Bannon appeals to SCOTUS

So another case they can hear instead of releasing a decision on Trump's immunity case.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 06/26/2024:

GOP got themselves a Supreme Court, and by golly, they're gonna use it.

UPDATE 06/28/2024:

Can't imagine why this is a problem, when the past two days of decisions have been one outrage after the next.

Congress (by that, I mean Republicans) find Garland in contempt

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 09:51 am:

In his report to Congress on Biden's handling of classified documents, Hur claimed that Biden, 81, had repeated memory lapses during the interview — an allegation the White House has denied.

Republicans wanted the audio largely to use it against Biden in the presidential campaign.

[...]

The ad is likely to be the Republicans' most tangible trophy from the effort to drag Garland over his refusal to release the audio from President Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hur.

[...]

"Extreme House Democrats voted to block Americans from hearing secret audio filings showing the truth about Biden's mental fitness," the ad says.

[...]

Garland's Justice Department, which has released a transcript of the interview, has already made clear it will not act on the contempt referral.

[...]

In a digital spot first shared with Axios, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) accuses Democrats of putting "party loyalty before the country" by voting against contempt.

  Axios

Every accusation is a confession.

Another election crook to be held accountable

Former Trump White House aide Peter Navarro has been ordered to report to a Miami prison on March 19 to begin serving a four month sentence for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.

[...]

Navarro, 74, was convicted last year on two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents and testimony to congressional investigators probing the root causes of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

[...]

Navarro, who is urging a federal appeals court to stay the sentence while he attempts to overturn his conviction, faces the prospect of becoming the first top adviser to Donald Trump to serve jail time for an offense related to the effort to subvert the 2020 election.

[...]

Navarro, an economist who advised Trump on trade issues, was the second former Trump aide convicted for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 panel. Steve Bannon was convicted by a jury in July 2022 for similarly blowing off a subpoena from the committee.   Politico

Everybody but the crook at the top.

And Bannon is out while his conviction is on appeal, so I imagine this court will grant the same to Navarro.

Courts rarely permit convicted defendants to remain free while they appeal. However, Navarro contends that, like Bannon, his case presents unusual circumstances because of the complex intersection of his refusal to testify with executive privilege and immunity principles that have rarely been tested in court.

Bannon should already be in jail.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 03/14/2024:  Apparently Navarro doesn't have Bannon's pull.

UPDATE 03/15/2024:

Sad to say it could be that simple.

UPDATE 03/15/2024 09:47 pm:

Very little justice in our justice system

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tell 'em, Eric

Peter Navarro's unsurprising verdict

Judge orders Navarro to turn over records

A federal judge has ordered former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro to turn over to the government hundreds of [work-related] emails that he sent or received [from a personal email account] during his nearly four years as a White House aide.

[...]

Navarro argued that the personal-account provision didn’t apply to messages he received, only to those he sent, but the judge dismissed that contention.

“All the emails in Dr. Navarro’s personal email account, whether created or received, are therefore subject to being assessed as potential Presidential records if they arose out of his employment in the administration,” she wrote.

[...]

The tone of Kollar-Kotelly’s 22-page opinion was brutal, but the lawsuit is far from Navarro’s biggest legal worry. He is facing a trial in the coming months on two criminal, misdemeanor charges of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the special House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and Trump’s role in fomenting doubt about the 2020 presidential election results.

[...]

[I]n his final weeks in the White House, [Navarro] shifted his focus toward efforts to help Trump overturn the 2020 election results. He prepared a report based on discredited claims of fraud and worked with longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon and GOP lawmakers to strategize ways to object to the results on Jan. 6, 2021.

[...]

She gave the two sides 30 days to sort out a protocol to find other official records in Navarro’s personal account.

The Justice Department is set to make a key filing in Navarro’s criminal case next week, explaining why the department concluded that Navarro is not immune from a congressional subpoena even though he was serving as a top adviser to Trump in the White House in the weeks before and after Jan. 6, 2021.

  Politico

I might have thought that would have come first.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

DOJ's complex contempt decisions

The Department of Justice will not charge former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino with contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 probe in the House, U.S. Attorney Matt Graves reportedly told House general counsel Doug Letter on Friday.

The decision is notably at odds with the House's recommendation on the matter, Politico writes.

In a statement, Jan. 6 select committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) described the DOJ's choice as "puzzling." "We hope the department provides greater clarity on this matter," they continued.

The decision arrived hours after it was revealed that another ex-Trump adviser — Peter Navarro — had been charged with contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a committee subpoena. That said, however, unlike Scavino and Meadows, "Navarro openly defied the committee's request and made no attempt to negotiate terms to comply," CNN writes. Plus, the subpoenas of Meadows and Scavino were complicated.

  The Week

Both officials served in high-level positions in the Trump West Wing and thus had more compelling cases for claiming executive privilege. Each also made an effort to cooperate with the committee at different points in its investigation. Meadows notably handed over thousands of pages of documents, including text messages that have become an important part of the committee's work.

[...]

An attorney familiar with the Meadows and Scavino cases told CNN they were not surprised by the Justice Department's decision. They argued that both men had engaged the committee, and that unlike Navarro and Steve Bannon, who have both been indicted [Bannon trial date is July 16], Scavino and Meadows had serious claims of privilege.

[...]

The decision by the Justice Department is a blow to the House panel's efforts to enforce subpoenas related to its investigation and could embolden other Trump associates facing similar requests to not cooperate.

  CNN

Well, no shit.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Hot water for Peter Navarro

Who can?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Because of course

The Ohio Republican Jim Jordan is the second sitting congressman to refuse a request for cooperation from the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack.

[...]

He also claimed “an unprecedented and inappropriate demand to examine the basis for a colleague’s decision on a particular matter pending before the House of Representatives”.

“This request is far outside the bounds of any legitimate inquiry,” he said, “violates core constitutional principles and would serve to further erode legislative norms.”

Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who was also closely involved in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat, has also refused to cooperate.

[...]

The former Trump strategist Steve Bannon has pleaded not guilty to a charge of criminal contempt of Congress, for refusing cooperation. His trial is set for July.

Mark Meadows, Trump’s final White House chief of staff and a former congressman, has also refused. The committee has recommended a criminal charge.

[...]

Thompson has suggested the panel may have few options to compel testimony from sitting members of Congress.

  Guardian

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Bannon charged

[Steve] Bannon, a former top adviser to ex-President Donald Trump, was charged [by the US DOJ] with one count of contempt of Congress involving his refusal to appear for a deposition and another involving his refusal to produce documents, the Justice Department said on Friday.

[...]

It was not immediately clear when Bannon would be due in court. Each count carries a minimum of 30 days of jail and a sentence of up to a year behind bars.

[...]

So far, the House panel has interviewed more than 150 people across government, social media and law enforcement as part of its investigation. But some former Trump allies, such as Bannon, have refused to testify.

[...]

Bannon’s indictment was announced just hours after Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows refused to appear for a deposition before the committee, risking being also found in contempt of Congress.

  alJazeera

They want positions in Trump's second term.

It is the second time in two years that Bannon has faced criminal charges. Bannon was charged in 2020 with defrauding donors to We Build the Wall, a private fund-raising effort to boost Trump’s wall project along the US-Mexico border.

Trump subsequently issued a pardon to Bannon before that case could go to trial.

Too bad he didn't also pardon him for crimes related to sedition.  Maybe that's in the second term.  And, frankly, I don't think a president (or governor) should have pardon power.  That's a recipe for criminal acts of high impact on both the government and the economy.

No wonder they don't want him to testify.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

America's tyrant toddler won't cooperate

The White House fired off a blistering letter to House Democrats on Tuesday, informing them that the administration won’t participate at all in the increasingly aggressive impeachment inquiry because it considers the probe an “invalid” attempt to “overturn” President Trump’s election.

  Daily News

Also called another article of impeachment, right?

The missive laid bare the administration’s bristling anger at the Democratic probe into whether Trump should be removed from office and sets the stage for a heated battle between the executive and legislative branches. The letter was delivered to Congress hours after Trump ordered his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, to ditch a planned deposition in the House impeachment inquiry, marking the first shot in the new White House stall tactic.

Ripping the inquiry as “unconstitutional,” Cipollone repeatedly used scare quotes around the word “inquiry" and questioned whether the impeachment investigation is even legitimate since Pelosi hasn’t held a full floor vote to initiate it.

[...]

While previous impeachment investigations have been preceded by the type of vote Cipollone referenced, neither House rules nor the constitution mandate that one be taken before impeachment proceedings can begin.

I'm not so sure any more.



You can read Cipollone's letter here.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:







Dems are useless.  There is every indication that no one will show.  The oddity is when someone DOES show - like Volker.

UPDATE 10/26: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that DOJ must turn over Grand Jury materials to the House investigators, including this:

And Howell took particular issue with a sharply worded letter sent by White House counsel Pat Cipollone on Oct. 8 to House Democrats declaring their intent to block any cooperation by White House officials with the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

Though the Justice Department has claimed that the House has failed to exhaust all avenues to obtain the information it is seeking, Howell cited Cipollone's letter as proof that any other means would be fruitless.

“These arguments smack of farce. The reality is that DOJ and the White House have been openly stonewalling the House’s efforts to get information by subpoena and by agreement, and the White House has flatly stated that the Administration will not cooperate with congressional requests for information," Howell argued. "The White House’s stated policy of non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry weighs heavily in favor of disclosure.”

Another point negating Nancy Pelosi's arguments against impeachment

Yes, I know she's come around, but her arguments were baloney in the first place, and if this latest whistleblower complaint hadn't happened, she would still be making them.  She needs to be retired.



If they'd moved on impeachment earlier, they could have had that leverage against all the many times Trump cabalists have refused to cooperate to date.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



Exactly.