House voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress.

[Somerville]

As Chomsky noted in his earlier thread - https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...old-steve-bannon-in-criminal-contempt.462998/ a House committee voted for the charge against Bannon. Today, the charge was brought to the floor for the full House to vote on the motion and it passed

The House voted to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress.
Nine House Republicans broke ranks Thursday to join Democrats in voting to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol.

Members of the committee have said the panel believes Bannon has significant knowledge of the planning around the attack.

While Democrats didn't need any GOP votes in order to refer the criminal contempt charge to the Justice Department, these Republicans voted in favor of doing so:

• Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming (Jan. 6 committee member)
• Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
• Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio
• Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington
• Rep. John Katko of New York
• Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois (Jan. 6 committee member)
• Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina
• Rep. Peter Meijer of Michigan
• Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

9 Republicans voted yes. 202 voted no. 219 Democrats voted yes.

So, 7 Republicans other than Kinzinger and Cheney had the guts to vote yes and defy Trump.

202 Republicans voted that a pod caster with no official role in government can thumb his nose at Congress and say, "Screw you, I'm not going to cooperate". These 202 Republicans have basically said that Congress has no oversight powers.

 

[Plasmaball]

They did this to Lois Lerner but the ag didn't follow suit to a grand jury..

You know before the Trump faithful come in here and attempt to shit all over how they can't do this.

 

[trixare4kids]

They did this to Lois Lerner but the ag didn't follow suit to a grand jury..

You know before the Trump faithful come in here and attempt to shit all over how they can't do this.

Well yeah, they can do it and did, but as you said above, nothing will come of this. And by some chance the AG does act on it, and sends it onto the grand jury, it would be years IF anything were to come from this.

 

[Somerville]

They did this to Lois Lerner but the ag didn't follow suit to a grand jury..

You know before the Trump faithful come in here and attempt to shit all over how they can't do this.

Just a little difference between the Lerner case and the present Bannon one. Ms Lerner was referred to the AG for citing her 5th Amendment rights after making a statement to a Congressional committee. Bannon has refused to show up and make a statement to the Congress Critters.

For those who don't know or don't remember, the Lerner case was brought by GOPers who didn't like that the IRS had investigated several political groups that had provided 'dark' money to various candidates.

From Wikipedia:
In 2013, the IRS revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This disclosure led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. Further investigation revealed that liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but not at nearly the same rate as conservative groups.

The only denial of tax-exempt status by the IRS was to a progressive group.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well yeah, they can do it and did, but as you said above, nothing will come of this. And by some chance the AG does act on it, and sends it onto the grand jury, it would be years IF anything were to come from this.

I wouldn't count on years. They can fast track things whenever they want.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

9 Republicans voted yes. 202 voted no. 219 Democrats voted yes.

So, 7 Republicans other than Kinzinger and Cheney had the guts to vote yes and defy Trump.

202 Republicans voted that a pod caster with no official role in government can thumb his nose at Congress and say, "Screw you, I'm not going to cooperate". These 202 Republicans have basically said that Congress has no oversight powers.

It's pretty unreal that these guys would volunteer to give up their own authority considering that if this truly does go nowhere then if they ever try subpoenaing anyone they can just decide not to show up and the same thing will happen as is now. Forest for the trees, but House republicans don't really think that far ahead anyways.

 

[mrjurrs]

9 Republicans voted yes. 202 voted no. 219 Democrats voted yes.

So, 7 Republicans other than Kinzinger and Cheney had the guts to vote yes and defy Trump.

202 Republicans voted that a pod caster with no official role in government can thumb his nose at Congress and say, "Screw you, I'm not going to cooperate". These 202 Republicans have basically said that Congress has no oversight powers.

Which means, they crap on the Constitution.

 

[ClaraD]

Well yeah, they can do it and did, but as you said above, nothing will come of this. And by some chance the AG does act on it, and sends it onto the grand jury, it would be years IF anything were to come from this.

we don't know that it will be years before it gets sent to the grand jury and if it is referred as a criminal, not civil...he can't say my bad and go and testify to get out of the criminal charges.

 

[trixare4kids]

we don't know that it will be years before it gets sent to the grand jury and if it is referred as a criminal, not civil...he can't say my bad and go and testify to get out of the criminal charges.

Carry on with the wishful thinking...

The House's push to prosecute Steve Bannon for defying its Jan. 6 investigators relies on a law that hasn't produced a conviction in decades and could take years to litigate https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...gainst-bannon-but-it-won-t-be-easy/ar-AAPIfId

 

[The AntiDonald]

I wouldn't count on years. They can fast track things whenever they want.

You also have many on the committee seriously talking about inherent contempt. If the DOJ drags it's feet, the house can go grab him and throw him right into jail. No bail, no nothing until he agrees to come before the committee. I would have preferred that method having been used first.

 

[Plasmaball]

You also have many on the committee seriously talking about inherent contempt. If the DOJ drags it's feet, the house can go grab him and throw him right into jail. No bail, no nothing until he agrees to come before the committee. I would have preferred that method having been used first.

Solitary..**** bannon

 

[tres borrachos]

As Chomsky noted in his earlier thread - https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...old-steve-bannon-in-criminal-contempt.462998/ a House committee voted for the charge against Bannon. Today, the charge was brought to the floor for the full House to vote on the motion and it passed

Donald Trump is an odd hill to die on. I hope Bannon is happy.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Donald Trump is an odd hill to die on. I hope Bannon is happy.

At the very least, Bannon will suffer financially. I hope it bankrupts him. Or he could always conjure up another grift and get busted again. No one to pardon him this time.

 

[ClaraD]

Carry on with the wishful thinking...

DOJ Expected To Promptly Charge Steve Bannon With Criminal Contempt

The House is expected to act quickly to find Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress, and the DOJ will charge him in a matter of days.

www.politicususa.com

The last person charged with criminal contempt of Congress was Rita Lavelle in 1983, a former Environmental Protection Agency official who refused to testify before a House subcommittee investigating her management of a $1.6 billion hazardous waste cleanup fund at the EPA.

At the time, the DoJ took eight days to announce the indictment after the House voted 413-0 to pursue contempt charges. Lavelle was found not guilty in July 1983 though she was later sentenced to jail for lying to Congress, according to the New York Times.

 

[Blue Dog]

Many of those GOP reps supported the second impeachment of the former POTUS.

 

[Schism]

This is like the 5th thread posted on this.

I guess the left's rage knows no bounds.

 

[Rawley]

9 Republicans voted yes. 202 voted no. 219 Democrats voted yes.

So, 7 Republicans other than Kinzinger and Cheney had the guts to vote yes and defy Trump.

202 Republicans voted that a pod caster with no official role in government can thumb his nose at Congress and say, "Screw you, I'm not going to cooperate". These 202 Republicans have basically said that Congress has no oversight powers.

Didn't know oversight of a pod caster with no official role in government was their job.

 

[Schism]

Didn't know oversight of a pod caster with no official role in government was their job.

Contrary speech needs shutting down. Democrats are authoritarian dictators at their core.

See Venezuala, Cuba, Russia, China, et al.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Didn't know oversight of a pod caster with no official role in government was their job.

Oversight of an insurrection investigation is their job. Bannon incited the insurrection and may very well have been involved in it's planning as he met with Eastman and others on the night of January 5. It's their job to interview him to find out what he did and what he knew about Trump's involvement.

 

[ClaraD]

Contrary speech needs shutting down. Democrats are authoritarian dictators at their core.

See Venezuala, Cuba, Russia, China, et al.

um, this is about criminal activity...an insurrection....an insurrection isn't under the free speech protections of the US Constitution.

 

[Loulit01]

Contrary speech needs shutting down. Democrats are authoritarian dictators at their core.

See Venezuala, Cuba, Russia, China, et al.

What is "contrary speech?"

 

[Rawley]

Oversight of an insurrection investigation is their job. Bannon incited the insurrection and may very well have been involved in it's planning as he met with Eastman and others on the night of January 5. It's their job to interview him to find out what he did and what he knew about Trump's involvement.

Sounds like you are describing a criminal investigation, not oversight. Have yhou alerted the FBI to your findings? Thant Bannon incited the "insurrection?"

 

[Rawley]

um, this is about criminal activity...an insurrection....an insurrection isn't under the free speech protections of the US Constitution.

??? Congress doesn't do criminal investigations.

 

[Loulit01]

Try again.

Investigations & Oversight | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to...

history.house.gov

The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”