://www.westernjournal.com/repor...nderous-judge/ Others think he is holding his cards close and will indict Trump. Right now I am with the first group and would love to be proven wrong.
C S touches on some of the reasons that are posited.
I also fear that someone like DeSantis gets elected in 2024 and pardons everyone.

[CaptainEurope]

Some rare leaking yesterday.

"Mr. Cipollone provided a great deal of new information relevant to the select committee's investigation, which further underscores President Trump's supreme dereliction of duty," the source said. "The committee will show much of this to the American people in the days ahead."

The source also added that no one has refuted any of Hutchinson's testimony under oath.


Three different sources familiar with Cipollone's testimony characterized it as very important and extremely helpful and told CNN it will become evident in upcoming public committee hearings.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/08/p...y-6/index.html

[CaptainEurope]

Both the leader of the Oath Keepers and Steve Bannon are teasing that they want to testify before the committee, but it is quite likely that they just want to turn it into a shit show. Rhodes is looking at life in prison for sedition anyway, so he would have no qualms about lying under oath. And Bannon can count on the next Republican president pardoning him again.