Incarcerate Steve Bannon

One of the most interesting and important discussions going on in this country has to do with if the Department of Justice will prosecute those ignoring subpoenas from the Congressional Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. I was pleased to hear President Biden say that they will prosecute. This is a good thing, as prosecuting people like Steve Bannon is essential.

Yesterday, my little sister contacted me about this. She had read where some people were expressing doubt that Attorney General Merrick Garland would pursue the criminal referrals. She asked me about the process -- both the history and how it might unfold in the current situation. I said I wanted to look up some information on the history before the Committee votes on Tuesday to bring it to the full House.

A short time later, my little sister told me that she had read a "tweet" by Jill Wine-Banks that gave her confidence. I noted that Jill is brilliant, and always an important source of accurate information. While I've seen others express pretty much the same thing, I put a lot of trust in the Watergate Girl's opinion.

At the same time, I know that some in the media will try to add drama to what is happening, when no more drama need be added. A Department of Justice official says that the DOJ will evaluate any referral, and decide to either pursue it or not. In a very real sense, he was saying the correct thing -- a president should not influence DOJ policy on legal matters. Trump was correctly attacked for doing exactly that.

Apparently, Rep. Ted Lieu expressed some frustration that the DOJ and justice system is moving slowly on action against those defying subpoenas. But this is not a "controversy" that some media attempted to portray. It goes to the full House for a vote, before sending the referral to the DOJ. Steve Bannon's will be the first actual referral to the current DOJ. We all recognize that the Trump DOJ was corrupt, likely criminally so in several instances. But it's a different playing field for Bannon, with no Trump to pardon him.

Rep. Lieu discussed proposals to increase Congress's ability to enforce subpoenas without involving either of the other branches of the federal government. A person can agree or disagree with parts or all of the proposals he spoke of. In evaluating such things, one should keep in mind that there are both positive and negative potentials with such changes -- and with not changing.

Since the issue of people failing to honor their legal duty to appear before the committees that haved subpoenaed them during the last administration, and at the start of this one, it should concern all of us. As citizens who recognize that our opposition wants to deny us our rights -- starting with the right to vote and have all votes counted -- we should be informed about the process that begins to unfold tomorrow. I am sure that there are others here who are better informed than me, but I still wanted to share a link to a site I find helpful:

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

It is a report on by legislative attorney Todd Garvey, that provides a good amount of information. Garvey has served in that position in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Division since 2009. I found some of the most important and interesting information started on page 34. Most of the past cases involve a conflict between Congress and the Executive branch, for only an administration can claim executive privilege.

The Biden administration is not attempting to cover-up for the Trump cult. Donald Trump has no legal status that allows for executive privilege. Steve Bannon was not part of the administration at the time in question. Not to mention that claims of executive privilege tend to admit that the January 6 insurrection was a White House operation.