Bannon refuses to answer questions on White House instructions

Khayembii Communique said:

Bannon isn't Trump. He isn't in it for his personal validation. He views the Democrats as enemy number one, and he will side with and protect Trump if he has to, if that means fighting his mortal enemies. He has no shame in that regard. Don't expect Bannon to flip unless he's charged with something. He's an ideologue.

Click to expand...

That's actually a good point.

Middle_Ground said:

I think he has to...doesn't he?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Is Trump his boss?

Khayembii Communique said:

Bannon isn't Trump. He isn't in it for his personal validation. He views the Democrats as enemy number one, and he will side with and protect Trump if he has to, if that means fighting his mortal enemies. He has no shame in that regard. Don't expect Bannon to flip unless he's charged with something. He's an ideologue.

Click to expand...

He already flipped with that book.

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...

He is covered by Executive Privilege. We've seen that movie before.

Kobie said:

Why is Bannon obligated to not answer questions? I thought they broke up.

Click to expand...

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.

holbritter said:

He already flipped with that book.

Click to expand...

No he didn't. He wasn't expecting those comments to be published. He was completely caught off guard by it. He simply ran his mouth at the wrong person about his true thoughts.

Khayembii Communique said:

No he didn't. He wasn't expecting those comments to be published. He was completely caught off guard by it. He simply ran his mouth at the wrong person about his true thoughts.

Click to expand...

Where did you hear that?

holbritter said:

I don't think so. Is Trump his boss?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's that easy. Isn't there some law or something the executive branch and executive privilege?
I really don't know so I'm asking.

Middle_Ground said:

I don't think it's that easy. Isn't there some law or something the executive branch and executive privilege?
I really don't know so I'm asking.

Click to expand...

I don't know either. I'm just guessing that if he's now a private citizen, the WH cannot tell him not to testify. But it's a guess.

MSgt said:

That's actually a good point.

Click to expand...

Actually maybe it's just due to legal issues. He just agreed to interview with Mueller, as executive privilege doesn't apply with him.

Mycroft said:

Because the Dems on the committee will pry into the affairs of the Executive Branch that they have no business knowing...just so they can use it against Trump.

Heck, they used the HHS Secretary for the same purpose.

Anyway, yeah...Schiff is going to cry and cry until he gets his way. His mother never made him go stand in the corner like she should have.

Click to expand...

What business doesn't the Congress have a right to know about regarding governing the U.S.? Moreover, when under a subpoena, a witness has no right to refuse to comply with answering a question. Moreover, unless the WH is making some kind of twisted executive privileged argument, the WH has no authority over Bannon.

MTAtech said:

What business doesn't the Congress have a right to know about regarding governing the U.S.? Moreover, when under a subpoena, a witness has no right to refuse to comply with answering a question. Moreover, unless the WH is making some kind of twisted executive privileged argument, the WH has no authority over Bannon.

Click to expand...

Obama would disagree with you.

holbritter said:

I don't know either. I'm just guessing that if he's now a private citizen, the WH cannot tell him not to testify. But it's a guess.

Click to expand...

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.

gdgyva said:

Most people have to appear for a subpoena....POTUS aside

but they dont have to speak....

no judge can make them

they can be held in contempt IF the judge thinks they are holding back evidence pertaining to a certain case

but on phishing expeditions like this one....good luck with that

Click to expand...

I think refusing subpoenad testimony on the basis that the subject of the investigation told you not to provide it would land a normal person in contempt.

Middle_Ground said:

I don't think it's that easy. Isn't there some law or something the executive branch and executive privilege?
I really don't know so I'm asking.

Click to expand...

I don’t think executive privilege applies to matters prior to inauguration does it?

Napoleon said:

I think refusing subpoenad testimony on the basis that the subject of the investigation told you not to provide it would land a normal person in contempt.

Click to expand...

Trump can "ask" him to do anything he wants

But he is no longer an employee...so Trump cant order him to do squat

But that still doesnt mean he is going to open his mouth....

What is in it for him? what are the pros? cons?

he can do the "i dont recall" or "i plead the 5th" all day long

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...

Sounds like a familiar refrain to me: obstruction of justice, the law that brought Nixon down:

Obstruction of justice

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

Aristaeus said:

Schiff isn't crying, he's just pointing out that Bannon is willing to cooperate with the subpoena, but Trump has ordered him to say nothing. Why has Trump ordered Bannon to say nothing in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Uhh...he's got something to hide that Bannon knows about?

holbritter said:

I don't know either. I'm just guessing that if he's now a private citizen, the WH cannot tell him not to testify. But it's a guess.

Click to expand...

That would be obstruction of justice, IMO.

Napoleon said:

I think refusing subpoenad testimony on the basis that the subject of the investigation told you not to provide it would land a normal person in contempt.

Click to expand...

Including Trump. If subpoenaed, he would have to comply.

Napoleon said:

I don’t think executive privilege applies to matters prior to inauguration does it?

Click to expand...

No. it does not.

Witness tampering and conflict of interest to put it mildly.

JacksinPA said:

Including Trump. If subpoenaed, he would have to comply.

Click to expand...

a. executive privilege....allows POTUS to disregard subpoenas
b. no way to force Trump to comply with a subpoena
c. cant force someone to testify against themselves

poweRob said:

Witness tampering and conflict of interest to put it mildly.

Bannon attorney relayed questions to White House during House interview

An attorney for former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon reportedly relayed questions to the White House in real time while his client was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Bannon's attorney Bill Burck was communicating with the White House counsel's office via phone to check on whether it would allow Bannon to answer certain questions.

It is not clear who Burck communicated with at the White House. Burck is also representing White House counsel Don McGahn in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign.​

Click to expand...

8 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
or

(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
(f) For the purposes of this section—
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—
(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.
(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

gdgyva said:

a. executive privilege....allows POTUS to disregard subpoenas
b. no way to force Trump to comply with a subpoena
c. cant force someone to testify against themselves

Click to expand...

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. Here is another opinion:

Can Congress subpoena a president to testify at a committee?

Jennifer Ellis, I'm a lawyer in PA, USA. Nothing I write is legal advice.
Answered Jun 12 2017 ·
Congress can subpoena the President. Whether the President will actually show up, I cannot say. As Stephanie Vardavas wrote, Presidents have special executive privileges. It would be difficult, if not impossible, under the law to actually compel a President who did not want to show up to testify. That said, it would look bad for a President who refused to do so.