• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bannon refuses to answer questions on White House instructions

JacksinPA said:
I'm not quite sure of that: Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has served a subpoena on President Clinton that requires his testimony in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation as early as this week, a legal source said yesterday. The move marks the first time a sitting president has been summoned to appear before a grand jury.

I've recently heard that Mueller could subpoena Trump if he refuses to be interviewed by his investigators.

I'm no lawyer & the case law is not entirely clear on this.
Click to expand...


Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. That fact has led some scholars (Berger 1974; Prakash, 1999) to suggest that executive privilege does not exist and that the congressional power of inquiry is absolute. There is no doubt that presidents and their staffs have secrecy needs and that these decision makers must be able to deliberate in private without fear that every utterance may be made public. But many observers question whether presidents have the right to withhold documents and testimony in the face of congressional investigations or judicial proceedings.

The Constitution and Executive Privilege - Law & Liberty

i think the law is pretty clear

can he show up? sure

does he have to? no way

and is there any way to "force" him to? not that i am aware of...but please post info if i am missing something
 
I didn't expect Bannon to cooperate whether Trump officials got to him or not. It's like another poster said. The only way he becomes a turncoat is federal law enforcement charges him with a serious violation of federal law. Otherwise, he'll provide cover from himself and Trump in any way possible.

What his refusal to answer questions (i.e., pleading the 5th) should tell folks is he has something to hide. (I suspect the same applied to Hillary's staff members during congressional hearings as well.)
 
Aristaeus said:
Steve Bannon refused to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee during a closed-door session, even after he was*issued a subpoena*to testify by the committee on Tuesday, saying that the White House had told him not to.

Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said during a news conference after the marathon hearing, that Bannon’s lawyer had told the committee that the former White House aide “was willing to answer our questions but under instructions from the White House not to”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/steve-bannon-trump-congress-intelligence-questioning

Hmmm. It almost looks like Trump is trying to hide something. Why would Trump tell Bannon not to answer questions if there is nothing dodgy?
Click to expand...

From what I have read, White House lawyers who attended the questioning session instructed Bannon not to answer some specific questions on grounds of executive privilege which is standard procedure used mostly in cases of classified or privileged material. If what I read is the correct version, for Schiff or others to characterize it as Bannon refusing to answer any questions or because executive privilege might be imposed falls into the category of fake news.
 
gdgyva said:
Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. That fact has led some scholars (Berger 1974; Prakash, 1999) to suggest that executive privilege does not exist and that the congressional power of inquiry is absolute. There is no doubt that presidents and their staffs have secrecy needs and that these decision makers must be able to deliberate in private without fear that every utterance may be made public. But many observers question whether presidents have the right to withhold documents and testimony in the face of congressional investigations or judicial proceedings.

The Constitution and Executive Privilege - Law & Liberty

i think the law is pretty clear

can he show up? sure

does he have to? no way

and is there any way to "force" him to? not that i am aware of...but please post info if i am missing something
Click to expand...

During Watergate, Judge Sirica got Nixon to hand over documents from the WH under subpoena. 'Judge Sirica ordered President Nixon to turn over his White House tape recordings to the House Judiciary Committee, which was considering Mr. Nixon's impeachment. ' NYT 1988 obit. But with the current right-leaning SCOTUS, they might be reluctant to push Trump. But it would be bad PR if he refused to comply with Mueller.
 
JacksinPA said:
During Watergate, Judge Sirica got Nixon to hand over documents from the WH under subpoena. 'Judge Sirica ordered President Nixon to turn over his White House tape recordings to the House Judiciary Committee, which was considering Mr. Nixon's impeachment. ' NYT 1988 obit. But with the current right-leaning SCOTUS, they might be reluctant to push Trump. But it would be bad PR if he refused to comply with Mueller.
Click to expand...

you have to ask yourself....what power does a subpoena have?

well, the power lies in not following, right?

but the court, or congress enforces, right?

is a court going to lock up Trump for failure to appear? no chance in hell

is congress going to do anything to Trump? again, no way in hell

so the power of the subpoena disappears....he can and will tell them to go pound sand....and sadly, there isnt anything anyone can do about it

what is the saying RHIP (rank has its privileges)
 
Napoleon said:
I don’t think executive privilege applies to matters prior to inauguration does it?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. He refused to answer those questions to and he walked out.
Don Jr. claimed attorney client privilege about conversations with his father and he walked out
Right now there are no consequences. All I see is public sentiment. No one is in jail.
Obviously we need more laws or something if you can go into congressional hearings and claim bull**** with no consequences.
I mean these people didn't even claim the 5th which is actually a law.
It would make more sense if they claimed the 5th.
 
Napoleon said:
I don’t think executive privilege applies to matters prior to inauguration does it?
Click to expand...

I would say no, now after it would, before from what I understand does not apply to the transition or campaign. If it did, how far back would it go?

Thing is just heard on CNN that they (the House Committee)have issued another subpoena to Bannon.
If he tries to invoke executive privilege with Mueller, Mueller will have him in front of the GJ in a New York Minute. Then it is talk or invoke the 5th. No lawyers for Bannon permitted while being questioned by Muellers team in the front of the GJ.
 
Objective Voice said:
I didn't expect Bannon to cooperate whether Trump officials got to him or not. It's like another poster said. The only way he becomes a turncoat is federal law enforcement charges him with a serious violation of federal law. Otherwise, he'll provide cover from himself and Trump in any way possible.

What his refusal to answer questions (i.e., pleading the 5th) should tell folks is he has something to hide. (I suspect the same applied to Hillary's staff members during congressional hearings as well.)
Click to expand...

Actually the surprising thing is that he is preferring to answer questions from Mueller, who can charge him for lying, and not the committee, who cannot. That seems to disprove my theory, which is to what you're referring.
 
Aristaeus said:
Steve Bannon refused to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee during a closed-door session, even after he was*issued a subpoena*to testify by the committee on Tuesday, saying that the White House had told him not to.

Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said during a news conference after the marathon hearing, that Bannon’s lawyer had told the committee that the former White House aide “was willing to answer our questions but under instructions from the White House not to”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/steve-bannon-trump-congress-intelligence-questioning

Hmmm. It almost looks like Trump is trying to hide something. Why would Trump tell Bannon not to answer questions if there is nothing dodgy?
Click to expand...

Trump told him he would hire Hillary hit team ,, Bannon clams up ..:shock:
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Well it's rather simple. NDA's. I know you guys are all hot for bannon, who was satan hitler and trumps brain just a few months ago, but I am sure there are NDA's that he's bound by. I find it laughable that you guys suddenly think subpeonas are important.
Click to expand...
It's questionable as to an NDA can be enforced upon a civil servant, when questioned about his government service.
 
chuckiechan said:
He is covered by Executive Privilege. We've seen that movie before.
Click to expand...
The President is covered by executive privilege, not Bannon.

Bannon has to answer pretty much anything that's not direct presidential communication.

It seems Bannon attempted to expand executive privilege beyond its boundaries, and the committee immediately hit him with a subpoena during the hearing. A very unusual move, but one now presenting Bannon with legal jeopardy.

Bannon also is appearing before the Mueller grand jury, in two weeks. This stuff is getting very heavy indeed, for Mr. Bannon.
 
gdgyva said:
you have to ask yourself....what power does a subpoena have?

well, the power lies in not following, right?

but the court, or congress enforces, right?

is a court going to lock up Trump for failure to appear? no chance in hell

is congress going to do anything to Trump? again, no way in hell

so the power of the subpoena disappears....he can and will tell them to go pound sand....and sadly, there isnt anything anyone can do about it

what is the saying RHIP (rank has its privileges)
Click to expand...

I would use the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
 
Cardinal said:
Abandoned and without friends, bannon went crawling back to him. I imagine he was forced to clean the Oval Office with his tongue several times. Actually, come to think of it, it probably would have been his own idea.
Click to expand...
With his big-mouth resulting in legal questions for him by Mueller & Congress, Bannon quickly figured-out he might need pardon.

That's my guess.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Actually the surprising thing is that he is preferring to answer questions from Mueller, who can charge him for lying, and not the committee, who cannot. That seems to disprove my theory, which is to what you're referring.
Click to expand...

Mueller's interrogation technique involves tag-team relays of prosecutors & FBI agents, one after another, checking each others notes & recordings for falsehoods & other slips that could head to charging him with making false statements. And they have all the stuff in Wolff's book that he is supposed to have said.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Actually maybe it's just due to legal issues. He just agreed to interview with Mueller, as executive privilege doesn't apply with him.
Click to expand...
I believe executive privilege still pertains to any direct communication between Bannon and Trump & Pence, if Trump/Pence want to claim it as privileged.

Ex:

"Mr. Bannon, did Mr. Trump ever describe the Trump Tower's Russian Meeting to you?" = Privileged

"Mr. Bannon, did you ever discuss the Trump Tower Meeting with Mr. Preibus"? = Allowed

That's my take on it, anyway.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Actually the surprising thing is that he is preferring to answer questions from Mueller, who can charge him for lying, and not the committee, who cannot. That seems to disprove my theory, which is to what you're referring.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused.

Are you saying he has no secrets where the Trump campaign/Administration and the Russia investigation is concerned or that he'll sing like a canary under questioning by Mueller and Co.? I tend to think he'll sing if he comes to realize he has more to lose by continuing in his protection of Trump or other members of his former campaign staff/Administration.
 
Aristaeus said:
Steve Bannon refused to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee during a closed-door session, even after he was*issued a subpoena*to testify by the committee on Tuesday, saying that the White House had told him not to.

Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said during a news conference after the marathon hearing, that Bannon’s lawyer had told the committee that the former White House aide “was willing to answer our questions but under instructions from the White House not to”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/steve-bannon-trump-congress-intelligence-questioning

Hmmm. It almost looks like Trump is trying to hide something. Why would Trump tell Bannon not to answer questions if there is nothing dodgy?
Click to expand...

Do we have confirmation from the an independent source that the White House instructed Bannon to refuse to answer questions?

'Cause the White House is saying they didn't tell him to do that, and I don't trust the journalists anymore, at least not without independent verification.
 
Middle_Ground said:
I swear everyday things that I always thought were laws were just norms, good practice or things we trusted would be done.
I don't know anymore.
Click to expand...
And that's very good, forcing us each to examine and think critically! That's what good citizenship is about!

It seems like America always succumbs to these needs, after several generations pass from some like event, and the current populace does not have direct memory. In this case of course, I'm referencing Nixon. In the next few years after Watergate, mechanisms were put into place to guard against a rogue President, like legislating the special prosecutor provision. Then decades later it falls expired, replaced with something watered-down and weaker.

Trump of course will make us revisit some of our governmental & societal mechanisms, but I fear nothing will occur with the Republicans still in charge of the country.
 
gdgyva said:
you have to ask yourself....what power does a subpoena have?

well, the power lies in not following, right?

but the court, or congress enforces, right?

is a court going to lock up Trump for failure to appear? no chance in hell

is congress going to do anything to Trump? again, no way in hell

so the power of the subpoena disappears....he can and will tell them to go pound sand....and sadly, there isnt anything anyone can do about it

what is the saying RHIP (rank has its privileges)
Click to expand...
Yep. Trump's compliance (or not) with a subpoena, would be a political decision on his part, not a legal one.
 
JANFU said:
I would say no, now after it would, before from what I understand does not apply to the transition or campaign. If it did, how far back would it go?

Thing is just heard on CNN that they (the House Committee)have issued another subpoena to Bannon.
If he tries to invoke executive privilege with Mueller, Mueller will have him in front of the GJ in a New York Minute. Then it is talk or invoke the 5th. No lawyers for Bannon permitted while being questioned by Muellers team in the front of the GJ.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's quite a quirk in our legal system - isn't it?

Yish! :doh
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Actually the surprising thing is that he is preferring to answer questions from Mueller, who can charge him for lying, and not the committee, who cannot. That seems to disprove my theory, which is to what you're referring.
Click to expand...
I doubt that's a preference. I think that's just how it just happened to shake out.

It seems like Roy Moore loses, Wolff's book hits the stands, Trump dump's him, Breibart dumps him, and the subpoenas and interviews start flying!

I'd say Bannon's had a tough month! :doh
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, that's quite a quirk in our legal system - isn't it?

Yish! :doh
Click to expand...

I can see how a GJ can be used for political purposes- I also disagree with electing Judges.
 
gdgyva said:
Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. That fact has led some scholars (Berger 1974; Prakash, 1999) to suggest that executive privilege does not exist and that the congressional power of inquiry is absolute. There is no doubt that presidents and their staffs have secrecy needs and that these decision makers must be able to deliberate in private without fear that every utterance may be made public. But many observers question whether presidents have the right to withhold documents and testimony in the face of congressional investigations or judicial proceedings.

The Constitution and Executive Privilege - Law & Liberty

i think the law is pretty clear

can he show up? sure

does he have to? no way

and is there any way to "force" him to? not that i am aware of...but please post info if i am missing something
Click to expand...

Personally, I think declaring "executive privilege" is a farce. It only gives those in the Executive Branch of government, particularly the President, cover to skirt his obligation to be forthright with the people who elected him (or her) to office and to whom he serves. Now, to be fair it's one thing to refuse to answer questions on the grounds of national security. If by answering a specific question in a public forum would divulge classified information and, thus, put the nation or assets abroad at risk or even compromise foreign relations, then I can understand the POTUS or members of him/her Administration not answering such questions in open forum. That said, short of personal/private discussions, i.e., talks with his/her spouse or brainstorming sessions with his Cabinet that are NOT scheduled meetings nor emergency sessions, I think the presidency should be a rather open book.

So, if Bannon agreed to this public hearing but he exercised executive privilege that tells me either what he refused to discussed publicly was of a classified nature OR he has something to hide. If classified, he shouldn't have agreed to the public hearing. Thus, he should have talked.

That's my opinion and I really don't think it will change. Those in government who refuse to speak publicly about what they know and when usually have something to hide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom