Steve Bannon 'summoned' in Russia probe

a reply to: neo96

Yeah yeah yeah

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Oh stop. The law is what it is. If exceptions have been made they are exceptions not the norm and don't add to any argument here.

This just in....

steve Bannon will tell his story to special counsel Robert Mueller — but he won’t testify before a grand jury. The former White House chief strategist has struck a deal with the special counsel and will instead be interviewed by prosecutors, according to CNN’s Kara Scannell and David Wright.

www.rawstory.com...

www.axios.com...


And according to other reports Mueller has even more damaging evidence. Bannon and Jared are just confirming it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The saying is a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if it has the wrong mayo on it so....

They just get to say if they think there should be a trial.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Oh stop. The law is what it is. If exceptions have been made they are exceptions not the norm and don't add to any argument here.

You admit that justice is not blind, then?

Exceptions...for those who are just a little more equal than the rest of us.

a reply to: olaru12

That I believe was Muellers goal in this action.

a reply to: Sillyolme

why be coy? why not just link last nigjts episode of trms?

a reply to: Grambler

To me I really don't care what political side he's on. I'm just disgusted that our elected officials, our president and his advisers are dishonest and lie to the American people. We expect our elected officials to be accountable to the American people not their president or political party! It's become quite apparent since Trump took office, republican representatives have been highly critical of him, than magically change their perspective, align themselves with him and protect him. The most recent example was the "sh*t hole comment. These republican representatives deny hearing the comment??? How can the American people even trust these representatives? Someone is either twisting arms or lying to protect their party.

This is the number one problem we have with the party system. Representatives from both sides are pressured to tow and protect the party line no matter how damaging it is to America's security, it's standing in the world or how it's going to affect the American people. These elected officials can't speak their minds, period. It's remarkable when these representatives are retiring or when they're facing a deadly illness they start chirping and speaking their minds.

What's sad is the American people have been conditioned to defend "party" labels based upon their affiliation at any cost. They resort to outlandish and ridiculous excuses to protect and justify stupid and damaging statements and blatant lies which have clearly been proven by numerous recordings and videos coming out of the president's mouth. Americans can't even be honest with themselves and analyze a bill and point out what's good and what's bad about it. If the bill was sponsored by Republicans or Democrats, you're considered a traitor of your party if you criticize portions of the bill or agree with the opposing party!

Bannon zipping his lip because the White House wants him to claim executive privilege is clearly obstruction of Justice by the White House. In fact, the use of "Executive Privilege" to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and the public isn't even written in the constitution! It should be illegal, because the president should always be accountable for his actions and not hide behind a controversial privilege. Too many past presidents have used this executive order to push their own agendas.

I'm sorry, but a White House trying to clamp down on testimony by one of it's past Senior Advisers, clearly shows this White House has something to hide.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Grand jury testimony is forever secret.

Not always...but for the most part, it is hard to obtain transcript or recording of the testimonies given in a GJ.

And it's sort of for good reason, too--the standard for evidence in a GJ is dramatically lower than that of an actual trial, so if people were privy to that type of evidence prior to indictment and trial, it could taint the jury of the possible upcoming trial and cause problems with needing a change in venue and all of that fun stuff.

But the reality is that your statement is too black-and-white--GJ testimony is not "forever secret" all of the time, in every instance.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: scraedtosleep

You will never hear his testimony if he does appear before a grand jury. He will at that time become a material witness and a tool of the prosecution in building a case against their target. (trump).

Wow, you are sure making a lot of big assumptions for someone who misrepresents how GJ testimony is always handled.

Bannon has severe credibility issues and also has motive to lie--ANY defense counsel, especially one that Trump would hire on his behalf, would have a field day with destroying Bannon's credibility and negating his testimony, unless there is hard evidence to support it. And with that in mind, just like with everything else, it becomes a wait-and-see game.

There will be a great deal of evidence to support it, much of it already provided by another member of Cambridge Analytica, Mike Flynn, and the internet never dies, especially when you have access to FBI/NSA computing power/memory.

Nunes and Gowdy went nuts when Bannon claimed executive privilege, almost surely because they needed to report back to the White House all that Bannon said, so the White House would know the extent of which Bannon was prepared to testify. Bannon likely scared their pants off when he said he'd "tell all" to Mueller. Mueller wants that "tell all" to be alone, without anyone who can report back what was said.

Bannon is being called to answer questions concerning Cambridge, Jared, and Mike Flynn.

Bannon and Jared used Cambridge Analytica to help get the Deep Data needed on voters. Flynn (A Cambridge consultant) was the one with contacts within Russian Intelligence, and likely (because no one on the outside knows for sure) took the Cambridge Analystica data to the Russians to use as a guide.

It is established, whether the people on ATS or following Hannity admit it or care, that the Russians meddled deeply in our election, hacking 39 states (new figure) databases, attempting to delete voters off the rolls, the Cambridge Analystica data would be invaluable to such an effort (It also explains why the "Voting Commission" asked every state for all the info on voters). The Russians also did the FB Fake News sites, the Ads, and the bots, none of which would be very effective without Cambridge Analytica.

Mueller went after Flynn first because he already had Flynn dead to rights on lying to the FBI, so it makes sense to go to Flynn early. Now they have the baseline story that they will want corroborated by former Cambridge VP Mike Bannon, and will ask Bannon how Jared actually brought the campaign into the fold and how to use it.

Bannon has already said that Kushner colluded and was "treasonous" and will be in a position where he knows he must talk.

Mueller will seal up the lid tighter by bringing in Hope Hicks, but the next big target is Kushner.

Kushner will be invited to talk. If there's an explanation that avoids criminal charges, he'll give it. But, if not, Kushner will be forced to strike a balance between saving his own hide versus discussing all he told Eric, Don Jr. Ivanka, and of course Trump.

For those of you whining about the FBI and/or Fusion "spying" on your candidate, I suggest that next time you get a candidate who's not so deeply involved in the Russian mob and Putin, one that doesn't hire a Russian mob'd up campaign manager, and unregistered foreign agents. Had you run Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham, you wouldn't have attracted such attention.

Don't beat up the FBI for protecting this country, god knows Trump won't.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Grambler

To me I really don't care what political side he's on. I'm just disgusted that our elected officials, our president and his advisers are dishonest and lie to the American people. We expect our elected officials to be accountable to the American people not their president or political party! It's become quite apparent since Trump took office, republican representatives have been highly critical of him, than magically change their perspective, align themselves with him and protect him. The most recent example was the "sh*t hole comment. These republican representatives deny hearing the comment??? How can the American people even trust these representatives? Someone is either twisting arms or lying to protect their party.

This is the number one problem we have with the party system. Representatives from both sides are pressured to tow and protect the party line no matter how damaging it is to America's security, it's standing in the world or how it's going to affect the American people. These elected officials can't speak their minds, period. It's remarkable when these representatives are retiring or when they're facing a deadly illness they start chirping and speaking their minds.

What's sad is the American people have been conditioned to defend "party" labels based upon their affiliation at any cost. They resort to outlandish and ridiculous excuses to protect and justify stupid and damaging statements and blatant lies which have clearly been proven by numerous recordings and videos coming out of the president's mouth. Americans can't even be honest with themselves and analyze a bill and point out what's good and what's bad about it. If the bill was sponsored by Republicans or Democrats, you're considered a traitor of your party if you criticize portions of the bill or agree with the opposing party!

Bannon zipping his lip because the White House wants him to claim executive privilege is clearly obstruction of Justice by the White House. In fact, the use of "Executive Privilege" to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and the public isn't even written in the constitution! It should be illegal, because the president should always be accountable for his actions and not hide behind a controversial privilege. Too many past presidents have used this executive order to push their own agendas.

I'm sorry, but a White House trying to clamp down on testimony by one of it's past Senior Advisers, clearly shows this White House has something to hide.

Very well reasoned and stated.

With regard to executive privilege, it is nowhere near what is claimed by Bannon, and not what many here think it is. To the extent it exists at all, it is a privilege which applies to Congress's ability to subpeona WH officials about communications while forming policy for the regulation/enforcement of laws.

The claim had never been recognized until VP Cheney used it to protect communication and maps used in his "Energy Panel" that he formed at the beginning of the Bush Admin. Cheney sought to protect the fact that they had war plans for Iraq and were shopping interests in oil fields in March of 2001. Congress attempted to get its hands on those maps and documents by subpeoning them in 2002, Cheney cited "Executive Privilege." The courts determined that it was good policy to have the president able to consult and have a free flow of ideas within his staff, outside of the reach of congress. One can debate whether that is good policy or not with respect to the privilege.

Executive privilege doesn't apply to a criminal investigation (it may not apply to a Congressional investigation into a crime), that was firmly established in U.S. v. Nixon, there is no executive privilege in a criminal matter. Technically, Mueller is also part of the Executive branch, as a "special counsel" sitting in for the department of justice. If you had one party asserting "Executive privilege" then technically the other party could waive it. Regardless, it's not applicable.

I get the feeling that Bannon clammed up in front of the House because he knew that Nunes and Gowdy were going to run to Trump and tell Trump all that was said, which would allow Trump time to create a narrative or fix evidence. Bannon walked out stating that he'd tell all to Mueller, it fits that he wants an opportunity to tell Mueller in a setting where Trump can't get a hold of his testimony.

Wish I could attend that questioning.

It's being reported on ZeroHedge that Bannon had only agreed to answer questions about events during the presidential campaign, but would not answer questions about his time in the White House (citing executive privilege). He clammed up when it became clear that the committee was going to ignore this agreement.

Make of that what you will. But the campaign period would cover the meeting with the Russian lawyer, and anything else within the scope of the investigations.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
It's being reported on ZeroHedge that Bannon had only agreed to answer questions about events during the presidential campaign, but would not answer questions about his time in the White House (citing executive privilege). He clammed up when it became clear that the committee was going to ignore this agreement.

Make of that what you will. But the campaign period would cover the meeting with the Russian lawyer, and anything else within the scope of the investigations.

That seems odd, I would have thought anything interesting he had to say would be from his time on the campaign trail.

I wonder why he is being so defensive about his time in the White House

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The whole concept behind "executive privilege" is that you want the president to be able to have candid discussions with his advisers, without having to worry about political hacks in congress using those discussions to score points. It's essentially a political version of Invasion of Privacy. It's actually a fairly solid concept, given the typical ethics of the Washington crowd.

Of course, you can't exert executive privilege for stuff that happened before Trump was the executive, so anything before the inauguration would still be fair game.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Sorry...my day job entails full comprehension of this stuff.

But I'll stop, just because you want to make blanket statements that are incorrect.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The saying is a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if it has the wrong mayo on it so....

They just get to say if they think there should be a trial.

Yes, I understand that, thank you--nothing I said shows otherwise.

I also understand that not all GJ testimony is sealed for eternity, or whatever sillyolphrase that you used.

originally posted by: Scrubdog

For those of you whining about the FBI and/or Fusion "spying" on your candidate, I suggest that next time you get a candidate who's not so deeply involved in the Russian mob and Putin, one that doesn't hire a Russian mob'd up campaign manager, and unregistered foreign agents. Had you run Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham, you wouldn't have attracted such attention.

Don't beat up the FBI for protecting this country, god knows Trump won't.

The fourth amendment exists for a very, VERY good reason. That's all that I need to say, as I'm not interested in getting in a back and forth with such a silly argument (again).

We have at least 3-4 more months of this then stuff will happen to help make the midterms exciting. show of power that will eventually just go away.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Scrubdog

For those of you whining about the FBI and/or Fusion "spying" on your candidate, I suggest that next time you get a candidate who's not so deeply involved in the Russian mob and Putin, one that doesn't hire a Russian mob'd up campaign manager, and unregistered foreign agents. Had you run Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham, you wouldn't have attracted such attention.

Don't beat up the FBI for protecting this country, god knows Trump won't.

The fourth amendment exists for a very, VERY good reason. That's all that I need to say, as I'm not interested in getting in a back and forth with such a silly argument (again).

What's silly?

Have you seen either a probable cause affidavit or a FISA warrant yet?

I haven't.

Regardless, sure looks like probable cause to me, and I have seen hundreds.

I don't know if the FBI followed the Trump campaign or not. I know that no one spoke of it, so they couldn't be using it against Trump, as opposed to the email letter Comey wrote that certainly damaged Hillary greatly, none of this was used. So, what's the whine for?

I hope they were following the Trump campaign, with that level of criminality that close to the campaign, Flynn consulting with Cambridge and moving with the Russians at the same time, there better be FBI people on top of the situation.

Again, you don't want the FBI looking at your campaign, don't nominate someone with such associations to the Russian mob, that's all.

You may be tired of silly arguments but you have no leg to stand upon. I haven't seen a FISA warrant, I haven't seen proof that there was an illegal source of illegal spying. And none of it was used against Trump. What exactly is your complaint?

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The whole concept behind "executive privilege" is that you want the president to be able to have candid discussions with his advisers, without having to worry about political hacks in congress using those discussions to score points. It's essentially a political version of Invasion of Privacy. It's actually a fairly solid concept, given the typical ethics of the Washington crowd.

Of course, you can't exert executive privilege for stuff that happened before Trump was the executive, so anything before the inauguration would still be fair game.

And you can't invoke it to avoid criminal investigations regarding furtherance of a crime. No political hacks are using it to score political points.

Just because the Republicans find the criminal investigation by both Mueller and the Congress to be politically harmful, doesn't make it a political investigation.

If Republicans supported Benghazi hearings, but object to this, they really really are a hypocrites. I would love to see the howling had Obama and company invokes "Executive Privilege" to not discuss Benghazi. Do the Republs here recall anyone doing so???

To the extent executive privilege exists, it involves policy discussions, not discussions involving a possible criminal