Steve Bannon

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bannon’s escape plan: how the Trump strategist is trying to dodge prison

      by

      Bannon’s escape plan: how the Trump strategist is trying to dodge prisonBannon is advancing a high-stakes defense as he battles a case that could mean up to a year in federal prison and thousands of dollars in fines if convicted As the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack was negotiating with Donald Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon to cooperate with its inquiry, the panel affirmed one of their rules: no third-party lawyers could attend witness depositions.That meant when Bannon’s then-attorney asked whether a lawyer for Trump could be present for the closed-door interview to decide what issues were covered by the former president’s invocation of executive privilege, the select committee flatly refused.‘Morally bankrupt’: outrage after pro-Israel group backs insurrectionist RepublicansRead moreNow, that refusal appears set to feature as one of Bannon’s central arguments to defend against his contempt of Congress indictment that came after he entirely skipped his deposition last October and refused to produce documents as required by his subpoena.The former Trump aide is advancing a high-stakes – and arcane-sounding – defense as he battles the justice department (DoJ) in a case that could mean up to a year in federal prison and thousands of dollars in fines if convicted – but potentially defang congressional power should he prevail.The all-or-nothing nature of the defense is characteristic of Bannon, a fierce defender and confidante of the former president even after he departed the White House seven months into the Trump administration after a turbulent tenure as his chief strategist.It was precisely because of his contacts with Trump in the days before January 6 that the select committee made Bannon one of the panel’s first subpoena targets as it seeks to uncover whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy that culminated in the Capitol attack.The crux of Bannon’s argument is that he could reasonably believe the subpoena was invalid when the select committee refused to allow a Trump lawyer to attend the deposition, after the former president asserted executive privilege over the materials covered by the subpoena.The argument rests on a 2019 justice department office of legal counsel opinion (OLC) that says congressional subpoenas that prevent executive branch counsel from accompanying executive branch employees to depositions are “legally invalid” and not enforceable.Bannon’s attorneys say the doctrine at issue is protecting the president’s constitutional authority to limit the disclosure of privileged information, which typically involves discussions with close presidential aides who need to be able to offer candid advice. In that sense, the principle extends to Bannon, they argue: the supreme court decided in Nixon v GSA 1977 that former presidents could “assert” executive privilege, while a 2007 OLC opinion found executive privilege could cover discussions with private, non-executive branch employee advisers.And since the select committee issued only one subpoena for both documents and testimony, when the subpoena was invalidated by the panel’s refusal to allow a Trump lawyer to attend, Bannon’s attorneys contend the document request element of the subpoena also became void.“We don’t read OLC opinions in isolation,” David Schoen, one of three attorneys defending Bannon in this case – the others are Evan Corcoran and Bob Costello – told the Guardian in a text message. “They build on each other.”The justice department does not think the OLC opinions protect Bannon, in part because he was not an executive branch employee at the time of January 6, and the select committee contends Trump did not formally assert executive privilege over subpoenaed materials.The assistant US attorney Amanda Vaughn also indicated in recent court filings that Bannon’s argument – that the subpoena was invalid because House deposition rules excluded third-party lawyers – was in bad faith since his then-attorney, Bob Costello, never raised it as an issue at the time.“Costello inquired – but said that he did not need an immediate answer – whether there was a way for a lawyer for President Trump to appear at the defendant’s deposition,” Vaughn said in the justice department’s response to Bannon.But Bannon won an initial victory on the dispute last week after the judge in the case ordered the justice department to turn over OLC “writings” about its position on prosecuting current or former US officials claiming immunity from congressional subpoena over executive privilege.US district judge Carl Nichols granted the request by Bannon’s attorneys, who suggest Costello was relying on the OLC opinions to current and former White House aides when he advised Bannon not to appear for his deposition since the select committee subpoena was invalid.A spokesman for the select committee and a spokesman for the US attorney for the District of Columbia declined to comment.The defense that Bannon is advancing – using broad readings of parts of the justice department’s own positions and amalgamating them into a wider argument – is controversial, but it underscores the complexities facing the justice department in pursuing the case.“Bannon’s trying to use the OLC opinions as a shield that doesn’t quite cover him, but gives him enough of a defense to fend off the DoJ’s necessity of proving criminal intent,” said Jonathan Shaub, a law professor at the University of Kentucky and a former OLC attorney-adviser.To establish criminal contempt of Congress, the justice department has to prove Bannon’s subpoena defiance was “willful” – which Bannon’s attorneys say should be interpreted as meaning whether the former Trump aide knew his conduct was unlawful or wrong.The combined force of Bannon’s arguments, his attorneys say, demonstrate that he did not know his defiance was unlawful, and shifts the burden onto the justice department to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bannon did not believe the privilege claims were valid.The former Trump aide is also coupling the argument that the subpoena was invalid with the defenses that he relied on the advice of counsel when he defied the subpoena, and that he cannot be prosecuted because OLC opinions – considered binding on the justice department – forbid it.Bannon’s attorneys say the former Trump aide ignored his subpoena entirely on the advice of Costello, who relied on the OLC opinions about immunity for former presidential aides and was the only point of contact with the select committee during negotiations about his cooperation.It is far from clear whether Bannon will prevail.In a hearing last week, Nichols cast doubt on the advice of counsel argument, noting that the relevant case law, Licavoli v United States 1961, holds that relying on legal advice to defy a subpoena is no defense.The justice department argued in their brief that the interpretation of “willful” should in fact remain the standard established by the Licavoli court: “a deliberate and intentional failure to appear or produce records as required” by a congressional subpoena.But Bannon’s lawyers have noted that the Licavoli case did not involve executive privilege and therefore does not apply to Bannon, not least because the justice department has itself maintained that executive privilege cases are unique because of the constitutional implications.“He’s reaching for all the straws that he can,” Shaub said of Bannon. “It may succeed or it may not. But if Nichols rules against him, he’s certainly going to take it to the DC circuit or even up to the supreme court. He’s definitely playing a longer game here.”TopicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Observer view on Joe Biden’s Capitol Hill anniversary speech | Observer editorial

      by

      The Observer view on Joe Biden’s Capitol Hill anniversary speechObserver editorialThe president is right to rage, but the only real antidote to Donald Trump’s dangerous lies is US law The 6 January insurrection, when supporters of former US president Donald Trump stormed Capitol Hill, is widely viewed as a seminal moment in the history of US democracy. Never before had the modern nation witnessed such an organised, violent attempt to overthrow the elected government. Never before, not even at the height of the Civil War, had the Confederate flag flown over the halls of Congress.Yet last week, as the US marked the first anniversary of the thwarted insurrection, another significant turning point was reached. President Joe Biden, the lawful winner of the 2020 election and Trump’s principal intended victim, dropped what some call his Mr Nice Guy act. With gloves off, Biden came out swinging. It was about time.Since taking office almost exactly one year ago, Biden has deliberately ignored Trump. He has rarely mentioned his predecessor by name. He has refused to engage with Trump’s insults, lies and unceasing propagation of the “big lie” – that Democrats stole the 2020 vote. Instead, Biden sought to reunite a divided, fractious nation, appealing to what he called our “better selves” and looking to the future, not the past.It didn’t work. That is not to say it was not worth trying, nor that the effort should be discontinued: it should not. But in the intervening 12 months, Trump, egged on by cynical, unprincipled Republicans such as House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and far-right disruptors such as Steve Bannon, has not only not faded from view but, rather, he has emerged, strengthened, as Republican king-maker and his party’s leading 2024 presidential contender.Trump’s bottomless mendacity, lacking any factual, legal or moral basis and flying in the face of numerous court judgments, vote recounts and electoral inquiries, has nevertheless persuaded a majority of Republican voters that Biden was not legitimately elected while seeding doubt in the minds of others. His poison corrodes America’s governing institutions and incites civil strife. Trump embodies a clear and present danger to US national security, stability and democracy. He must be stopped.Biden’s 6 January speech appeared to unleash a new strategy to do just that. Trump, he said, was “holding a dagger” at the throat of American democracy. His “web of lies” could no longer be tolerated. Trump “rallied the mob to attack”, then did nothing to stop the ensuing lethal violence, Biden fumed.The president’s sudden switch to direct confrontation entails obvious dangers. It plays to Trump’s agenda and ego, making him the centre of attention. The shift may also be indicative of political weakness. Biden’s approval ratings are low, his legislative agenda has stalled, the Democrats in Congress are split and the party is widely expected to lose Congress in November’s elections.Yet Biden really had no choice but to go on the offensive. Trump and Trumpism’s world of “alternative facts” has had a free run for too long. To be defeated and debunked, it must be publicly and robustly challenged at every turn. Legal remedies, soft-pedalled until now by the justice department, must be pursued with renewed vigour and determination.“The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or ‘giving aid or comfort’ to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly ‘prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law’,” veteran Harvard constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe wrote recently. It’s a widely held opinion.The many documented actions of Trump and his circle in attempting to overturn the 2020 vote provide numerous grounds for criminal investigation and prosecution. Why is Merrick Garland, the attorney general, still dragging his feet? Biden can righteously rage. But the best antidote to toxic Trump’s dangerously lawless spree, and fears of civil war, is the law itself. Take him down – before it’s too late.TopicsUS Capitol attackOpinionUS politicsDonald TrumpJoe BidenSteve BannonRepublicanseditorialsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Bannon and allies bid to expand pro-Trump influence in local US politics

      by

      Bannon and allies bid to expand pro-Trump influence in local US politicsGrowing drive by hardcore Trumpists spurs election watchdogs to voice alarm about threat to American democracy Key Donald Trump loyalists Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn are at the forefront of a drive to expand Trumpist influence at the local level of US politics while forging ahead with efforts aimed at promoting baseless claims that Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory was fraudulent.Indictment of alleged Proud Boys leaders over US Capitol attack upheldRead moreThe growing drive by Trump’s hardcore allies has spurred election watchdog groups to voice alarm about the threat to democracy posed by Flynn and Bannon – and other Trump acolytes – as they combine debunked claims about election fraud and calls for further 2020 election audits with planning conservative takeovers of official positions that run US elections.The moves come a year after the attack on the Capitol in Washington when a pro-Trump mob invaded the building in an attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s election victory.Flynn and Bannon, using varying paths, have focused new energy on increasing conservative influence by recruiting more allies for key posts at the local and precinct level with an eye on the 2022 and 2024 elections, and building more political alliances on issues such as vaccine requirements and mask mandates.The strategies Flynn and Bannon are deploying overlap those of other conservative outfits, such as the influential youth group Turning Point USA, to expand the pro-Trump base at the precinct level, and work to elect Trump-backed politicians to key posts such as secretary of state in Georgia, Arizona and other battleground states.Flynn and Bannon have separately relied on a mix of non-profit groups, including one backed by the multimillionaire Patrick Byrne, conservative social media outlets favored by the far right like Telegram, and events that convey evangelical Christian messages with political disinformation.Bannon, for instance, has used his War Room podcast to espouse plans for “taking over the Republican party through the precinct committee strategy” and invited would-be candidates to appear as guests. The podcast, which has tens of millions of downloads, has found a large and receptive conservative following.Flynn, meanwhile, touts the adage that “local action has national impact” and has been a star speaker in several key states at “ReAwaken America” events, which are dubbed “health and freedom” conferences and combine evangelical themes with misinformation about the 2020 election and vaccine skepticism.The conservative crusades by Flynn and Bannon come after Trump pardoned them post-election for lying to the FBI and fraud respectively. Bannon and Flynn also were central actors with other Trump loyalists in scheming about ways to block Congress from certifying Biden’s election, efforts that are under scrutiny as part of a House select committee investigation of the deadly Capitol attack by hundreds of Trump supporters.As they have carved out new roles in the conservative ecosystem, Flynn and Bannon still support Trump’s conspiratorial claims that he lost in 2020 due to massive cheating, a mantra that reinforces their drives to expand local and state electoral influence to give Republicans a better shot at recapturing Congress next year, and the White House in 2024.“We’re seeing a dangerous trend of election deniers lining up to fill election administration positions across the country,” Joanna Lydgate, chief executive of the States United Democracy Center, said in a statement to the Guardian. “And the efforts by Flynn, Bannon and other promoters of the big lie are all part of this playbook to hijack elections in 2022 and 2024 if their preferred candidate doesn’t win.”Likewise, as they have revved up political work on multiple fronts, the two ex-Trump advisers have taken more extremist stances sparking strong criticism.Flynn, a retired army lieutenant general, has been skewered for his authoritarian style advocacy of “one religion” for America, and for speaking at some events with heavy presences by adherents of QAnon conspiracy movement. Flynn’s call for “one religion” came during a talk to a conservative Christian audience in Texas on the ReAwaken America tour in November.“If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion,” Flynn said. “One nation under God and one religion under God, right? All of us, working together.”Flynn’s feature role at ReAwaken America meetings in several states such as Michigan and Florida is hardly an accident, according to Byrne, the multimillionaire founder of the America Project that counts Flynn as special adviser and spokesperson.Byrne, who has joined Flynn at some ReAwaken rallies, said in text messages that he and Flynn had a large hand in launching the ReAwaken tour during the spring by bankrolling the events with some “tens of thousands of dollars” from the America Project.Overall, Byrne said that the America Project has raised about $9.5m, of which he donated close to $7m. Byrne and the America Project poured over $3m into a months-long audit of Arizona’s largest county, which Trump was banking on to find major fraud, but which resulted in no significant changes to Biden’s win there or overall in the state, much to Trump’s dismay.Byrne said the project has helped promote audits in other states besides Arizona. Boasting a net worth pegged at about $75m, Byrne is the ex-chief executive of furniture retailer Overstock.Byrne texted that he didn’t vote for Trump, and deems himself a “rule of law” advocate who claims there’s still a “mountain of evidence” to support the widely debunked allegations of fraud.Byrne’s project has had no dearth of Trump links. The project’s president until late last month was Emily Newman, a former Trump aide. Newman, along with Byrne and Flynn, attended a meeting in December 2020 with Trump about ways to block Biden taking office where Flynn touted the option of declaring martial law and deploying the military to rerun the election in key states Trump lost, according to multiple reports.Flynn’s brother, Joe Flynn, has succeeded Newman as the project’s president, Byrne said.On top of his work with the America Project, Flynn’s focus on expanding the Maga base at the local level increased when he became chairman in May of another non-profit, America’s Future, which, in turn, has partnered with Turning Point USA and others to form a larger alliance dubbed County Citizens Defending Freedom USA.The county citizens group has sponsored an array of training programs, protests and candidate meetings with a focus on mask mandates, vaccine requirements and critical race theory, according to Florida lawyer Ron Filipkowski, a former prosecutor who authored a Washington Post article on the wave of local drives by Trump backers.For his part, Bannon’s heavy emphasis on a local “precinct strategy” to help Republican’s electoral fortunes combines conspiratorial and apocalyptic bravado.Bannon told CNN in December that his War Room podcast is an organizing tool to expand Trump’s base. “It’s about winning elections with the right people – Maga people,” Bannon said. “We will have our people in at every level.”“We’re taking over all the elections,” Bannon said in November on his War Room podcast.“We’re going to get to the bottom of [last year’s election] and we’re going to decertify the electors. And you’re going to have a constitutional crisis. But you know what? We’re a big and tough country, and we can handle that, we’ll be able to handle that. We’ll get through that.”Megan Squire, a computer science professor at Elon University, told the Guardian that much of Bannon’s political messaging has relied on alternative social media channels such as Telegram that appeal to conservative and far right allies to spread pro Trump gospel and help broaden the Maga base at the local level.To Squire, Bannon’s rhetoric and large audience look increasingly dangerous.“After being de-platformed from mainstream social media over the past year, Bannon has been promoting ‘alternative’, permissive social media channels such as Telegram and Gettr. There his listeners are able to amplify and intensify Bannon’s messaging into a 24-hour-a-day echo chamber filled with disinformation, scams, and conspiracy theories.”For Lydgate, the chief executive of the States United Democracy Center, the multi-front drives by Bannon, Flynn and other key Trump loyalists pose serious risks for the integrity of future elections.“They want to sow doubt in our democracy and make it easier to undermine the will of American voters.”TopicsDonald TrumpSteve BannonMichael FlynnUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s lackeys would rather defy US Congress than anger their old boss. Sad! | Lloyd Green

      by

      Trump’s lackeys would rather defy US Congress than anger their old boss. Sad!Lloyd GreenBannon and Meadows are trying to become heroes for Trump’s base – and secure seats at the table in the event of a second Trump presidency Late Tuesday night, the House of Representatives voted to hold Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s fourth and final chief of staff, in criminal contempt of Congress. Whether Meadows is formally charged is now up to the justice department and a federal grand jury.If indicted, Meadows would be the second member of the Trump administration under a cloud of pending prosecution – alongside Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign guru, who also played an integral role in the run-up to the 6 January riot at the US Capitol.For Bannon and Meadows alike, their challenges to the House special committee are a mixture of theatrics and political self-preservation. Both men yearn for a seat at Trump’s righthand if a second Trump presidency comes to pass. Beyond that, they want to be heroes to the ex-president’s base.Obviously, Meadows’s task is more complicated. Before his latest change of heart, he had delivered thousands of pages of documents to the special committee, including emails and texts from Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, and Fox News’s Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham pleading for Trump to stop the riot.And then there are the revelations contained in Meadows’s recent memoir, The Chief’s Chief. There on the page, he admits that Trump had tested positive for Covid days before the first presidential debate. In other words, he and Trump engaged in a coverup that potentially jeopardized the life of Joe Biden.From the looks of things, Meadows is now engaged in a salvage operation. As for Trump, he has made his displeasure towards Meadows known, labeling him “fucking stupid” and damning his book as “fake news”.Not surprisingly, sales of The Chief’s Chief have languished, according to Amazon. Beyond that, Meadows looks ridiculous.Let’s recap. Here, Meadows turned over reams of records to a congressional committee that has Trump in its crosshairs, and then belatedly refused to appear before that very same committee after publishing a book and spilling his guts.To top it off, Meadows has also invoked the doctrine of “executive privilege”, despite the fact that Trump never asserted that claim on Meadows’s behalf.Meadows’s perorations are incoherent and craven. In contrast, Bannon has remained singularly defiant, going above and beyond the directives purportedly issued by Trump.According to Bannon, Trump had sought to limit the purview of Bannon’s testimony and document production to non-privileged matters. Bannon, however, took that a step further, and stiff-armed the committee: no documents and testimony. For all intents and purposes, his motto is “catch me if you can”, with an extended middle finger that all can see.Unlike Meadows, Bannon was not collecting a federal paycheck on 6 January – he had left the White House more than three years earlier. How Bannon’s post-election communications with Trump could be covered by executive privilege remains unclear, a fact that has not escaped notice.As framed by the committee: “There is no conceivable executive privilege claim that could bar all of the select committee’s requests or justify Mr Bannon’s flat refusal to appear for the required deposition.”Already, Bannon and Meadows have spawned at least one copycat – Peter Navarro, a Trump economic adviser who, in a book of his own, has cast Mike Pence as Brutus to Trump’s Caesar.More to the point, according to published reports, Navarro recently defied a subpoena issued by a separate House select committee that is examining the Trump administration’s response to Covid. In his letter to the committee, Navarro wrote that Trump told him to “protect executive privilege and not let these unhinged Democrats discredit our great accomplishments”. Whether contempt charges will follow Navarro is the subject of speculation.Regardless, Trump alums’ claims of privilege appear shakier by the day. Last week, an intermediate federal appeals court rejected Trump’s assertion of executive privilege in the face of the select committee’s bid for documents from the national archives.According to the court: “Former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the political branches over these documents.”Then on Tuesday of this week, US district judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, rejected Trump’s attempt to block the treasury department from handing over his tax records to the House’s ways and means Committee. “A long line of supreme court cases requires great deference to facially valid congressional inquiries. Even the special solicitude accorded former presidents does not alter the outcome,” McFadden wrote.Against this backdrop, claims of executive privilege by Bannon, Meadows and Navarro appear to be more noise than signal. Trump remains the main prize – and it looks like Representative Liz Cheney is gunning for him.In summarizing Meadows’ texts, Cheney observed: “Mr Meadows’s testimony will bear on another key question before this committee: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?” Cheney’s language mirrored that of Section 1512(c) of Title 18 of the US code, a felony punishable by as much as 20 years in prison.Trump’s time outside office appears as tempestuous as his time behind the Resolute Desk. As for Meadows and Bannon, they are playing supporting roles. In the end, the spotlight belongs to their ex-boss.
      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York. He was opposition research counsel to George HW Bush’s 1988 campaign and served in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS Capitol attackUS CongressMark MeadowsSteve BannonDonald TrumpDonald Trump JrcommentReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack: Schiff says Mark Meadows contempt decision imminent

      by

      Capitol attack: Schiff says Mark Meadows contempt decision imminent
      House panel investigating Trump supporters’ deadly riot
      Former White House chief of staff has not co-operated
      Interview: historian Joanne Freeman on congressional violence
      The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack is likely to decide this week whether to charge Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s final White House chief of staff, with criminal contempt of Congress, a key panel member said.Republican McCarthy risks party split by courting extremists amid Omar spatRead more“I think we will probably make a decision this week on our course of conduct with that particular witness and maybe others,” Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and chair of the House intelligence committee, told CNN’s State of the Union.Schiff also said he was concerned about the Department of Justice, for a perceived lack of interest in investigating Trump’s own actions, including asking officials in Georgia to “find” votes which would overturn his defeat by Joe Biden.The 6 January committee is investigating the attack on the Capitol by supporters who Trump told to “fight like hell” to overturn his defeat.Trump was impeached with support from 10 House Republicans but acquitted when only seven senators defected. The select committee contains only two Republicans, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, who broke with Trump over 6 January.“We tried to hold the former president accountable through impeachment,” Schiff said. “That’s the remedy that we have in Congress. We are now trying to expose the full facts of the former president’s misconduct as well as those around him.”Asked about Meadows – who is due to publish a memoir, The Chief’s Chief, on 7 December – Schiff said: “I can’t go into you know, communications that we’re having or haven’t had with particular witnesses.“But we are moving with alacrity with anyone who obstructs the committee, and that was really the case with Mr Bannon, it would be the case with Mr Meadows and Mr Clark or any others.”Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign chair and White House strategist, pleaded not guilty to a charge of criminal contempt, the first pursued by Congress and the DoJ since 1982. Facing a fine and jail time, on Thursday Bannon filed a request that all documents in his case be made public.Like Bannon and Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, a former Department of Justice official, has refused to co-operate with the House committee. Lawyers for Trump and his allies have claimed executive privilege, the doctrine which deals with the confidentiality of communications between a president and his aides. Many experts say executive privilege does not apply to former presidents. The Biden White House has waived it.“It varies witness to witness,” Schiff said, “but we discuss as a committee and with our legal counsel what’s the appropriate step to make sure the American people get the information. We intend to hold public hearings again soon to bring the public along with us and show what we’re learning in real time. But we’re going to make these decisions very soon.”Schiff said he could not “go into the evidence that we have gathered” about Trump’s role in the events of 6 January, around which five people died and on which the vice-president, Mike Pence, was hidden from a mob which chanted for his hanging.“I think among the most important questions that we’re investigating,” Schiff said, “is the complete role of the former president.“That is, what did he know in advance about propensity for violence that day? Was this essentially the back-up plan for the failed [election] litigation around the country? Was this something that was anticipated? How was it funded, whether the funders know about what was likely to happen that day? And what was the president’s response as the attack was going on, as his own vice-president was being threatened?‘A xenophobic autocrat’: Adam Schiff on Trump’s threat to democracyRead more“I think among the most, the broadest category of unknowns are those surrounding the former president. And we are determined to get answers.”Schiff was also asked about suggestions, including from Amit Mehta, a judge overseeing cases against Capitol rioters, nearly 700 of whom have been charged, that Trump might seem to be being let off the hook by the Department of Justice.Schiff said: “I am concerned that there does not appear to be an investigation, unless it’s being done very quietly by the justice department of … the former president on the phone with the Georgia secretary of state, asking him to find, really demanding he find 11,780 votes that don’t exist, the precise number he would need to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in that state.“I think if you or I were on that call and reported we’d be under investigation [or] indictment by now for a criminal effort to defraud the people in Georgia and the people in the country.“So that specifically I’m concerned about.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesDemocratsRepublicansDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Steve Bannon pleads not guilty to criminal contempt of Congress

      by

      Steve Bannon pleads not guilty to criminal contempt of CongressBannon faces a possible prison term and fines for refusing to cooperate with congressional investigation of the Capitol attack Steve Bannon has pleaded not guilty to two charges of criminal contempt of Congress, over his defiance of a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the deadly attack on the US Capitol.In documents filed on Wednesday, the rightwing gadfly, a former Trump campaign chair and White House strategist, waived his right to a formal reading of the indictment against him.Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. No one has been charged with it since 1983. Bannon faces one count for refusing to appear for a deposition before the House committee and a second for refusing to produce documents.He and other Trump aides summoned by the committee have invoked executive privilege, claiming communications with Donald Trump around the Capitol attack are protected by that constitutional dictum.But the Biden White House has declined to invoke executive privilege in most cases – and Bannon was not working for Trump at the time of the attack on the Capitol, on 6 January this year. Mark Meadows, then White House chief of staff, has also ignored the House committee.The attack on the Capitol followed a rally near the White House at which Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” to overturn his election defeat by Joe Biden, which he falsely maintains was the result of electoral fraud.Five people died around the riot, including a police officer who died the next day and one rioter shot by law enforcement. About 140 officers were injured. Four later killed themselves.Trump was impeached for a second time, for inciting an insurrection. It was the most bipartisan impeachment ever, supported by 10 House Republicans. But only seven GOP senators found Trump guilty, ensuring his acquittal.Bannon is now represented by Bruce Schoen, a defense lawyer in Trump’s second impeachment trial. The judge in Bannon’s case is Carl Nichols – a Trump appointee.Bannon helped stoke “Stop the Steal” efforts which culminated in the rally near the White House and the attack on the Capitol. The House select committee is also investigating Bannon’s links to a “command centre” set up at the Willard Hotel, near the White House, in the days before the riot.The committee has noted a comment Bannon made on his podcast on 5 January: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”Bannon, who has boasted of a communications strategy based on misinformation – or “flooding the zone with shit” – spoke to reporters outside court on Monday. His prosecution, he said, was a politically motivated attack by President Biden, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.TopicsUS Capitol attackSteve BannonUS politicsUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Steve Bannon in court on contempt charges for defying Capitol attack subpoena

      by

      Steve Bannon in court on contempt charges for defying Capitol attack subpoenaTrump ally, indicted after defying subpoena from House panel, urges supporters to ‘stay focused, stay on message’

      US politics – live coverage
      Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former president Donald Trump, appeared in court on Monday charged with contempt of Congress, regarding the investigation of the deadly Capitol attack.‘Terrifying for American democracy’: is Trump planning for a 2024 coup?Read moreBannon did not enter a plea, and the brief hearing determined that he be arraigned on Thursday. He was released after being ordered to surrender his passport, report once a week to pre-trial services and report travel plans.An audio feed of the hearing was broadcast due to coronavirus restrictions.Judge Robin Meriweather, presiding, said: “Mr Bannon, would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that you will well and truly answer the questions propounded to you by the court, so help you God?”Bannon assented and the judge thanked him.Meriweather then read the charges. Bannon faces two counts of criminal contempt: one for refusing to appear for a congressional deposition and the other for refusing to provide documents in response to the committee’s subpoena.Each count carries between 30 days and a year in jail. The indictment is the first for criminal contempt of Congress in nearly four decades.Bannon’s arraignment on Thursday at 11am will be overseen by US district judge Carl Nichols – a Trump appointee.Earlier, Bannon turned himself in to an FBI field office in Washington. He was surrounded by photographers and a protester holding a sign that said “Coup plotter” as he stepped out of a black vehicle at about 9.30am.Livestreaming on his War Room show, which has a huge following among Trump supporters, he said: “I don’t want anybody to take their eye off the ball. We’re taking down the Biden regime every day. I want you guys to stay focused, stay on message. Remember, signal not noise. This is all noise, not signal.”The 67-year-old was taken into custody.Bannon, Trump’s campaign chairman in 2016 and then White House chief strategist in the first year of Trump’s presidency, was indicted on Friday after defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, by Trump supporters seeking to overturn the election.Bannon, a former executive chairman of Breitbart News, pushed false conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. On 5 January, he prophesied on his podcast: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”Trump ally Michael Flynn condemned over call for ‘one religion’ in USRead moreThat evening he was part of a gathering of Trump allies at the Willard hotel in Washington that the House committee has called the “war room”.Bannon refused to cooperate with the committee, citing an assertion of executive privilege by Trump. Legal experts argue that this has little standing given that Bannon was a private citizen at the time of the insurrection. Last month, the House voted 229-202 to hold him in contempt.Joe Walsh, a Trump critic and former Republican congressman, tweeted: “Steve Bannon attacks our democracy and incites violence every day. And millions of people listen to him. And elected Republicans are afraid to call him out.”A second expected witness, the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, defied his own subpoena from the committee on Friday. Trump has also intensified his legal battles to withhold documents and testimony about the insurrection.TopicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Bannon may not be only Trump ally indicted over Capitol attack – Schiff

      by

      Bannon may not be only Trump ally indicted over Capitol attack – Schiff
      6 January panel member: DoJ move may ‘shake loose’ others
      Former chief of staff Mark Meadows has ignored subpoena
      Is Trump planning a 2024 coup?
      Criminal charges are possible for more associates of Donald Trump refusing to cooperate with the House committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack, a senior Democrat warned on Sunday, two days after the indictment of former White House adviser Steve Bannon.Republican senator won’t condemn Trump for defending chants of ‘Hang Mike Pence’Read moreAdam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the panel investigating the deadly Capitol riot, also said some witnesses could be offered immunity in exchange for testimony in order to advance the inquiry.He told NBC’s Meet the Press he believed “without a doubt” that the justice department decision to charge Bannon with contempt of Congress would “shake loose” defiant Trump associates.That could include the former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who did not show up for a deposition before the select committee on Friday, shortly before Bannon’s indictment was announced.“Now that witnesses see that if they don’t cooperate, if they don’t fulfill their lawful duty when subpoenaed, that they too may be prosecuted, it will have a very strong focusing effect on their decision making,” Schiff said.“Even before the justice department acted, it influenced other witnesses who were not going to be Steve Bannon. “When ultimately witnesses decide, as Meadows has, that they’re not even going to bother showing up, that they have that much contempt for the law, then it pretty much forces our hand and we’ll move quickly.”Schiff would not be drawn on whether that meant the committee would issue a criminal contempt referral for Meadows, who, unlike Bannon, was a government employee on 6 January. But he said the panel would decide quickly, and that it wanted to make sure “we have the strongest possible case to present to the justice department, and for the justice department to present to a grand jury”.Meadows’ lawyer has said his client will not appear before the committee unless compelled to do so by a judge.Schiff conceded that certain witnesses, whom he did not identify, could receive limited immunity instead of criminal referral in exchange for their cooperation, the decisions to be made on a case by case basis.“With certain specific witnesses, we ought to consider it,” he said. “But as that kind of immunity makes it very difficult to prosecute not just them, but sometimes others, we need to think about it very carefully.”Schiff said he saw the developments “as an early test of whether our democracy was recovering” from the turmoil of the Trump administration.“Basically … the Republican party, at the top levels, that is Donald Trump and those around him, seem to feel that they’re above the law and free to thwart it. And there’s something admirable about thumbing your nose at the institutions of our government.“Bannon did what he did because for four years that’s what worked. They could hold Republican party conventions on the White House grounds. They could fire inspectors general, they could retaliate against whistleblowers. It was essentially a lawless presidency and they were proud of it. That ought to concern every American. We need a reestablishment of the rule of law in this country and I’m glad to see that that’s happening.”Bannon’s indictment, and the threat of charges for Meadows, marked a significant escalation in the House committee’s efforts to get to the bottom of the 6 January riot and Trump’s attempt to overturn defeat by Joe Biden.Trump himself is locked in legal battle with the committee over the release of White House documents related to the day of the insurrection, when his supporters ransacked the Capitol. ‘Pence was disloyal at exactly the right time’: author Jonathan Karl on the Capitol attackRead moreOn Thursday, a federal appeals court in Washington DC handed Trump a temporary victory by blocking the release by the National Archives of hundreds of pages of communication logs, memos and other materials ordered by a lower court days before. The appeals court will listen to arguments later this month on Trump’s claim the documents are protected by executive privilege before making a final decision.Schiff said he believed efforts to delay the inquiry in the courts would not succeed.“The courts themselves have recognised that Donald Trump essentially played our institutions for four years and played rope-a-dope in the courts,” he said.“[They] moved with such expedition to reject Trump’s claims in the district court a week or so ago, now the court of appeals is saying they’re going to have a hearing by the end of the month. Courts don’t generally move that fast and I think it’s a recognition that Donald Trump has relied on justice delayed meaning justice denied. So we and the courts are moving quickly.”TopicsUS Capitol attackSteve BannonUS politicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationRepublicansUS crimenewsReuse this content More